Blog Banter: The Huckupchuck and the JunkYardBlog Go Head to Head on Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Troop Morale in Iraq - Friends, I've been engaged in an interesting debate/discussion with Bryan Preston of the JunkYardBlog. Bryan posted a piece titled "The Traitor's Poison Starts Its Work." This posting discusses the impact of Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 on troop morale. Read the whole piece. The main gist of the posting was Bryan's rather self-congratulatory pat on the back for accurately predicting the negative impact that Moore's movie appears to be having on troop morale. In the comments section of this piece, I take issue with Bryan not on the accuracy of his prediction, but on his assigning full responsibility (and even blame, if you will) on Moore for this result. My first comment on his posting was the following:

Bryan - You sell the intelligence of our soldiers short. Are they not capable of distinguishing lies and exaggerations from their own experiences in Iraq? Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. If these soldiers are on the front lines and really know the truth about things, why would Michael Moore’s movie mean anything to them. I imagine that Moore’s movie resonates with them because they see parallels between what Moore presents and what they experience and think of for themselves. Just like I can read Ann Coulter’s Treason and know it for the “trash” it is, so too can soldiers watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and know it for the “trash” it is. Instead of harping on the need to suppress the “lies of Michael Moore” why don’t you instead harp on the need to educate soldiers in the “truth”? What ever happened to that most conservative of values called individual responsibility for one’s own thoughts and ideas? Again, you do a disservice to the intelligence of soldiers by implying that they are unable to rise above and see through propaganda for themselves. Act like a conservative, would you? And stop whining about how Michael Moore is responsible for soldiers’ minds and thoughts rather than the soldiers themselves.

Bryan responded accordingly:

Jimmy, why do you always play these games of moral equivalence? I bring up Moore, you bring up Coulter, ad infinitum.

When did Ann Coulter make a film depicting enemy propaganda in the middle of a war? There is no correlation between a freelance writer, as often as not shunned by the side she cheers for, and Michael Moore. You’re either a liar or willfully obtuse to make such a comparison. I honestly don’t know which describes you.

One more time. I. Was. There. Those who have never been in the military simply don’t appreciate the crucible of pressure that it is. They don’t understand how sheltered life in the military, especially on the front lines, can be—and by sheltered I mean from the multitude of information sources available to the rest of us. They also don’t understand, because they never bother to try, just how young and inexperienced (in the ways of the world) the average soldier, sailor, airman and Marine truly is. Most of them are away from home for the first time in their lives, having never been to college and having never been exposed to the left’s poisons. They’re idealists, most of them. And put into the hell of war, some of that idealism naturally gets shattered just by the horror they see and live. They have lost friends, may have been wounded themselves. They have missed the births of their first children, and spent a year away from everything they know. They want to understand why.

And along comes Michael Moore, crafty propagandist that he is, and explains it all so plausibly. He tells them in so many words “You went to war for a lie. Your friend died for nothing. It’s your own President you should hate, not that Iraqi over there with the AK-47 pointed at you.” And we offer our troops nothing to counter the lies.

It’s unspeakably cruel to treat them this way, but you don’t care at all about them, do you Jimmy. You don’t care about anything but your narrow and precious view of morality, a morality that allows you to sleep well at night in your pacifist’s den because these troops are bleeding and dying for you.

Yes, our troops are intelligence—the most intelligent fighting force ever built. But they are young and idealistic, and scorched now by the tribulations of war. And on their way home, Michael Moore greets them to tell them that it was all for nothing.

A generation ago, propaganda such as Moore’s fell from the lips of one John F. Kerry, and it helped destroy America’s resolve. We spat on our returning soldiers, and called them baby killers.

We didn’t learn anything from that experience, and we won’t learn anything from this one either. We still mistreat our soldiers.

Before I even had a chance to read and address this first comeback, Bryan added to his initial comment with a follow-up which reads accordingly:

Jimmy, Rhiannon,

Your reactions to this post have proven something to me. I made a prediction—that Moore’s film would disrupt military morale. I took some criticism when I made that prediction, mostly from people who just don’t understand what it’s like to be a junior enlisted in today’s military. That prediction has been proven right—the article linked in this post was written by a soldier in the 1st Infantry, serving in Iraq, and he says that what I predicted is happening. And he didn’t even know I’d made the prediction, so you can’t argue that there’s some kind of collusion going on.

Yet rather than process that truth and deal with it, you attack me and criticize my prediction. Which turned out to be prescient. Why?

Because you refuse to see what’s right in front of your face. You have your understanding of the world, and nothing, not even a contrary truth, can shake it. That has been the hallmark of your entire approach to the war, and not just you individually, but you as members of the left. You refuse to see the truth—that America has dangerous enemies that want to kill us, through no fault of our own. If we let them, they will hand us more 9-11s with numbing regularity. Yet rather than help us defeat them and stay safe, you criticize your own countrymen. You just refuse to see and accept the truth.

I’m convinced you’re unreachable. You won’t know the truth when it blows up your own city. And if we listen to you, that’s exactly what will happen.

If I’ve misread you, explain to me why you’re taking shots at me for this post—which is about a prediction of mine that has borne out—but not the Palestinian car swarm post or any of the other posts here. Why this one, the only one that definitively proves me right and you wrong about something? Why?

[NOTE: Rhiannon is another person who left a critical comment on this discussion board.]

My response was the following:

Bryan - Where in my post have I claimed that you were wrong about your prediction that morale would be negatively affected by this movie? I didn’t. I readily admit that you are right about the end result. The whole purpose of my post was to question your assigning Michael Moore the full, 100% responsibility for this drop in morale. The facts are the following: (1) Michael Moore is a well-known propagandist. Any soldier who sees his movies would (or should) know this. It is to be expected that his movies would be biased. When I saw the film, I was perfectly capable of knowing that this film was biased and that there were certainly other sides of the story that were not represented. My brother, who is a very right-wing conservative, calls the movie a “fiction” (even though he hasn’t seen it). And even assuming that it is a fiction as exptected, why would someone who doesn’t believe its veracity let it affect their own morale. It could only affect morale negatively if viewers buy into it as the truth, or if it resonates with their own experiences or preconceived notions. (2) Soldiers have a choice (I assume) to see the movie or not. I assume that soldiers, like the rest of us, know full well that the movie is critical of the war and the military in a biased way. Soldiers also know that they are in the pressure cooker and that they are homesick and that they miss their loved ones even before they see the movie. Why would they subject themselves to something that would exacerbate their already difficult situation? I repeat … it is not Moore that is to blame for soldiers’ morale. (3) Since the military is an institution of obedience to authority, why were soldiers on duty in Iraq permitted to see this if its effects on morale were so easily predicted. It was not Michael Moore’s decision to show the movie to soldiers, was it? I rather think that it was shown to soldiers because they wanted to see it for themselves.

You want to assign blame for the negative impact on military morale because soldiers see Moore’s movie on Moore himself. It would be one thing if Moore’s movie were force fed to soldiers against their will. It wasn’t.

That’s my beef with your posting. It’s not with the truth of your prediction that Moore’s movie would negatively impact morale. I agree with you and think you are right. My beef is that you think Moore is 100% responsible for this, when I think that the soldiers (all rational adults, capable of discerning right from wrong, fact from fiction, bias from truth) that choose to watch the movie, and their superiors who allow it to be shown to their soldiers on active duty in Iraq, and even the situation of their daily reality in the midst of war that they can relate to the content of the movie — these must also all be accorded some responsibility for the decline in troop morale after viewing this movie as well.

I like to think that soldiers and their superiors are smart enough to be discerning about the bias and the impact that Michael Moore’s film will have. I don’t watch porn flicks and I don’t let my daughters watch movies like the Terminator. Guess why? Because I know that these movies will affect my (and my daughters’) sensibilities and values in ways that I object to. Do I blame Linda Lovelace or Arnold Schwarzenneger (or the directors/producers) because they made these movies? No. If I or my daughters see such things, it is because I want to see such things or permit my daughters to see it. The blame and responsibility, ultimately, is with me. And on this point, Bryan, I wholeheartedly agree with conservatives. Responsibility lies with the individual for their own actions, not with someone else and what they say or do - and certainly not with Michael Moore.

This is currently where the discussion stands. I'll keep you posted and informed of any subsequent exchanges that we may have. It just strikes me as ironic that conservatives typically emphasize individual responsibility when it comes to personal behavior, often times chastising minority group leaders for laying the blame and pointing the finger elsewhere for problems that plague their communities and families and societies. Also, most conservatives extol the virtues of minimal government intervention in the dissemination of information and personal opinion, as biased or as controversial or as misrepresentative as it may be. The contradictions between these traditional conservative positions and the reactions of supposed conservatives like Bryan Preston to Michael Moore's film expose the inconsistencies of thought that often plague rightwingers so caught up in their own little world of warped logic and self-righteous, unidimensional patriotism.

UPDATE: 7/28/2004 3:30pm CST: - Here's the latest exchange between me and the JYB on this subject (citations come from the same comments board linked above. Bryan Preston responded accordingly to my last posting:

Dealing with Moore is pretty simple, actually. If he were shunned by both major parties as a lying pariah not fit to be seen with in public, that would send a pretty powerful message that his tactics, smears and lies are outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse. But that isn’t what is happening. The Democrats lined up a bunch of spinners to lobby the MPAA to lower the film’s rating, and have all but given it their official seal of approval. DNC Chair MacAuliffe espouses Moore’s wacky Afghanistan war theory, and they put him in the presidential box next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC convention.

They have embraced him and his poisons. That sends the wrong message, and puts AAFES in a bind. As I’ve written before, AAFES is in charge of Army and Air Force military theatres. Since F*** 9-11 is embraced by one political party and either ignored or disparaged by the other, AAFES could legitimately be accused of political censorship if it decided not to run the film in its theatres. Just imagine what the Democrats would do with that story—”Bush censors film; keeps military from seeing his dirty laundry” or whatever. It would be THE AD for the Dems this year, even though Bush had no role in “censoring” that piece of trash. So AAFES runs the film, because it has no choice but to run it.

Jimmy, Moore’s poisons are being fed to our troops indirectly by the party you support and want to put in power. All they would have to do is cut their support for him, but they won’t because they risk losing the hard left Naderite vote and that’s a segment they know they can’t win without—so they keep Moore in their fold in spite of the damage he is doing. Contrary to what you say in comments on another post, I don’t believe most Democrats are willingly or knowingly helping the enemy, though I do believe Moore is. But in helping Moore, who is demonstrably helping the enemy, who is your party helping? And who is your party hurting?

The Democrats have made some awful choices in the past year, and one of your worst was to choose to embrace Michael Moore as a legitimate voice for your party. Our troops are paying for that choice.

Here is my reply:

I understand your sentiments, Bryan. But, again, I go back to the question of personal responsibility. Our troops are not paying for the choices of anybody’s but their own. Heck, they’re even not paying for Bush’s “choice” to send them into harm’s way. They are grown-up people who chose for themselves to join the military with full knowledge of the risks that are entailed. They are also fully capable of “choosing” to marginalize and ignore Moore and his film if they want to, especially knowing what kind of propagandist and what kind of politics Moore professes. It seems to me that you so badly want to assign blame for the loss of troop morale to anything else that completely absolves the soldiers, their superiors, and their civilian leaders within the administration for any share of the responsibility in this disheartening quandary we find ourselves in. And Moore is the most obvious target. I don’t know what the military teaches about leadership, but I would imagine that one of the characteristics of leadership is rallying and maintaining troop morale. Moore’s movie certainly hurts that process, but there is responsibility to be shared all around, including personal responsibility by the soldiers themselves as well as responsibility by the Bush Administration for the way it has, in my mind, mishandled the impact of war and its aftermath on the psychological well-being of the soldiers and their families. Just because Moore doesn’t act more responsibly doesn’t mean the Bush amdinistration or the soldiers themselves don’t have to.

I'll keep you updated as long as there is something to update.

Going Mental: "Activist" Judges and the Gay Marriage Debate - As of late, I have been participating in an interesting debate on another blog's comment board. The subject, essentially, is the judiciary's role in the gay marriage debate - and whether judges that rule in favor of gay marriage rights and clearly against majority public will are nothing more than "activist" judges who are "legislating from the bench." I have some thoughts on this subject that I'd like to post here for your perusal and comments.

First, let me start with an observation: conservatives tend to incautiously and incorrectly throw out the term "activist judges" when the judicial system works against what conservatives would like to see decided.

I think popular will does have an important role to play in the process of establishing legal norms that guide our society. This is most clearly reflected in the electoral process through which popular vote determines legislatures and executives. But this does not apply to the judiciary, at least not completely. In our system judges are nominated by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. This is where the "public's" role over the judiciary ends, and for good reason. Once on the bench, such judges ideally function independently of either other branch of government so as to be as impartial as possible arbiters of the law. Sure, judges come in with preconceived bias, but the pressure to "decide" cases more subjectively based on political (as opposed to legal/constitutional) considerations would be much greater if judges were always subject to popular sanction once on the bench.

Furthermore, I make the point again: judges are not on the bench to cater to majority public will. In fact, judges are essentially on the bench for precisely the opposite reason: to protect constitutional rights of individuals against the tyranny of the majority when necessary. Sometimes majority public will is in accord with protecting the constitutional rights of individuals. In such instances, judicial decisions are rarely controversial. But, sometimes majority public will is at odds with the constitutional rights of individuals. And it is during such moments when judges have to be "unpopular." And, thank God, our political system allows them to be "unpopular" without recrimination. The movie "Amistad" comes to mind.

I think the most important issue here in the question of gay marriage is that our disagreement is not with "activist" judges who "legislate from the bench" -- but rather with our individual understanding of marriage in the context of basic, fundamental, inalienable human and civil rights. Some of us (and I would count Andrew Sullivan among this group) see the legal and moral issue of marriage as a critical component of civil liberty and human rights ... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Others don't see it this way, but instead tend to consider marriage (and even the state-protected legal benefits that come with marriage) as a privilege and not a basic, fundamental civil right. And thus the privilege of marriage can be restricted to certain types of relationships (i.e. heterosexual and monogamous and non-incestual) without the question of discrimination against one's human rights ever being at issue.

All that said, the point is that the courts aren't "legislating" marriage from the bench. They are interpreting the constitutionality of the restriction that limits marriage to heterosexuals. Perhaps this will open the door to the other restrictions on marriage (i.e. that they be monogamous and non-incestual). But that is altogether another issue. [As an aside: I see polygamy and incest as questions of choice, whereas I see homosexuality as not a question of choice but as an integral and unalterable part of one's identity as a human being -- a distinction I think the courts will draw as well when it comes to considering incestuous or polygamous marriage as an issue of constitutional and civil rights.] Judges and the courts will deal with this if and when it arises. But rest assured that the same deliberative process will be at work, with judges determining the constitutionality of such restrictions.

Finally, I reiterate: judges that rule in favor of gay marriage are not forcing gay marriage on anybody. Nobody is being forced to reconsider their marriages. And our children who will marry in the future will not be forced to marry anyone they don't love and aren't willing to make such a commitment to. In fact, personally, I see extending marriage to monogamous, non-incestual, homosexuals as strenghtening the institution of marriage, not weakening it. Because I see it this way, I wonder how can anyone who is pro-marriage be against this?

Liberal Lighthouse: Fahrenheit 9/11 - I just saw Michael Moore's film. I don't claim to be a big fan of Michael Moore. He is an instigator and to me he seems completely uninterested in entertaining a critical reflection of the merits of ideologically opposing arguments. BUT, I must admit that I was terribly affected by his picture. No doubt it was a biased take on 9/11 and all its related subjects; but I think it is a must see piece of propaganda. In fact, I would put Moore's film up against any right-wing propaganda film on the same subject and would bet any sum that Moore's film will be the more representative of some of the seedier sides of the Bush Administration. I will say that I think it is unfair of Moore to impute some devious and malicious motive to Bush, especially regarding the reaction to the events of 9/11 as they were unfolding. Bush honestly seemed stunned like the rest of us, stunned into temporary inaction. Human, but understandable. Certainly not sinister, as Moore tries to convey. But that was only one very small part of the picture Moore presents. There are bigger issues about the Bush Administration's basic philosophy of governing and its approach to dealing with terrorism and its rationale for the Iraq war that merit serious and thoughtful and critical consideration. I don't think conservatives, on the whole, are willing to grapple with the seedier sides of the motivations and the selling of the war on terrorism and the war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But there is no doubt that they exist; and all Moore does is to expose them, albeit in his own biased, slanted way. But give me Moore's bias to chew on rather than the willful blindness and cultivated ignorance of conservatives in probing this issue.

In fact, I've heard conservatives who have had the guts and courage to at least see Moore's film criticize its bias and take issue with its cinematic quality as a documentary film experiment; but I've heard very few conservatives take issue with the main critiques of the film. The best I've seen is simply a claim that Moore tells only one side of a complex situation; but rarely do conservatives (except the most intellectually dishonest among them) deny the kernels of truth to his take.

All in all, a very powerful film and one all Americans should watch. Believe me, if the video is released before the election, I will purchase it and hold as many viewings as I can for family and friends before the election. It is a very, very convincing argument against another four years of the Bush/Cheney/Rove conservative agenda.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Cuban Americans and the 2004 election - If John Kerry is smart, he'll focus on Florida's Cuban-American community and wrap that state up. It's all he needs to win, and the fruit is ripe for the picking. George Bush, pandering to a fringe elements of anti-Castro hardliners, has alienated even some of his erstwhile allies in the Cuban-American community in Florida. As Ryan Lizza has written, if John Kerry can kick it up a notch in his attentions and pretensions to George Bush's ill-advised crackdown on Cuban Americans' connections to family in Cuba, then he'll win Florida, and thus the entire election, handily. Can Kerry play this card correctly? I think so. All he has to do is open his mouth more, and I'm sure that whatever comes out, short of an outright love fest with Castro, will be seen as signs of a welcome attention to this community that feels maligned by Bush.

Lagniappe: Why, Sandy, Why?? - ... and in an election year, too.  Sheesh!  Whenever I read a story like this, my cynicism in the entire political establishment runs a notch higher.  Berger is a crook and a fool.  It seems so patently clear that he was trying to thwart the 9/11 Commission's work.  He needs to be held fully accountable, including criminally accountable, and the leadership of the left needs to step up and disavow this man.  His excuses ring hollow, and would, in fact, be laughable if they weren't so sad and pathetic.  As a lefty, saying that I am very disappointed is an understatement.  I am on the edge of being outraged and angered by the damage this man will likely cause to the Democratic chances to recapture the White House and the Congress this coming November.  Shame on you, Sandy Berger.

Lagniappe: Back in the Saddle Again - Hi, Folks!  I'm back from my wonderful 5-week experience in Mexico.  Though I love Mexico and think it is a beautiful country with beautiful people, I am happy to be home.  There is no place like home; and, for me, home is the great old U.S. of A.  Living abroad for an extended period of time brings a person to two important revelations: (1) the U.S. is a great place to live and be a citizen and (2) there is a wide consensus outside of the U.S. that our attitude as a country towards other countries is bombastic and arrogant.  Whether one agrees with the latter or not, it is absolutely essential for U.S. citizens to leave their cocoons of ignorance and recognize this reality and figure out how to deal with it.

Lagniappe: Kerry and the Inquisition - Seems that theoconservative rightwingers want to bring back the Inquisition. It's just one step removed from creating a theocracy. As a catholic, this is just nutso. And people complain about Islamic fundamentalists wanting to bring the world back to medieval times. Sheesh! (Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.)

Lagniappe: Saludos desde Guadalajara y Feliz Dia de los Padres - Well, here it is ... father's day ... and I'm sitting at a terminal in Guadalajara, Mexico. Been here for almost exactly a week, to the minute. It's been a good week and my charges are all off to a good start with their summer programs. I had a great moment this morning as I opened the father's day presents my sweet little girls wrapped for me to take on my trip. I waited until today to open them, as I promised. What was wonderful about it was reading the cards and imagining the stories behind the pictures on the homemade gift wrapping paper that my daughters drew for me. And the best news is that they will be joining me here in a few short days.

Although I am a Mexico City person, I can honestly say that I am becoming very, very fond of Guadalajara -- especially the people here, who are some of the nicest and warmest that I've met in Mexico.

I have had almost no time to keep abreast of current events in the world, and so have very little to say about such things at this time. It is good to take a break from this every so often and to get a little enjoyment out of life unclouded by the darkness of our times.

If you know of any good restaurants or sights to see in Guadalajara or its near vecinities, please don't hesitate to drop me a comment or an email. For those of you who are planning a visit, the "must visit" restaurants are El Abajenyo (by the Minerva) and La Chata (in the historic district). I'll try to post more as the opportunities present themselves. Hasta entonces!

Lagniappe: To Mexico - This coming Sunday, I will be off to Mexico (Guadalajara, Mexico, more specifically) for a 5 week jaunt with a bundh of college kids under my charge. I should be able to post with some regularity from Mexico, but who knows how things will turn out. In any event, my posts will more likely have a Latin American flavor to them, which I think will be a nice change from the grind of U.S. politics and New Orleans School Board antics ... speaking of which, I should probably post something on this topic soon. Stay tuned.

Lagniappe: Ronald Reagan - As a die-hard liberal leftist, let me pay my sincere respects to Reagan. In the moment of his passing, he deserves the respect of all Americans, and I mean ALL Americans. Understandably, conservatives who lionized and idolized Reagan are grieving. But I even find myself harkening back to the days of Reagan's presidency, when I was still too young to really differentiate between liberals and conservatives, but old enough to have nostalgic memories of Reagan's charm and his soothing, calming, but resolute voice. There was a time when I had positive feelings for Reagan at the instinctive, gut level, without knowing much about the substance of his administration or his policies. Suffice it to say that the more mature and knowledgable I became in my ideological leanings and political convictions, the more problematic Reagan came to mean for me and the more critical I became towards what his Administration stood for. My critical orientation towards his Administration and his policies has not changed one iota. But, I recognize the honor of the man and his place in America's history.

Because of this, I admit to a touch of melancholy at his passing and I would like to go on record to say that there is no place in American left-liberalism for any vilification of a U.S. President who served his country in the best way he knew how, especially upon this person’s death. Leftists who can find nothing positive to say about Reagan are not really true Americans. As I said, I am by no means a fan of Ronald Reagan’s policies, but he was our President and he gave 8 years (and more) of his life in service to our country. Upon his death, we should remember Reagan as the central leader he was for his times. No one can dispute the fact that he was a giant in contemporary American politics and his legacy in contemporary conservatism will endure for many years to come.

His death is not the time for partisan politics; it is a time to glorify the greatness of American democracy as represented by one of its leaders. I am saddened by the way many on the left are treating the memory of Reagan. It is not appropriate and I, for one, am a leftist who deplores such actions. When Jimmy Carter dies, I must admit that I think conservatives will treat him with the respect and fondness that is due to all of our ex-Presidents for the sacrifices and time they have committed to our great country. My love for America is greater than any party or greater than any one particular President; and Ronald Reagan was a servant of this greater America. For this he deserves our respect and gratitude. All of us should remember that.

But reading the reactions to Reagan's death around the blogosphere, I have come to another troubling realization. Conservatives who claim Reagan as one of their own are very quick to criticize liberals who speak poorly of the man in the context of his death. In fact, it seems to me that conservatives are seeking out the worst they can find in liberal commentary about Reagan and using this as a soapbox for their outrage at all things liberal and leftist in America. I can handle that. But what I find disturbing is the utter lack of a willingness to accept any liberal's kind and sincerely heartfelt sentiments regarding Reagan. It seems as if conservatives are reluctant to share Reagan with the fellow left-liberal Americans. And I wonder if it bothers conservatives when liberals speak fondly and kindly of Reagan. Could it be that conservatives want liberals to share in their admiration and respect for Reagan, but are unwilling to embrace and believe such expressions when they surface? Something odd is afoot here and I can't quite get my mind completely around it. I welcome your thoughts on this strange phenomenon of Conservative criticism of boorish behavior by leftists regarding Reagan, coupled with a latent (though palpable) disdain for any liberal that seeks to share in the grief of losing such an influential American political icon.

Lagniappe: Rush Limbaugh Never Spoke More Honestly - In Time Magazine's standard 10 Questions interview section, Rush Limbaugh is featured. In what I guess is an effort to be funny, Rush unwittingly gave perhaps the best advice to his listeners that he has ever given. Now, if we can only count on his listeners to be as fanatically devoted to Rush's wisdom as one suspects them to be. When asked this question about Air America: "WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE AL FRANKEN LIBERAL RADIO NETWORK?" Rush replied: "I have not heard them. I do not listen to anybody who does radio. I don't even listen to myself." [Emphasis added.] One can take this any number of ways, but it's a priceless candid statement if I ever saw one! Rush listeners, pay heed to your guru and turn off the Rush Limbaugh show!

Blog Banter: JYB's First Golden Bombbelt Award - Con-blogger Bryan Preston has created an award essentially to bestow the charge of treason, if not outright terrorism, on some liberal Bush critic or anti-war exponent. His first awardee is none other than Al Gore. Here's what Bryan concludes with in his post on the subject:

By all rights, by all that is American, Al “Qaeda” Gore should be brought up on charges of treason. He has intentionally given aid and comfort to the enemy. He has nourished their propaganda efforts for years to come. He’s an irresponsible menace, and apparently supports hobbling our government in a time of war. The only way to make any rational sense of his remarks is that he wants us to lose this war.

I don’t have the power to bring charges against Gore, but I can award him the first Golden Bombbelt Award. And Al “Qaeda” Gore, the latest Democrat politician to turn on his country and proclaim the terrorists who beheaded Nick Berg and killed thousands on a sunny fall day “righteous,” deserves it and much, much worse.

He deserves censure, scorn and to be cast into the outer darkness for as long as he lives. For starters.

Now, I can see how conservatives would have a beef with Gore; but is the equation of Gore with an al Qaeda terrorist at all acceptable? I think not. It's no different than making the outlandish claim that the U.S. military abuse at Abu Ghraib is equivalent to Saddam's abusive treatment of people at the same prison. It's no different than equating Bush to Hitler. It's all indecent and unjust. I've had a bit of an exchange with Bryan on his comment board for this post, which you might find interesting to read. But most importantly, I'd be curious as to your opinion on what I consider to be nothing more than an unjust moral equivalence that rightwingers so detest when it comes from the left.

Liberal Lighthouse: Where Y'at, YatPundit ... He's back! - For my regular readers, I just want to bring to your attention that one of my favorite bloggers is back in the mix, with a snappy new look. What's more, he's a true blogmate ... A New Orleanian who likes to analyze the local scene as well as keep up with the national and international current events ... and all from a well-shaped liberal perspective. He calls himself, fittingly, YatPundit. So, pay him a visit and don't hesitate to drop a little "yat" speak on him, dawlin'!

Lagniappe: What Kerry's Iraq Policy Should Be - Much has been made about the absence of a clear Iraq policy from the Kerry campaign. For instance, Andrew Sullivan points out that, even though the Bush Iraq policy leaves much to be desired, it's better than Kerry's non-policy. Well, I've been thinking about this criticism and I'd like to suggest a win-win strategy for Kerry that allows him to stay true to his liberal principles, to appease the anti-war crowd, and to work towards a more stable and democratic Iraq. How is this possible? Well, consider this ...

First, Kerry must emphasize that this war was not of his making. He will inherit it if he wins in November. He doesn't even need to criticize the Bush Administration for leading us into war. He just needs to accept the reality as a given that requires firm, decisive leadership. Furthermore, he should emphasize the need for greater engagement in Iraq (albeit using the language of peace policy as opposed to war policy) instead of disengagement, for which Bush is taking the heat from his pro-war conservative base (i.e. the abdication of Fallujah). He can and should frame this engagement as a moral obligation resulting from an ill-advised war. In other words, if he argues to the American people that the U.S. has a special obligation to nation-rebuilding in Iraq because of its role in nation-destruction, he rides the moral high ground. He can say that the situation in Iraq is messy, but that we can't just up and leave it that way out of a sense of humanitarian concern and just compensation for the destruction inflicted on the people and land of Iraq. If I were Kerry, I'd promise to seek even additional funding from Congress to support nation-building enterprises that include civic reconstruction projects as well as greater security and defense forces by promising more boots on the ground. He can use this need for greater resources to repeal the more unpopular aspects of the Bush tax cuts that seem to disproportionately benefit the wealthy. In the meantime, he can use this leverage to generate funding from the repeals of these parts of the tax cut package to finance his domestic policy proposals as well, while still working towards a balanced budget. What does Kerry gain domestically from this strategy? He gains sympathy from liberal supporters at home of the humanitarian mission in Iraq, he gains support from those who think greater security in Iraq will come from a larger contingent of soldiers on the ground, and if he liberalizes the occupation by multilateralizing it as he promises in ways that don't jeopardize the U.S. independence for action, he will elicit broader international support and participation for Iraqi reconstruction.

All Kerry has to do is to demonstrate how he will throw the U.S. more fully into post-war nation-building (and he can do this by outlining specific programs to influence civic and political culture towards democracy at the grass-roots), develop a realistic timeline and concrete benchmarks for small, but steady progress, and explain a firm commitment to a gradual de-militarization of the occupation.

What risks does this strategy run? Well, it runs the risk of having to deal with a disruptive resistance that will settle for nothing less than complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq ... but how is that different than what we have now? It also runs the risks of losing control and authority that come with decentralization and multilateralization. But that is a risk that I think will produce more of a "peace" dividend that the current unilateralism is able to accomplish.

In the end, I think a more engaged, humanitarian phase of nation-building is the ticket for Kerry. The GOP's contribution is the hawkishness that made for an impressive conventional military victory. But that moment is spent and the GOP is on unfamiliar territory in the post-war reconstruction phase. This is precisely the phase where the Democrats have something to offer. The trick is in not abandoning the new and potentially democratic Iraq, but embracing it and nurturing it more fully and more peacefully.

Blog Banter: Conservatives on Louisiana Politics - I recently asked a question on John Hawkins' blog, RightWingNews regarding an explanation for Louisiana's paradox of being a pretty successful state for Democrats electorally, but a pretty GOP friendly, conservative state ideologically. The responses to my question were interesting. Go here to read Hawkins' answer, and check out other replies on the discussion thread that evolved from Hawkins' posting. I have to thank Hawkins for picking my question out of the many he received to respond to on his main blog page.

Lagniappe: Losing Iraq - Anti-war liberals are always chided by pro-war conservatives for always seeming to emphasize the negatives in Iraq and overlooking the positives. There may be some justification in this charge; but I don't necessarily see it as something to be chided for. The positive outcomes are, in the end, what we expect to see, and so we don't fall all over ourselves and pat ourselves on the back when things go right. This, I think, is pretty much standard operating procedure in any type of performance context. Movie Reviews (or book reviews, for that matter) always mention whether or not the piece is good; but almost always, one can bet that even the few flaws in a very good movie or book will be the items that get undue attention in the reviews. And I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. As we strive for perfection and success, we are always looking at the points where improvement can take place -- even when systems seem to operate very efficiently and productively. Likewise with the war in Iraq and with the post-war occupation. We NEED to emphasize the failures and the negatives and the weaknesses so that we can improve upon them and thus position ourselves better for a successful conclusion in the end. To focus on the positives, even equally, runs the rist of neutralizing the quest and push for improvement. I think such an attitude leads to complacency. So, it is necessary and right for all of us, anti-war liberals and pro-war conservatives alike, to highlight those improvement areas. I mention all of this because I think the post-war occupation situation is perilously close to failure, even in spite of the routine and day-to-day accomplishments that one can point to. The Coalition at the top of the administrative pyramid appears to be self-destructing. Iraqis are after their fellow Iraqis, US civilian and military officials are after not only internal breakdowns in order and command (i.e. Abu Ghraib) but also after Iraqis, both friendly (Chalabi) and unfriendly (Sadr). As the time for transition to an Iraqi government approaches in a few short weeks, the situation appears to be more chaotic as the date draws near. I place the blame squarely on the Bush Administration, which never ever found its footing in post-war management in Iraq. The Bush Administration seems to be functioning like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming 18-wheeler traveling well above the speed limit. There seems to be no sign that it can get its act together in time. And as the situation deteriorates, frustrated and bewildered conservatives and Bush supporters are frantically looking to blame anything and anyone EXCEPT the Bush Administratin for current events in Iraq. In fact, conservatives seem to be drawing their attention away from the Iraqi and muslim terrorists that are struggling on the battlefield and focusing more on the perceived "enemy within" by blaming liberal criticism of the war and liberal media coverage of events in Iraq as the decisive variable in the bleak situation we are witnessing there. I want my fellow Americans to know that the success of this venture in Iraq hinges on NOT avoiding the failures of those responsible for managing the situation, but on emphasizing them and attempting to correct them. To not do so runs the greater risk of losing this war than anything Teddy Kennedy or Michael Moore has to say about it. This is something die-hard conservative pro-war supporters, if they really want to win the war, would do well to keep in mind as they look objectively at the Bush Administration's deplorable record in Iraq to date.

Lagniappe: Bush the Law-Breaker ... Impeach! Impeach! - The Bush Administration breaks federal law by passing along a piece of propaganda as an "objective" news report and failing to identify itself as the source of the piece. But it gets better! The Bush Administration used your Medicare contributions to pay for the thing! How can any conservative who claims to have any concern for integrity in upholding the law and in transparent accountability justify this scandal? YES, SCANDAL! We've been bilched AND duped!

Lagniappe: Gay Marriage in MA - Well, I, for one, am disposed to think of extending the joys and grace of marriage to gay couples as nothing but a positive. How can bringing something good to people be a bad thing? I think it is perhaps this small detail that gives pause to the opponents of gay marriage as they make their case. They have to be careful by somehow conveying that their opposition to gay marriage is not in opposition to the basic human dignity of gay people. But this is a tricky position precisely because gay people, and even many heterosexuals, recognize this distinction as nothing more than hollow words. I am happy for gay people who can now marry because if their lives are more fulfilled and happy because if it, then the world is a better place. And we could always use a better world.

But the frenetic, irrational wrangling coming out of the arguments of gay marriage opponents has reached a fevered pitch. Just today, the National Review Online has published a series of articles on the subject. What do we hear? Well, we all know that prior to this date, the big complaint came from those who decried the "activist" judges who supposedly legislated gay marriage from the bench. But, even this is now not enough, and folks are beginning to say it is just as much the legislature's fault as it is the judiciary's. Others are going in the other direction and saying it is ultimately the executive's fault. This merry-go-round of "blame" only affirms to me that we actually have a pretty good political system and balance of powers that works quite well. If you can find blame for the "failure" of government that transcends one particular branch, you've got to recognize that things just don't happen (or do happen) because of the exclusive behavior of one branch.

In my view, this welcome development on gay marriage has been a long time in coming and it has moved peacefully and procedurally through our political, legal, and judicial system. Our system works fine, and we have to trust that it will, warts and all, produce that which is best for and reflective of our democracy and polity.

Liberal Lighthouse: Fred Kaplan Revisits a Dirty Little Secret - In his most recent piece for Slate, Fred Kaplan gives us a convincing argument that the responsibility for Abu Ghraib goes all the way up the chain of command to none other than Bush himself. But even more striking, in my mind, about Kaplan's piece is that he points us via a weblink to an NBC News report written by Jim Miklaszewski on March 2, 2004, about one Abu Musab Zarqawi, the infamous al Qaeda terrorist who most recently sawed off American Nick Berg's head. You've got to read this article to believe it. Upon retrospect, it's quite astounding. Here's one part of it:

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

What's incredible about this article is that it reveals that the Bush Administration had the opportunity to do something about Zarqawi long before the Iraq war started, thus potentially preventing the grisly murder of Berg, but chose not to for political reasons having to do with keeping alive a justification of the war. Conservatives like to complain that Clinton blew his chance to get Osama before 9/11 from the Sudan, but they are eerily silent on this little Bush fiasco regarding Zarqawi. What can we make of this?

Lagniappe: Rumsfeld Prefers Iraq to the U.S. - From this AP Newswire report about his surprise visit to Iraq, Rumsfeld said: "It's generally a lot more fun here than it is back home.'" Party time in Baghdad, Fallujah, and Najaf! Difference with Rumsfeld's mini-vacation to Iraq is that he gets to come home once the "fun" wears off.

Blog Banter: The Kind of Folks Who Visit RightWingNews - I used to have some respect for John Hawkins' site as a hard-line, but respectful conservative blog. But, I wonder if it's not all smoke-and-mirrors -- you know, like David Duke claiming he's not a racist -- ... Now, truthfully, I don't think John Hawkins is the type of conservative that will sanction what you are about to read, but he also has not really come out against these comments on his blog. So, I figured that I'd take a page from Hawkins' own blogger book and post comments on his site like he likes to do on occasion with dialogue coming out of the Democratic Underground comment boards. I'll let you decide what to think of RightWingNews on your own. Keep in mind that the folks speaking in these comments are fairly regular readers and posters on the RightWingNews website. (NOTE: I'm printing this string of comments unedited and as they appeared chronologically and verbatim on the comment board. Out of fairness, I'm not cherry-picking comments like Hawkins does. NOTE 2: Shergald, P_Stick, and Blackman are liberal left-wingers who post to the site. The rest, to my knowledge, are conservative right-wingers.)

UPDATE NOTE: RWN reader sevens takes me to task for not mentioning what the following thread is about. Taking his criticism as a valid point, let me point out right now, if it isn't clear in the context of the discussion board, that the discussion was in response to American Nick Berg's brutal murder and beheading by radical Muslim terrorists. To view the original posting on RWN that generated the discussion, visit here to read the entry Hawkins titles "Arab Street Erupts in Rage Over Beheading Video By Scott Ott," which is posted as a satirical piece. ... That said, with appropriate "context" provided, read the following dialogue and make up your own mind.

These muslims remind me of the jocks at my highschool. They could push you around, call you what ever name they wanted, travled in groups and found the lone geek in the hall to assualt. The moment you said anything back to them, they became enraged at how DARE you insult THEM! They can dish it out all day long, and it's fine, the moment somone else even does a half assed attempt to retaliate, they come unglued and beat you with a baseball bat(yes, that's what they did)for your insolent crime.

Ok, so I have issues with jocks, but this is the same damn attitude that we see here. Flat out, if they did not instigate the majority of the violence, we would not have had the violence. The US, does not bomb or invade people that we like. The US is mostly harmless but has had to be on friendly terms with assholes because the alternitive was worse.

Forgive me if I think that the whole ME should disapear in a radioactive cloud. Forgive me if I want to see the guts of those pig fucking, goat sodamizing bastards spread all over a large blast zone. I could live my whole life without really, really wanting to kill somone, yet these little sand-dick fucks can't go a whole week without the blood of some innocent on their hands.

Do I feel that I am better than them. HELLL FUCKING YES! Do I feel that the US is better than them? GOD DAMN YES! And I don't want to see the wet blanket of liberal equivication thrown on this outrage. KILL THE FUCKS. The Arabs and Muslims have proven time and time again that they can't play well with others. For the sake of this planet, I want a holocost that has never been seen before. I want their fucking MOOOOOSSSLLIM mosqs burnt to the ground, the men hanging from their beards form every telephone pole and fat crows pecking out their eyes. I blame each and every godddam arab/muslim dick for this crime and wish them all a slow and painful death.

Can I make this any more clear?

by useless on 2004-05-12 19:02:29

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blackman asked about the violence potential of extreme right wing Republicans, and I guess his question was answered. Not only useless, but many others seem ready to cut someone's throat in the name of God-fearing religious right Republican Americans and I just hope I'm not around when the bubble breaks because it seems to me that the nearest slimeball traitors who will be targeted are called liberals. Liberals=Arabs=anyone who disagrees with the extreme right wing Republican agenda.

by shergald on 2004-05-12 19:15:28

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't belive in the white man's god shergald. If it makes you feel any better, this is just how my ancestors felt about you white-skins. I am however, an American and I don't give a rats-fucking-left-nut if you think I am out of pocket, or worse yet "off the reservation". If you have an enemy, it's best to hate him, his children, his friends, his uncle and his third cusion. This is a war, goddamit, a friggin war, not a police action, not a time to "reflect". WAR. You don't spare your enemy an ounce of pitty.

by useless on 2004-05-12 19:22:42

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

useless,

you are a hateful, hateful prat.

why don't you fuck off to Iraq if you are so eager to kill some arabs.

that goes for the rest of you spousing so much shit. why don't you go and do something about it?

Berg was a staunch Bush supporter and followed his beliefs. and to that I take my hat off.

but I wouldn't piss on most of you if you were on fire

by johnson on 2004-05-12 19:47:12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you reserve all your piss for america?

by d_Brit on 2004-05-12 19:58:07

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would not ASK you to piss on anyone if they were on fire. You jello-spined liberals wanna wring your little pasty white hands and wonder about if we are "good" enough to try and win this war on terror. You want to make sure that ony if our cause is noble (and to you, it isn't) then we can try and lift a finger to do something about it. Meanwhile we have a war. You want us to stop and ask about the "feelings" of those arab camel dick sucking swine? THEY are animals. THEY have proven it time and time again. More the the point, they are RABBID animals, and need to be put down.

by useless on 2004-05-12 19:58:21

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and Jhonson, I'll re-enlist and go kill ragheads as soon as you move to some socialist paradise.

by useless on 2004-05-12 20:40:15

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm guessing we won't see any Conservative outrage over useless' comments.

by P_Stick on 2004-05-12 20:48:02

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was anyone here assigned to this site as part of anger management therapy? If so, I'm afraid it is not working very well for you. Report to your therapist immediately before you hurt somebody.

by shergald on 2004-05-12 20:57:39

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shergald, Im waiting for your cut/paste about Sweden, where the hell is it?

Im in on this one late and I see a lot of baiting and name calling. Too bad it degenerates to that.

Anyway, conservatives are right and liberals are wrong. There; simple, concise, factual. Wasnt that easy?

by BlackCopterAbductee on 2004-05-12 21:38:51

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pstick why don't you analyze WHY useless FEELS the way he does - isn't that your usual M.O.?

by texascatbacker on 2004-05-12 21:56:57

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P_Stuck,

useless' comments were over the top. their extremeness pales however next to liberal equivalence of american abuse with berg's beheading. THAT is truely obscene.

by d_Brit on 2004-05-12 22:01:47

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberals continue to cry.

shergald: "Not only useless, but many others seem ready to cut someone's throat in the name of God-fearing religious right Republican Americans"

Cut a terrorists throat, hell yes. Personally, I'd rather shoot them in the head, since I'm kind of lazy when it comes to animals.

Johnson, I'm not going to re-post what you said, but you're not being very nice. As I recall, you're that sensitive, abnoxious little fellow who thinks I have a "perverted curiosty". I think you need a time out. And I would actually prefer it if you did not "piss on most of you if you were on fire". I would rather you throw a bucket of water on me. Of course, that might endanger the fish that swim in it, so I guess I can't count on that.

P_Stick came out with this: "I'm guessing we won't see any Conservative outrage over useless' comments."

I don't appreciate useless' comments regarding Arabs/Muslims, but I agree with the basis of his argument and can easily see where the anger comes from. As for your crowd, I don't appreciate the comments you make about this country or us religious folk, so I'm more concerned with you.

Shortly after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, I was talking to my father, who is even farther right than I am. He said then that liberals wouldn't understand the danger of terrorism until they wiped out two major liberal cities. I thought he was crazy at the time. In the two years since then, I've learned how wise he was.

By the way, last I checked, Ted Kennedy's car had killed more people than the guards at Abu Ghraib.

by Schroman2002 on 2004-05-12 22:27:39

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

my government schooling taught me that minorities, such as that of which useless is a part, were more than welcome to go on using racial epithets...i cannot find him at fault here

tounge-in-cheek, and yet dead serious at the same time - lay off useless - he may be pissed, but y'all (shergald, pstick, johnson - who the fuck is this johnson guy?) have used the same exact logic in "feeling" for all other minorities and allowing them to behave in whatever fashion they will for 20 years, because they are of minority status

you owe useless the same, or you're hypocrites - you pick





by texascatbacker on 2004-05-12 22:38:25

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, I haven't seen USELESS cut a KIDS head off...

Normally in a situation such as we have on this sight I'd say - "we all need to calm down" - but no, not now... I'm just as pissed as the day 3,000 of my fellow citizens as well as from 90 other countries were murdered. You seem to think because we have anger toward Arabs and Muslims in particular, that that will lead to having anger toward anyone who doesn't agree with us... no, that's frustration. I haven't seen a lib cut a kids head off either - I have seen Arabs and Muslins do it on a number of occasions. We understand the difference - and we always will. We just wish some of you would wise up and realize what you've seen (If you even had the nerve to watch it in the first place)... it will change your life. It should open your eyes since apparently 9/11 meant nothing more than a grief holiday for a couple of weeks, when all the liberals had to fall in line with the rest of the countries outrage and anger - then it was back to hating America and everything it stands for.

If I smacked you, would you try to defend yourself or would you beg me not to kick your ass? What if I smacked you around for centuries? Would you get to the point when you say enough is enough? We've been smacked around enough - to the point where some of you don't even care that a kid got his head cut off. You see it as an opportunity to once again morally equivalate and degrade America. Those on the right have had enough. It's time for the utter destruction of these terrorist and "peace loving" Muslims/Arabs.

by sevens on 2004-05-12 23:57:18

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAMBAM:

"This just in: it was suggested by someone in the here at work for that the kid might have been Jewish? Does anyone know if this is accurate?"

Berg is also a Scandinavian name. It doesn't really matter; he was American and a civilian. I don't care if he was a purple Satanist, he was one of us.


Personally, I believe that the President should have let the Marines retake Fallujah two weeks ago. Go in with heavy armor & C-130’s and level anything that houses an insurgent.


by Bildo on 2004-05-13 00:11:17

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, guys, my point of view is simple: If this latest round of "justice" from the islamofacists does not clue you into the reality that these are animals that need to be put down, I just don't know what will. We did not ask our fighting men of WW2 to try and understand the japs. We asked them to kill them. We did not ask our men in ANY war to "understand" the enemy. But in this war, we are. In fact we are not only being fed a line of moral equivication, we are also being told that WE are just as bad or worse than THEY are. As if our troops should do the world a favor and start shooting their officers, that would make the libs happy.

I have heard murderer's, rapists, and all manner of criminals tell me reasons, that their actions were clearly justified. And I would say the same thing to you all. That guy, that chopped up and killed little kids, yea, I'd pull the lever and and his life, gladly. That serial rapist, yes, I would tap a veign and put him out of societies misery. If I was on a jurry, and had to vote death penalty for some dick who deserved it, damn right I would. And I wouldn't loose a minute of sleep either.

Indians, we were warriors. We did far, far worse things to eachother before there were whites. Then we started doing it to whites, and look where it got us. Some of our people knew that it was time to change their ways and forced those changes, or face extermination. We NEED the these raghead fucks to be confronted with the EXACT same situation. Change or die. Learn to live with the reality of a changing world, or die. Adapt or die. Figure out that your religion is a religion of lies and villany. Decide to take care of your own before there none of you left to take care of cuz brother, I hope to god we come gunning for your sick assess.

So, until they can learn to exist with other humans on this planet, then they must learn the lesson of the fruits of their psychotic labors. If these fucks are not the embodyment of what Satanism means, I don't know what it is then. They are an evil infection that should be obliterated. If you are a liberal, and these words hurt your silly little feelings, ask your self what wars were ever won by guys that "felt" for their enemy. NONE.

by useless on 2004-05-13 02:09:38

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I read this last post somewhere else, possibly in the writings of Goebbel who spoke about the Jews of Europe in similar terms during the 1930s. They used animal images as well to characterize Jews, posters of rats and other vermin. The idea was to dehumanize them which later made it possible for average people like us to operate the extermination machine. You say there is a difference between us and them. I don't think so. There was wide support for lynching of blacks in the south by average people which continued until not too long ago; there was wide support for interment of Japanese citizens during the WWII; and there seems to be wide support for jailing of 'f...ing Islamists,' as somebody put it, now. 'We have faced the enemy, and it is us,' said pogo. Let's stop thinking we are something special. We are all human beings and capable of the best and the worst of our kind.



by Blackman on 2004-05-13 10:18:43

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let's stop thinking we are something special. We are all human beings and capable of the best and the worst of our kind."

Nice moral equivalence you got there. We are all bad, we are all good, so it's all good, right? You forgot something, though. The Jews in Germany and the blacks in America were not the birthing ground for vicious animals that targeted civilians for slaughter, and they did not torture and execute too many people because they were trying to rebuild a country. You can try to take the fact that these murdering scumbags are Muslims out of the equation all you want, but it just will not disappear. You can try to dismiss the fact that just about every war going on right now (with the exception of the actions in South America) has Muslims involved as a belligerent force, but that little fact will not go away, either. No shit, not all Muslims are like this, but then again, not all Germans were Nazis, either. We sure had to kill an awful lot of them, though, to end that madness. The real question is, how many Muslims like this will it take for them to gain more power in Muslim lands, until we are faced with a WWII situation (AKA WWIII). If we could've stopped the Nazis in the early to mid 30's with a preemptive war, should we have? If you have to really think about the answer to that question, then you need your moral barometer checked.

by sabiticus on 2004-05-13 10:39:07

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last poster: a perfect description of the catastrophic results the Iraq invasion is having on world peace. Every week, we are hearing news of terrorist attacks, not just in Iraq, but in numerous countries. One quarter of the world's population is Islamic. These terrorists undoubtedly account for a fraction of a percent of them. Yet, we are seeing this 'war president' stimulating sentiments that we are at war with Islam. Bush has engaged in the most disasterous foreign policy of any president ever and as a consequence, has made the world less safe, and inspired followers such as persons on this site, to talk about 'the war.' Indeed, after two plus years of this war against terror Al Qaeda remains a viable organization that is still a threat here in America.

Unless one believes that all of the 'sand niggers' deserve to be held responsible for 9/11, then there is a moral equivalence here, as most Islamic people do not support Al Qaeda. That there is antiAmerican sentiment in the Islamic world is understandable since they have been watching Israeli mistreatment of Arabs in the westbank for decades, something tacitly supported by America. This conflict has been a symbol of America's attitude toward Arabic and Islamic peoples for generations and needs to be resolved. Even here, Bush has now gone ahead for political reasons and screwed up again.


by Blackman on 2004-05-13 11:21:25

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Sabiticus, you must have missed my post on blackman. To paraphrase: don't bother trying to have reasonale discourse with him. He is a pig in mud and if you wrestle with him, it will get you no where, but he will enjoy it. He is also a flaming moron.

--Useless, thanks for your comments... you spoke for lots and lots and lots of us.

by Devil_Dog on 2004-05-13 11:22:29

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: Jew in Germany and Blacks in America were not the birthing ground for vicious animals? Really? I gather that you probably have never seen pictures of bodies of Jews heaped in piles around the extermination camps or of mob-lynched blacks hanging from trees in the south. Take a look then come back and give us your impression.

by Blackman on 2004-05-13 11:29:38

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

blackman's comment says it all,

"You say there is a difference between us and them. I don't think so."

In making the comment, blackman has unwittingly revealed the truth about himself, seeing no real difference between himself and terrorists because it's ALL subjectively relative.

He hasn't a clue as to what that says about him.

by d_Brit on 2004-05-13 11:40:17

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Useless doesn't speak for me, although I do understand his rage. I don't consider Arabs "ragheads" and I don't hold the arab ethnic group responsible for the evil of some people who happen to be Arabs. Nor do I hold to blackman's term "sand niggers" because both are equally reprehensible and pointless. I don't want to butcher every person with a robe on, and I don't want to nuke any middle east cities. I want the Arab people to be happy, wealthy, healthy, and comfortable like me.

That's the difference between the US and the extremists over there. They want us dead or cowering at their feet. We want them standing tall and living free, as brothers and friends. We want them to experience the joy of liberty and prosperity that we have every day. They want us to be destroyed and crushed beneath their hatred.

I want the men responsible for terrorist acts dead. I want the ones who supported these acts held to justice and removed from power. I want the people who live in those areas to see the price for evil acts and to see that there's no future in them. I hold the ones responsible in contempt and want them brought to justice.

by Christopher_Taylor on 2004-05-13 11:41:30

Any comments on the comments? Let's hear them.

UPDATE: The full thread of this comment board can be accessed here, if you want to see how the thread started, how it degenerated, and where it is now. Make up your own mind.

Lagniappe: Admissions of Imperialism from a Conservative? - Is it just me, or has George Will, in his most recent column, basically admitted that the U.S. is engaged in an Imperial Adventure in Iraq? What should one make of this little gem in Will's column: "A nation, especially one doing the business of empire, needs high officials to be highly attentive to what is done in their departments -- attentive far down the chain of command, as though their very jobs depended on it." [Emphasis added.]

Blog Banter: Andrew Sullivan's Email of the Day - Well, what do you know ... Andrew Sullivan made my most recent email letter to him his Daily Dish email of the day for May 12, 2004. Thanks, Andrew, I'm truly honored.

Blog Banter: Andrew Sullivan, Abu Ghraib, Nick Berg and the Escalation of Violence - In his justifiable outrage at the grotesque and horrifying public beheading of Nick Berg, Andrew Sullivan calls for an escalation of the propaganda war. I replied to Andrew by sending him this email:

LETTER: Show the Pictures and Watch the Escalation.

Andrew - While I do not necessarily disagree with the release of all images of horror in order to put these abominations into some sort of comparable context, I am very much disturbed and worried by the effect of such acts and the motivations for your calling for this display of a violence-in-the-media free-for-all. It seems to me that we need to be careful of playing one-upsmanship with regard to violence. The murderers that beheaded Nick Berg, in the words of one of my hometown's famous chefs, "kicked it up a notch" and used Abu Ghraib as the excuse for doing so. Now, in the wake of this unfathomable public decapitation horror, we will have U.S. citizens who were once queasy about Abu Ghraib, now frothing at the mouth and calling for the heads of Iraqi POWs on a platter - no matter their innocence or their harmlessness in captivity. It seems to me that the intention of your call to grisly voyeurism is not to create perspective to eliminate the need for atrocities and inhumanities, but rather to desensitize us to the "lesser" cruelties of Abu Ghraib to the point where we perhaps may justify and tolerate it with a wink and a nod -- raising the bar for what is considered "acceptable" levels of abominations. Such grisly voyeurism demands the escalation of "bigger and better" brutality. And in the justifiable outrage you feel at the moment, I think you are unwittingly and unthinkingly walking this dangerous path.

I am more and more worried by all this killing and violence. I'd welcome your thoughts.

Lagniappe: William Buckley on Rumsfeld's Future - What does the Dean of the conservative punditocracy have to say about Rumsfeld's future: TOAST! (almost). Though Buckley doesn't say so directly, the implication of his piece is pretty darn clear. Buckley's no longer clearly on the Rumsfeld bandwagon ... and where Buckley goes, many Conservatives will no doubt follow.

Lagniappe: Retribution for Abu Ghraib ... Violence Begets Violence - Whether or not the barbarous thugs who decapitated American Nick Berg would have done so anyway, the fact that the Abu Ghraib scandal was used as the rationale cannot be ignored. Violence is never met with peaceful resignation, but rather with vengeful retribution. We need to find another way to end the injustice of violence in the world than by giving tit-for-tat. There is no doubt in my mind that Americans will now be justifying prisoner abuse as an "eye-for-an-eye" response to this tragedy. When I see this happening, I'll be sure to reference it as proof of my thesis that violence only begets violence.

Lagniappe: The Right's Moral Equivalence Exposed - From a letter on Andrew Sullivan's Letters Page from May 05, 2004:

A HIGHER STANDARD:
I fully support the effort in Iraq. I believe in a democratic experiment in the Arab world. I have family and friends serving there. That said, I am disgusted in the extreme by what a few prison guards have done and what some over here are saying in their defense.

"In war, terrible things happen." "At least they didn't actually hurt them." "The worst thing that they did was to take pictures." I am hearing such things from Americans on television, talk radio, even in my own family. It's repulsive. The only reason someone could say this is if they are afraid to confront the truth. These acts are despicable on their face. They do not need to be compared to anything Saddam did. And our morality demands that we punish those responsible not only for defiling the prisoners' persons, but for doing such profound damage to our cause's credibility.

It may be a conceit, but in order to accomplish the goal of reinventing the Middle East in a positive way demands that we hold ourselves to higher standard. You cannot act in a moral way if you break your own rules, no matter what has been done by others. All those who make excuses and diminish the crimes are cowards.

Although I don't agree with the letter writer's support of the war, I do think this person's sentiments express a moral consistency that is lacking generally in pro-war supporters' reactions to this scandal. I think this level of intellectual and moral honesty is commendable.

Lagniappe: A Full Accounting? - George W. Bush today called for a full accounting of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. What does this mean? Well, let's see ... Bush promised a full accounting in the Enron scandal and we still have Ken Lay on the loose. So, I guess this means that the full accounting only goes so far. Rumsfeld breaths a sigh of relief. His job is safe while the U.S. reputation crumbles all around him.

Lagniappe: Rummy Toast, part III - The Wall Street Journal online reader's poll has a 51/49 Yes/No % split on whether Rummy should resign. That's as of about 9600 votes cast in this unscientific reader survey. And, by Rummy's own admission, we haven't even seen the worst of the abuse scandal yet. Not looking good for Rummy. Not looking good for Bush. Not looking good for the U.S.

Lagniappe: Rummy Toast, part II - Peter Bienart, of The New Republic chimes in on the subject. His verdict: TOAST.

Laginappe: Is Rumsfeld Toast? - I've seen this feeding frenzy before. Fair or not, the end result is always the same: TOAST. The only question is when. And it doesn't help that the Economist, a generally Conservative-friendly venue, is leading the charge calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib - Episode 2 continued - To reveal or not to reveal. That is now the question. Donald Rumsfeld has admitted to the existence of evidence of even more prisoner abuse that "can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." Sounds like unabashed torture to me. Those are some strong words, words which not long ago Rumsfeld and Bush and all of us used to describe Saddam Hussein and his regime. I'm not sure these photos/videos should be released; but what can be done now that the world knows of their existence? The voyeurism of American pop culture, and the need for transparency in front of the world, will demand their release. But the safety of America and American soldiers demands they stay under wraps. What to do? What to do? How did we ever get into this mess?

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib - Episode 2 - From this AP Newswire report:

Referring to photos of sexual and physical abuse that have drawn worldwide condemnation, Rumsfeld warned there are "a lot more photographs and videos" that haven't yet been seen. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

He said he had not seen the videos, and did not describe them.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." He did not elaborate.

I think liberals and conservatives alike are finally getting some answers to the question of "why they hate us." This whole situation is embarrassing, shocking, and numbing. The Bush Administration needs to find a way to contain the bleeding. The future of the Middle East, Iraq, and the honor of all those soldiers who died for the cause depends on it. For the sake of America, I desperately want Bush to succeed. And I like what he's done so far, but it's not enough, especially if the ominous warnings of Rumsfeld and Graham come to pass.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Nordlinger's Zingers - Jay Nordlinger took a snide potshot at John Kerry recently for his formal salutation in the 1980s of Nicaragua's Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, as "Dear Comandante." Nordlinger write:

Canny or not, Kerry has a record on Latin America ? a substantial one. You will recall the 1980s, and that decade's fierce debates over Central America policy. At the heart of these debates was Nicaragua: the Sandinistas, Castro, and the Soviet Union versus the Contras and the United States (or rather, not all of the United States: the Reagan administration, in particular). Kerry was an important player in all this. He was part of a group derided by Republicans as "'Dear Comandante' Democrats," for they would address letters to Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista No. 1, "Dear Comandante."

Well, I wonder what he'd have to say about George Bush's recent salutation and address to King Abdullah of Jordan:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Your Majesty, welcome once again to the White House. I appreciate your friendship, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear your thoughts on a range of issues that face your country, and mine, at this time of challenge and opportunity in the Middle East.

Check out the entire address Bush made. I think he fawns over "His Majesty" at least 50 times. Perhaps Nordlinger should take a close look at King Abdullah's ties to Middle East terrorism and see if such fawning is justified.

Lagniappe: Tom DeLay Just Doesn't Get It - I've been reading all the reports on Bush's continued support for Rumsfeld in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. They generally quote some of the reactions by Congressmen and women about whether Rumsfeld should stay or go. Only this AP story, among the stories that I have read so far, contains the following quote by Republican Congressman Tom DeLay:

Democrats, shot back House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, "want to win the White House more than they want to win the war" on terror.

Begging pardon, Mr. DeLay, but Democrats believe that, given the abject failures of the Bush/Rumsfeld war plan to date, their winning the White House IS necessary to win the war on terror. Seems to me that DeLay's Texas hip-shooting big mouth only reveals that DeLay would rather defend an incompetent GOP administration rather than to win the war on terrorism.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the Taguba Report - You've seen the pictures. Now read it from the lips of those involved. Here are some of the more relevant excerpts from the Taguba Report on abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison facility (please be advised that these excerpts contain some graphic descriptions that you may find objectionable). [The Taguba Report may be viewed in its entirety here]

6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

(ANNEXES 25 and 26)

7.(U) These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements. In reaching my findings, I have carefully considered the pre-existing statements of the following witnesses and suspects (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) SPC Jeremy Sivits, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

b. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company – Suspect

c. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

c. (U) PFC Lynndie R. England, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

d. (U) Adel Nakhla, Civilian Translator, Titan Corp., Assigned to the 205th MI Brigade- Suspect

(Names deleted)

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. ...

...

11. (U) I reach this finding based on the actual proven abuse that I find was inflicted on detainees and by the following witness statements. (ANNEXES 25 and 26):

a. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company, stated in her sworn statement regarding the incident where a detainee was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis, “that her job was to keep detainees awake.” She stated that MI was talking to CPL Grainer. She stated: “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Grainer and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

b. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company, stated in his sworn statement as follows: “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section, wing 1A being made to do various things that I would question morally. In Wing 1A we were told that they had different rules and different SOP for treatment. I never saw a set of rules or SOP for that section just word of mouth. The Soldier in charge of 1A was Corporal Granier. He stated that the Agents and MI Soldiers would ask him to do things, but nothing was ever in writing he would complain (sic).” When asked why the rules in 1A/1B were different than the rest of the wings, SGT Davis stated: “The rest of the wings are regular prisoners and 1A/B are Military Intelligence (MI) holds.” When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about this abuse, SGT Davis stated: “ Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse.” SGT Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: “Loosen this guy up for us.” Make sure he has abad night.” “Make sure he gets the treatment.” He claimed these comments were made to CPL Granier and SSG Frederick. Finally, SGT Davis stated that (sic): “the MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Granier compliments on the way he has been handling the MI holds. Example being statements like, “Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information, Finally, and Keep up the good work . Stuff like that.”

c. (U) SPC Jason Kennel, 372nd MP Company, was asked if he were present when any detainees were abused. He stated: “I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes.” He could not recall who in MI had instructed him to do this, but commented that, “if they wanted me to do that they needed to give me paperwork.” He was later informed that “we could not do anything to embarrass the prisoners.”

d. (U) Mr. Adel L. Nakhla, a US civilian contract translator was questioned about several detainees accused of rape. He observed (sic): “They (detainees) were all naked, a bunch of people from MI, the MP were there that night and the inmates were ordered by SGT Granier and SGT Frederick ordered the guys while questioning them to admit what they did. They made them do strange exercises by sliding on their stomach, jump up and down, throw water on them and made them some wet, called them all kinds of names such as “gays” do they like to make love to guys, then they handcuffed their hands together and their legs with shackles and started to stack them on top of each other by insuring that the bottom guys penis will touch the guy on tops butt.”

e. (U) SPC Neil A Wallin, 109th Area Support Medical Battalion, a medic testified that: “Cell 1A was used to house high priority detainees and cell 1B was used to house the high risk or trouble making detainees. During my tour at the prison I observed that when the male detainees were first brought to the facility, some of them were made to wear female underwear, which I think was to somehow break them down.”

Satirical Lagniappe: Bush Appearing on Arab TV - In a wily effort to coax angry Arabs to shoot their GE television sets in fits of blind rage, while at the same time seeming to be reaching out humanely and apologetically to the Arab world, President Bush has decided to appear on Arab TV to discuss the prisoner abuse situation. Bush's hope in his two ten-minute appearances is both to show the Arab world that he really, really, really is on their side, even against his own fellow American troops, and also to boost the U.S. economy by increasing demand for more GE television sets to replace the ones that will inevitably be used as target practice by those Arabs he fails to convince with his Texas twang, his folksy cowboy charm, and his affected humility. Some think that this little bit of genius is really the work of Karl Rove, who is not convinced that the "red, white, and blue" Bush campaign bus tour through the outsourced Midwest battleground states is likely to generate enough voter enthusiasm. A little bit of war distraction, gripping stories of torture and sexual abuse, all glossed over by the congeniality and warmth of an effusive, but apologetic, President Bush to the Arab world will make all the difference. If nothing more, it's guaranteed to get Bush good TV ratings, which, as research has shown, clearly means a bump up in the pre-election polls. An all-around winning scenario -- that is, if you want to win the U.S. Presidential election and not the war on terror.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the International Criminal Court of Justice - Hmmm... I wonder ... will the penalties for war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers be simply a "reprimand" and a possible dishonorable discharge with no jail time? Well, there's some evidence to indicate that this might be the case. Maybe that's why so many people didn't want to subject U.S. soldiers to some kind of international tribunal. If we did so, these soldiers actually might get the punishment they deserve for their crimes against humanity.

Liberal Lighthouse: Abu Ghraib and Where the Buck Stops -- Apparently not with President Bush or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, it seems that Bush and Rumsfeld are playing "Pass the Buck" like a game of hot potato, hoping that one or the other doesn't get stuck with the steaming tuber when the music stops.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the U.S. "Republican" Guard - Here's a bit of tit-for-tat for those who like to give such nicknames to prominent liberals like "MuqTeddy" Kennedy, or John "F'n" Kerry, or "Baghdad" Jim McDermott ... let's just call those members of the George Bush/Don Rumsfeld military serving in Iraq and overseeing Saddam's Abu Ghraib prison, you know ... America's finest ... the new "Republican" Guard, who seem to have managed Iraq's most notorious torture chambers and prison consistent with its other "Republican" Guard legacy -- all under the watchful eye of our Republican President and his illustrious Republican cabinet.

Lagniappe: Where y'at, man? - Well, I've been AWOL from the Blog for a couple of weeks. End of April/Beginning of May is hell-time for college professors (and college students, too, to be fair!). I'm sure to return to the fray with more regularity probably by mid-May at the latest. Stay tuned and come back every so often to see where I am with this thing. Peace.

Lagniappe: Responsibility for 9/11 - After sifting through and thinking about all the information that is out there concerning the Bush Administration's response (or lack of one) to the perceived al-Qaeda threats emanating up through the intelliegence bureaucracy, I have come to the conclusion that, when you sort through the piles and piles of rhetoric, there is really nothing there to pin on GW. Listen, I'm a die-hard, pacifist, unapologetic left-leaning liberal. I'm voting for Kerry in November. And I don't have any fondness for Bush at all. None. I will be elated when he joins his daddy as a one-termer. But I like to think that I'm fair. And when it comes to responsibility for 9/11, there's enough blame to go around for everyone. It is unfair to single out the Bush Administration. Sure, I believe, given the benefit of hindsight, that the Bush Administration could and should have done things differently. But, I can't really find fault with the Bush Administration's handling of the intelligence it had. I'm sure that intelligence briefings on terrorism always portend ominous things and that the information Bush had was, in many respects, very much consistent with the tone of other types of similar briefings and reports. Who would ever have suspected such an attack on the U.S. of the magnitude of 9/11? For the life of me, I can't see how the Bush Administration could have known this. Bush should be blamed for 9/11 about as much as Clinton should, which is really not much at all. It is just one of those tragic, unfortunate, wake-up calls from the way we conducted anti-terrorist intelligence gathering business. I don't think the same mistakes will ever be made again, or at least I think any President worth his salt will do his best to see that it doesn't happen again. What is important, I think, is to stop looking for blame and to start working on fixing the holes in our system that made it possible. It is as unfair to blame Bush, or Ashcroft, as it is to blame Clinton, or Gorelick. Liberals can and should oppose Bush on his ill-advised policies of the past that led us to war with Iraq and that threaten civil liberties. Liberals can and should criticize Bush for his penchant for secrecy and vendetta-like character assassinations of his critics, even his Republican critics. Liberals can and should question the wisdom of Bush's tax cuts and his unwillingness to curb spending. Liberals can and should question Bush's Iraq strategy and its utter failure. But Liberals, true American Liberals, should not blame Bush and his administration for 9/11. There's just nothing at all in the evidence to indicate any single person, administration, or bureaucratic entity is to blame. 9/11 just happened. It's tragic. Maybe things could have been done to prevent it from happening, maybe not. We've all got to get beyond seeking blame where there is none, or recognizing that we all share in the blame if blame has to be assigned. Liberals, in spite of the temptation to want to lay on Bush's shoulders the crushing weight of responsibility for 9/11, should, in this one matter, just lay off.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Racism in LA Electoral Politics - Do you think Louisiana is beyond the issue of race in its electoral politics? Think again. As Stephanie Grace reports in the Times-Picayune, the white Democrat woman candidate for governor beat the conservative Republican man of color because the folks who had a penchant for voting for David Duke and usually support more conservative candidates opted for the white woman against the dark man -- even though the dark man was clearly the more conservative of the two. In certain parts of Louisiana, apparently race matters much more than ideology in voting behavior. Sad.

Lagniappe: Bush Admits His Ignorance - As this AP news report indicates, Bush, declaring that he would have done anything within his power to prevent the 9/11 attacks had he known they were coming, is planning to tell the 9/11 commission that he really had no clue. Duh! Of course, Georgie. What person in his right mind who knew such an attack was likely would just turn away from it and do nothing? That's not the problem, nor the issue, Mr. President. The real issue is WHY DIDN'T you know? Did you close your ears and eyes? Were you distracted by Iraq to hear the warning bells of your anti-terrorism security teams? Did they themselves somehow fail to gain good intelligence warning of such an attack? These are the important questions. Why won't you answer them?

Lagniappe: WoT Bush Watch - From President Bush's April 2, 2004, speech on Strengthening Economy and Job Training. Opening statement:

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Please be seated. I wish Dan had said, a friend of longstanding -- (laughter) -- as opposed to "an old friend." I knew him when he lived in Texas. You've got a good one running Marshall University here. He's a fine fellow. He's doing a fine job. (Applause.)

I'm proud to be back in Huntington. We're going to have an interesting discussion about how to make sure people have an opportunity to get the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. That's really what we're here to talk about. We're going to talk about how to make sure everybody's life is optimistic and hopeful, as this economy of ours grows and changes. [Emphasis added.]

A perfect place to do so here is at this community college, and I'm so honored to have been invited. Thank you for opening up your fantastic facility, and thank you for giving me a chance to come and talk.

How nice, we're going to be talking about good old bread and butter issues. But, wait, first we need to discuss 9/11, the War on Terror, and Saddam Hussein, just in case anybody missed it. Even before Bush gets into the stated subject of his speech, lo and behold, we hear:

And then, as we were recovering from the recession, the enemy hit us. They attacked us. And it affected us. It affected our way of thinking, for starters. See, when most of us were growing up, we thought oceans could protect us, and we found out that wasn't the case. We found out that America could be harmed by people who hate what we stand for. We suffered for those who lost life. I vowed then and there that the best way to protect America was to get on the offense and stay on the offense and bring people to justice. (Applause.) We resolved, as a nation, not to allow terrorists to cause us to lose our optimism and our spirit. That's what we resolved. And we still have that spirit and resolve, by the way.

And then we found out we had some corporate citizens who didn't tell the truth. That affected our economy. It kind of shattered our idealism about people in positions of responsibility. We passed tough laws, by the way. We're not going to tolerate dishonesty in the boardrooms of America. There will be consequences if you lie to your shareholders and your employees. (Applause.) But it affected us. It was a hurdle we had to cross. It was a challenge to our economy.

And then, as you know, I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Let me tell you -- (applause.) One of the important -- one of the important lessons of September the 11th, and it's important for people to understand, is that when we see a threat, we cannot let it materialize. That's an important lesson. I saw a threat -- I looked at intelligence and saw a threat. The United States Congress looked at the same intelligence and it saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence and it saw a threat. People were worried about Saddam Hussein because of his past behavior. Remember, he had used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his own people. I remembered the lesson of September the 11th as I looked at the data. I had a choice, either to trust a madman or defend the country. Given that choice, I'll defend America every time. (Applause.)

We've still got hard work in Iraq. The reason we do is there's killers there who want to shake our will. They want the American people to forget what it means to promote freedom. They want us to retreat. See, a free Iraq is an historic opportunity. A free Iraq will change a neighborhood that needs to be free. A free Iraq will make the world more peaceful. But a free Iraq is something that the terrorists fear. They hate freedom. They can't stand the thought of a free society. So they're willing to kill. And they're trying to shake our will. But they don't understand this country. We will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. (Applause.)

When will the irrelevant reference to the WoT ever end? Probably never. It's all Bush has.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Sins of the Catholic Voter - Recently, the Catholic Archbishop of the New Orleans diocese went on a campaign to criticize Catholics who happened to vote for a pro-choice candidate for public office. Essentially, Archbishop Hughes called into question the moral integrity of such Catholics, and offended these faithful members of the Church by contending that those who voted for pro-choice candidates should refrain from the sacrament of communion because of their sinful, base voting behavior. Of course, Mary Landrieu, a devout Catholic Democratic Senator, is one of these pro-choice candidates that Alfred Hughes so despises. But recently, in the Archdiocese's own newspaper, The Clarion Herald, none other than Moon Landrieu, Mary Landrieu's father and a former mayor of New Orleans, wrote a brilliant letter to the editor showing the absolute lack of logic in the Archbishop's position and even the hypocrisy of this selective emphasis on voting for pro-choice candidates. Moon Landrieu's letter can be accessed online here. But it's such a good letter that I need to reprint it in full for you in this blog:

There appears to be no shortage of devout Catholics who rejoice in denying the saving grace of Christ in the Holy Eucharist to those of us who have allegedly sinned by voting differently than they did. Quite orthodox, but not very Christ-like.

I am not surprised, but I am curious as to how they voted and how they justify receiving Communion because not one major presidential or gubernatorial candidate in my memory passes the test of acceptability on all the following issues: abortion, physician-assisted suicide, homicide, the destruction of human embryos in artificial fertilization, stem-cell research, cloning, artificial insemination, contraception, adultery, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, divorce, capital punishment and preemptive war.

I am not referring to the personal moral beliefs of the candidates, but rather to their positions with respect to the criminalization of these sins.

It would be interesting to know how the church hierarchy voted in past elections. We know Archbishop Hannan actively supported Edwin Edwards over David Duke, who claimed to be pro-life, but clearly neither of them met the test.

President Bush? On abortion - he favors exceptions for rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother. Remember - no exceptions. He also flunks the test on most of the other life issues. Pro-life? Hardly!

I have never met a politician who is for abortion, and I have never met one who is willing to put a woman in jail for taking a morning-after pill after being raped, nor have I met one recently who is willing to make a crime of adultery, pre-marital sex, contraception, or divorce. That does not mean they are for those sins. If you should find a candidate who is perfect on criminalizing life issues, and that candidate also meets your concerns on poverty, environment, race, peace and justice, by all means vote for him or her, but I doubt that you will find one.

The Louisiana bishops supported a bill in the Louisiana Legislature that provided exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, even though their lobbyist was called a baby killer by those who insisted on no exceptions. The United States bishops opposed a United States Senate amendment that would have made illegal all abortions after viability except where "the continuation of a pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health." In both instances, the bishops were faced with difficult political choices. I trust that they did not sin.

We live in an imperfect, pluralistic society in which voters, too, are faced with difficult choices. A vote for an imperfect candidate that is not intended to reward or further the imperfection, but rather is intended to advance the good that the candidate offers in preference to another candidate, surely cannot be sinful. If the archbishop is correct, the only safe thing for a Catholic to do is not to vote, but then the failure to do one's civic duty is also a sin.

MOON LANDRIEU

Go get 'em, Moon. Let's see how the single-issue anti-abortion Catholic voters respond to this.