Addicted to anti-americanism

I never tire of reading about leftist critiques of the United States of America. Of course, the subject seldom changes and there is little deviation from the anti-American script… thus it is with this book review.

"House of War" author James Carroll says the Pentagon is out of control, the Cold War was unnecessary -- and it's good that we're failing in Iraq.
God help us if Democrats ever regain power. The cold war was unnecessary? It's good that we're failing in Iraq?

But wait there's more!
Carroll's specific complaints will ring familiar to any peacenik: He argues that since Sept. 11, 1941, when ground was broken at the building's site -- Carroll makes much of this date, exactly 60 years before United flight 77 crashed into the building's side -- the U.S. has embarked on a series of foreign policy disasters. Among other things, he believes that dropping nuclear weapons on Japan was a mistake; that we should not have developed, and then shouldn't have tested, the H-bomb; that we should have shared our nuclear knowledge with the Soviets and instituted an international framework to abolish nuclear weapons; that we were mistaken to think of the Soviets as our mortal enemies, and thus mistaken to have turned political differences into a near world-ending Cold War; that we missed many opportunities to end the nuclear arms race during that war, and that we were far more belligerent than the Soviet Union in how we conducted ourselves with those weapons; and that, finally, even today, though we no longer face an enemy that poses an existential threat to the nation, we're needlessly maintaining a military force that is more dangerous than any other force in the world, capable of instantly destroying all life on the planet.

Were we mistaken to think of the Soviets as our mortal enemies? If your perspective is that communism is the greatest idea ever and that America has been the one thing that has stood in the way of bringing the peace of communism to the planet, then yes, I can see where you might arrive at such a conclusion.

But is this a sane and rational conclusion? Did the United States kill millions of it's own citizens in it's insane belligerence? Did the American system of capitalism starve millions and execute millions more in it's mistaken belief that the Soviets were our enemy?

I think what is obvious is that the leftist view of history is clouded by a cancerous Marxist meme.

When you set out to write a book that paints a picture of your country as a perverse belligerent war-bent monster and says that the Soviet Union was never a threat, what exactly are you saying?

More than that, what do you have to ignore to say it?

What you have to ignore is the outright aggression and stated goals of the Soviets to conquer the planet, and that the only reason this did not happen is because the United States stood in their way.

Yes, the great irony of this history, and certainly not something I expected when I set out to find it, is that the person who did the most to bring about the nonviolent end of the Cold War was Ronald Reagan, the hawk of hawks. And what he did was find it possible to respond creatively to initiatives put forward by the true hero of this story, Mikhail Gorbachev.

Just as Americans didn't recognize how World War II ended, we haven't recognized how the Cold War ended. George H.W. Bush and people after him have talked about us having "won" the Cold War. We didn't win the Cold War. The Soviet Union decided to stop fighting it. And Ronald Reagan was a willing partner that enabled it. It's a very moving and beautiful story.

How do you go from saying that the Soviets were never our enemy, to saying that the true hero who ended the Cold War was the Soviets-- because they surrendered in the face of the 'hawk of hawks' Ronald Reagan's military build-up?

To say this you must be willing to completely ignore the 62 million or so people the Soviet Union murdered in their goal to have communism control the world. (As well as the 100+ million communism murdered worldwide in this same period.) And yet they were never our enemy?

How can you ignore the fact that had the United States not militarily opposed the Soviets, they would not have been willing to surrender?
"How long will you keep killing people?" asked Lady Astor of Stalin in 1931.

Replied Stalin, "the process would continue as long as was necessary" to establish a communist society.

~61,911,000 Victims: Utopianism Empowered
Posted by Eric Simonson at May 3, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #145090

Um, this is a review of a book. The reviewer appears to state accurately what the book claims.

You (and I, for that matter) disagree with the book’s arguments.

So what is the point of your post?

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 3, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #145091

Oh yeah, and:

“God help us if Democrats ever regain power. The cold war was unnecessary?”

Please explain how “Democrats” are responsible for this book.

This is truly your worst post to date, and that is truly saying something.

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 3, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #145095

As usual, the stupid mind numbing mantra of the neotard:

Criticism of US government policy is anti-american.

What a load of shit. Flush it.

Posted by: Dave at May 3, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #145096

Just out of curiosity, do you have any information about this author? I’ve been around a long time, and have never heard of him.

To start your post attacking “leftist critiques of the United States of America” and then point to someone that no one has ever heard of and who makes outrageous statements, is similar to using someone like David Duke as a spokeperson for the Republican Party.

Posted by: Steve K at May 3, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #145103

I wonder if eric’s posts could be considered trolling….because they are obviously written only to incite, not having any really useful information

Posted by: dirk at May 3, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #145104

The author is Jim Carroll, who also wrote Constantine’s Sword, about the Catholic persecution of Jews. He’s a former Catholic priest with remorse about many things. The interview with the author is much more interesting than the summary, regardless of whether you agree with his views.

Oh yeah, one more thing, his father worked for the Pentagon during the period he writes about, and his observations are those of someone raised within the “military-industrial” complex.

But thanks for quoting the summary, Eric. Quite lazy of you to ignore the next four pages of text as well as misquote some other comments.

Other quotes by Jim Carroll from the interview:

“I take some pains to play out the complicated historical debate on both sides [about using the A bomb on Japan], and I reach my own conclusion, which was that the bomb was unnecessary. It’s a pointed debate that is unknown to most Americans. Most Americans don’t know, for example, that General Eisenhower opposed the use of the atomic bomb.“

“The great symbol of [the unchecked military machine] is an anecdote from the 9/11 Commission, which is that when we finally scrambled jet fighters to respond that morning, they went out over the Atlantic Ocean looking for incoming attacks from the Soviet Union. The other great symbol is George W. Bush fleeing to the command bunker at Offutt Air Force Base, the Strategic Air Command bunker that had been created by Curtis LeMay. That’s the perfect symbol of our problem. It’s not so much him I’m faulting here. What I’m suggesting is there was this unchecked Niagara current, a current that flows from the Pentagon to the disastrous cliff just ahead of us.”

“The most important factor in ending the Cold War, I would argue, was Solidarity, the labor movement formed on the shipyards in Gdansk. Nonviolent mass movements spread like wildfire in the satellite nations and then into Russia itself. American intelligence completely missed this, which is why at the same time we were funding the Contras in Central America. So we’re sending money and arms to the Contras while not supporting Solidarity — it’s the classic case of missing something crucial. And why was that? It was because in the United States we could not imagine nonviolent resistance as a force for change.”

“Yes, the great irony of this history, and certainly not something I expected when I set out to find it, is that the person who did the most to bring about the nonviolent end of the Cold War was Ronald Reagan, the hawk of hawks. And what he did was find it possible to respond creatively to initiatives put forward by the true hero of this story, Mikhail Gorbachev.”

Q: And this was despite the objections of his advisors.

“Indeed so; Reagan was condescended to by his advisors. Only a few days ago there was an Op-Ed piece by Max Kampelman, a leading arms control negotiator for Ronald Reagan, who was reminding people that Reagan himself was a nuclear abolitionist. This is news today because Washington has completely deleted nuclear abolition as an American goal. We’re resuming enhancement of our nuclear arsenal and we’re looking to develop new forms of nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev were committed in principle — it didn’t happen for numbers of complicated reasons I explain — to the elimination of nuclear weapons off the face of the earth. And in doing that Reagan was just like the great statesmen of the World War II era. Like Truman — Truman himself argued that we had to find a way to get rid of nuclear weapons. Americans have to remember that.”

Q: You really think we are more vulnerable now?

“We are, because the non-proliferation regime is in collapse. We aren’t in danger of Russia attacking us or China [attacking us], but obviously the threat from terrorism — the threat of a nihilist attack on New York City with a dirty bomb — is real. But where’s he going to get that nuclear material? He’s going to get it when the non-proliferation regime breaks down. That’s what’s at risk here. The Bush administration has already given Iran and North Korea every reason to get a nuclear weapon. The Bush administration is sponsoring proliferation, and that’s what’s making this so risky.”

Posted by: CPAdams at May 3, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #145108

No counter Eric?

Surely you must have more to say about an author who says that Truman was a dove, and who reminds the readers of both Eisenhower and Reagan’s anti-nuclear stances.

I had forgotten about Reagan and did not know that Ike was against using Fat Man or Little BVoy.

Posted by: CPAdams at May 3, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #145111

This would have made a much better post if Eric had actually read the book instead of quoting from a review from a left leaning source. Without reading the book, all of the rhetorical questions he asked are without foundation. Without reading the book, we don’t know if the author addresses any of them.

Perhaps Eric was trolling in this one.

Posted by: John Back at May 3, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #145115

It must be Wednesday. You know: Hump Day.
For Eric, this means once again metaphorically humping his hatred of Liberals before excreting an article designed to insult the intelligence of the majority of people who visit this blog.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 3, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #145120

WOW, you need some prozac and a nap

Posted by: scrugun at May 3, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #145121

“We will not have great questions decided by
irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking
with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be
taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach
them of charity, mercy and patience.

We women of one country will be too tender of those of another
country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From
the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says “Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance
of justice.”

Julia Ward Howe
From the Mother’s Day Proclamation
Boston, 1870

Mother’s Day is 5/14. Originally it was Mother’s Day for Peace, and was celebrated that way for over 30 years. When we see those who would justify our country spending as much as the rest of the world combined on weapons, we might do well to remember this great speech Julia Ward Howe.

The full text of the speech is here:

Posted by: phx8 at May 3, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #145133

Steve K has it right. Eric is using the classic STRAW MAN argument of proping up some random person whom he disagrees with, labels him a Democrat or liberal then attacks him. Does the Republican party consider Ann Coulter their spoksperson? Or Rush? Or Reily? Have they ever spoke at a party convention?

Posted by: Matthew at May 3, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #145142

Eric is so wrong to call Democrats anti-defense or soft on the military. Actually, it was a Republican president - remember Eisenhower? - a general who warned during his term about the rising power of the military industrial complex. He certainly wasn’t a lefty or commie by any means. But he clearly saw the insidious relationship of the corporate profit machine and the war mongering politicians.

Most people think that defense spending is paying some private his salary and training him to go to war. WRONG. The vast majority of defense spending is going into private hands who win plum contracts to “review the adequacy of the stratetic integration of logistic software enterprises in the navy arsenal”. Most of these private companies are run by people who had as their previous job the federal office that awarded these contracts. Sound dubious?

When are we going to wake up to the largest fraud going on in history. Check out Read through some of these contracts recently awarded and the money being dished out.

We aren’t fighting any real foreign enemy. My god, we kill each other far more effeciently than any foreign power. Just look at our domestic violence stats . What we are doing is making some well connected people in Washington very wealthy with our “defense dollars”.

I say, cut military spending in half. Put $100 billion into education, $100 billion into healthcare, and another $100 billion into infrastructure (like a new energy source?!!).

Posted by: Acetracy at May 3, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #145145

Eric, are you addicted to anti-anti Americanism….?

After the total collapse of any pretense to or claims of moral integrity, fiscal responsibility, competence in foreign affairs, ability to respond to domestic emergencies, support for limited government or states rights or individual responsibility - the Republicans are now so bereft of ideas that they are left with nothing better to do than criticize Democrats.

Eric spends hours, and searches far and wide to find the wackiest liberals to disagree with…fine, but with control of both houses of congress and the presidency for the past five years, I’d think you could find some positive accomplishment - maybe by someone still alive?

Posted by: William Cohen at May 3, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #145147


I have personal experience with Poland and I met Lech Walesa and many of the other leaders. Maybe you should talk to a few of them before you believe that American intelligence missed this or by implication that we did nothing but fund the contras during the 1980s. Our work in Poland and E. Europe to finish off Communism was one of our finest efforts. The brave people of Poland took the risk and did the heavy job, but we were there to help and w/o Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, it is likely not to have happened. We don’t need latecomers like Jim Carroll to get it wrong. We Americans can be truly proud of what our government and people did during those time. Among the biggest contributor, BTW, were the American organized labor.

Among the things this Jim Carroll should feel guilty about is being stupid if he believes what he wrote and being a liar if he doesn’t. I am glad you quoted that, since you now saved me the trouble of ever having to read anything that fool has written. That monumental piece of stupidity is enough. I don’t have to read anything else Carroll. You don’t have to eat the whole egg to know it is rotten.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #145156

“…You govern like Billy Joel drives. You’ve performed so poorly I’m surprised that you haven’t given yourself a medal. You’re a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

“On your watch, we’ve lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you’re just not lucky. I’m not saying you don’t love this country. I’m just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.”

Bill Maher on President Bush

Who needs anti-americans when we have Bush supporters?

Posted by: phx8 at May 3, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #145157

Dave, dispense with the insults aimed at WB’s writers. Critique the Message, not the Messenger. This will be your only warning. Affixing names like Neotards to our volunteer writing staff will not be tolerated.

You may not like what Eric Simonson has to say, but Eric has been a long standing writer with WB enhancing its growth and readership. Critique his arguments, not him, or you will lose your comment privileges here.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at May 3, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #145159


to your critique/diatribe on Poland and the Solidarity movement:

I was quoting the author’s interview on Salon to show that it wasn’t some rabid anti-American rant as claimed in Eric’s straw man, but a reasoned book which one could agree or disagree with.

Among the things this Jim Carroll should feel guilty about is being stupid if he believes what he wrote and being a liar if he doesn’t. I am glad you quoted that, since you now saved me the trouble of ever having to read anything that fool has written.

Well, that’s a new low for you, Jack. James Carroll is a respected writer who is known for writing from his heart (an earlier book of his, An American Requiem, engages in his disagreement with his father about the Vietnam War and how it affected their relationship).

But to call him a liar and a fool and a latecomer - wow.

Glad to see you are sticking to the ‘critcize the message, not the messenger’ rules of this board.

What a monumental waste of time.

Posted by: CPAdams at May 3, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #145161

I for one would love to see a total disarmament of nuclear weapons. There is no purpose in them. They do damage to both the defenders and the attackers.

However, I am and will always be a firm believer in maintaining a strong military force capable of matching up with any of the superpower forces in the world. Plus, I would like our military to be large enough to stop other injustices in the world as well. Does that mean I want us to police the world, maybe. I believe in defending everyone on this planet if possible.

I have no doubt our military spending is not done intelligently and it should be improved, however I would not favor any significant cuts to our military spending. Any modification of our military spending would require careful planning, management, and modular development to minimize any negative impact.

The author of the book being described by Eric seems to be all over the place. Some of his points may make sense and others are just insane.

Posted by: CFT at May 3, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #145165

CPAdams, your understanding of the Critique the Message, Not the Messenger policy needs clarification. The policy applies to Messengers who key in items on this site, i.e. the WB writers and visitors who leave comments. Our policy does not extend to protecting authors outside of WB nor any persons outside of those who express their opinions on this site.

In short, Jack is in no way violating WB’s policy.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at May 3, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #145166

A brief refresher for you Moonbats:
•Reagan called them what they were, an EVIL EMPIRE.
•At Reychevec, he told Gorby STRAIGHT to his face “You can’t win this arms race” - “Why not”? - We will outspend you at ever turn. Let’s start talking.
•It was Cap Weinberger’s idea to simply outspend the Soviets. Barely a BLIP in the MSM when he died recently.
•*The Trident Submarine. Dems killed 1/2 the # to be built from the program. Soviets READILY ADMIT it SCARED THE SHIT OUT OF THEM… Thank you, Dems!
**Reagan and Thatcher SATURATED Western Europe with Pershing II Cruise Missles.
*Star Wars was a brilliant FRAUD to scare them more… an illusion. It worked.
And, at EVERY SINGLE, SOLITARY TURN, the Democrats FOUGHT AGAINST IT ALL. I was there. I remember.

•By 1980, we were LOSING the Cold War, thanks to the utterly spineless Jimmy Carter. Detente was COMPLTELY acceptable to him & the Dems. It was…. not to Ronald Reagan. Yes, he wanted to eliminate all Nukes fom the planet. People in hell want ice water too.
•The Pope had more to do with ending the Cold War than 45 years of Democrats. With the exception of JFK… the last Dem to occupy the oval office who had ANY balls. Period.
Ommisions, Ommisions, Ommisions. Where would the MSM and the Marxist-Lite Elite be without them?

Posted by: chottyesque at May 3, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #145169

First of all communism as most of us have grown up with was just a criminal enterprise. It happen to make decisions involving many countries. The economic policy, the human rights policy, and all their other policies were implemented with the idea of enhancing their criminal enterprises. Sadly our government assisted them in becoming the powerful force that they achieved. Anybody that that takes a position that we should not have made the criminals in charge of the USSR our national enemies must face the questions of his/her allegience to either international communism or the United States and its constitution. Sharing technology with a national enemy is suicide. Most of their technology in that time period was our technology. See the book by Antony Sutton which claims that Soviet technology is western technology. The title of one of Mr. Sutton’s books is “National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union”. During that time period any aid should have been consideren strategic. For instance the Kama River truck plant that Ford assisted in was mainly used for military vehicles. Despite our governments aid to the USSR and the criminals in power, there were some saner heads that assisted in the fall of their criminal enterprise to a level that is today not very effective. We still should be aware of Comrade Putin. He is a very dangerous man.

Posted by: tomh at May 3, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #145174

Interesting take. Did you know Reagan increased his personal wealth more than any other president in history? Quite a feat, when you consider the competition. His “team B” squandered our money on useless weaponry which made little difference on how the Cold War ended. In fact, the deployment of mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe damn near ended the world as we know it. Do you think the USSR just sat back while we did that? I assure you, they did not. It was a totally unnecessary confrontation.

What brought about the USSR fall was not military confrontation, but Detente. The more exposure to us they received, the more certain their fall became. They wanted what we had, their system could never deliver it, and they knew it. The collapse was merely a matter of time, an economic inevitability, NOT a matter of military conquest. We only had to hold them at arms length with deterrence, and wait for the collapse.

No one misses Cap Weinberg because he was a pardoned felon. He was a piece of crap who sold arms to Iran- and if you think Iran and the US have a poor relationship now, remember Khomeini- anyway, that piece of crap Weinberger sold weapons to them in order to arm murderous right wing fanatics in Nicaraguam, and he did so through Oliver North.

He did it through that traitor, Ollie North. Some of the weapons North sold to Iran were Hawk missiles. The Hawks were state of the art at the time, the only missiles capable of shooting down B-52’s. We came within 24 hours of bombing Iran- specifically, Bandar Abbas- during the Tanker Wars, and thanks to North & Weinberger, we faced the prospect of our own aircraft being downed with our own missiles.

The Trident scared the Russians, sure. The B-1 did not. It was a boondoggle, pure pork, with defense contracts spread throughout the country to make sure it would be developed; this, in spite of the existence of stealth aircraft. It was a perfect example of the phenomenal pork spending from the Reagan years, it was the great gravy train of all time for the military/industrial comple, and it saddled us with an utterly unnecessary debt. Here’s another bit of Cold War trivia:

For years, the USSR understood EMP. The US did not understand how it would effect elecronics and communications. For years we were completely and utterly vulnerable to a USSR first strike, and we didn’t even know it. An airburst pattern over the US in a starburst pattern would have completely cooked us, literally and figuratively.

The Pope helped, for sure. Another proximate cause of the USSR’s fall was the US policy of arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The policy began under Jimmy Carter.

A more honest assessment of the Cold War years would recognize both Republican & Democrat contributions. It was a remarkable effort for the prolonged consistentcy pursued over multiple administrations.

Posted by: phx8 at May 3, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #145182


I spent nearly eight years in Poland. I know many of the people involved personally. I speak Polish. I know one hell of a lot more about this than Jim Carroll. I admit that I got a exercised on this because Mr. Carroll’s ignorance hits very close to things I know well and feel strongly about. Mr. Carroll’s ignorance must be willful.

What can I say about this subject except that Mr. Carroll is evidently wrong in almost every aspect of his understanding of Poland and the fall of Communism? It seems unlikely that this is his only egregious blind spot; therefore I suspect the whole book.

You know more about this Carroll guy than I do. Maybe you are right that he feels guilty about lots of things. He does not have to extend his personal feelings of guilt and remorse to his country.

I have to ask myself about the author’s motivation. If he is a scholar, how could he make such serious errors? Maybe he was blinded by ideology and maybe Eric’s point is vindicated.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #145187


You are also right about Dem and Republican contributions. The American labor movement was crucial in helping Poland throw off the communist yoke. Lots of people contributed. We don’t need to diminish the contributions of others to vindicate those on our side.

Communism was a terrible disease. It took lots of good people to cure it.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #145194

let’s also give some credit to a man, who 73 years ago taught school to poor mexican immigrants, how popular do you think that was 73 years ago? what did he say, (I made up my mind that this nation could never rest while the door to knowledge remained closed to any American).I think his heart was as big as he was.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 3, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #145206

oky rodney, I’ll bite, Who was it?

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at May 3, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #145214

Jack and Eric:

So you admit to ignorance of the Author AFTER you called him a Traitor?

I see your default setting is: “Anti-American Communist Until Proven Otherwise”.

Very sad to live that way.

Posted by: Aldous at May 3, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #145223
What brought about the USSR fall was not military confrontation, but Detente…The collapse was merely a matter of time, an economic inevitability, NOT a matter of military conquest. We only had to hold them at arms length with deterrence, and wait for the collapse.

During the 1970’s the CIA released numerous analyses and forecasts of the Soviet Union’s economic situation. The proved to be extremely prescient: forecasting the emergence of a more “liberal” leadership, guns v. butter debates, continued and rapid economic decline, even ethnic unrest and tensions. All this long before Reagan was elected President.

Posted by: Steve K at May 3, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #145224

jack m. i wonder how many people under 21 would know? without looking up the web! i hope i am wrong!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 3, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #145225

Just a quick question, how much knowledge do you have of the debate about the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan?

I have a book which contains all the official government documents surrounding the Manhattan Project, and there were a great many who did not support dropping the bombs on Japan. The dropping of atomic weapons on civilian cities which were not military targets was not popular among many who were involved in the process of developing the weapons, but the deployment went on abated.

The Japanese HAD been trying to surrender for some time when the US dropped the nuclear weapons, and they had been virtually guaranteed to surrender when Russia began their invasion. Russia invaded in between the two nuclear weapons being dropped. Therefore, we don’t actually know which event was a larger factor in Japan surrenduring, and more importantly, we realize that nuclear weapons are far more horrible than originally thought. We didn’t realize radiation would be as big a problem as it was (hell we exposed our own troops to it in the tests), and haven’t used a nuclear weapon since.

And then theres the Evil Empire…

Do you remember the context of Regan coining the term Evil Empire, it was the Russians shooting down a plane which had strayed off course and into their airspace. It was on a course toward Moscow. Regan called this a crime against humanity. Would you say that shooting down a plane flying off course toward your capital and not responding to radio is unreasonable? If not, then was he not being unreasonable at the time? Stalin was a horrible leader, yes, but the leaders who came after him were nothing like him. The USSR was our mortal enemy because of sabre rattling on both sides, not because of any necessary conflict between the two.

And lets not forget what our leaders did in the name of that conflict.

This includes selling weapons to Iran and training Islamists like Bin Laden and his ilk. This includes state sponsored murder of Nicuraguans for voting for a political party in elections. This includes supporting harsh dictatorships who crushed the will of their people. This includes spending into massive deficits.

Is disagreeing with government policy anti-American?

Hell no it isn’t! Especially not when the government is participating in covert action which is MURDER. You can sugar coat things as much as you want, but our leaders have a history of being lying murderers. Does this reflect on American? Hell no it doesn’t. Criticizing our role in the Middle East and our covert operations isn’t anti-American, because what these men where doing was largly not American in spirit. What our leaders do behind our backs, misusing our trust, is not the fault of the people, but it is always worth pointing out, it is always worth criticizing, and it is always worth punishing.

There is one thing that the nation as a whole is responsible for, and that is something we can never undo, the genocide of the Native Americans in the name of expansionism and racism. This I will criticize (okay and along with it slavery), and I challenge anyone to call me anti-American for doing so. That was a concerted effort on the part of a large part of our population, and it was wrong then, and not really addressing it even to this day is wrong now. That was wrong, that was us as a whole. The rest, it’s all politicians.

Posted by: iandanger at May 3, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #145229


So what is your grand plan? Why would you continue to live in this country if its so awfully ran by our leaders. You paint a pretty dim picture.

It’s so easy to criticize when your not sitting in that position yourself. What would you recommend? A complete overhaul of our government? A new political system? Maybe just a complete falling apart of our nation so that the U.S. doesn’t exist anymore? What?

So many complaints but no REAL solutions!

Posted by: CFT at May 3, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #145232


Don’t start with that. I didn’t call him a traitor. I called his statement about Poland stupid and it is. I also suggested that if he is so wrong in this aspect of his book, there is a good chance that he is wrong about others. I also wondered how an obviously educated person could be so wrong and postulated that it might be that his ideology and guilt feelings clouded his judgement.

I agree that it must be a sad way to live to be like that.

Hatred and guilt is hard way to live. Those afflicted should consider the alternatives.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #145235

“It’s so easy to criticize when your not sitting in that position yourself. What would you recommend? A complete overhaul of our government? A new political system? Maybe just a complete falling apart of our nation so that the U.S. doesn’t exist anymore? What?”

I continue to live in this country because its A. where I go to school, and B. My home. I will be traveling around the world (a necessity when studying International Relations) but this will always be my home. When I am older, I will be running for office, not out of any desire for a high stress, high power life, but because I honestly do not have faith in the fools who have hijacked our country. I’d prefer to become a monk, but I think politics is the best chance for me to do the best good.

What do you want me to say, yes, you are right, I have absolutely no solutions to these problems.

I do believe a revolution is brewing, not a violent one, but a shift in how politics are done in this country. People believe less and less in the efficacy of their votes, people associate less and less with the political parties which have become institutions in this country. All we need is leadership and direction, and changes will happen. There are so many nonvoters, motivating them to vote would be enough for any political party to win a plurality of votes. This takes time and energy, and I’m doing my part helping out political campaigns in my area, but its going to take something big to change things.

If you want to talk specifics, I can get into specifics for just about any issue, but thats not really the point, is it? You just want to dismiss me. I have a lot of ideas and opinions. Ask and you shall recieve.

Posted by: iandanger at May 3, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #145237


Sorry if I seemed to have missed my mark. I was aiming at the posts message (i.e. Liberal = Traitor), not its author. I will try to be less ambiguous next time.

Posted by: Dave at May 3, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #145240

phx8: You Rawque!

CPAdams: Don’t be so Free with your Speech! Whaddya think, you’re living in a Democracy?

All: Eisenhower - and most of Truman’s advisors - were against the use of the Atomic Bomb in Japan. Even ONE of them. By that time, Eisenhower had been made Supreme Commander of ALL Allied Forces, including those in the Pacific Theatre. Truman’s diary and the notes of some of his advisors indicate that the deciding factor in dropping the Bomb was to impress (read, “frighten”) Joseph Stalin, who had the same designs on Northern Japan that he had demonstrated on Eastern Germany. The second Bomb was dropped because none of Stalin’s admirals were in place to see the first one: they were notified in advance and, when their ships were suitably in position, it was Showtime! (In Truman’s defence, it should be remembered that no one was prepared for quite the amount of Death and Destruction the early Bombs caused: the after-effects of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be re-calculated Upwards by an order of magnitude, twice. [That’s “timesing it by 100,” for you Conservatives out there.])

More truth: Reagan should have been remitted to the Hague to stand trial for Crimes Against Humanity. He funded Death Squads in South and Central America who killed over 400,000 people, including well over 120,000 children under the age of twelve. When the War Crimes Tribunal was done with him, he should have been shipped back for Impeachment and conviction on the many Constitutional Abuses and Federal Crimes he or his staff committed on his watch. “Morning in America?” - give me a break! More like “Mourning in America!”

Now, back to your Spinning and Outright Lying, O Regressive E-Pundits!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 3, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #145244


I’m glad someone else here has some sense of history. The documents support a much more reasonable view of the debate around the bomb, and Truman himself believed the targets were actually military in nature. And of course, I guess Olly North gets responsibility for the murders of those innocent Nicuraguans, because Regan had NO idea. So, either he was unaware of a multinational arms dealing job run through the CIA, or he was a murderer. I’d say he wasn’t a good president for either reason.

Posted by: iandanger at May 3, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #145255

Betty and Iandanger

You have to try to put yourself back in the mindset of the guys fighting the war.

My father landed at Normandy. When we went to see “Saving Private Ryan” he said that the uniforms and the action were all they way he remembered it. But he said the attitudes were all wrong. After a crisis is passed, attitudes change and we tend to project our modern attitudes on people of the past.

The A - bomb horrified people a lot more in retrospect. But remember the casulites from the bombing of German cities such as Dresden (they erected statues of “Bomber” Harris) or the fire bombings of Tokyo. It was remarkable what one bomb could do, but it was par for the course for bombing raids that were continually going on.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #145258

Looks like Creative History 101 has produced some pretty good lines and spin. Just punch the numbers in and somebody will make truth out them. Just recite the old anti-nuke crowds spins and somebody will make some facts out of them. Eisenhower was a political general. Give me Patton or MacArthur any day for a good old fashion pro-American leader.

Posted by: tomh at May 4, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #145262


I am well aware of the mindset of the people at the time, which is WHY I read the original documents when dealing with these issues. Thats how history works. There was a concerted resistance to dropping atomic bombs on Japan for ethical reasons (they believed using such a weapon would be a crime of war, and that the only reasonable way to use it would be a nonmilitary demonstration to the world, and then a move to control the weapons so that no nation would develop a large stockpile) and for practical reasons (many of those involved feared that Russia would develop their own nukes and then there would be an arms race…silly scientists, they were SO wrong). The largest reason for dropping the bomb was Russia, and that is not fair justification for using an atomic bomb (hey, come to think of it, this gets back to the things we did because of the cold war).

Believe me, I have studied this issue, and I have come at it as a historian, but the facts do point to what I am talking about. The soldiers absolutely supported dropping the bomb, but they were not aware of the fact that the Japanese were already trying to surrender (under the condition that they got to keep the Emperor…which wound up being included in the final deal anyhow), or that the Japanese were expected to surrender when the Russians invaded. Their view is reasonable, but the evidence that their leaders had at the time should have led to a different conclusion. It was a mistake.

How about Iran-Contra? Is murdering villagers because they vote for socialists justifiable? Is state sponsored terrorism okay when its United States terrorism in the United States’ best interests?

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #145263


Indeed. Creative History said that the CIA overthrew a democratically elected Iranian President and installed the brutal Shah as dictator.

Creative History also said the Death Squads of Latin America did not exist.

What do you say about these Creative Histories?

Posted by: Aldous at May 4, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #145265


I want to dismiss you, what? That made me laugh. Why would I want to dismiss you? Are we in high school or something?

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #145266

History has always been a weak subject for Conservatives. Notice how noone has responded to the Death Squads and Shah comments? It is far easier to live in fantasy than reality. Afterall, everyone knows reality has a liberal bias.

Its what you get from people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Posted by: Aldous at May 4, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #145268

and your response conveniently ignores the rest of my post.

Your first comment was a brush-off, I offered to expand on these issues, since you accused me of not contributing anything but criticism. Your response is of course to single out one comment and treat it as baseless. Your first response WAS a dismissal: “So many complaints but no REAL solutions!” How is that not a brush-off?

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #145272


Okay, you still didn’t provide any real solutions. You mention you want to motivate more people to vote, and I guess you want them to vote for you, right? Someone already has the market cornered. Simply motivating people to vote is really not that hard. Educating your voters so that they will make an informed decision and vote what they feel is right, now that’s the hard part. We don’t need any more people voting when they don’t know what’s going on with the world.

I guess you plan to win elections on pessimism. That’s the only thing I’m seeing from your posts.

Again, no real solutions. You want to create an idealistic world that just won’t exist. At least not in the manner your suggesting. Also, you have to figure how to co-exist with the likes of conservatives. You can’t simply dismiss them, oops there’s that word again.

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #145274


Turn off the Bill Maher show and step back into reality where all conservatives are not evil. I guess you know so many conservatives that you can grade them on how well they know history. Or maybe your psychic?

And you think all conservatives believe the Earth is 6,000 years old? You need to get out more?

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 12:59 AM
Comment #145281

Simonson, it sounds like your talking about yourself here: “the subject seldom changes and there is little deviation…”

Wow, sounds so familiar. This post is so typical of E.S. Link everyone on the Left with some wing-nut fringe weirdo, then don’t return to actually defend the post itself. Excuse me if I don’t see the point in this at all.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at May 4, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #145284


You may not like what Eric Simonson has to say, but Eric has been a long standing writer with WB enhancing its growth and readership.

Yeah! I’m like the viagra of this blog Dave; and don’t you forget it!

Anyway, isn’t it odd that attacking this premise brings out the liberal long knives?

Steve K: “I’ve never heard of this author.”

I’ve never heard of him either, but I’ve heard his premise many times before. In fact I’ve read it in comments here on watchblog. It is this premise that I am attacking, not the fact that this book has been reviewed.

Besides that, I’ve been reading Salon articles this last month and I’d say that this article is fairly representative of the political leaning of the magazine/web site.


I wonder if eric’s posts could be considered trolling….because they are obviously written only to incite, not having any really useful information.

Incredible! Ahh, yes. Any views you disagree with are written “only to incite”. I, however, believe in dissent, Dirk.


It must be Wednesday. You know: Hump Day. For Eric, this means once again metaphorically humping his hatred of Liberals before excreting an article designed to insult the intelligence of the majority of people who visit this blog.

Well reasoned as always. I still can’t fathom why so many on the left view disagreement as a reason to personally hate the person they disagree with.

…But I think that perhaps Adrienne is subconsciously being swayed by my arguments. She seems to be trying too hard to resist the attraction of the truth.

Posted by: eric simonson at May 4, 2006 2:24 AM
Comment #145286

Being called a Traitor pisses people off, even us.

Get used to the hatred. We learned it from you.

Posted by: Aldous at May 4, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #145289

Well, at least Aldous finally admits his hatred. The start to a solution is always found in admitting the problem. Of course, no one called anyone a traitor, so that’s just a simple strawman to throw the intellectually lazy off the track, but hey, its still a start.

Good luck to you in addressing your problem, Aldous.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 3:19 AM
Comment #145292

This article is absolutely preposterous.
There is no point in trying to debate here.

Posted by: RGF at May 4, 2006 4:03 AM
Comment #145294

Anybody else notice that Jack, Eric, joe or CFT have STILL NOT responded to the Death Squads, Shah and Iran-Contra posts even now?

Ignoring reality has truly been elevated to an artform by these people.

Posted by: Aldous at May 4, 2006 4:18 AM
Comment #145295


It seems you are making progress with your problem. Slow but sure. There will be setbacks, but keep pushing onward. Perhaps a focus on the present day will help you, rather than rehashing decades old information. Just a thought.

good luck

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 4:25 AM
Comment #145299

I wrote this on the Donkey blog. Now you Elephants need to hear it. Anti-americanism !!! Ha- claiming such a thing is anti-American !!!

Here’s the truth kids. Whether you like it or not ( and I will post this on the Elephant blog too ). REAL liberals and REAL conservatives agree on most issues. REAL liberals and REAL conservatives come to the same conclusions by different ways. Both PARTIES however are also similiar. They both are power hungry and both lie intentionally about their intensions. The Dems will not change anything. They want monopolies just like the Repubs do. The fact is that we have to have campaign-finance reform before we have real change. Until then corporations will line the pockets of our “representatives”. So if you are a REAL liberal or REAL conservative you are for campaign finance reform so we finally have taxation WITH representation !!!! Wake up all of you. By supporting either party you are part of the problem and all of your nitpicking bickering is poinless and useless.

Posted by: Tim at May 4, 2006 4:48 AM
Comment #145300

Still waiting on the reply for Death Squads, the Shah and Iran-Contra…

Posted by: Aldous at May 4, 2006 5:26 AM
Comment #145302

Still waiting on a reply to the selling of miltary secrets to communist China for campaign money…

Posted by: Duano at May 4, 2006 6:31 AM
Comment #145306


I’m actually working for democracy on these issues. I do believe that all it takes is breaking down institutionalized barriers to third parties in order to win a succesful unity campaign. Its been done around the world, people have united to defeat corrupt and inefficient single party dominant systems around the world. The United States has two parties, both of whom have alienated large segments of the population. What this means is that as the non-voting population grows, and party associations go down as well, the chance for a single uniting message to lead someone else to power grows along with it. Yes, I do think we need to make changes, like instituting IRV and universal voter registration (which is the international standard for most representative governments. I think its odd that we have such a large UNREGISTERED population, and that there should be automatic registration for everyone). I believe we need to reduce the spending power of money involvement in politics, the groundwork has already been laid, this issue will only take a strong stimulus, which could come at any time with another big indictment or scandal. I think we need to move elections to weekends when less people are likely to be working, and make it law that work has to allow you to have time to vote in a day.

This is not a Red and Blue country, this is a frustrated country which feels trapped into those labels, when people really do want strong changes. The debate about what to do to reduce gas prices is an example of this. Politicians have been scrambling to do something to nip the possible political damage of high gasoline pices in the bud, but they rushed so fast to find a way to buy off their voters that they all managed to sort of run into each other at the same time, and nothing substantive came out of it.

It is entirely normal to criticize current administrations and congress in general when dealing with politics. It is not pessimism to realize that the state of things is so precarious, it is honesty. Politicians have managed to lose touch with their constituents so much that they can’t even be bothered to come up with a decent earmark reform bill in either body of congress. People aren’t stupid, and I don’t think its actually going to have to take a revolution in politics to get us started on a better track. I think instituting voting reforms which are pro-democracy instead of pro one party or the other, or pro incumbent is a good thing, but I also don’t see the current crop doing it. Change can come from within the parties, and I think the necessary reforms will come from the fringes of both parties. All it really takes is someone who is willing to talk the talk on the road to the whitehouse or within the congress, and who is also ready to work in a completely bipartisan fashion to meet some relatively neutral but serious goals.

These goals should be:

1. Ending the age of soaring deficits. This can be done a number of ways, but it is pretty much a top priority, it really should only be second to:
2. Ending the dominance of oil in the American economy. This energy source is far too volatile in price, and rising international demand will inevitably outstripe production, which will spell disaster for our economy. Anyone who does not predict a major oil crisis in the future doesn’t have their eyes open. Even if peak oil is false, China and India’s economies are growing so quickly that their energy needs will start driving prices up more and more. The possibility of more instability in areas like Nigeria and Iran and even a civil war in Iraq means the possibility of a major spike in oil prices. We can’t survive a high cost period unless we begin developing an infrastructure to handle the nation’s energy needs with a non-petroleum fuel, since the SOR can’t even make it through a month before it is depleted. The solution is research and allocation of resources. We need to make a substative commitment to getting off oil, but the President has only played lip service to this. This change WILL come from one of the parties, because a lot of people are talking about it on both sides. It simply is not in America’s best interest to be so bound to a resource with as much volativity as oil.

I think most people would prefer for us to be less hypocritical in our foreign policy (like supporting dictatorships in Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwaite while talking about brining democracy to the region), but there will be some disagreement on how to do this. I personally advocate a temporary shift to a realist foreign policy which leads to gradual reduction of worldwide troop comitments (because it really isn’t our responsibility to be Japan and Germany’s largest military force any more), along with a reevaluation of our relations with much of the globe. The people of the United States should really decide, in the long run, whether or not our goal is to benefit America’s best interest or to promote democracy equally around the world. I personally agree with the second, but as anyone who see’s Iraq as an example has realized, military force really isn’t an option, its simply too inefficient to be cost effective. This means our primary tool will be economics, and I think we should make it a point to use tarrifs to force countries to eliminate low labor standards, and to use our political influence to push for other regimes to open up to democracy. This does mean using economic sanctions or other such measures, but the point is that if our ideology is going to be a liberal one, that representative government or democracy is the best form of government, and that other nations should take on this form of government, particularly through our influence, then we should go about the spread of democracy without being hypocrites in the regimes we support directly and indirectly.

Things ARE bad right now, but they are no worse than so many other transitional points in history. I believe a shift in political discourse is comming, and the key to it will be a leader who is willing to make principled and difficult choices without concern for special interests. Someone who is willing to ask Americans to make sacrifices and take momentary difficulty for the long term good of the nation. Every era has a strong leader who motivates the people to weather the storm, but this is something shills like George Bush cannot do.

Basically, I think you are wrong, there is going to be a course correction when it comes to public policy. I think things will start with the midterm elections, and I think by 2008 you are going to see a shift in language. With so many deomcrats seeing oil dependence as a crutch, their presidential nominee will likely pick up the torch for energy independence during the presidential race. Certainly it seems likely that there will be a similar move from the Republican party. What I want is leadership, which is not what we have now.

I’m begining to wonder how the discussion even went this direcrion, since my original point was that criticizing past policies, especially covert ones which were hidden from the polity, is not anti-American inherently. While I do not agree with the author on the point that it is “good” that America has stumbled in Iraq, there are a lot of mistakes in past policy that we should be acknowledging and learning from. Was it wrong for Ronald Regan to sell weaponry to Iran in order to help support Islamist movements in Afghanistan which wanted to throw out the USSR and set up a theocracy? The answer is of course YES, but we had no idea at the time that these combatants would do more harm to us than any Soviet ever did (especially if you include soldiers who have died in Iraq, though I wouldn’t credit most of that to Al Queda, its really more of an Iraqi insurgent type thing). We cannot have a whigish view of history because it ignores our past problems, and makes dealing with other problems around the world harder because he have a skewed view of our ability to effect change. A perfect example is Iran, where there is a powerful theocracy we would like to see replaced with a democracy. What we have to remember is that the CIA and British intellegence staged a coup to overthrow the last representative democracy in Iran, which is what led to the Shah and now the Ayatollas having power there. If we see this, then we might realize why Iranians do not want us to start telling them what to do again. If you see that we have supported dictatorships in the middle east for a long time, you realize why Al Queda is spreading and we are unpopular. We have similar rhetoric to Bin Laden (only we talk about democracy and he talks about restoring piousness to the middle east), but they can at least make claims to having no ulterior motive, they don’t act like they support overthrow of dictatorships then nestle up to them and write them big checks (we do it for anti-terrorism purposes, which is ironic, because the tyranny is what influenced the terrorism in the first place)

Religious fundamentalists exist in all cultures, but within a democracy, they will have a hard time taking over without a serious crisis. By truly promoting democracy we can relegate religious fundamentalism to the fringes of society. If Al Queda is replaced with hard line politicians who want to legislate morality and foist religion upon their pupulus, then I have confidence the people will choose more level headed leaders.

So there are some ideas suggestions opinions and general observations. I’m not a pessimist, and I don’t think you have to be one to be disgusted with politics as usual in Washington these days. I can’t do any of these things myself (yet anyway) so I brainstorm and write and talk to people and work for their campaigns. I am believe in the changes I want to see, and I’m willing to work for them. Thats really not a pessimistic view.


Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 7:44 AM
Comment #145308


Don’t forget: Conservatives lead the way in Holocaust Denial as well. Which is only fitting, since one cannot be a Nazi without being a Conservative.

Aldous started to ask:

Anybody else notice that Jack, Eric, joe or CFT have STILL NOT responded to the Death Squads -

NO ONE responds to the Right Wing Death Squads!

(Or, was that the Spanish Inquisition…?)

Oh well. Same-same.

Yare yare desu, ne? Shigata ga nai

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #145316

Betty and/or Aldous:

I decided to go back and find out what the furor was over the death squads and the shah, and to see why they might be salient to a conversation in 2006. I found the reference in here, but I don’t see how they have anything to do with anything.

Installing the Shah was a mistake. I’m sure there were many reasons given for having done so, and I’m not interested in researching them (psst it was decades ago), but he was a brutal man and a brutal leader. The death squads—don’t know much in detail about them either. But cant see any significance to them.

If we go back far enough, we can see all kinds of mistakes—its pretty easy to do in hindsight. I mean, we can look at the Bay of Pigs where Kennedy left people to die in a failed mission. Or we can look at Iran/Contra where Reagan either knew or was derelict in his duty by not knowing. Or we can look at Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or Nixon bombing Cambodia. We can look at Clinton bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Africa, or bombing the Chinese Embassy in the Balkan region.

What good does it do to look at these situations? If you simply want to revisit the past, you’re welcome to do so. But it gives little insight to today, and even less into the solutions for tomorrow.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #145320
You may not like what Eric Simonson has to say, but Eric has been a long standing writer with WB enhancing its growth and readership.
Yeah! I’m like the viagra of this blog Dave; and don’t you forget it!
Posted by: eric simonson at May 4, 2006 02:24 AM
I was going to move on but this was too easy and is done in the spirit of fun… let’s do some free thinking here:

Viagra = Boner.

Porn is a major driver of the internet economy.

Porn has boners.

Therefore, people will look at boners.

In the end, a boner is nothing but a hard dick with one eye and a narrow purpose.

Joking aside, rightwingers might be nice people. Kind of like Jack seems like a good guy despite his obsession with free markets and Bush defense (despite what I believe is his unspoken desire to jetison that particular albatros).


Can you still talk about ignoring the past when you realize that, among others in this administration, Cheyney and Rummy have been in and out of the White House since Nixon? How can you ignore that the architects of todays failures seemed to have learned nothing in the last 30 years?

Posted by: Dave at May 4, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #145324


Thats actually a good question. Why are these actions (which were within the last 50 years) relevant to any of our problems today.

The Shah was a horrific and brutal dictator who was brought to power because the CIA decided that the democratically elected leader wasn’t pro-US business enough to be left in power. His reign led directly to the Ayatollas comming to power. The Iranians have not trusted the USA since, which is part of why they dislike us so much now. Remembering our role in their last dictatorship, we cannot realistically expect Iranians to listen to us when we try and tell them to be more democratic. There are many in Iran who want democracy, but the idea of American intervention there is abhorent to the population, because of our history of supporting pro-USA leaders rather than democratically elected leaders. Granted, this was probably in our direct best interest at the time, but years of oppression have led to many of the problems we see today.

What do I mean by all of this? Well, by forcing the Shah on Iran, we permanently damaged our relations with the country. But there is more than that. Our historical and continuing support of autocratic dictatorships around the world has led to resistance movements against these governments. One man decided to organize his fortune to help fund these resistance movements, specifically ones in nations with muslim majorities, and that was what created Al Queda. Al Queda is not about destroying freedom (though they are by no means proponents of liberal democracy), they are a network connecting the revolutionary movements against dictatorships. Our response now is no different than in Vietnam, instead of opposing the dictatorships and promoting democracy, we treat everything as black and white, and side with the dictators against terrorism. Terrorism, like communism, is a systemic indicator of a problem, but the source of this problem is tyranny and nothing more. The only way to bring that region out of the problems it is now having is to truly promote democracy, not give money to the UAE and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight terrorists.

This is no different from another problem, that of drug production in South America. There are 3 parties in Colombia dealing with the drug trade. The government, FARC, and drug militias. The FARC allow drug cultivation in areas they control, as long as those farmers pay a tax on their land. The government and the FARC fight since the FARC is trying to overthrow the government. Drug militias rose up because they didn’t want to pay taxes on their drug crops, so they fight the FARC. Now here’s the fun part, since the Colombian government is more concerned with the FARC, they give money to the drug militias in order to protect their interests. But when we want to fight drug cultivation, we give money to the Colombian government, despite the fact that they are FUNDING THE DRUG MILITIAS! We did the same thing in Vietnam. We fight the symptoms without addressing the causes. Oppression leads to resistance. People become radicals because they are reacting to extreme abuses, people turn to terrorism or revolution in desperation, and we need to address this problem in order to fully secure ourselves.

At worst, we need to pull out of the Middle East and stop directly supporting tyranical governments. Even without pressuring for democracy in the region we simply wont be considered associated with the oppression which leads to terrorism, which will make us safer. Our role in supporting tyranny is what leads to our problems. So what I’m saying is that the history books are full of times when we talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk, and it always made things worse. Now is the opportunity to make a course correction, it is the only way we can diffuse the problems we face.

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #145325

There is no pro-America arguement that will make those who loath the United States system of government suddenly see the light. There is no anti-American arguement that can pass the sniff test of history. With total U.S. isolationism, (lets say just since 1917), would the world be a better place for the millions of persecuted, oppressed peoples who sought no evil government/military industrial complex contracts only freedom? IF the U.S. ignored the plight of Europe in 1917, IF we stayed home and ignored the evil falling over the countries of the Pacific rim in the 1930’s, IF we forgave the Japenese for Pearl Harbor and left Europe to the good graces of Hitler in the 1940’s, IF we simply turned our heads as the Soviets/Chinese gathered in all the countries they desired during the 1950’s - 1960’s - 1970’s -1980’s can any clear thinking person really believe the world would be a better place? Really? Lets forget the world, lets focus on America. How might we be in terms of our own economic capabilities? Who would we trade with? How long would it be before the same folks who brought us chemical warfare, concentration camps, gulags, the horror of strictly enforced male only pregnancies, genocide because of race, ethnicity or religion decided we were next? I do agree that not all Democrats are leftist, but the unfortunate truth is that most of the tired old marxist rhetoric comes from those who have claimed the Democratic party as theirs. The great experiment that is our country is filled with mistakes, the warts of individuals and organizations that abused our freedoms for their own gain. The harsh light of absolutes shines on every country and every citizen of every country and none can be in it’s glare long before the physical flaws, the emotional blemishes and the idealogical imperfections are exposed for all the world to see. The beauty of America is that we can and do work to improve those shortcomings. We have the capacity for self examination, going so far as a civil war to keep our system of government intact while freeing an enslaved people and working towards a better future, as slow as this progress may seem. To be critical of our government is part of the greatness of America, can this same right be shown to exist in those governments that hold fast to marxist teachings? Go ahead and be what you will be, Democrat or Republican or Independant or Socialist, but as you condemn U.S. policy or paint the country with the broad brush of evil doings remember Stalins purges, contemplate the fate of Cambodians at the hands of Pol Pot or those Chinese who speak out against their government. Please consider the starving in N. Korea or the fate of Germany without U.S. assistance after WWII. Ask the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, Slavs and Ukrainians. Seek out the dwindling population of Holocaust survivors or the remnant of citizens of the western Pacific who lived and died by the millions under the sword of Imperial Japan. Is American heaven on earth? No. Is America the root of all evil in the world yesterday or today? No. Is America squeaky clean and free of the stain of innocent bloodshed? No. But if anyone, anywhere in the world wants the chance to live a life of freedom where you can achieve your dreams on your own terms, there is no place like it on earth! Being a citizen of the U.S. doesn’t demand absolute support of it’s policies, critical debate makes for positive dialogue and fuels needed change in government. My only concern is a rant by the left or right, a decision to be critical because of a political party only - with no sound or thoughtful mechanism for change recommended. The policy of just attack, attack, attack is not healthy debate but the sign of a lack thoughtfulness, an infantile scream for what they want, when they want it and the the country, the world be damned!

Posted by: JR at May 4, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #145331


I completely agree with you, the United States has done a LOT for the west and to encourage freedom in certain places. But this has been balanced with a steady policy of supporting dictatorships where it is convenient to us. We have not learned the lessons of history, that is the problem. I understand that we didn’t understand the problems we were creating in Vietnam, but at the same time, Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about the same thing I’m talking about now during the Vietnam War. We need to fully embrace a liberal philosophy, or stop supporting governments that lead to us comming under fire from terrorists. Either support democracy or at least stop associating with those who are against democracy.

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #145333


Its vital to note that the Allies in 1941 installed the Shah on the throne, replacing his father, in part because Iran was seen as a potential member of the Axis. In 1953, a CIA covert operation put Pahlavi back on the throne after Mohammed Mossadegh had wrested power from him.

Certainly history has importance, and it is mindful to pay attention to it. But not to allow history to become a means of simply pointing fingers at one party or the other. Both Dems and Repubs supported the Shah through the years, and it would be silliness to ascribe today’s parties to the ones of the same names in the 1940’s and 50’s.

Since a Democrat was in office in 1941 when the Shah was originally placed on the throne, should we condemn the Dems for all future history? Since a Repub was in office in 1953, should we condemn Repubs? In both cases, the answer is of course no.

Some in here would see the answer as a yes, but only to the second question. They would rationalize the first away. To be fair, there are some who would do the opposite as well.

I am not in either of those camps—I suspect neither are you, from reading your posts. What America needs to figure out is how to avoid the policy of ” the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I’m not sure how best to do that in global politics.

For instance, there were recently protests by those wanting the US to take action in Darfur. So much for us NOT being the policemen of the world. If we do take action (and I support doing so), then we will be taking sides there. We will make enemies by having done so, and there could be repercussions many years from now that cannot yet be seen. So what do we do? Do we let innocent people die in wanton attacks, or do we take sides? I’m for taking sides, with the recognition that there may actually not be ANY good guys in Darfur—-it may be a contest between the bad and the worse.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #145334
As usual, the stupid mind numbing mantra of the neotard:

Criticism of US government policy is anti-american.

What a load of shit. Flush it.

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”…Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #145336


What good does it do to look at these situations? If you simply want to revisit the past, you’re welcome to do so. But it gives little insight to today, and even less into the solutions for tomorrow.

He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it…

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #145337


You’re correct, I think finger pointing is pointless, but what I want to do is learn from the mistakes of the past, and truly support worldwide democracy. This can include our assistance to needy areas. Rwanda, the Balklands, now Sudan, there is a place for humanitarian action. But I don’t think we should be the military force in, say, Japan. I think there are ways to have our cake and eat it to, it takes a will to do so, which I don’t see out of the Bush administration. If for no other reason, we need to change our image in these nations because it makes us a target when we support the government in Pakistan or Libya, since it is the oppressed in these nations that join organizations like Al Queda.

There is a route to peace that benefits everyone, but it takes sacrifice and diligence. We should be working to get off oil so we can stop dealing with these corrupt dictatorships, we need to course correct now, before it becomes a problem later.

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #145338

Aldous & Iandanger

We could rehash all these things. But that might be a lot for this thread and I don’t have personal experience with these things.

When I write about Mr. Carroll’s mistakes in portraying our work in Poland, I can say it with an absolute certainly generally unavailable to me in arguments. His statement quoted is plain wrong. And I know I am correct about it. This goes far beyond the usual arguments we have here.

If he is so completely wrong about this, it is unlikely that he is right about other things.

The extent of U.S. responsibility for the actions of the Contras (or even exactly what those actions were) and the dropping of the A-bombs are disputes that we will not solve here. We all are working from secondary sources.

Murdering villages because of the way the vote is not justified. Contras are accused of doing this. That Sandinistas did it too. The leftist rebels in El Salvador did it as policy and the Viet Kong and the NVA made an art out of it. It is wrong when it happens. Communists are responsible for literally millions of such deaths. So we can talk cold war history, but it is probably beyond our ability to do so in a short forum like this. When fighting a great evil, sometimes evil results. If the alternative was having communism win, it would have been far worse.

Re Hatred

The simple test is turn around. Take all the comments on this blog made by liberals and conservatives and simply substitute the terms. I know I have been called a lot worse things than I have called others.

Aldous, just take your own statements and do the turn around and see if you would feel it was hate if it was aimed at you. And I defy you to find comment that I made that are similar.


You may have noticed that U.S. policy toward the Middle East has moved away from the idea of trading stability for liberty. And we are being criticized for being too simplistic. We supported liberty in E. Europe in the 1980s. We were criticized for being too simplistic there too.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #145340

James Carroll, author of the above book, is no stranger to criticism of the negative kind…his book “Constantine’s Sword: the church and the Jews, a history” was NOT well received and the many inconsistencies and outright incorrect information in that book would lead me to believe that the same might be quite true in “House of War” as well.

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #145346


I am not aware the policy shift you are discussing - perhaps you can present some examples where our middle eastern foreign policy is changing in favor of liberty?

As for Eastern Europe, I don’t recall a time where we were criticized for supporting liberty in that part of the world. Ever. The only criticism I remember is of FDR for allowing the Eastern Bloc to form in the first place…

Posted by: CPAdams at May 4, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #145348


Did the American system of capitalism starve millions and execute millions more in it’s mistaken belief that the Soviets were our enemy?

Well, maybe not American capitalism, but napalm in quite actually achieved this in Vietnam. Orange Agent did too. Starvation included. Sure, they were not US citizens victims, so who care(d)? I mean, except Rest Of The World?

Oh, BTW, one would bet that a link exists between capitalism and napalm weapons. These beasts were not free, I’m sure.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 4, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #145352


You do understand what I am saying, though, dont you? We aren’t learning the lessons of history, we lost a lot of strategic scuffles durring the cold war because we didn’t support liberty, we supported the oppresive government against the populist government. The people sided with the populist movement because they at least had the needs of the people in their rhetoric. We cannot defeat terrorism (which is simply the violent expression of a belief) without winning the hearts and minds of those who would become terrorists, but how can we do this while we give money and protection to tyrannies in the region. We can’t defeat Al Queda while there are oppressed people fighting their government, because that is what Al Queda facitlitates, even though it does so with the intention of propping up theocracy in the area to replace the tyranny.

We have not learned how to deal with situations that aren’t black and white. It is hurting us in the long run, and leading to the USA remaining a terrorist target.

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #145359

If you really want to “learn the lessons of history”, go see “United 93”. That movie was so(ooooo) intense and amazing that, when you leave the movie theatre, you will know for sure who the real enemy is. For sure!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #145363

There is only one way to make the left happy.Disband the military Disband all police departments Put an abortion clinic on every corner in every city in the u.s.a. and turn the u.s.a. over to john kerry and bin laden.

Posted by: mystified at May 4, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #145367

I have to say, as a progressive, I am quite impressed by those true Republicans on this site. You are intelligent people, unwilling to let NeoCons distort your message, one that I happen to agree with in a lot of cases. In response to the last post, however, regarding United 93…I sure hope you don’t base your opinions on Hollywood Reproductions of any event. Remember Pearl Harbor? Keep up the good work you true Republicans, and please, for all our sakes, take your party back!

Posted by: Chris at May 4, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #145368

mystified: You like speaking in hyperbole:

There is only one way to make the left happy.Disband the military Disband all police departments Put an abortion clinic on every corner in every city in the u.s.a. and turn the u.s.a. over to john kerry and bin laden.

You’d like to think that the “left” thinks that way! Doesn’t make it so, though.

Liberals/democrats/left have not advocated any of the above…military is necessary, but not in invading sovereign nations which are no threat to us; absolutely no one has advocated getting rid of the police; and, at least the liberals are working to eliminate the need for abortions by pushing for universal medical care (including pregnant women)and other social programs that would lessen a woman’s perceived need for an abortion…a much more useful approach to the problem than only teaching abstinence or “just saying no”!! John Kerry I wouldn’t have minded as president, but who knows, he didn’t get that chance…but Kerry isn’t allied with the bin Laden family like the Bush family is, at the very least!

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #145369


If by liberal philosophy you mean walking on eggshells so as to not offend others, it’s impossible. We could have been totally above the fray in the middle east, ignored everyone but our own country and internal issues and OBL and his ilk would still want us dead. It’s not a matter of our offending, it’s a matter of our not following Sharia law and tearing down our constitution to allow mullahs to rule, Allah or nothing at all is their mantra. History is just that, history and it leads concerned people to look at past mistakes and move in a direction to correct the worst. We cannot afford to isolate, placate or withdraw. Any country has it’s own interests at heart, to do anything other would make it a satellite of another. If in the interest of preserving the U.S. we put up and take down leaders in countries that we have interests in so be it, was the shah as bad as these madmen in Iran now? Saddam was used to keep Iran at bay in the 80’s and the lesson I learned from Vietnam was that a government that is frozen by protests and public opinion polls is ineffective in fighting a war. If a stronger stance was taken in fighting the communist aggression in Vietnam the horrors of communist atrocities and the evil of Pol Pot may well have been avoided. I will agree that bad decisions leave a legacy of pain and anguish for those affected, my hope is that a strong stance and the willingness to stick to tough decisions in a time of war will shorten the misery, ignoring it only allows the cancer of abuse and oppression to continue unabated.

Posted by: JR at May 4, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #145370


If you really want to “learn the lessons of history”, go see “United 93”. That movie was so(ooooo) intense and amazing that, when you leave the movie theatre, you will know for sure who the real enemy is. For sure!

The movie is 95-99% fiction…no one on that flight survived (if I were a conspiracy freak, I might question that!); we don’t know the intent behind the few messages that were received, supposedly through cell phone conversations (did the plane crash because cell phone transmissions messed up the flight instruments?).

Take it as truth, but it’s as true as “The Da Vinci Code”…based on a few true pieces, but the work as a whole is not “true”.

Fiction is fiction. “Flight 93” is NOT a documentary…

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #145371


Oh, BTW, one would bet that a link exists between capitalism and napalm weapons. These beasts were not free, I’m sure.

Although the rest of the world has signed an agreement not to use napalm in 1980, the US has never signed…in fact, it still has napalm (now called Mark-77 firebombs)and has used it, along with depleted uranium in Iraq.

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #145372


While I generally agree with your point, reading these two things together is ironic to such a degree it’s painful:

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”…Thomas Jefferson


He who does not know history is doomed to repeat it…

Thomas Jefferson did not say “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. He did, however, say many other things which add up to that general sentiment. Quotes which may more aptly make the point include:

“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
-Letter to James Madison (January 30, 1787); referring to Shays’ Rebellion

“What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787)

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
-Letter to Archibald Stuart (1791)

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
-Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819)

“We are all Republicans — we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
-First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1801)

“We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
-Letter to William Roscoe (December 27, 1820)

And perhaps most pointedly:

“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
-Letter to Colonel Edward Carrington (January 16, 1787)

Posted by: Jarandhel at May 4, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #145374


Nobody will ever say they are against liberty, but they oppose the measures designed to help it along. President Reagan’s aggressive policy toward the Soviet Union came in for a lot of criticism. I shutter to think of what might have happened had he capitulated to the peace movement on intermediate range missiles or star wars research. The liberal thinkers went crazy when President Reagan called Jaruzelski a Soviet officer in a Polish uniform and said he was foolish and reckless to think he could defeat communism. Go to the original sources on these matters. Read the editorials and - even more interesting - look at the predictions. According to many, we should all be dead by now. These guys have forgotten their error and now tell everybody that they knew all along. They are lying.


We very often were not supporting a dictator against the people. More often we had the bad choice of supporting one dictator against another potential dictator. Even in the most famous case of Vietnam, it is clear that the enemy was not a democratic respecter of human rights. Even now Vietnam is oppressive and they employed extraordinarily harsh methods to impose their rule on the south. People don’t take to the open ocean in small overcrowded boats if they don’t think the situation on the land is pretty horrible. In Nicaragua, the first free election got rid of the Sandinistas. Without U.S. pressure, they would have never had them. Cuba holds elections. Nothing changes. You may also recall that President Carter initially did not oppose the Sandinistas and if fact the U.S. was the country’s greatest source of aid initially. I don’t say this to denigrate Carter, but rather to show the Sandinistas’ contempt for freedom even BEFORE we pushed.

The cold war made us do some regrettable things. We can look back and wish we had made different choices, but each different choice would have come with its own problems. In the worst case scenario, communism could have expanded even more. But there are many smalle ones. Take the case of Chile. Allende, who was elected by a plurality of only 34%, was imposing a Cuban style system. What could have happened? Chile today is one of the most prosperous countries on the continent. We can’t know the ahistorical truth, but if it had become more like Cuba it sure would not be prosperous, safe or free.

You often don’t get clear choices and you also should not overestimate U.S. power. The Chilean coup, for example, was indigenous. The U.S. did not and could not have fomented a coup w/o the initiative of the Chilean generals. It is not like the U.S. moves pieces on a chess board. Only people who have never actually done anything in the real world believe that.

During the 1980s, the Reagan policy was to encourage democracy in Latin America. I don’t think we can credit the U.S. with the transformation that occurred there, but if you think the U.S. support of dictatorship can cause that to happen, you should give the same credence to the other side.

U.S. involvement in Iraq is nearly completely idealistic. In fact, that has been the criticism of the Bush policy. Bush insists on elections. Look at the pages of this blog and you will see who thought elections were a good idea and who didn’t. It is sometimes not the same people who say so now. Memory fades, but fortunately we still have the words on screen.

Those who refuse to indulge in the facile explanation that Bush went to war for Halliburton or to avenge his father, often point to his “foolish” or “neocon” desire to remake the Middle East into a free market democracy. It might be a mistake. It might be too hard to do. But it clearly is not propping up any dictator who will side with us today.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #145375

“If you really want to “learn the lessons of history”, go see “United 93”. That movie was so(ooooo) intense and amazing that, when you leave the movie theatre, you will know for sure who the real enemy is. For sure!”

I hope that either you were joking or that you are being paid to advertise on blogs, because plugging a movie doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion. It is a dramatization of events we don’t know much about, it is fiction, and while I can respect the artistic integrety of the director (sort of), I’m not going to encourage people to try and make blockbuster profits off the deaths of thousands of Americans.

“There is only one way to make the left happy.Disband the military Disband all police departments Put an abortion clinic on every corner in every city in the u.s.a. and turn the u.s.a. over to john kerry and bin laden.”

You know, mystified, since I probably fit in your view of the left, why don’t we expound on this. I say, when our military acts to help support the status quo and suppress the freedoms of others, among other things, it makes our freedom less justified. When our political leaders use our possition to provide aid and comfort to the enemies of democracy and self determinism, they create the very enemies we face. Reducing our involvement in supporting dictatorships would not be a victory for Bin Laden if we followed it up with pressure for democracy.

As for police, I think a strong police force, especially providing security along our borders, is very necessary to society. So is a fair justice system. What isn’t fair is making laws which oughtn’t because someone who was moralizing said it ought. The government should only be able to interject in the life of a citizen at the point when they harm another. This creates a sepparation between public and private. Public is that which greatly harms or affects others, private is that which affects yourself. What I grow in my garden, for instance, is private, because no one else posseses my garden or eats from it. If I was to plant a Cannibis seed in the ground, and then grow a plant, the plant would be a private matter. If i then dried the plant, rolled it in a tobbaco leaf, and smoked it in my living room, that would be a private matter. If I sold it to another person, it would primarily be a private matter (technically, it could be public if I did something to the cannibis before selling it, which is where concepts of regulation come in). If someone wants to own a gun, they go to a gun store and buy one, its a private matter. The moment they use that gun to shoot someone, it becomes a public matter. If the government legislates beyond its limits, I personally consider this authority illegitimate. This is not to say it warants overthrow of the government, which is a drastic sollution and tends to lead more toward chaos, rather you have to work within the system to resist the law. Law enforcement has the duty to enforce the law, but only to a certain point can this be tollerated as an excuse. At a certain point, government breach of authority should be resisted by the entire populus.

As for abortion, there are a lot of republicans who support legal abortion too. Abortion is such a problematic issue because on one side, you have what is in some moral views killing of persons in the womb, and what is on the other side, illegal back-alley abortion and unwanted pregnancy. I understand both sides, and the compromise in Roe v Wade was actually quite elegant, in that it walks the narrow path between the two. I think most people are more comfortable with Roe than they are with either any sort of total legalization or total ban. Thats sort of where I fall, though really, I don’t think abortion is a deciding issue in my voting habits.

I like this little comment at the end:
“turn the u.s.a. over to john kerry and bin laden.”

This is a truth, that democrats (which tend to be where liberals vote) wanted John Kerry to be president more than George Bush, mixed with a lie, that John Kerry and Bin Laden are somehow in cahoots. We’re talking about a decorated soldier who has been in congress for decades, not Zacharias Moussaoui. Is he long winded and sometimes a little pompus? Yes. Was he a good presidential candidate? God no. Is he a terrorist? Big no on that one. Therefore, John Kerry was nominated president but was not the first choice for most people, and has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden, and you are wrong yet again.

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #145379

I’m stunned by all this rediculous accusation going on. You accuse liberals of being anti-american while you flag and flush us down the toilet calling yourselves “Patriots.” If those of you who are thinking so narrowly don’t either pull your heads out of your rears and take a look around, or surender political influence to those who have, there won’t be much of America left to cherish.

Posted by: RGF at May 4, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #145383

If you can not understand why Moussaoi was jumping for joy yesterday as he was told his sentance for involvment in the 911 attacks let me educate you.He knows there is a good chance the liberals of the united states of america will fight to not only give him the life of Oreilly but will fight to free him one day.Some liberal democrats think he is a freedom fighter.This sentance prooves as long as there are liberals in this country it will be impossible to win the war on terrorism in a timely manner.

Posted by: jaycee at May 4, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #145384


There may be a controversy as to whether Thomas Jefferson actually said dissent is the greatest form of patriotism…but nevertheless, it is attributed to him quite widely. The only disagreement was on a website “”…not sure how accurate a site that is…I’d trust “fact check” before “urbanlegends”.

That said, I rather like Howard Zinn’s quote:

“There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

Our US flag is looking mighty small today…the fact that it is the company of many other “small” flags is irrelevant…we need to look at what our own country is doing.

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #145386


Apologize for the delay, sometimes a job gets in the way of these things. I appreciate your ideas and suggestions and honestly, we could probably agree on a lot of those items. I’m all for change and taking action. I just would like the change to be controlled or for it to occur step by step. Anything drastic would put a lot of people at risk including my family, and that’s not worth it.


The only hate I see being thrown around here is from you and some of the other posts.

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #145389


A little more upscale and authoritative than urbanlegends, and also directly above it in the results when you google the terms “thomas jefferson” and “dissent”.

Posted by: Jarandhel at May 4, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #145393


You are just plain wrong when it comes to Osama Bin Laden and the United States. Osama only cared because we were propping up the Saudi dictatorship with our military. We aren’t in conflict with Islam, and they don’t care what goes on in our country. They care about repressive secular regimes accross the middle east. These regimes abuse their people, which in turn creates a disenfranchised and angry population. This population is VERY suceptible to the lure of Wahhabism, and use terrorism to fight the government. It was Osama’s idea to link these groups and create what is now Al Queda, but the cause of this terrorism is not a hatred of freedom, but oppression itself. By siding with the oppressors, who are a minority, we maintain the status quo, but we put ourselves in a defacto state of oppression against everyone in the nation. If we wanted to win the Vietnam War, we should have remember one thing: The Vietnamese People. The Communists promised to break up the large land owning gentry and give land back to the starving people. The Southern government was an oppressive dictatorship. By siding with the oppressive government we guaranteed the people would not be behind us. We supported a gentry class and what was ostensibly feudal oppression against the mass of farmers who were suddenly well armed. There was no way for us to win that war with that strategy. We should have been trying to give the Vietnamese freedom and equality, but instead we were fighting on the side of state oppression. We lost because we were not on the side of freedom, not because we were stalled by protest. If we want to spread democracy, we cannot support tyranny, we have to provide an example, which is the point of liberal foreign policy. If we want a realist foreign policy, then freedom and democracy around the globe is irrelevant and therefor we should be soley concerned with our best interests.

You obviously don’t understand what liberal foreign policy is. It means making domestic ideology part of your foreign policy (eg. spreading democracy), and having a multi-layered foreign policy involving not just diplomacy and the military, but economics and culture. Liberalism involves the democratic peace theory, it encompasses the idea of spreading ideology through foreign policy. This is the dominant theoretical mindset in IR in America, but it has been bastardized and never fully implemented.

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #145402

Lynne and danger,

You two obviously didn’t see the movie, b/c you (certainly) wouldn’t of made those foolish comments that you made. The movie was based on cell phone conversations, control tower testimonials, 9/11 commission report findings, and other information that puts that day into perspective.

Those passengers knew how to deal with terrorists; it’s by killing them, not giving them rights and lawyers. Look at the Mossaqi bullcrap. Instead of treating him like a terrorists, they treated him like a criminal. Just the way the left wants it; he’s not “evil”, he’s misunderstood. Yeah right. The left will never get it.

And, fitting how lefties make inane comments about the movie; particularly a movie they haven’t (even) seen, yet they cling to that “Fat slob with the baseball cap” movie (Farenheight 9/11) about the accounts of that day. It’s more important to focus on 7 minutes of the Presidents reaction to the attacks rather than the “courage” and “spirit” of our fellow Americans who stepped up and thwarted the mission of slamming that Aircraft into the Capital. Good to see the left is ontop of this issue.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #145410


Your not going to win many over by defending Osama. Regardless of whether you think he’s right or justified, you just won’t win an election defending him. It’s the real world, Osama is seen as a terrorist and the majority of the U.S. people agree with that.

What I would like to know is why some folks have no problem defending people who do incredibly evil things but attack others that have good intentions. People make mistakes often, but intentions are very important. You can take jabs at the U.S. foreign policy and how they handled the Vietnam War but I don’t believe our policy was to side with an oppressive regime so we could continue to oppress the Vietnamese. We had good intentions, it just doesn’t always work out that way. You make the North Vietnamese and China appear as they were peaceful people just looking to unite the mother land. Some kind of dream world.

The fact is all nations, all standing governments, all political factions have some evil presence within them. Nobody gets off ‘scott’ free. As someone who wants to combat evil, you try to side yourself with those that have the best intentions.

Again, to win elections, you would need to find a way to win folks from both sides. Continuously attacking one side or the other gets no where.

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #145412


The movie is a work of fiction, and not relevant in this discussion. I also believe it is wrong to market on people’s attachment to a tragedy. Its using the deaths of Americans to make a bunch of money for a studio.

If you want to talk about terrorism, how exactly do you recomend we help combat it? I am talking about the actual causes of terrorism, which are oppressed masses with little education. Do you deny that this is where terrorism comes from? Do you believe that all muslims are terrorists? Because there are these large vulnerable groups, the Wahabi sect has grown, and terrorism is the side effect. We can talk about fighting terrorism, but simply fighting terrorism is not going to STOP terrorism. Terrorism is a methodology, it is an effect. You cannot defeat terrorism because anyone can commit an act of terrorism at any time. The best we can do is eliminate the organizations which support terrorism and resolve the social causes, because walls and gates and screening only high risk shipments will only protect us for so long.

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #145415


I fear you entire post above is based on opinion…because there’s not a fact in it…

What percentage of that movie do YOU believe is real??

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #145417

The root cause of terrorism is terrorists. We fool ourselves if we think we can address some social arrangements overseas to fix this problem. It is primarily a military and law enforcement problem, not social work. The only “social” thing we can do is work to maintain orderly societies.

The terrorists are not drawn from among the poor. Many of today’s terrorists are expats not even living in their countries of origin. We currently deal with Islamic terror, but we have faced - and defeated - other types. The German Bader-Meinhoff gang or the Italian Red Brigades were a bunch of spoiled rich kids who liked to blow things up and claim social justice. Even Che Guevara, the famous T-shirt model, was a rich kid who liked to kill and write bad poetry about it. When there is enough disorder, they come out and cause trouble.

It is sort of like an infestation.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #145418


I’m not deffending Osama Bin Laden, I’m talking about why people listen to him. He is fighting to overthrow despotic secular governments. We claim to want to do the same, but we give these same governments money to fight Osama. This means we are supporting oppression in order to defeat an enemy which we think is worse than oppression. I would aggree that it is better for America to have an oppressed middle east and no terrorism, but supporting oppressive governments doesn’t do anything to end terrorism. It makes us look bad and encourages terrorism. What I am saying when I talk about Osama Bin Laden and why he attacked us is being clear about reality, because people have this “terrorists hate our freedom” mindset. Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda and any other Islamist organization do not care what we do in the USA, they care about their homeland. We are a target because of our intervention, which is why other nations, like Switzerland or Denmark, don’t recieve the attention we do.

I sure as hell don’t defend the Vietnamese, but what they did right was identify their base and give them what they needed to survive. The southern government abused the majority of the citizens, and since we supported them, the Vietnamese people, who wanted the fighting to stop, supported the Vietcong and not the USA. We were not supporting democracy, we were supporting despotism, and as such could not be victorious. We were not fighting for the side with the best intentions there, nor are we now, we were fighting on the side of cruel despots versus violent unstable communists. Now we support cruel despots versus terrorists. The despots only want to be able to live fat and happy and stay rich. The Islamist movement wants to overthrow these powers and establish a theocracy. We are supporting one form of oppression, which is the status quo and unpopular, in order to suppress another, which is the revolutionary movement, and therefor attractive to those who suffer under the status quo, which is a majority of the people living in these countries.

Posted by: iandanger at May 4, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #145422


If you have any proof that this movie is actually and exactly what happened in the flight 93 this day, it’s really time to share all them with us.
Otherwise, it’s time to admit that’s just a fiction movie based on true story about which many things is totally unknown. And will remain unknown forever.

That movie was so(ooooo) intense and amazing that, when you leave the movie theatre, you will know for sure who the real enemy is. For sure!

I guess, like in way too much blockbusters, everybody will figure out very easily who the real enemy in the movie is. For sure!
Doesn’t make it a *historic* fact.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 4, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #145423


I will agree to disagree with you and your theories about Vietnam. Liberal foreign policy to my knowledge has us turning to the UN to solve our problems, no thanks! Diplomacy? Yes. Talking before war? Yes. Following in the footsteps of Neville Chamberlain? Never. What I cannot abide is the idea of OBL feeling oppressed and fighting a secular leadership to become free. Please research his “base”. I highly recommend you read through the JIHAD WATCH website as well as WALID PHARES book “Future Jihad” and his website. I don’t follow any one line of thought or party line, I am my own man and will not spout or rant, at least not without thoroughly investigating that which ticks me off or peeks my interest. As I stated earlier, freedom to these fundamentalist terrorist organizations is total world control, in the hands of a select few clerics or mullahs, with no wiggle room for anyone be they arab or not. You will show complete allegiance to sharia law, total obedience to the Quran and the Traditions of 6th century clerics, period. The only other alternative is death, Quran’s words not mine. There may well be “moderate” muslims in the world but when push comes to shove they will tow the jihadi line before turning on Allah. We could have been silent and isolated for the last 100 years and sooner or later the islamist would demand an answer, “Allah or death”? I much prefer freedom!

Posted by: JR at May 4, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #145431

So I leave for a few weeks come back and see that the right column writers are still out on their little witch hunt for witches to burn at the altar of patriotism. Looks like nothing’s change.

Posted by: chantico at May 4, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #145433

I believe US intentions usually are good. Not always but most of the time. You can talk about how the US government supports this despot and that despot but their intentions are not to suppress some people. Usually its choosing a lesser evil over another. Our government has to make those choices everyday.

Again, I don’t understand how you can live in such an evil place (based on your descriptions). If it’s so bad here, maybe there is somewhere better you would prefer to be. What allegiance do you have to this country? At least half the country disagree with your beliefs, your not going to change it to fit your needs in your lifetime. I used to think I could do that but I’ve realized through the years, me by myself is not going to do it. What I can do is be the best person I can be and affect those around me. Take care of my family and prepare my children for the world their growing up in. Believe and respect God and try to do good things.

Hope exists but its not in the past. We need to move forward and further the human existence. That’s my philosophy. You will spend all your time being mad at the world and before long you will be old and have nothing good to show for it.

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #145435


Brilliant post. Your so wise. Couple glances at the blog and you think everyone on the right is on a witch hunt?

What are you talking about?

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #145438


The one and only reason for anybody’s desire to live here in our system of government is for economic opportunity.

In order to preserve that opportunity, we, as a nation, have engaged in a great many VERY evil things…not just supporting rather vile despots that terrorized and destabilized entire regions (most notably Latin America) but also we have engaged in efforts to maintain relative economic status with various nations so as to keep the profits obtainable as a result, coming. Mexico is a prime example of that. We have strong armed them into much of the economic position they are in now. Before we rammed the Bucareli agreement down their throats in 1920’s (while they were in the throws of a revolution), Mexico had a growing and thriving economy that was expanding as fast or faster than our own. We nipped them in the bud and we are now reaping what we have sewn as a result.

P{ointing these things out does NOT mean I hate my country! Far from it. It means I want to take responsibility for them. Ignoring them only preserves the status quo and ensures that old problems grow into bigger problems in the future.

Such sentiment is what the loyalists were pushing during our revolution. Thank God enough Americans were able and willing to QUESTION, so that we were able to bring our independence from England to fruition.


Posted by: RGF at May 4, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #145440

I love how the libbies can’t except the fact that there are real heroes in this country and these passengers are certainly just that: real, freaking heroes. Here’s the proof that this movie is based on factual information to give us the best account of what happened.

“The 9/11 commission (through testimony, tapes of passengers’ phone calls, and the flight data recorders recovered from the crash) determined that crew and passengers, alerted through phone calls to loved ones, attempted to subdue the hijackers. The 9/11 commission concluded that the hijackers crashed the plane to keep the crew and passengers from gaining control. The 9/11 commission report states that pilot LeRoy Homer, flight attendants CeeCee Lyles and Sandra Bradshaw and passengers Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett, Andrew Garcia, Jeremy Glick, and Richard Guadagno, among others, fought back against the hijackers.”

So, like I said before, this movie is intense, gripping and non-political. You will see, for your own eyes, who the real enemy is and who the real heroes and victims truly are. Sorry libs, you’re debunked with this one. Serves you right…

Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #145442

I think its about time we stop talking about how bad America is and what its done wrong. It’s all I see, a lot of talk. No action, just talk.

Why can’t you pick on another country for a day. Talk about how bad England is or France or Germany or Italy and so on … It just gets so old to continuously here from people who say they love this country (or maybe they don’t) but love to complain about it.

I’m not running from my past or the country’s past, I accept it and move on. Try to learn from it. I’m not going to sit around and harp on it.

Yeah, yeah United States is so awful, they are the oppressors, they support oppressors, their going to wipe out the human race, yada yada, blah blah. Get over it. Is there some sort of victim syndrome here? Stop being a victim and work through the process.

The truth is people actually like this country. Many love it. Many thinks its great. Most would never want to leave it. Why can’t you just admit it? Only here for economic reasons,yeah right. How about you wouldn’t be able to do most of the things you do in this country in most of the other countries? How about you have more freedoms in this country than in any other country?

Be proud of your country for once. Join a civil service, serve in the military, or serve in a political post. Do something. Just stop complaining and whining about how bad this country is. When you’ve served your country and gotten no satisfaction out of it, then talk to me.

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #145443


They don’t want to hear about heroes. That’s too positive. They just want stories about how bad everything is in this country.

Frankly, I think they care less about those folks on that plane because it doesn’t fit their agenda. It creates a picture of Americans fighting back against terrible people. They don’t want to see anything that puts Americans in a positive light. You get the feeling this is some sort of comedy in their eyes.

Posted by: CFT at May 4, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #145446


The truth is people actually like this country. Many love it. Many thinks its great. Most would never want to leave it.

Why do you think we’re “complaining” about it…becuase we LOVE this country…we don’t want to see it go the way of Rome…we’d like to see a nice little democratic republic that actually stands for human rights and international law…we see that invading sovereign countries who have not attacked our soil or deposing democratically elected leaders in other nations leads us away from our Constitution and our Founding Fathers’ promise…

Posted by: Lynne at May 4, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #145453


I love how the libbies can’t except the fact that there are real heroes in this country and these passengers are certainly just that: real, freaking heroes.
Yes, there were heros on that plane. Yes, they almost certainly tried to take the plane back from the terrorists. The terrorists are the enemy. Ask anyone in this country (which you haven’t bothered to, obviously) and they’ll agree. Show me one single place in this topic where anyone said the passengers were not heros and that the terrorists were not bad. You can’t? Color me surprised.

The movie is fiction, plain and simple. It’s based on our understanding of what happened, but our understanding is slim. Read the director’s commentary about the film—he even uses the word slim. It’s more than fair to say that 90-95% of the movie is made up. That doesn’t mean that the passengers on that plane weren’t heros—we all accept that. All it means is that you’re wasting our time with this drivel, and trying to pick a fight with us “libbies” again when we’re all on the same page with this one.

Get over it, please! If you have to pick a fight, at least do it over a real issue. As it is, you take the straw man argument to a whole new level.

Let me say it one more time, to be absolutely clear:


Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #145456

democratic republic of congo,no. democratic rebublic of east timor, no. democratic peoples republic of korea (north korea) no. or did you want to say Federal Republic of the United States. and also considered a constitutional Republic, Yes. if you don’t believe me check out wikipedia, under, United States.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 4, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #145480

“They don’t want to hear about heroes. That’s too positive…they care less about those folks on that plane because it doesn’t fit their agenda. It creates a picture of Americans fighting back against terrible people. They don’t want to see anything that puts Americans in a positive light.”

I (really) wish that weren’t true; however, you couldn’t be more correct. Some of those people, some who appear here on this blog, can (easily) be recognized b/c they’ll ignore the facts and dimiss this movie (WHICH THEY HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN YET!); even though it is based on actual evidence researched from the past 4 years. Here’s my proof:

Yet, they’ll believe the Farenheit movie; that “fat slob w/ the baseball cap” is telling the truth in their eyes. They’ll make sure they see that movie, but, the real American heroes, no way, it’s just fictious. Oh, ok.

Just remember, those people have nothing and are nothing, keep your head up and keep on debunking them. It’s real easy to debunk them to; all you have to do is defend America (with facts) and they’ll do everything in their power to discredit it.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #145495

Certain people here are in denial. They can’t respond directly to my post because it discredits and debunks their irrational hatred for “libbies”. It’s a shame they can’t see that terrorists are the real enemy—not liberals. Unfortunately, until they realize this, the terrorists have won.

Here’s some more for you, armchair:


I’m not surprised I enjoyed the film. After all, it was conceived and created by a liberal:
Paul Greengrass Interview On Rush Limbaugh (United 93 Director Presentation Alert)

Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #145503


As long as there are links to stories being offered…

Posted by: RGF at May 4, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #145514


That website was more in the “conspiracy theory” realm, rather than based on facts. The “evidence” section didn’t talk about the blackbox recorder; the calls from the passengers to loved ones; or the cockpit recordings that are factual and have been confirmed. Not to mention, the testimonies from the air traffic control towers and the military command centers weren’t mentioned. What’s up with that?!

And, to those that think that b/c the United 93 movie was done by a liberal, doesn’t mean that the “modern liberalism” nut jobs in this country are in unison with this liberal or other “sane” liberals. In fact, if more liberals could look at that event in similar fashion to this guy and most other Americans (regardless of their political ideology), there wouldn’t be a problem at all; there would be a solution. And, Rush was absolutely correct when he said:

“The way to deal with these people is to kill them, which is what happened on United 93…There weren’t any votes, “Should we? Shouldn’t we?” They just gathered together. Todd Beamer and these people led the movement. They set out, had a plan, and they executed it, and the portrayal of that in this movie is inspirational. You just want to stand up and cheer, and there is no sympathy whatsoever for the bad guys in this movie.”

Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #145518
In fact, if more liberals could look at that event in similar fashion to this guy and most other Americans (regardless of their political ideology), there wouldn’t be a problem at all; there would be a solution.
The truth is, rahdigly, that except for the fringe nut jobs you are referring to, liberals do look at it the same way. And if you really want to hinge your beliefs about liberals on what the fringe nut jobs say, then at least be consistent. There are at least as many fringe nut jobs I could drag out from the conservative closet—in fact Rush would probably be one of them.

If you could come to realize this there wouldn’t be a problem at all; there would be a solution.

Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #145521

Keep up the good work Iandanger,the world needs more americans like you.

Posted by: OZ at May 4, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #145527

I offered the link mostly toungue in cheek, rahdigly. It seems so scary as to be far fetched. The website, if you go through it completely, offeres the suggestion that there was no flight 93 at all. Supposedly there was no real evidence of a plane crash in the field in Pennsyvania where 93 was supposed to have gone down. Check all the links at the bottom of the evidence section. Make of it what you will.

That being said, I only offered it because I’m tired of all the rediculous opinion oriented garbage that gets linked on this blog as though it was evidence. So…as long as we are in the realm of the rediculous…

Take no more shots at Liberals, rahdigly. It makes you sound like an unthinking zealot. Is that what you want to see you as?

Posted by: RGF at May 4, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #145534

>>Take no more shots at Liberals, rahdigly. It makes you sound like an unthinking zealot.
Posted by: RGF at May 4, 2006 11:11 PM

Not sounds like…is, and has always been…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 4, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #145541


all you have to do is defend America (with facts)
Since you earlier claimed such outlandish “facts” as Henry Ford was a commie, and there were no such things as Republican isolationists, I’d suggest that you aren’t exactly a subject matter expert on “facts”, dude.

You accused the left in general of denigrating the heroes of Flight 93. So show us the facts that most of the left did so. Don’t change the subject and don’t try to weasel out of it. Show us the facts.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 5, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #145545

joebagodonuts wrote:

[As for] The death squads — don’t know much in detail about them either. But cant see any significance to them.

Joe, both iandanger and Lynne beat me to the punch, somewhat (don’t worry - I’m not going to punch you!), but you asked a serious question, and made a revealing remark - right side by side - and that is not only significant but heartening to me, so I will answer you with every iota of faithfull sincerity I possess. You added:

If we go back far enough, we can see all kinds of mistakes—its pretty easy to do in hindsight.

Lynne almost had the quote by Santayana correct:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

And iandanger’s point was the same: had America learned from Past Mistakes, it would not so frequently Repeat Them, to the incalculable misery and human suffering of both Americans and peoples around the world whom our Heavy Hand has touched.

Joe, this goes along as the corollary of something else I often post here, about Conservatives:

“A Foolish Consistency is the hobgoblin of Little Minds.”

What Ralph Waldo Emerson meant is that, to err is merely Human - but to consistently err, in the same way, over and over again is the mark of the veriest Idiot. It is what Homer SImpson routinely does (and that is exactly the point that the Simpson’s creators are trying to make: Foolish Consistency hurts.

When it is done as part of National Policy, it kills.

What impact did Reagan’s funding and support of the Central and South American Death Squads have?

Well, aside from the shameful horror of so many dead Children, Nun, Priests, and Natives, it set the tone for today’s backlash against the U.S.! Read the papers! Did you not see Bush fail utterly in his recent trip to extend Globalism in the Southern Hemisphere? What a spectacle! The Emperor of Nova Roma unable to get any support from the former Vassal States! And, it will get worse.

But let me give you a more clear-cut example, torn from the pages of History:

You mentioned the Bay Of Pigs (which, by the way, had more to do with Allen Dulles than it did with Jack Kennedy!)

Did you know that Fidel Castro came to the United States in 1959, following his successful overthrow of the Batista dictatorship? He was set to meet with President Dwight Eisenhower, who instead snubbed him and went to play a game of golf instead; then Vice President Richard Nixon met with him cursorily and further insulted him: you see, both the Mob and Big Money in the U.S. had lost ground when Castro overthrew the tyrant, Fulgencio Batista. Castro came prepared to have a full and thriving relationship with the U.S., including plenty of Trade. After his public rebuke, however, he did the only thing he could do: he `phoned Nikita Kruschev and made a deal with Soviet Russia instead.

The point is, Russia was not his First Choice - WE were! And then look what happened as a result.

Now let’s consider Ho Chi Minh, who had worked with the U.S. OSS (forerunner of the CIA) in 1945, and was fond of quoting the Declaration Of Independence. Ho had hoped that his connection with the U.S. as an Ally would enable him to fight French Colonialism in the 1950’s. Instead of meeting with him and coming to terms which would include, among aother things, a U.S. Airbase near Hanoi, we chose to snub him instead, and he turned to the Chinese, whom he had previously driven out of North VietNam in the late 1940’s. And look what happened then as a result of that colossal blunder!

So the U.S. has a clear History of Consistent Foolishness: we had an opportunity to both avoid the VietNam War and the Cuban Missile Crisis (and everything else related to Cuba: the Bay Of Pigs, the Embargo, Elian Gonzalez, etc.), but to increase our Global Presence during the Cold War instead. All because, at the time, Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and J. Edgar Hoover had a Red Stick up their collective asses and couldn’t see the Forest for the Trees

And so, my dear Joe, you see (I hope) what bearing the Mistakes of the Past have on the Present and the Future. Here are some Modern Mistakes we are making, and some of their likely Consequences:

Failure to sign the Kyoto Treaty: failure to hold any sway, Economically or Politically, with any other Nations in the upcoming Global Warming Crisis.

Invasion of Iraq: inability to get any support for what might be necessary actions in: Iran, Syria, Korea, or the Taiwan Sea.

Refusal to eliminate the Death “Penalty”: utter inability to Extradite anyone - even Terrorists - from Civilised Allies, such as the UK.

Refusal to recognise authority of World Court: inability to deal, either Politically or Economically, with other nations in the sphere of International Law, including our Allies.

These blind, irrational decisions to try to have it Our Way or the Highway have resulted in us having to Hit The Road on more than one occasion: remember those Helicopters being pushed overboard in Saigon Harbour? Remember the Bay Of Pigs? Remember Bush’s cold “welcome” at the Summit Of The Americas?

Here’s another Quote for you to remember, when you think of U.S. Policy and the effects it has:

Waht goes around, comes around

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 5, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #145547

Er, um - eh, that is: What - eh? Mmm.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 5, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #145554

I realize this is a bit off subject and I certainly apologize, however, this is freakin’ hilarious…no matter who you are. Now I have not substantiated all of this, but a lot is true.

Dear Red States…

We’ve decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we’re taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren’t aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota , Wisconsin, Michigan , Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ole’ Miss.

We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states constituents pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we’re going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they’re apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we’re not willing to spend our resources in Bush’s Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation’s fresh fruit, 95 percent of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at Blue state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90
percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws or wars, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and
61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

Peace out,

Blue States

Posted by: Chris at May 5, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #145560

then, he high fives his roommate, and takes another hit off the joint, and laughs, and coughs, while trying to find some food, but wtf there is no food in this place ,so we must make a munchie run, while driving for food a cop pulls them over for going 15 mph in a 45 mph zone, and puts them in jail and takes the car away…

Posted by: FA STEPHENS at May 5, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #145575
The way to deal with these people is to kill them, which is what happened on United 93…

You do know that suicidal terrorists don’t need any help to kill themselves?
Sure, flight 93 passengers and crew were heroes. But none survived. Like the ones in the three others planes involved this doomed day.
And none of the terrorists in these planes did either.
If what matter to you is that someones stood up and tried to fight against terrorists, many think what matter more is how many innocents survived. If any.

In these cases: none.
But, yeah, sure, terrorists were killed.

There weren’t any votes, “Should we? Shouldn’t we?” They just gathered together. Todd Beamer and these people led the movement. They set out, had a plan, and they executed it, and the portrayal of that in this movie is inspirational. You just want to stand up and cheer, and there is no sympathy whatsoever for the bad guys in this movie.

And everybody died. Bad and good guys.
Except that only bad guys agreed to die.
Did the passengers *all* agreed in their plan to die too? Did they *all* know that survive was not an option? We can’t know. And we will never know for sure.
IMO, I guess they were fighting terrorists in hope to take back plane control and survive, not because someone should kill them because they’re the bad guys, the _ennemy_.
In fine, something, not someone, kill them all: the ground.

Hint: stand up good guys and nuke the planet. That would surely kill every terrorists. Then cheer. In heaven (if you’re a believer) or in void (if you’re not).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 5, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #145582

Wasn’t the terrorist still at the controls at the time of the crash?

Did the terrorists take over the plane to kill Americans?

Did the terrorists kill Americans?

Who ‘won’, the Americans who were killed, or the terrorists who killed them?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 5, 2006 7:40 AM
Comment #145593


The bravery of the people on Flight 93 prevented the bad guys from killing even more people. It is sad that they could not save their own lives too, but we can honor their them. If they had done nothing but passively go along, they still would have died, but so would many more Americans.

We should make every effort to denigrate and delegitimatize the terrorist and to show them for what they are: bad and dangerous, but fundamentally screwed up losers. Did you see the Zarqawi bloopers. The man doesn’t even know how to hold a gun. He is good with a knife, however, as long as he is murdering men and women who are tied up and not fighting back.

Posted by: Jack at May 5, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #145595

“Who ‘won’, the Americans who were killed, or the terrorists who killed them?”

That would be Americans. They foiled the facist pigs’ plan and made them crash the plane into the ground; instead of into a National landmark in DC.

It amazing how someone could (or would) even ask that question. That’s boderline sick, dude.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 5, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #145610


Not to speak for Marysdude, but I would take away his point that everyone on the flight is DEAD now. None of the people on Flight 93 “won” anything other than the honor we might give them. But I’m sure all of Al Queida said prayers for the hijackers. And as for Zarkasshole; how’d you think Bushie or Donnie or Connie do with an M-60? He’s their leader, what soldier gives a shit about his weapons certifications? We need to kill him not show idiotic videos. Why do people need to look at the mundane to “feel good”?


wtf are you talking about? So the terrorists on 1/4 of the planes didn’t succeed. It’s a very simplistic world view to look at 1 skirmish and declare victory when we lost the other 3. Kind of like “Mission Accomplished”.

Posted by: Dave at May 5, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #145654

I specifically remember a column here in Redland that said it was “too soon” for a movie about 9/11 and that America “wasn’t ready” to see 9/11 “exploited.” It was predicted to be an awful movie, and to bomb.

I now can’t wait for the “best. movie. evar.” follow up here.

Irony can be so ironic.

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 5, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #145656

Cool, Google found the relevant post immediately.


“I wonder more about whether we as a nation are ready for a movie on such a topic. There is not many people who would be eligible to attend this movie who don’t know about the events of that tragic day. While personal stories are interesting, I don’t want to see them made into a cliche. Are we as a nation ready to relive those days, even through the lens of a movie, no matter how tastefully done the movie is?

My answer is no, we are not. In a time when the modern attentions span is approaching zero, this memory remains somewhat fresh, if for no other reason than the sheer horror of the day. Will movies be made about 9/11? Sure, and they probably should, when the memory starts to fade, when the tragedy begins to be lost the the fog of time, and when the pain of that day subsides. When will that time be? I don’t know, but less than five years seems too short a time. The celebration of heroes is an important subject in any country’s collective memory and mythology, but such celebration should not come with the cost of opening a psychic scab covering a national wound that has not healed.”

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 5, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #145673


Don’t you think you should at least not defend the bad guys for once by trying to make your own people look bad?

I know from your previous postings that you are not anti-American, but please do read what you wrote and think of how it sounds.

Think of how you would describe the Dolittle raid. Too little too late? Or Washington at Trenton. Just trying to show he could still do something?

I was in Washington on Sept 11. I don’t know exactly where Flight 93 might have landed. These guys may have saved my life. I consider that something good.

Posted by: Jack at May 5, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #145681

The comment was about the passengers aboard United 93; so, that’s WTF I was talking about. Those passengers displayed bravery and resilency. I was giving them praise and, at the same time, putting down those fascist pigs that got a taste of the American spirit. Yeah! Yet, all that has been said is how it’s ficticious; it’s only 1 of 4 planes; it’s too soon for that; it’s just a movie. Whatever! Did you wiseguys say the same thing about Farenheit 9/11? Why don’t you “bravehearts” try answering that one.

The libbies on this site keep trying to pass over the good news about, not only the United 93 movie, but the passengers themselves. It’s ok. Keep telling us who you are. Anti-Americanism cannot be hidden; it’s shows in those (“innocent”) sarcastic comments you make. Keep it up.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 5, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #145683


Where did I defend the terrorists? What I said was “have some real world perspective”. I think the United 93 passengers were heroic in their actions and saved lives on the ground. I also think the terrorists are no more than suicide-murderers. Unfortunately, there are millions of people who hold just the opposite views.

For the bloopers, I have seen them. IMHO the contention that we have to show Zarkassi as a “loser” helps no one but those who need to feel better about our fiasco in Iraq. The people we need to convince are the terrorist base of support, and we need to convince them we’re the good guys. The generals presentation was grade “B” pablum for Fox viewers. We are not doing the job we need to at even an “F” grade when the best we have is a mundane home video.

Posted by: Dave at May 5, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #145733


I have been thinking ridicule for a while. It is a very useful form of attack. You may have read the section in “Freakonmoics” where he talks about how ridicule helped delegitimize the KKK. When you find out about all their silly titles and rituals they just seem pathetic. During the Cold War we used to pass around Soviet jokes. Dems do it with Bush. It works.

I think we show too much respect to terrorists like Zarqawi. They are not great men. They are small men whose main claim to fame is that they are willing to do nastier things than most others. They are Charles Manson. They are the KKK. And the fact that someone like Zarqawi, the great warrior, doesn’t know how to fire a gun and that his great warrior helpers think you can grab a hot barrel is something we can ridicule. If we attack them by saying how bad they are, it increases their status among some of their followers. If we can get people to make fun of them, it shows them for the pathetic, if murderous losers that they are.

I try not to employ it here on Watchblog, but I am pretty good at ridicule when I need to be. Humor works. I have used it to shut down critics when I have given presentations and to take down people I thought needed it. We should not undercut it when we can use it for our enemies. Ridicule is the thing that people like Zarqawi fear the most. He is a ridiculous guy.

We should respect these terrorists not as men, but as we might respect a particularly intense infestation of cockroaches. They are hard to get rid of, but their only virtue is their tenacity.

Think of Zarqawi as dead until we make him so, then think of him no longer.

I would tell the joke about Zarqawi and the camel, but it is not appropriate on an open site. You can imagine.

Posted by: Jack at May 5, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #145735

Wow this post got insane. Sorry I’ve been away, my computer’s power cable is kaput, and since its an apple its going to take me half an age to get a new one…

Where were we?

Oh right, disagreeing on the nature of terrorism. My point in all the posts above is that terrorism flourishes in oppressed regions because those people are under oppression. Do these people fund the terrorist movements? Of course not, they don’t have money. The money issue is a complicated one, since, for example, Kadaffi has been active in supporting and funding islamist terrorism abroad, but suppresses it within his own borders, because he wants to take over the Arab world, and Islamist governments in the region which had relied on his assistance would be beholden to him. But that doesn’t change the philosophical nature of the terrorist movement, which seeks to overthrow the dictatorships which currently exist across the muslim world and replace them with theocracies. I never claimed they wanted freedom, unless you consider theocracy freedom. They believe these bad times are the result of impiousness, and seek to purify their populations through strict religious rule. They really are no different from people like Sam Brownback, they just don’t have the means to attempt their religious rule democratically, and instead use violence and evil to do their work. Its fundamentalism, its a serious problem, but my point has always been that supporting dictatorships in order to defeat terrorism will just lead to escalation. Terrorism is a symptom. Freedom is the cure. Are we clear now?

As for criticizing the United States, I think it is entirely reasonable to state what I disagree with. We are debating these issues after all. Someone suggested I go after Britain or France or someone else. I regularly riff on China because of Tibet (I’m a devout Buddhist, I don’t like seeing my religion persecuted) and other serious issues, I blame everything that goes on in the middle east now on Britain, and most of Africa on France, the rest on Britain. Everyone makes mistakes, the after effects of colonialism happened to be bad enough that the west is directly implicated in much of the largest conflicts going on in the world now. Being aware of United States policy, keeping everything which doesn’t get attention in history books in the top of your mind allows you to understand how the rest of the world sees your nation. We need to acknowledge our mistakes and move on, instead of acting self righteous, which is how we are seen now. And as for why I still live here? Because I love it here, it is my home, and no one can take that from me. Part of my family predates European settlement, and I think it would be a little unreasonable for me to leave my homeland because corrupt politicians do things I disagree with. Another thing, I do think that a lot of the time the United States acts with the best intentions, but our leadrers tend to take too black and white a view of situations and support leaders who are as evil as the evil we are fighting. That is what I meant when I said neither side had good intentions, I was not reffering to the United States. Not to mention, I greatly appreciate all the good our work has done for the world, I simply seek to see things as they truly happened, not through rosey glasses. I hate whigish history, history as a fable of how good things were and how great we all are, its ignorant and tends to be racist and self aggrandizing, plus some of the worst basically treats my ancestors, who suffered and died under racist policies, as necessary victims for the attainment of some heavly ordained empire which is America. If you wish to look at the world differently, it is certainly your right, but we are likely going to disagree on many points.

Finally, United 93. I am not seeing this movie because I believe it is immoral to turn the heroism and deaths of those people (and by proxie all those who died in the world trade center) into a product to market at people. This has nothing to do with what happened on the plane (we only have a general idea, the movie is a work of fiction). I don’t doubt that the writters did a great deal of research on the topic, they were being paid quite well to do their research. I’m not going to state that the movie is an absolute work of exploitation or Hollywood fluf, because I haven’t seen it. I also never saw Farenheight 911 in theaters (I caught it on HBO when my dad-a hardcore conservative-was watching it), and I happened to think that movie was an overstylized over emotional heavy handed work. What does a movie have to do with any of this? The answer is nothing, it is a film based on a tragedy. A FILM. MOVIE. We aren’t talking about the 9-11 commission, the Blackbox recorder, or anything else which is hard evidence, it is a dramatization. Stop pushing the merchandise so hard, you wind up sounding like one of the assholes they pay to promote their products on messageboards and blogs.

I think that about catches me up…anything I missed?

Posted by: iandanger at May 5, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #145736


I couldn’t agree with you more about Zarqawi and terrorists in general, we need to make them out to be the fools they are. I think that is a key part of defeating Wahabism.

PS freakonomics is a great book.

Posted by: iandanger at May 5, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #145754

“Do these people fund the terrorist movements? Of course not, they don’t have money. The money issue is a complicated one, since, for example, Kadaffi has been active in supporting and funding islamist terrorism abroad, but suppresses it within his own borders, because he wants to take over the Arab world, and Islamist governments in the region which had relied on his assistance would be beholden to him.”

They do fund terrorism. You should read the book “They just don’t get it” by Colonel David Hunt. In the section “Dirty Money” he clearly explains how these terrorists are funded:

“In Islam, zakat is the the giving of money and gifts to the needy. It is at the core of Muslim religious participation. Most Muslims give zakat through state-sponsored collection agents or to organizations that distribute the money to a number of charities. The well-meaning Muslim has no input or control as to whom or where his money winds up. This is the problem. What the very generous Muslim man has unwittingly done is provide dierect aide to terrorists, because much of the money is diverted, skimmed off, or provided to groups for the purchase of weapons and explosives or used for operating costss of terrorist training camps.”

Now, he goes in depth on this issue and how, until recently, it’s been untraceable.

As for your point on Kadffi, people have to understand that Kadffi is a corrupt leader; he’s not a madman. Corrupt leaders will do what it takes to stay in power; madmen will do what it takes to accomplish their sick, twisted goals of destroying people and the world for that matter. Hitler, Saddam and the Iranian Prez (the mouth piece for the Mullahs) are perfect examples of madmen. You can’t reason with them (or corrupt them); you have to take them out! Kadffi did an about face b/c he would have been taken out and lose control of Libya.

“A FILM. MOVIE. We aren’t talking about the 9-11 commission, the Blackbox recorder, or anything else which is hard evidence, it is a dramatization.”

Yes we are talking about the 9/11 commission report, the blackbox recorder and hard evidence from that day; it’s a close depiction of the events of that day. So, stop trying to thwart it, you’ll only fail in the end.

“The 9/11 commission (through testimony, tapes of passengers’ phone calls, and the flight data recorders recovered from the crash) determined that crew and passengers, alerted through phone calls to loved ones, attempted to subdue the hijackers. The 9/11 commission concluded that the hijackers crashed the plane to keep the crew and passengers from gaining control…The 9/11 Commission ruled that the actions of the crew and passengers prevented the destruction of the Capitol building or the White House by causing the hijackers to abort the attack on their intended target.”

Posted by: rahdigly at May 5, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #145758

When I said they aren’t funding the terrorists, they reffered to the people living in poverty who give material aid to terrorists (housing and hiding them, feeding them, etc), and support them. It is because these masses that terrorism is able to survive in the middle east.

As for your MOVIE, which is BASED on the events of September 11th 2001, you are not addressing my point, that it is wrong to turn the deaths and heroism of those people into a profit margin for a movie studio. I’ll not even get into the unreliability of quoting from wikipedia, since anyone can make changes or updates on that site it is not a schoolarly source, my point has nothing to do on what source material the writers BASED their movie on. They created something which is several hours long off of descriptions of phone calls and the information they were given from the blackbox recorder. No one knows exactly what happened in the air, there is speculation, but making a film out of it erases all the lines of possibility and makes them certainty. Even you seem to be caught up in the idea that the film is the exact version of the truth. Film history puts the person IN the past AS IT HAPPENED, but we cannot know what happened from the evidence we have.

Am I saying that the plane wasn’t brought down by the passengers? No. Am I saying those men and women are not heroes? No. Am I criticizing someone using their sacrifice to get fat and rich? Hell Yes.

I criticize the movie and you act as though I am saying it is presenting things which are untrue, I never said it was patently false, I said that we don’t know and it, like all movies, treats the situation like we do know. I agree with the conclusions of the 9-11 commission, but that has NOTHING to do with thinking the movie should not have been made.

Posted by: iandanger at May 5, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #145762

Ok, forget Wikipedia, dispute the 9/11 commission report then.

Thank you for clarifying the “they” in funding terrorists; I see what you’re saying. Though I would still recommend you read that book.

And, I’m not sure where the “getting fat off the movie proceeds” came from, I’m talking about a gripping, intense movie about the accounts of the passengers aboard United 93 that day. To me, they represent the American spirit; they weren’t prepared for something like that and they did everything in their power, knowing they were going to die, to take control of that aircraft. And, they did succeed in thwarting the terrorists agenda by not allowing them to crash the plane into a building in DC. They are true heroes and, if you watch that movie, that is (exactly) how those passengers were portrayed. You route for them as if they are actually going to pull it off, even though you know the ending. And, when the credits roll, most people in the movie theatre are crying and there is a tremendous silence when you leave. It really takes you back to that numbing feeling many of us felt that day. That’s why I recommend the movie. Yet, some on this site won’t allow themselves to conceive of that notion; they just dissed and dismissed it right away. Oh well, their loss.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 5, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #145774


Sorry, but as ian inadvertently pointed out, I/we went off track. My point remains that the best thing the gov’t has for us today is Zaqwabu screwing up with his firing a gun. His supporters don’t care and we already hate him. I interpreted your post as emphasizing how rediculous Zabbodobie is as a militant. I don’t think it’s your focus but neither do I think it’s anything worth refering to.
Ridicule is fine as part of an overall strategy. What is that strategy and why isn’t it working?

Posted by: Dave at May 5, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #145786

looks like anti-americanism isn’t by itself. Looks like another kenedy got away with it. Maybe the whole family is addicted. i know it was that damn Bush that caused it.

Posted by: lm at May 5, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #145787

Jack informed us that:

I was in Washington on Sept 11.

Lobbying for the Pulp/Paper Industry?

Are most Lobbyists named “Jack?”


Posted by: Betty Burke at May 5, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #145791

God help us if the democrats run america. Peace through Strength. thats the only way.

Posted by: Kip at May 5, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #145797
Yet, some on this site won’t allow themselves to conceive of that notion; they just dissed and dismissed it right away. Oh well, their loss.
And rahdigly continues to shadow box with the evil “libbies”…
Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #145873


I’m still waiting for you to provide “facts”.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 6, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #145875


in the late 70’s when Reagan was running against Carter, he took issue with “Tax and spend liberlas.” That was more than 25 years ago!

Now we have Bush (AND KIP AND RAHDIGLY) continuing to argue along with the ghost of Reagan’s argument from the late ’70s while they simultaneously argue that the Dems have no new ideas.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.


Posted by: RGF at May 6, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #145920


“God help us if the democrats run america.”

God doesn’t seem to be helping much with the Republicans running things either.

Posted by: Rocky at May 6, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #145925

Thanks for the offer. When you wreck your economy with all that great socialism, (think Euro Union and 11% unemployment!), don’t worry, we’ll have a generous guest worker program so that a lucky few of you can come work for us.

Your friends in Texas

Posted by: David C. at May 6, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #145952


Good article. It reflects the point in history where liberals and conservatives spilt on the issues of nationalism and national defense. The Soviet Union, under Poppa Joe Stalin, was busy killing ten million of their citizens while the Nazis only bumped off six million and Americas left naively applauded the creation of a brave, new world in erstwhile Russia.

Furthermore, communist sympathizers (and agents) were highly placed in the US government as both policy makers and bureaucrats during and after WWII. This is verified by the release of previously classified documents that were decoded as part of the Verona Project.

It turns out that McCarthy wasn’t wrong to see commies under every bush.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 6, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #146069


Americas left naively applauded the creation of a brave, new world in erstwhile Russia.
I was not aware that the left applauded Stalin. Can you post a source that documents this applause?
Posted by: Charles Wager at May 7, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #146075

Charles Wager,

Don’t hold your breath.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 7, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #146089

ELliot and Charles

We always like the quote about the Soviet future.

Many lefties also joined the Abe Lincoln brigade

I wrote a whole post explaining why liberals were NOT communists. Some people do, however, cut communists too much slack. Communism and its revolutionary socialist cousin fascism were the twin evils of the 20th century that free peoples, liberal and conservative, had to vanquish. We should no more put a picture of Che on a T-shirt than we would Hitler and no more display the hammer and sickle than the swastika.

Posted by: Jack at May 7, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #146123
We always like the quote about the Soviet future.
The quote is from 1919, years before Stalin’s rule (and barely into Lenin’s).
Many lefties also joined the Abe Lincoln brigade
A couple thousand people, it sounds like. Not all lefties. While a somewhat socialist group, it was not an open supporter of the Soviet Union as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia entry is not very well done, by the way.
Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 4:10 AM
Comment #146168

Gotta love the term, “premature anti-fascists”.

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #146385

This is purely a technical comment, but the swastica has been completely demonized, which I hate, because it is a symbol of power which was used by Native Americans, Asians and many other civilizations, and which was co-opted by Hitler as a symbol for his Aryan movement. I don’t think it or the hammer and sickle should be treated as synonymous with the movements that used them. The hammer and sickle are a symbol of the working class, nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: iandanger at May 8, 2006 9:41 PM
Post a comment