I only watched Iran segment. Way too heated and personal for me.

Not the best choice of participants as there is clearly bad blood between them. Matt's point is that only the US can give the guarantees to Iran that Iran wants and if the US does give these guarantees, Iran will give up it's uranium enrichment. It's certainly a valid argument to make even if you do not agree with it. Matt and others who subscribe to this view need to go one step further, however, and say what their plan is if Iran still refuses any deal they propose the US gives Iran?

Ugh. Kirchick is outclassed here. Make this his last appearance.

Let's start on a positive note. I nominate Matt for Succinct Description of the Week. Well put, Matt. I've never heard the neocon/Mideast hawk attitude so economically summarized. As for Mr. Kirchick ... I must say that I cannot think when BH.tv has had a more obnoxious diavlogger on. His entire shtick was interrupting and trying to score cheap points by twisting words, raising irrelevancies, being purposefully obtuse, or creating false dichotomies. At one point, he asked an open-ended question like "lay out Obama's negotiating strategy with Iran," and didn't let Matt get two sentences out before he interrupted with some bit of junior high school level of sarcasm. Maybe it's because he knows Matt well that he feels as though he doesn't need to let a complete sentence be said before he knows where it's going, but it was highly irritating to listen to. I could not rid myself of the impression that he actually has no confidence in his ideas, or in his ability to defend them, and so must resort to techniques of bickering to keep from looking like a fool. Which didn't work. I couldn't watch this one all the way through. Sad

I've never cared much for Kirchick, and like some others here, I thought this was a terrible dialogue. However, I think the blame falls mainly on Matt, who generally behaved like a complete d___. Ninety percent of this diavlog was Matt pontificating in a loud/shrill voice, and generally speaking over James whenever he tried to raise a point or ask a question. James oftentimes writes in a manner that could charitably be referred to as "passionate," and I think Matt was probably expecting their diavlog to be a heated debate. Suprisingly, Kirchick was calm and respectful throughout the diavlog (in constrast to Matt, who gratuitiously insulted James and Eli Lake on several occassions), and mostly just asked Matt questions. Unfortunately, Matt didn't switch gears even when it became obvious that James would not be taking a confrontational approach. The results weren't pretty.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: Suprisingly, Kirchick was calm and respectful throughout the diavlog ..., and mostly just asked Matt questions.

Huh. I heard that as baiting or trying to lay traps, and not as asking questions in an intellectually honest way.

Wow...it's shocking how different different people's perception of the same diavlog can be. I was actually about to write to somewhat defend the diavlog. It actually held my attention most of the time. There was definitely the odd mixture of hostility and familiarity which I can see why people would be turned off by but which actually appeals to me in a way I'm not entirely sure is good. The problem, here, though, is that, for whatever reason, both parties didn't always seem to the outside observer to be entirely prepared for the tone that the diavlog would take. It would be difficult to think of much that I would agree with Mr. Kirchick on (although, come to think of it, I largely agree with his puzzlement at gay community support for HRC), however, he certainly came out of the gates firing. Mr. Yglesias was shown to have clearly given little thought at all to his little 4th of July Independence from Britain post (but here's the tone issue I don't think Mr. Yglesias took it as a very serious post that required a lot of thought and wasn't really expecting to be

Quoting bjkeefe: Huh. I heard that as baiting or trying to lay traps, and not as asking questions in an intellectually honest way.

I'm not sure the difference is as significant as you imply. I find the Socratic method to be an intellectually honest form of debate, and I didn't find its use by Volokh in his diavlog with Rackove to be unfair. James might have been trying to employ this tactic with Matt -- we'll never know, because Matt wouldn't shut up long enough for James to ask a follow-up.

A few more points 1. I don't really care if Matt is patriotic or not and I don't really think its important enough in general to base a segment on. The entire line of questioning was too specific to Matt. If Kirchik had a broader point to make about liberal philosophy or perhaps Obama's philosophy, the question, as a jumping off point, would have made more sense. As it was, it just came off as a personal attack with little value for the viewers. 2. Matt's comment about Eli Lake was totally uncalled for. You may not agree with him, but such personal attacks are simply childish. This does, however, fit a pattern for Matt who can't help himself and often resorts to broad ad hominem attacks on his political opponents; for example, calling them "fundamentally malign" instead of engaging their ideas.

I haven't watched it yet, but two notes: (1) It would be hard for me, as a conservative, to imagine a more annoying diavlogger than Matt Stoller. I'll watch to see how hathetic this one is for me. (2) In case you haven't read him, BJ, his writing is quite obnoxious as well. But his piece on Ron Paul was good. (3) If they're going to have Matt v. Jamie and Byron York v. David Corn, isn't it time they get Kaus v. Sullivan and Wright v. Coulter? Wouldn't that be fun?

Yeah, I want to chime in with my meaningless opinion on this: while I like Yglesias as a diavlogger, I hate him as a blogger. He apparently thinks snark is an end in itself; it seems to be the only device he uses to punch up his writing. I would say more mean things, but ... Matt's head is too wide. Okay. There. I'm done.

What about Eli's "personal style" are you referring to, Abu? I don't read his writing, but in diavlog-form he seems to keep it all above the belt.

Quoting Bobby G: I haven't watched it yet, but two notes:

(1) [...]

(2) [...]

(3) [...]

You know, with this sort of math, I'm beginning to question the validity of your stance on supply-side economics. ;^)

(2) In case you haven't read him, BJ, his writing is quite obnoxious as well. But his piece on Ron Paul was good.

I've mostly only read his post on TNR's The Plank. Yes to "obnoxious." Haven't seen the Paul piece. Can you find a link, or at least tell me where it appeared? I followed the sidebar links to his two gay issues articles. I thought those were pretty good -- the HRC as diva one was funny, with some good points about Bill Clinton's record, and the one on CA's gay marriage situation was quite interesting.

(3) If they're going to have Matt v. Jamie and Byron York v. David Corn, isn't it time they get Kaus v. Sullivan ...

Mickey would be destroyed, unless Andrew was being nice.

...and Wright v. Coulter? Wouldn't that be fun?

ExplodingHeads.tv.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: I'm not sure the difference is as significant as you imply. I find the Socratic method to be an intellectually honest form of debate, and I didn't find its use by Volokh in his diavlog with Rackove to be unfair.

I agree with both of those statements. It's just that James's questions seemed more like "I have such a snappy comeback in mind that I now ask this question in hopes of delivering it."

James might have been trying to employ this tactic with Matt -- we'll never know, because Matt wouldn't shut up long enough for James to ask a follow-up.

Heh. To my perception, James never let him finish the first answer until Matt finally had to start talking over him just to get to a period.

Bobby G, I don't read his writing either, but as a diavlogger Mr. Lake, as far as I hear him, has a tendency to arrogantly make absolutist and flippant remarks about literally deadly serious issues about places, conflicts, and cultures he either knows little (Iraq) or nothing, (most of the rest of the world judging from his diavlog with Matthew Lee.) I will admit that Mr. Lake is not alone in this, and it is in some ways a hazard of the job of pundit, blogger, diavlogger in that one is called upon to comment on a variety of subjects about which one does not necessarily have any special expertise or knowledge. I find Mr. Lake especially annoying in that his arrogant absolutism is ideologically driven and driven by an ideology I don't like. I'm sure others possess some of the same characteristics but I don't find them as objectionable because I'm not as bothered by their ideologies. So, that, if you can understand what I'm getting at, is what I find abhorrent about Mr. Lake's personal style. I still see the value in such contributions, as I mentioned in my original post, and would actually like to see more of them, but there's a

I second the notion that the Paul piece was excellent reporting. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...5-4532a7da84ca I would love to see a Kaus-Sullivan diavlog.

Quoting Bobby G: Yeah, I want to chime in with my meaningless opinion on this: while I like Yglesias as a diavlogger, I hate him as a blogger. He apparently thinks snark is an end in itself; it seems to be the only device he uses to punch up his writing.

Just for the record, I don't agree. He does bring the snark from time to time, no doubt, but it's hardly there in every post.

Abu Noor: Thanks for the link. Now that I've looked, I remember seeing this article before. A good job of reportage.

Matt, your opinion--that you wish American colonies hadn't broken with the motherland--because we're friends today, is insipid. US and Japan are friends now. US and Germany are friends now. So....uh....we shouldn't have entered WWII. Does it not occur to you that we are "close" with the Brits because they EVOLVED...and became a parliamentary democracy. Ditto Japan and Germany. Your statement that the colonies weren't LESS democratic than England is grossly ignorant. Congrats to James. You were hugely patient. I would love to see Sam Adams or John Adams hear this twit compare patriots to sports fans. This person should have to live in a non-democratic society--with his loved ones--deprived of the the benefits of capitalism, watching his own teeth rot out of his mouth.

Abu Noor: I can see all of your complaints about Eli. Nonetheless, for as much as I usually disagree with him, I like him as a diavlogger. He can be bombastic, to be sure, and paired with the wrong person, he can be a bully. But when he's paired with Heather Hurlbert or that one with Matthew Lee, he can be reined in, or reins himself in, I think. He does express his opinions forcefully, and he is an unabashed hawk, but he strikes me as fairly well informed, compared to the average pundit. And, as I said, if you pair him with someone who's not afraid to call him on things, he'll back down easily enough. I think he throws some things out there just to see what kind of reaction they'll get, or in other cases, maybe just blurts without thinking. [added]Now that I think about it, I can imagine that he's probably said some anti-Muslim things that probably affected you more than they would have me.

OK, I've seen the diavlog now. Some thoughts: (a) I think Matt began intensely nervous (look at his pained smiles at the beginning); the adrenaline was pumping through his veins and I think he was expecting a throw-down. (b) Kirchek's question-asking was obnoxious, because it gave the impression that he was some professor quizzing a student, when in fact it was supposed to be a conversation. Some of the questions, also, were designed to evoke what Kirchek thought were self-evidently ridiculous positions. However, other of the questions--particularly ones where Yglesias would boldly assert something (e.g., McCain's war-mongering) and then Kirchek would ask, "what on earth did you mean by that?"--were useful; not only did I also want to see some back-up, they provoked Yglesias to provide some useful background. (c) Kirchek came off a lot better than I thought he would. He seemed to be, relative to the pundit class, and especially for his age, well-informed. (d) I think Matt's trap for Jamie--which was: I. You (1) claim that Iran is not a 'normal' country, but rather a revolutionary one; and you (2) protest whenever people claim that you want to attack Iran; but
II. If Iran is the revolutionary country you say it is, then diplomacy is not a valid option, leaving

Abu, That's all fair. I would strongly disagree, though, with your claim that Eli knows only a little about Iraq. But that may be only because I know so very much less than he.

Quoting bjkeefe: Abu Noor:
[added]Now that I think about it, I can imagine that he's probably said some anti-Muslim things that probably affected you more than they would have me.

That's quite an addendum to make without being sure, even with the non-dispositive "I can imagine" thrown in.

Quoting gwlaw99: That's quite an addendum to make without being sure, even with the non-dispositive "I can imagine" thrown in.

Yeah, it sounded kind of squishy, didn't it? It's really that I don't remember anything specific, but in thinking how hawkish Eli can be, in favor of Israel and against Iran, say, the thought kept flitting around my mind after I posted the first part. I guess I also wanted to indicate a little more (guess?) that I could see why Abu Noor would have a stronger dislike than I do.

Brendan and gwlaw99, No doubt Mr. Lake has views, which I, as a Muslim find repugnant. To what I think is gwlaw's point, I don't doubt either that Mr. Lake does not think of himself as anti-Muslim and was obviously a great admirer of the Sunni tribal shaykhs in Iraq that agreed to fight with the U.S. against "Al-Qa'ida." You'll actually find this true of a lot of neocons, while Muslims in general detest them and their views, they consider themselves to be friends of Muslims in general (although I don't think this is what motivates them) and in many cases there are of course actual Muslims who want the U.S. to back them against other Muslims and so appreciate the neocon support. Above and beyond all that Brendan, just note that I said I appreciate Mr. Lake as a diavlogger as well and even said, contra you, that Mr. Kirchick should be back, so I am not saying they should not be on because of my issues with them. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Quoting gwlaw99: That's quite an addendum to make without being sure, even with the non-dispositive "I can imagine" thrown in.

Bobby G, My point was not to insult Mr. Lake's knowledge of Iraq but actually to compliment it relative to his knowledge about other areas. I would say that I'm not really sure how much Mr. Lake knows about Iraq, but I respect the time and effort he has put in reporting and thinking about it. Unfortunately, I think all his time and effort has been conducted through a predetermined intellectual lens and done with the goal of finding support for his own predetermined position, but he's far from the only one in that boat. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Quoting Bobby G: Abu,

That's all fair. I would strongly disagree, though, with your claim that Eli knows only a little about Iraq. But that may be only because I know so very much less than he.

Hi Abu, I was referring to this passage of yours:

Mr. Lake, as far as I hear him, has a tendency to arrogantly make absolutist and flippant remarks about literally deadly serious issues about places, conflicts, and cultures he either knows little (Iraq) or nothing, (most of the rest of the world judging from his diavlog with Matthew Lee.)

(boldfacing mine).

Shorter Matthew Yglesias: I'm excruciatingly fair to America's enemies. To America, not so much. Maybe I'll feel different after Bush is gone, but since America is to Iran as the Celtics are to the Lakers, why care?

I knew what you were referring to Bobby G...and I already clarified what my point was..Not sure what else you're looking for...

As for writing off HRC's 50% of the Democratic Party as just a crowd of pissed-off lesbians & diva-worshipping gay men, that's absurd and is really nothing but a way of marginalizing and dismissing the 18 million primary voters who found her to be the superior choice. 2008: Vote "None of the Above." EW

EW, Who said that all of HRC's supporters were Lesbians and gay men? What's your problem with Nader?

Quoting Eastwest: As for writing off HRC's 50% of the Democratic Party as just a crowd of pissed-off lesbians & diva-worshipping gay men, that's absurd and is really nothing but a way of marginalizing and dismissing the 18 million primary voters who found her to be the superior choice.

2008: Vote "None of the Above."

EW

Ummm..... Iran? The villagers are honestly the dumbest people in America. Does Kirchick know nothing?

Quoting Bobby G: I would say more mean things, but ... Matt's head is too wide. Okay. There. I'm done.

Now you can go back to talking about how meaningful your religion is to you and how you want Christianity to play a central role in American life. Why don't you post a picture of yourself so we can insult your appearance?

Quoting Eastwest: 2008: Vote "None of the Above."

Quoting Eastwest: Barack Obama for President, 2008

Flip-flopper.

The subject of Kirchick's reporting on the lunatic Ron Paul came up earlier in the thread, but I want to elevate it to its own sub thread just to give it more exposure to any other readers who might follow. I agree with many of the conclusions others have drawn by about Kirchick after his performance in this diavlog, but his Ron Paul story was truly outstanding. Here are the relevant links: — Angry White Man
— Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters
— More Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters The defense offered by Ron Paul and his devoted followers was that Paul was completely unaware of the racism, homophobia, and conspiracy-mongering he published in his own newsletters for years. Can you believe anyone would offer such a ludicrous defense? And can you believe his followers actually believed it? I guess the thinking is that Ron Paul can't publish a newsletter without it accidentally being taken over by a bunch of racist anti-government types, but he's perfectly qualified to be president. (LOL) Following his surreal "I didn't know what I published in my newsletter" defense, excellent follow-up reporting was done by Reason Magazine: — Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? When

Cute guys everywhere are devastated, but is it rational?

Boy, I really think that Matt needs to widen his reading of history, American and global. He's pronouncing with a great deal of certainty on a wide range of subjects, then he seems surprised and angry when others challenge him. One gets the sense that he does not know how much he does not know... if you know what I mean. I hold no brief for Kirkchik, apart from his brilliant reporting on Ron Paul, but I think his interrogation highlights some huge gaps in Matt's knowledge and logic. Regardless, I am glad bh.tv offered a forum for these two to go head-to-head. I liked how they fought tooth and nail, rather than retreating into comfortable meta-discussion. Not every debate needs to be friendly... some arguments generate both light and heat! Death to cocoons!

BJ is too kind. Eli Lake is a straight up hack neocon. He'll say anything, take any cheap shot, and when he's on the run he'll just make stuff up. (That's why Heather Hurlburt is so entertaining. She lets him run his mouth for a while, and then it's a hoot when she calls him on it.) And here's Kirchick doing the same thing, playing dumb and faking outrage. It's just pathetic.

Quoting Bobby G: Abu,

That's all fair. I would strongly disagree, though, with your claim that Eli knows only a little about Iraq. But that may be only because I know so very much less than he.

It's possible that part of the reason for the disconnect between your perception of Lake and that of some others is because Eli used to be a lot more insulting and obnoxious on BHTV, throwing cheap personal attacks every which way. To my perception -- and we all seem to perceive these things differently -- Eli has undergone a remarkable transformation, and is now much more "adult" in his presentation. Look up some of his early diavlogs to see what he used to be like.

Quoting AngryOrioles: Not every debate needs to be friendly... some arguments generate both light and heat! Death to cocoons!

Ah, c'mon. There's 500 channels of cable TV out there, filled with such crap. Let's preserve this small island as a place where decorum is maintained.* You can have a vigorous debate without being an interrupting dweeb who only knows how to play "gotcha."
------------------ * Between the diavloggers, I mean. (Before you go linking to all my obnoxious comments.)

Quoting claymisher: BJ is too kind. Eli Lake is a straight up hack neocon. He'll say anything, take any cheap shot, and when he's on the run he'll just make stuff up. (That's why Heather Hurlburt is so entertaining. She lets him run his mouth for a while, and then it's a hoot when she calls him on it.)

You're right, of course. Eli is a hack. And dishonest. And part of one of the great immoral movements of our time -- basically a party of murder and hate. But likability goes a long way. And somewhere along the line, Eli changed from being prickly to being quite likable. Another example is James Pinkerton; the man believes some absolutely horrifying things, but even the liberals love him because he's just so gosh darn charming. Banality of evil and all that.

Quoting claymisher: And here's Kirchick doing the same thing, playing dumb and faking outrage. It's just pathetic.

Yeah. Dumb, fake outrage, pathetic. And on top of that, condescending.

Quoting AngryOrioles: he seems surprised and angry when others challenge him

This is all in your head. Matt was neither surprised nor angry by the challenge to his Independence Day post. He's been dealing with right-wing response for days already. Whatever surprise or anger you saw was entirely your own imagination. I know this might be hard for conservatives to believe, but most liberals honestly don't give a flying f!ck what the water carriers of the Republican party think of us.

I'm not going to lay blame, but these two shouldn't really be paired up together. They're too combative. They seem to believe that BHtv is CNN.

Kirchick: "Is America wonderful"? Come on pal. That's your response to a kind of thought experiment about whether war was really the best or only way to respond to the grievances Americans had? God. This guy is worse than Eli Lake.

Man-boob cat fight. Way to promote the BhTv brand, Bob.

Kirchick keeps asking questions like: "is American great? Isn't America exceptional" as if disagreement with those questions marks one as somehow bad. Well, America is great in some ways, and not great in other ways. It's exceptional, but so is Germany, so is France, so is Guatemala, so is Belize. No country, I'd venture to say - knowing nothing about the country - is the same as Belize. Can we get beyond the 5th grade "America is Great!" nonsense and have a discussion about what qualities are better than others? Kirchick operates on a Robert Kagan view of the world, which kind of explains his problem.

What confused me was the following. You wrote:

My point was not to insult Mr. Lake's knowledge of Iraq but actually to compliment it relative to his knowledge about other areas.

I took that to mean: Eli Lake knows very little about anything at all; of course, regarding Iraq, he knows a little, at least relative to his knowledge base, which is miniscule. That's why I pursued the issue. But this is such a small point that it's probably not worth either your or my time discussing it.

Quoting TwinSwords: Now you can go back to talking about how meaningful your religion is to you and how you want Christianity to play a central role in American life.

Why don't you post a picture of yourself so we can insult your appearance?

I was making a joke about Matt's appearance. The remark was not in fact coming from a place of hostility to Matt. As I said, I like Matt as a diavlogger; rather, I was using a comedic trope wherein someone tries to be mean to someone by making a rather anodyne remark. The humor is supposed to lie not in the remark itself but rather in the fact that the character in question (in this case, the persona I was effecting) thinks the remark is so damaging that he has to restrain himself somewhat in making it. I'm not saying it was a particularly funny remark, just one I hoped would elicit a smile. I see I failed in conveying that, at least to you, as evidenced by your response, which seems to me rather hostile. Am I wrong in thinking that you have contempt for me?

Quoting jstrummer: Kirchick keeps asking questions like: "is American great? Isn't America exceptional" as if disagreement with those questions marks one as somehow bad.

Suggested reading for Mr. Kirchick: Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States." What a nauseatingly jingoistic performance. This kid must have been home-schooled by Republican parents who forbade books and never even graduated from high school. EW

Quoting Eastwest: What a nauseatingly jingoistic performance.

Yeah, you're not kidding. If Kirchick had 2 more minutes, I'm sure he would have gotten to "are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" This was perhaps the low point of Kirchick's sneering series of implications.

Quoting Eastwest: This kid must have been home-schooled by Republican parents who forbade books and never even graduated from high school.

He's pure Republican.

Was Stoller the guy who couldn't stop interrupting/talking-over/hollering? There was one diavlog in the last year or so that was just terrible like that. I thought it was between two guys on the left, but I can't remember now. If I remember correctly the bully got called on it and just kept on doing it. I think it was a 30ish blogger and not a journalist. Anybody remember?

Quoting claymisher: Was Stoller the guy who couldn't stop interrupting/talking-over/hollering? There was one diavlog in the last year or so that was just terrible like that. I thought it was between two guys on the left, but I can't remember now. If I remember correctly the bully got called on it and just kept on doing it. I think it was a 30ish blogger and not a journalist.

Anybody remember?

Yeah, that was a DV with Conn Carroll. It wasn't as bad as you make it sound, but Stoller was pretty obnoxious, and your portrayal is definitely in keeping with the conservative version of events.

Quoting Bobby G: I was making a joke about Matt's appearance. The remark was not in fact coming from a place of hostility to Matt. As I said, I like Matt as a diavlogger; rather, I was using a comedic trope wherein someone tries to be mean to someone by making a rather anodyne remark. The humor is supposed to lie not in the remark itself but rather in the fact that the character in question (in this case, the persona I was effecting) thinks the remark is so damaging that he has to restrain himself somewhat in making it. I'm not saying it was a particularly funny remark, just one I hoped would elicit a smile.

I see I failed in conveying that, at least to you, as evidenced by your response, which seems to me rather hostile. Am I wrong in thinking that you have contempt for me?

First of all, thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry I didn't get it; maybe I was reading too fast, or maybe there was some ambiguity in your post. In any event, I'm glad it wasn't actually a comment on Matt's appearance. Do I have contempt for you? Well, I felt some disgust when I thought you were insulting Matt's appearance. Other than that, no, I have

Thanks ... I skipped around that one a little bit and didn't see it. Stoller is talking a lot, but on the whole it's pretty tame. Got a dingalink? I might have been thinking of something else, or I imagined it. I know it was pre 2008.

Quoting claymisher: Thanks ... I skipped around that one a little bit and didn't see it. Stoller is talking a lot, but on the whole it's pretty tame. Got a dingalink? I might have been thinking of something else, or I imagined it. I know it was pre 2008.

Here you go: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/318

Quoting TwinSwords: Here you go: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/318

Oh jeez, this is the episode where Stoller is bashing Barack Obama. And (rofl) Carroll is playing devil's advocate. This was back when conservatives wanted someone to damage Hillary. Now that Hillary's off the board, it time to shift gears and find people to damage Obama. That's where the MSM comes in: to close the deal and elect McCain.

That must have been it.

It's remarkable that after a week of Republican celebration of the life of one of their movement's leading heros and icons — an unrepetant racist — the liberal was playing defense. Even six years ago Republicans pretended to be offended by the racist remarks of Sen. Trent Lott. It seems to me that racism has really gone mainstream in recent years, perhaps most noticably with the Katrina disaster, but fueled as well by Republican obsession with "illegal aliens" and Arabs. We're at a point, now, where Republicans are proud of their racism; not quite ready to explicitly embrace it again, but getting closer every day. (h/t Brendan)

Oh good. Because I was getting all set to post this picture of myself to prove my irenic intentions.

I liked Kirchek more after seeing today's diavlog -- but, and saying this as someone who thinks patriotism is a good thing, something which I'm glad we have so much of in America, you're right. That was awful. It's really the kind of question Hannity would ask: it's a vague question, it's posed to basically force people into taking a black or white stance on an issue that is not black or white, and it's done in order to satisfy the questioner's craving for power over his interlocutor. Just terrible.

Yeah, but it was easy to go after Trent Lott. (A) he hadn't just died, and (B) he was considered by many conservatives to be a terrible majority leader, one who lets the Dems get away with too much. They were pleased to take the opportunity, I think. And honestly, I think Lott's remark was very small beer compared to the litany of racism Helms compiled over his life.

Quoting Bobby G: Oh good. Because I was getting all set to post this picture of myself to prove my irenic intentions.

Hehehe. My gosh, you have such big, glassy eyeballs! ;-)

Does Matt always cut-off people right as they begin to talk?

Quoting jstrummer: Kirchick: "Is America wonderful"?

Come on pal. That's your response to a kind of thought experiment about whether war was really the best or only way to respond to the grievances Americans had?

God. This guy is worse than Eli Lake.

I'm a gay guy and I proudly proclaim the greatness of America. What a blessing it is to be born here. To be part of a nation that is bound by the ideas of Freedom and Liberty. Or it used to. I'll decline the suggestion someone made to read Zinn's Hate-America propaganda. In the coming years as Europe descends into Civil War , and Islam spreads around the world, America will be more important than ever. It's a shame we're saddled by Leftists and their seditious Anti-Americanism.

I find it offensive that the right is now trying to pretend that Bush has been reasonable about Iran in any way. I think Matt did a poor job of knocking this back. The negotiations with Iran have not been good-faith because Bush: 1. Gave that Axis of Evil speech and declared regime-change as official US policy towards Iran. 2. Has not renounced the principle of regime change and preemptive war. 3. From the start gave the desired end goal of negotiations with Iran as the precodition for negotiations, which is bad enough in and of itself but when combined with (1) & (2), reads as "stop enriching or we will invade you once we're done in Iraq". 4. Has used a lot of over-heated rhetoric. 5. Has never acknowledged the fundamental fact that we all know (or should know) which is that Iran has a legitimate right to declare nuclear technology. 6. Has never acknowledged that with US troops surrounding Iran, (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi and Turkey, and with the huge military adavantage Israel has over Iran, Iran has every reason to feel threatened by the US. 7. That the official policy of Iran for resolving the Palestinian question

Quoting seyoyo: I find it offensive that the right is now trying to pretend that Bush has been reasonable about Iran in any way. I think Matt did a poor job of knocking this back.

And just who on the right has applauded Bush's incoherent and reckless stance toward Iran?
I'm on the right and he's been a disaster regarding Iran. Iran should have been neutralized years ago.

Vince, Did you miss the pod? Kirchick claimed that Matt's pretending that Obama's approach to Iran is any different to Bush's and that Bush's policy on Iran was perfectly reasonable and not war-mongering. Bill Kristol, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have lately been making similar claims. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12579?in=00:33:33

Quoting VinceP1974: I'll decline the suggestion someone made to read Zinn's Hate-America propaganda.

You could only say that having not read it. You should give it a try. You might be surprised.

Quoting VinceP1974: It's a shame we're saddled by Leftists and their seditious Anti-Americanism.

Ah, the wingnut's notion of America -- no diversity, no dissent, no freedoms, except what they want for themselves.

Quoting seyoyo: Vince,

Did you miss the pod?

Kirchick claimed that Matt's pretending that Obama's approach to Iran is any different to Bush's and that Bush's policy on Iran was perfectly reasonable and not war-mongering. Bill Kristol, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have lately been making similar claims.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12579?in=00:33:33

Yes Conservatives agree with the sometimes stated by Bush notion that military action will be required to deal with Iran. In that sense they agree. What I was talking about is the fact that we are waiting to long to do it. No one is applauding Bush for that.. and ultimately that is the key judgement because action is going to be needed and has been needed for a long time.
The longer this takes the more time Iran has to prepare its moves.

Doesn't Zinn himself, in the preface or the intro, I forget which, say that his book is more polemical than historically dispassionate? If this is a correct self-assessment, then can't expect some inevitable distortions from his accounting (more so than usual from scholars)? And, to be a little more aggressive here, doesn't he view history through the rather narrow ideological lens of "the powerful are trying to oppress the poor; the US government is powerful; therefore it tries to oppress the poor"? I don't know BJ--I've not read all of his book, but I've read a few chapters and while the book is an enjoyable read, it strikes me as being about as reliable as Chomsky on foreign policy. Am I crazy?

Well it's a very stupid policy (Bush's and McCain's) to say the least. A military approach would be reckless to say the least, and Iran know this as well as you and I. This leaves real diplomacy as the only solution. As it turns out, Bush's approach completely makes that impossible also. Which means, as Joe Biden pointed out, that the almost guaranteed result is Iran mastering the fuel cycle.

The whole idea that Iran isn't accepting entreaties because it senses there is no "good faith" on the part of the Bush administration is pretty weak in several ways. One is that it doesn't conform to the realist policy model, by which we would be negotiating with Iran as a rational actor (and I do think they are mostly a rational actor, although there is a elite of officials there that also wants to protect its position). In the realist model, the states know that they have opposing long-term agendas but negotiate anyway based on the fruits of that negotiation. Each state is betting that those fruits would help them in some way in their long-term agendas or interest.

Quoting seyoyo: The negotiations with Iran have not been good-faith because Bush:

1. Gave that Axis of Evil speech and declared regime-change as official US policy towards Iran.

Now, this is interesting; Matt has said time and again on his blog that, just because a country's leaders make very aggressive-sounding overtures, it doesn't mean they really believe those overtures; there might be all sorts of reasons that explain why they're speaking as overheatedly as they do--for instance, to throw some red meat to the more radical elements of their population. He was talking about Iran. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to the US? (And moreover, North Korea was a pillar of the axis, and the Bush administration has been negotiating with them.)

2. Has not renounced the principle of regime change and preemptive war.

Well, just because there's been no official renunciation does not mean that there's been unofficial renunciation. And in any event, is it not naive to expect such a thing, from any politician, let alone Bush? I mean, it would just damage the Republican brand and Bush's presidency still further for him to make such a renunciation.

3. From the start gave the desired end goal

abemahler, I think that's an artificial and not particularly useful way to frame the issue. (Good faith or not good faith). To keep it simple: The Bush admin made it clear to Iran that they didn't want to negotiate or resolve differences with Iran in anyway. It is not that they tried but did not do it in good faith, it is that they never ever wanted to try, and the Europeans (for example) adopted the Bush line of setting as precondition to the talks, the desired end goal of negotiations, while completely incapable of guaranteeing the Iranians that they will not be invaded. The end sum of which meant the Bush line was the definitive line on the matter. With Bush making it clear he didn't want a negotiated resolution, we really can not definitively say Iran has not responded to entreaties.

Now, this is interesting; Matt has said time and again on his blog that, just because a country's leaders make very aggressive-sounding overtures, it doesn't mean they really believe those overtures; there might be all sorts of reasons that explain why they're speaking as overheatedly as they do--for instance, to throw some red meat to the more radical elements of their population.

He was talking about Iran. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to the US?

(And moreover, North Korea was a pillar of the axis, and the Bush administration has been negotiating with them.)

You're not debating with Matt. But I'll even take your point nevertheless. When you possess the sheer destructive force of the United States, and are invading two of Iran's neighbours, no way can it be said that Bush was just using overheated rhetoric. It was a clear statement of intent, which would have been actualised if Iraq had gone to Bush's fantasy. That's in fact quite different to Ahmadinejad allegedly threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Why? Because Ahmadinejad 1. Is not Iran's Commander in Chief, 2. If he were does not have the means to do so

Seyoyo,
To my mind, you're just rephrasing the notion of "good faith." It's true that you've added the element of a guarantee of not being invaded, but Iran knows that if it makes a deal on enrichment satisfactory to the Europeans and Americans, it's not going to be invaded. Also, the Europeans aren't exactly following the American line, in the sense, that there is not much of an alternative line of negotiation the Europeans could be giving that would make Iran give up enrichment on its own soil or play host to 1000 inspectors. Can you identify one? Another weakness of Matt's argument, which is related, is that in states like Iran, which are filled with elements of different interests (religious, revolutionary, bureaucratic, military, Azerian, Persian, etc.), playing their cards for a stable and prosperous part in the regime. Factions regularly make religious rules stricter and then looser (like biyearly) as part of keeping control. Individual politicians regularly adopt more conservative or more jingoistic policies, and then more liberal and more isolationist ones to gain support among the people. So when one official gives "overtures" to the United States, it doesn't mean anything until lots of others are on

Encore.

Quoting seyoyo: When you possess the sheer destructive force of the United States, and are invading two of Iran's neighbours, no way can it be said that Bush was just using overheated rhetoric. It was a clear statement of intent, which would have been actualised if Iraq had gone to Bush's fantasy.

I'm not at all convinced that it would have been actualized even under the conditions you're describing. First, if Iraq had gone well, that doesn't mean that the US would have had enough troops left over to do something about Iraq. Second, what aggressive approach do you think Bush would have tried to actualize? Regime change? Shooting missiles at the (suspected) locations of the nuclear programs? I can imagine him doing the second; I can't imagine him under any realistic set of circumstances trying the second. If I'm right about this, then I think you should look at Bush's utterances as a stance, not a clear declaration of an intended policy.

That's in fact quite different to Ahmadinejad allegedly threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Why? Because Ahmadinejad 1. Is not Iran's Commander in Chief, 2. If he were does not have the means to do so

abemahler, If you did not make any real effort to negotiate, you really can't claim that your overture wasn't responded to. But you think that Bush and the Europeans made a real effort. That'd be the source of the difference in the way we see this. I think they clearly did not do so. The Europeans perhaps made a real effort, but let's face it, once Bush set the marker, his position on the issue became the definitive issue especially since the EU group then had to adopt that stupid precondition. In asking for an alternative you have to realise that the alternative was to not have taken the Bush line in the first place. That's what offends me about this: You do the wrong thing, fail miserably and say : "Well I failed but what can you do differently from me to stop failing?". Dude, you should not have gone down that line in the first place! I might agree with you about how to stop failing but your approach and policy would still be completely wrong. The alternative would be to reverse some of the Bush policies; i.e by giving a

Bobby G:

Doesn't Zinn himself, in the preface or the intro, I forget which, say that his book is more polemical than historically dispassionate?

Good point. If memory serves, yes, Zinn does say something to that effect, up front. On the other hand, I was not trying to say that his book should be viewed as the new, definitive textbook for American History. I was pushing back on VinceP1974's claim that it is "Hate-America propaganda." My own experience of reading Zinn was this: I thought many times while reading, he goes too far, but by the end, I felt like I had read a real eye-opener. The book felt like an invaluable counterweight to the impression of American history that I had been given in my formative years -- that our nation and our system are without flaw, and that even if we have a few dark periods in our history, it just shows how great we are that we grew out of them. I found it instructive, for example, to consider Zinn's proposition that the underlying goal of the Constitution's authors was to preserve the status quo. I found it helpful to read accounts from out of the mainstream of the motivations and actions

I'm not at all convinced that it would have been actualized even under the conditions you're describing. First, if Iraq had gone well, that doesn't mean that the US would have had enough troops left over to do something about Iraq. Second, what aggressive approach do you think Bush would have tried to actualize? Regime change? Shooting missiles at the (suspected) locations of the nuclear programs? I can imagine him doing the second; I can't imagine him under any realistic set of circumstances trying the second. If I'm right about this, then I think you should look at Bush's utterances as a stance, not a clear declaration of an intended policy.

Well, Iran certainly had reason to take Bush's rhetoric seriously.

Interesting. First, I think the citizens of any nation are going to agree with those Iranians, at least about their own nation; so I'm not sure how much mileage that gets you. Second, how pro-American do you think Iranians are? I've heard that, at least before the Iraq war, most were pretty pro-American; did the Iraq war change that significantly for the worse (keeping in mind that there's not much love lost between the Iranians and the Sunni Iraqis who

I actually liked this diavlog. We had two exponents of radically different policy engage in a policy discussion. In spite of the obvious tension, they stuck to substantive argument, and they didn't descend into the horse-race stuff that's often how left and right wing diavloggers find a way to be civil to each other.

I would like to point out that Mickey has pointed out that Matt's head is indeed large so if you blame anybody blame mickey :-) http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/141...31&out=1:03:57 Took a while to find that link since it was back in the old Phorum Days. http://forums.bloggingheads.tv/phoru...13,737#msg-737

Quoting bjkeefe: Bobby G:

Good point. If memory serves, yes, Zinn does say something to that effect, up front.

On the other hand, I was not trying to say that his book should be viewed as the new, definitive textbook for American History. I was pushing back on VinceP1974's claim that it is "Hate-America propaganda."

I heard Zinn on Dennis Prager's radio program a while ago. I don't remember any specifics of what the man said but I remember having come to the view that Zinn has no interest in the truth and is so warped by his ideology that his judgments are of no value. I went searching for this interview and I found the transcript And yes here is what he said.. that in the overall balance of things the US is more of a force of bad in the world than good. If that isn't Hate-Americanism , what is? This is from 2006 http://townhall.com/columnists/Denni...d_zinn,_part_i
Dennis Prager: I think a good part of your view is summarized when you say, "If people knew history, they would scoff at that, they would laugh at that" -- the idea that the United States is a force for the betterment of humanity. I believe that we are the country

Part II of transcript of Howard Zinn on Dennis Prager's radio show in 2006 http://townhall.com/columnists/Denni...t_ii?page=full DP: I believe that we [Americans] fought in Korea in order to enable at least half of that benighted peninsula to live in relative freedom and prosperity; the half that we did not liberate is living in the nightmare, almost Nazi-like, condition of the North Korean government. Why don't you see that as a great good that Americans did? HZ: I think that your description of the North Korean government is accurate. It's sort of a monstrous government. But when we went to war in Korea the result of that war was the deaths of several million people. And I question whether the deaths . . . were worth the result. . . . DP: If America had never intervened, do we both agree that Kim Il-sung, the psychopathic dictator of North Korea, would have ruled over the entire Korean peninsula? HZ: I think that's probably true. DP: Do you believe that that would be a net moral or immoral result for the Korean people and the world? HZ: That would have been an immoral result, but the result of the war itself was also immoral -- I'm talking about the killing

Quoting seyoyo: Well it's a very stupid policy (Bush's and McCain's) to say the least. A military approach would be reckless to say the least, and Iran know this as well as you and I. This leaves real diplomacy as the only solution. As it turns out, Bush's approach completely makes that impossible also.

Which means, as Joe Biden pointed out, that the almost guaranteed result is Iran mastering the fuel cycle.

Can I ask you a question... and trust that you won't go googling for the answer. If you don't know the answer, just say so. What is a twelver.

Quoting seyoyo: Well, Iran certainly had reason to take Bush's rhetoric seriously.

That's true, but if these facts about the hamstrung US army are available to me, I should think they'd be available to the Iranians. I mean, they had reason to worry, but not about regime change.

Quoting seyoyo: I think the regime is very unpopular, but the legitimacy of Iran's claims to nuclear technology is important not only within Iran though. I posit that the ostracisation of Iran would be much further extended to more nations if people didn't see it this way. Especially Arab countries.

I don't fully understand what you mean. Are you saying that if we recognized their claims to nuclear technology, more nations, especially Arab ones, would ostracize them?

Quoting seyoyo: Well, it's the only one way that Iran is conceivably an "existential threat" to Israel.

I guess. But despite Israel's rhetoric about existential threats, they might not in fact be worried about any such thing (except the faster rate of reproduction of their Arab citizens and the nearby Palestinians); they might rather be worried about the various disruptive effects that Iran could have for their interests.

This whole debate about good faith / bad faith is so devoid of fact that I could just cry.. especially over how so many people think Iran is the sincere party and the US is the scheming manipulating fraud. There is no mystery about what Iran accomplishes when it goes through the motions of "negotiating". They openly proclaim to their people what they're doing.. like in this video from Iran http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/216/805.htm Title:
Chief Iranian Negotiator on the Nuclear Issue Hosein Musavian: The Negotiations with Europe Bought Us Time to Complete the Esfahan UCF Project and the Work on the Centrifuges in Natanz Did you see that... Iran pulling the chain of the EU3 bought the time they needed to get expertise on uranium fuel cycle. Here is the transcript. I get so frustrated about how naive so many in the West are.That they allow Iran to play them like the fools they are. http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/805.htm The following are excerpts from an interview withIranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005 Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize

VinceP, I actually disagree with your contention that Howard Zinn's comments in this interview are "HateAmerica" comments. He also seems willing to discuss specifics and demonstrates some knowledge on those specifics. Yes, he has a principled view (you can call it ideology if you want) that War is a pretty bad thing, and if we really look at the results of war it is often worse than the other bad things that war is supposedly started to try to stop. So do a lot of people. Now, you can disagree with that...but to say it is just unthinking and HateAmerica is a little odd. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Very interesting exchange. Thanks for posting that. Zinn came off as a lot more accommodating, at least in manner, than I thought he'd be. As for his line that America has done more bad than good, given the criteria he uses, I don't see how that's arguable. But one could have the following view: America has done more bad than good, but the ratio of bad to good is much closer together for America than it is for most countries. That is, if you held the view that almost every country does more bad than good (except for ones that, due to the unimportance, can't do anything), then saying America also does more bad than good doesn't yet convince me that you're an America-hater. I'd have to hear more about what Zinn thinks of other countries to reach that judgment.

VinceP, I'm not seyoyo, so I won't interrupt your exciting little quiz game although I do know what a twelver is. I wonder why you're criticizing google when you and many others on your side of this issue seem to be quite big fans of the google, cut, paste move yourselves (let's face it, who isn't?) I find all these Iran discussions incredibly tedious (both in the dv and in the comments section) and I don't see any light being shed nor minds being engaged. Still, whether or not the U.S. or Israel end up going to war with Iran is definitely a very important issue, I just don't see a lot productive in the discussions. I still applaud seyoyo's efforts however. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Hi Abu. I'll try to lighten up.. I have the tendency toward stridency. I was not asking him about twelvers in order to play games or "gotcha" or anything like that. I want to ascertain what his understanding of Iran really is. What I find with most people in the West who do not make an effort to really study the details of this situation is that the Westerners have no clue about core values of the regime running Iran. So anyone offering an analysis of this situation is missing critical data if they just impose Western mindset onto the IRI. A full understanding of what makes the Mullah tick does not come from a quick google search. I am not against googling to look up facts.. but when I want to get a true picture of the premises of someone I'm debating with, I appreciate an honest answer.. The point isn't to say "ha ha.. I know this and you don't"... the point is I need to know the best way to present my side and have it be understood.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: VinceP,

I actually disagree with your contention that Howard Zinn's comments in this interview are "HateAmerica" comments. He also seems willing to discuss specifics and demonstrates some knowledge on those specifics. Yes, he has a principled view (you can call it ideology if you want) that War is a pretty bad thing, and if we really look at the results of war it is often worse than the other bad things that war is supposedly started to try to stop. So do a lot of people. Now, you can disagree with that...but to say it is just unthinking and HateAmerica is a little odd.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

I don't think his view is principled at all. He seems to have no problem coming to conclusions damning the United States but when presented with questions that might have answers that go against his POV he certainly proclaims a sudden restraint. The fact that he was open to the debate is nice. We should all be like that and I wish it happened more often. I find shows like Dennis Pragers to be of great value.. he is a very thoughtful man and very respectful when

EW -- 2008: Vote "None of the Above."

If you find that you can't stomach McCain, wouldn't Nader be a more logical choice in order to indicate that you're out there and you're very annoyed? Everyone will assume that those who vote for Nader would have otherwise gone to Obama and will offer a more concrete form of protest.

VinceP, I understand your points. I actually agree that it is important to understand as much about a country as possible in order to engage in discussion about it (seems obvious). I am not sure I agree completely with the underlying assumption that understanding twelver shi'ism would necessarily dictate one way or the other one's position on the issue. (Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to imply if you knew what crazy f--ers these guys were in terms of their religious beliefs you'd know it's silly to try to deal with them). I apologize if this is not your assumption but this seems to be a rampant one on the right wing, pro-Irsrael, neoconnish, MEMRI-fed blogocracy here in the U.S. Someone like Juan Cole or actually probably most of the academic scholars of Iran can have an understaning of both the religious tradition of Iran and its history and come to the opposite conclusions of someone like Kirchick. I am not an expert myself, but I do have much more knowledge than the average person on thes issues, and I actually think understanding the religious beliefs of twelver shi'is actually contributes

Quoting Clingon: If you find that you can't stomach McCain, wouldn't Nader be a more logical choice in order to indicate that you're out there and you're very annoyed? Everyone will assume that those who vote for Nader would have otherwise gone to Obama and will offer a more concrete form of protest.

If he's on the ballot, Nader would better suit my mood. No way I'd vote for either McCain or Obama (unless HRC was his veep, but I think she'd be crazy to have anything to do with him now that he's turned himself into such a joke). EW

VinceP, My views are closer to Zinn's than to yours although I certainly have a different worldview than Howard Zinn. One can disagree with Howard Zinn substantively, one can even assert that his views are undermining America and leading to the downfall of civilization. My point was that I don't see what purpose the HateAmerica label other namecalling. I may occasionally use labels in ways that seem like namecalling (like neocon) but I try to make the terms a least somewhat relevant to the person's actual ideology rather than just insult terms. So, for Howard Zinn, you can say I don't want to read his anarchist writings. Or I don't want to read his socialist writings. Or I don't want to hear his pacifist views. All these terms of course could be misunderstood and could be used as insults but at least one could make an argument, hey this is what Howard Zinn stands for. HateAmerica? C'mon..that sounds like something I'd hear from the AM radio dial.. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Quoting VinceP1974: I don't think his view is principled at all. He seems to have no problem coming to conclusions damning the United States but when presented with questions that

EW, I don't plan to vote in the election and I too think that the views of Nader are preferable to either Obama or McCain. I really find the notion that HRC is admirable and Obama is completely unacceptable I little puzzling. Obama's substantive views are just not that different from HRC's. Also Ms. Clinton has endorsed Obama and said she supports him wholeheartedly....doesn't her opinion carry any weight with you?

Quoting Eastwest: If he's on the ballot, Nader would better suit my mood. No way I'd vote for either McCain or Obama (unless HRC was his veep, but I think she'd be crazy to have anything to do with him now that he's turned himself into such a joke).

EW

Quoting VinceP1974: ...
We have to step back and realize we will never be Utopia and that we shouldn't judge ourselves against some unachievable Utopian standard while at the same time excusing the barbarism going on all over the world.

The word comes from Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place", indicating that More was utilizing the concept as allegory and did not consider such an ideal place to be realistically possible. It is worth noting that the homophone Eutopia, derived from the Greek εὖ, "good" or "well", and τόπος, "place", signifies a double meaning that was almost certainly intended. Despite this, most modern usage of the term "Utopia" incorrectly assumes the latter meaning, that of a place of perfection rather than nonexistence.

Just to illustrate the a point about how deceptive judgments, based solely on the meanings of words, can be. In this instance due to an authors allusions to a mythical island in a novel "Utopia" the word has been used in a manor 180 degrees to it's actual meaning.

Actually, after that Bob Barr diavlog with Jane Hamsher, I actually would prefer Bob Barr's views to that of Obama, at least on some very important issues....I would never have predicted that.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: EW,

I don't plan to vote in the election and I too think that the views of Nader are preferable to either Obama or McCain. I really find the notion that HRC is admirable and Obama is completely unacceptable I little puzzling. Obama's substantive views are just not that different from HRC's. Also Ms. Clinton has endorsed Obama and said she supports him wholeheartedly....doesn't her opinion carry any weight with you?

Quoting VinceP1974: I heard Zinn on Dennis Prager's radio program a while ago. I don't remember any specifics of what the man said but I remember having come to the view that Zinn has no interest in the truth and is so warped by his ideology that his judgments are of no value.

I went searching for this interview and I found the transcript

And yes here is what he said.. that in the overall balance of things the US is more of a force of bad in the world than good.

If that isn't Hate-Americanism , what is?

Let me start by saying that my first instinct, in reaction to Zinn's "Probably more bad than good" assessment of the US, would be to disagree. Let me next say that the more I think about it, the more I could be persuaded that he's got a case. However, I am inclined to think any such discussion would soon be buried under the weight of speculations that have no real chance of being supported or debunked. We have no way of being sure how, say, Korea or Vietnam or the Indians might have turned out if we had done

Vince: I sort of touched on some of these points in my longer response to you, but I wanted to emphasize them, in reaction to your response to Abu Noor. Also, I couldn't let one of your statements go unchallenged.

I don't think his view is principled at all. He seems to have no problem coming to conclusions damning the United States but when presented with questions that might have answers that go against his POV he certainly proclaims a sudden restraint.

Again, I think you're missing the fact that the debate was a little too much of a point/counterpoint set-up. I could as well say the same thing about Prager, in the opposite regard -- he's quick to blow America's horn and awfully reluctant to concede even the smallest admission of wrongdoing.

Folks like Zinn are undermining this nation. All of Europe is in a crisis due in large part to the Left's onslaught on Western Culture and the hypercriticism that so often comes from there.

Define "crisis." I grant there are problems, and I grant that relativism and a fetish for diversity can be carried too far, but where is the evidence that Europe is

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: VinceP,

My views are closer to Zinn's than to yours although I certainly have a different worldview than Howard Zinn.

One can disagree with Howard Zinn substantively, one can even assert that his views are undermining America and leading to the downfall of civilization. My point was that I don't see what purpose the HateAmerica label other namecalling.

I may occasionally use labels in ways that seem like namecalling (like neocon) but I try to make the terms a least somewhat relevant to the person's actual ideology rather than just insult terms. So, for Howard Zinn, you can say I don't want to read his anarchist writings. Or I don't want to read his socialist writings. Or I don't want to hear his pacifist views. All these terms of course could be misunderstood and could be used as insults but at least one could make an argument, hey this is what Howard Zinn stands for. HateAmerica? C'mon..that sounds like something I'd hear from the AM radio dial..

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

You're absolutely right to call attention about my use of HateAmerica. Upon reflection , it was not appropriate for me to characterize him that way.. nor is it helpful in

VinceP, Wow...You've shown a remarkable capacity to be civil and to admit a poorly chosen word..you're a credit to BH TV commenters. Of course, unfortunately for me this might only lend credence to some of your mistaken views. Exactly what type of crisis do you believe Europe is in, Vince? You're not a Mark Steyn fan I hope. (although I'll still be civil to you if you are of course.)

Quoting VinceP1974: You're absolutely right to call attention about my use of HateAmerica. Upon reflection , it was not appropriate for me to characterize him that way.. nor is it helpful in keeping things civil.. which I claimed as being something worth maintaining.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: VinceP,

Wow...You've shown a remarkable capacity to be civil and to admit a poorly chosen word..you're a credit to BH TV commenters.

Thanks.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Exactly what type of crisis do you believe Europe is in, Vince?
You're not a Mark Steyn fan I hope. (although I'll still be civil to you if you are of course.)

I am indeed a fan of Mark Steyn. I love the guy. How could anyone not .. he is so witty. hehe. Steyn basically agrees with my view of things.. Europe is in a demographic collapse. I don't believe they're going to recover. Their national government budgets will be destroyed due to the collapse of the welfare state (which will happen to the US too). And civil strife is rampant all throughout Europe where the Muslims have established themselves. We're beginning to see the signs of the public reacting against this in two ways.. one: voting out the Leftwing parties responsible for the scourge of Politically Correct Multiculturalism and two: by direct policies aimed against Muslims. Italy has ,for the first time ever , no communists elected to parliament , as the voters are massively moving toward the right. Italy is also closing down some big

Quoting piscivorous: Just to illustrate the a point about how deceptive judgments, based solely on the meanings of words, can be. In this instance due to an authors allusions to a mythical island in a novel "Utopia" the word has been used in a manor 180 degrees to it's actual meaning.

I think the word is very appropiate. It seems to me that American society is judged by a standard that no people in no time have ever been able to live by. And our failure to achieve this level of unqiue perfect is an indictment against the very foundations of our heritage, that many people on the Left seek to delegitmize in order to remake the society to achieve the impossible. I am not totally convinced of the sincerity of such people.. I suspect they give lip service to their societial dreams while in reality the only goal is their accumulation of political power, ends justifying the means. So Utopia is very apt.. some Far leftists claim that is their goal, but I suspect not. So indeed, they want to go no where .. they want power for them
I started referring to a place

Quoting bjkeefe: Let me start by saying that my first instinct, in reaction to Zinn's "Probably more bad than good" assessment of the US, would be to disagree.

Let me next say that the more I think about it, the more I could be persuaded that he's got a case. However, I am inclined to think any such discussion would soon be buried under the weight of speculations that have no real chance of being supported or debunked. We have no way of being sure how, say, Korea or Vietnam or the Indians might have turned out if we had done different things, so let's not try to arrive at a final answer to the question, American throughout history: more bad than good, or more good than bad?

I'm more than convinced that we have very different viewpoints and neither of us will be converting the other side. I am fine with that. One thing I appreciate with Dennis Prager is his phrase "Clarity over agreement".. We dont need to come to an agreement.. what we can do is find out where each other stands.. try to back up our views .. and then let people come to

VinceP1974: Couldn't let this go:

If he moved to Saudi Arabia , I bet his view of America's Bad-Good balance would change really quick ...

Come on. That's a weak-ass response and a stereotypical rightwing debating technique -- the false dichotomy. Worse, you're attempting to claim America is great by offering one of the worst countries in the world as a counterexample? Please. You know I meant another Western country. (As noted elsewhere, I reject out of hand your assertion that Europe is in crisis, thought that isn't his only option.) Probably time to close this discussion. You're right that we're never going to come to agreement on this (where "this" is Zinn's views and what followed). I just want to make one final comment. When I was listing the valuable aspects of Zinn's perspective that began with the phrase "it forces us out of the cocoon of thinking ...," you responded, "But who really thinks this way?" I am glad to hear that you don't. I am sorry to report that I encounter many people, in person, on line, through the news, who apparently do. Maybe some, like Zinn, are being purposefully polemical, and just won't make admissions that they think would weaken their case or legitimize

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/125...5&out=00:24:27 I sadly listen to another diavlog where someone far too young to causally toss around the the words of war does so without shame or knowledge of what he is really saying. Fortunately, Matt is also counted among the youth. But it simply isn't enough. More intellectual wisdom from the likes of Glenn and Joshua - por favor? No more words of war from children who will never themselves sit crying in a foxhole as they hold the bleeding and broken body of a comrade or enter a village they have just destroyed to survey the remains of women and children. Por favor, Bob.

No more words of war from children who will never themselves sit crying in a foxhole as they hold the bleeding and broken body of a comrade or enter a village they have just destroyed to survey the remains of women and children. Por favor, Bob.

Thank you for saying that, herman@.

Quoting Happy Hominid: I sadly listen to another diavlog where someone far too young to causally toss around the the words of war does so without shame or knowledge of what he is really saying.

I know Chris Mohney can have you banned from the Internet for saying X is the new Y, but ... Kirchick is the new Goldfarb. Guess we need a new one of these.

Quoting VinceP1974: This whole debate about good faith / bad faith is so devoid of fact that I could just cry.. especially over how so many people think Iran is the sincere party and the US is the scheming manipulating fraud.

There is no mystery about what Iran accomplishes when it goes through the motions of "negotiating".

They openly proclaim to their people what they're doing.. like in this video from Iran

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/216/805.htm

It's remarkable no one is commenting on this. Why is that?

As another piece of evidence that Iran uses "talks" to string along gullible Westerners and play them for time, I present this. Originally from Iran's news service, FARS (in Farsi), published by National Review; here we have the Iranians stating that the so-called reformists Khatami years , whereby Iran had given the appearance of having the potential to reform and moderate itself was simply a tactic Iran used sot hey could establish the foundations of thier nuclear weapons plan.

The former spokesman of the President Mohammed Khatami’s government (1997-2005) acknowledges in a debate that a goal of the reformism was to lull the West into a false confidence so that Iran could pursue illicit nuclear activities:

Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, Khatami-era government spokesman, on a panel with Mehdi Faza'eli, general secretary of the Muslim Journalist Association: "We did our outmost to prevent the case of Iran being sent to the Security Council, whose judge is the United States.... During the confidence building-era, we entered the nuclear club, and despite the suspension [of uranium enrichment] we imported all the materials needed for our nuclear activities of the country...We were not subjected to sanctions regime during the

Hi Vince, I don't know what to think about it. I tend to be pretty pro-US, though, so I don't know whether my opinions are worth anything on this score. It is a good question, though, why more of the leftist commenters aren't responding. Maybe we've reached the limits of their knowledge, or maybe they haven't noticed your comments yet.

BJ, Can you tell me why Goldfarb is being hypocritical by not serving? I mean, I support the fire department but I don't want to be a fireman because (a) I doubt I'd be any good at it and (b) I'm scared of fire (which feeds into (a)). Am I hypocritical vis-a-vis firemen? (Or police officers, or stuntmen, or smoke-jumpers, etc.)

The self-proclaimed anti-war movement is an obstacle to a pacific resolution of this crisis, to the extent that it portrays Iran as behaving reasonably. The regime is not behaving reasonably: it is deceitful, it is fiercely antisemitic, and it explicitly anticipates the extinction of a member state of the UN. We can't and mustn't accommodate this.

Bobby G:

... or maybe they haven't noticed your comments yet.

Or maybe they have, but considering the source, have decided that there's little to be gained by debate.

Quoting bjkeefe: Bobby G:

Or maybe they have, but considering the source, have decided that there's little to be gained by debate.

True.. It's hard to debate about the sincerity of Iran when they openly admit on their own TV they will do whatever they have to to keep their nuclear program on-going. But i guess little things like that don't factor into pathetic American party politics and there are elections to win.

Quoting Bobby G: BJ,

Can you tell me why Goldfarb is being hypocritical by not serving? I mean, I support the fire department but I don't want to be a fireman because (a) I doubt I'd be any good at it and (b) I'm scared of fire (which feeds into (a)). Am I hypocritical vis-a-vis firemen? (Or police officers, or stuntmen, or smoke-jumpers, etc.)

I don't buy your counterexample. Firefighters are not sent off to engage in a morally dubious business. More to the point, you don't spend eighty percent of your verbiage pretending to talk like one, worshiping them, or talking about what more they ought to be doing. There is something awfully nauseating about someone sitting at home, fat, dumb, and happy, advocating actions that show all the moral awareness of a kid playing Risk in his mom's basement.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't buy your counterexample. Firefighters are not sent off to engage in a morally dubious business. More to the point, you don't spend eighty percent of your verbiage pretending to talk like one, worshiping them, or talking about what more they ought to be doing.

There is something awfully nauseating about someone sitting at home, fat, dumb, and happy, advocating actions that show all the moral awareness of a kid playing Risk in his mom's basement.

But of course all the thousands of people who are in Iraq right now because they wanted to be there, you resepct their ideas right? After all, no one in the military now can say they joined it without knowing they would go to Iraq.. and the vast majority of them are dedicated to their mission. What about them ? Is their view respectible enough for you? Oh taht's right.. you're not there.. but you want to render all their work moot. And while you do so, you sanctimoniously carry on as if you're doing the military people a favor. Ugh.. to read your little characterization of the Risk player and then realize you're describing yourself.. i really have a poor image of you right now

Bobby, that's a terrible analogy unless you were brainwashed since birth to believe that running off to join the fire department anytime your government decreed that we were under national threats from wildfire would be the the most highly honorable act you could ever perform. If you are saying that you did experience such indoctrination then it's a terrific example. As Brendan says though, I suspect that even then we wouldn't see you - week after week - prodding other young men and women to "go fight those evil fires".

Your problem, Vince, is that you start from the position that Iran, a sovereign nation, has no right to do the same thing that the United States has been doing for more than half a century. I start from a position that it would be better for the world if Iran stopped trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, but that they have to be convinced of this through means other than bullying. Everything you have said lately suggests that you view the US as being in a privileged position. I don't share that view -- I think the US is one member of the community of nations, and that we buy ourselves more trouble than we need to by rigidly posturing out of a sense of our own superiority. Do I think the US is a better country than Iran? Of course. I deplore Iran's anti-Semitism, their support for terrorism, and their theocratic tyranny, just to name three. But that doesn't mean I deny Iran's perceptions of its own national security interests or its right to have these perceptions. I think they're wrong, even in their own self-interest, to be going down the nuclear weapons road, but I can see why

You're welcome, but - Herman@?

Vince:

But of course all the thousands of people who are in Iraq right now because they wanted to be there, you resepct their ideas right?

I respect the instinct to view military service as something to be proud of, especially given the culture in which these people were raised. I also respect the recognition of reality shown by a lot of soldiers, that signing up seemed like the best choice of a limited set of options at that point in their life. And, I respect a member of the armed forces who carries out his or her duties honorably. I do not respect someone who attempts to live through these people vicariously, or who views them as pawns, or who wants to appropriate the work they do for his own personal glory, particularly when he ducked out of doing what he insists should others do. This is what is meant by chickenhawk.

Ugh.. to read your little characterization of the Risk player and then realize you're describing yourself.. i really have a poor image of you right now

I never in my life played a single game of Risk. I was always a

Just a heads up, "Generation Kill" the HBO miniseries based on Evan Wright's excellent book, starts this Sunday. Check it out. Wright was onboard with Marine's first recon as they went into Iraq. The book was largely apolitical and did a great job of showing how diverse and "normal" alot of the Marines are. And also just how inefficient and clueless military operations can be despite all the planning. Lots of Murphey's law moments at the worst possible times. Pretty gripping story-telling. The miniseries was produced by the guy that did "The Wire" so it should be pretty well done.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't buy your counterexample. Firefighters are not sent off to engage in a morally dubious business.

Perhaps firemen aren't, but a lot of people think policemen are, at least in the sense that a lot of police actions are often decried as racist or making the problem worse. In addition, I don't see the relevance of moral dubiousness. Is your point that serving in the Iraq war is morally dubious? (I doubt it.) Or is the point that advocating the Iraq war is morally dubious? I'm guessing you mean the latter. But why should this have relevance? Let's say the cause was morally just; if the person advocating the morally just war doesn't want to go to war for the same kinds of reasons he doesn't want to be a fireman/policeman (not well-suited for it, plus it's scary), is he still hypocritical? If he is, why? If he's not, then how come only advocating morally dubious wars without wanting to serve in them is hypocritical?

Quoting bjkeefe: More to the point, you don't spend eighty percent of your verbiage pretending to talk like one, worshiping them, or talking about what more they ought to be doing.

So if

But of course all the thousands of people who are in Iraq right now because they wanted to be there, you resepct their ideas right?

What planet are you living on, Vince? I have talked to hundreds of Iraq War vets. I can recall very few who said they went because they wanted to, and of those very few, most said it to emphasize how young, naive and brainwashed they were when they were recruited. What I have seen overwhelmingly is that young women and men enter the military either 1) to further their odds at success later in the civilian world with college benefits; or 2) because they have had a string of failures in their personal lives: a) poor grades in high school, b) dropout of community college, c) inability to get or hold a decent job, d) bad breakup with significant other, e) pressure from parent or recruiter who thinks the military will enhance their character. Once in, they participate in the Iraq holocaust because they have no choice and because they develop a powerful sense of camaraderie and loyalty to their buddies in the military. They form very strong bonds amongst themselves that have

Quoting Happy Hominid: Bobby, that's a terrible analogy unless you were brainwashed since birth to believe that running off to join the fire department anytime your government decreed that we were under national threats from wildfire would be the the most highly honorable act you could ever perform. If you are saying that you did experience such indoctrination then it's a terrific example.

Lol

Quoting Happy Hominid: As Brendan says though, I suspect that even then we wouldn't see you - week after week - prodding other young men and women to "go fight those evil fires".

See my response to bjkeefe above.

Quoting bjkeefe: To your particular post: I have no interest in talking about some out-of-context third-hand report about some Iranian politician. Who knows what was going on there? Maybe it was their equivalent of McCain's "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" or his line about killing Iranians with cigarettes.

Why do you bother to ask "who knows what is going on there" when you are presented with it and you dont want to read it. Iran rejects your notion of community of nations. Iran adheres to Islam..which holds that the only legitimate system of law is that given by Allah. It is the obligation of all Muislims to strive toward bringing the world under the domination of the law of Allah. Man-made law is considered idolitry and a great sin. Living a life that is anythign other than the kind of life proscribed by sharia law is blasphemy. The eventual fate of mankind is that of living in peace and unity under the just religion of Islam, and no other religion will be acceptable. Nor will there be nations as Islam rejects the entire concept of nationality. borders. soverignity. human rights. Iran

Quoting Wonderment: What planet are you living on, Vince? I have talked to hundreds of Iraq War vets. I can recall very few who said they went because they wanted to, and of those very few, most said it to emphasize how young, naive and brainwashed they were when they were recruited.

What I have seen overwhelmingly is that young women and men enter the military either 1) to further their odds at success later in the civilian world with college benefits; or 2) because they have had a string of failures in their personal lives: a) poor grades in high school, b) dropout of community college, c) inability to get or hold a decent job, d) bad breakup with significant other, e) pressure from parent or recruiter who thinks the military will enhance their character.

Once in, they participate in the Iraq holocaust because they have no choice and because they develop a powerful sense of camaraderie and loyalty to their buddies in the military. They form very strong bonds amongst themselves that have virtually zero to do with ideology, politics or support for the war.

You're calling the military Iraq holocaust participants? *spit* We're preventing the holocaust that is being

You're calling the military Iraq holocaust participants? *spit*

I'm calling George Bush the perpetrator of the Iraq holocaust.

We're preventing the holocaust that is being planned. That is our responsibility and burden. If people like you prevail and the US abandons the world to the Jihad, we will not be spared.

These are three extremely dubious assertions with no evidence to support them.

You're welcome, but - Herman@?

Goofy generic for hermano and hermana, when you don't know the gender of the person. Are you hermano or hermana? I only know you are a happy fellow great ape.

The real question is the reverse: Is the United States being rational. It's a much more difficult question to reflect on self than to objectify the other ...

Quoting Wonderment: I'm calling George Bush the perpetrator of the Iraq holocaust.

These are three extremely dubious assertions with no evidence to support them.

Well I did just give a whole discourse on Islamic thinking. But you'll dismiss that too. I talk about this with a lot of "progressives". Progressives seem immune from learning anything fundamental about Islam and the cultures that result from it. And the following map that I made which plots out Jihad attacks that occured between 2003 and 2007 , I'm sure you'll say it's not confirmed by such and such so it's not real.
And these statements made by Iran. I'm sure you'll say something like .. they're just rehearsing for a play and being exeraggative. These are from around 2005, I didn't think to save the source at the time.

The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There

Bobby G:

In addition, I don't see the relevance of moral dubiousness.

When I said, "Firefighters are not sent off to engage in a morally dubious business," I meant that the invasion of Iraq was morally dubious.

But why should this have relevance?

The relevance had to do with disputing the equivalence of your firefighter analogy.

Let's say the cause was morally just; if the person advocating the morally just war doesn't want to go to war for the same kinds of reasons he doesn't want to be a fireman/policeman (not well-suited for it, plus it's scary), is he still hypocritical? If he is, why? If he's not, then how come only advocating morally dubious wars without wanting to serve in them is hypocritical?

It's not just hypocrisy and it's not just advocating. It's not just holding the view that military action is necessary. As I said to VinceP1974, there are many other elements that makes chickenhawkery distasteful; e.g., attempting to live through those in combat vicariously, viewing them as pawns, appropriating the work that they do for personal benefit and political gain, and so on.

So if I'm not mistaken, you subscribe to something like the following principle: "If you

The problem with the chickenhawks is that they are promoting wars of choice that put our children, parents and spouses in mortal danger for no good reason. Few citizens accused pundits of being chicken hawks during WWII, when there was a broad consensus of support to combat fascism. However, when war is waged in a particularly frivolous and criminal manner (Vietnam, Iraq), the apologists who do the cheerleading should be subject to much greater criticism. This is especially true when many of the most avid hawks have a rap sheet of draftdodging in previous wars (Cheney, Rowe, Bush, et al). It's also especially true when the burden of sacrifice is borne by poorer Americans. The Bush daughters, for example, never had to consider the military as an option because they are millionaires. The economically disadvantaged don't have that privilege.

Quoting Wonderment: The problem with the chickenhawks is that they are promoting wars of choice that put our children, parents and spouses in mortal danger for no good reason.

Few citizens accused pundits of being chicken hawks during WWII, when there was a broad consensus of support to combat fascism. However, when war is waged in a particularly frivolous and criminal manner (Vietnam, Iraq), the apologists who do the cheerleading should be subject to much greater criticism.

This is especially true when many of the most avid hawks have a rap sheet of draftdodging in previous wars (Cheney, Rowe, Bush, et al).

It's also especially true when the burden of sacrifice is borne by poorer Americans. The Bush daughters, for example, never had to consider the military as an option because they are millionaires. The economically disadvantaged don't have that privilege.

The problem with the whole chickenhawk thing is that it's just rhetorical bullshit. It's designed to shut people up. that's all. The people in the military aren't half-wit victims. They don't need military-loathers like you to "defend" them by encouraging our enemies.

I made about 4 extremely relevant content-rich posts providing information about the motivation of our various enemies. The Left is silent. Someone makes an analogy about firemen and they're all over that. That tells you everything. They avoid real substantive information , they will not accept it, they will not self-examine. Our enemy does not exist to the Left. They are like automatons who only react to bad US policy. Otherwise our enemies are brainless.. and have no agenda of their own. I attribute this to the Left's inherit dismissiveness towards other cultures who the Left view as interesting zoo specimens but clearly not people to take seriously.. not people to listen to.. not people whose viewpoint should be respected. Muslims, to the Left, are mad at the US for the reasons the Left invents for them.. not for the reasons they themselves claim. And they think themselves the wiser for it.

Quoting VinceP1974:
The people in the military aren't half-wit victims. They don't need military-loathers like you to "defend" them by encouraging our enemies.

So you are contending that the exercise of free speech is emboldening the terrorists?
And as to a solution? Censorship or what?

Quoting VinceP1974: I made about 4 extremely relevant content-rich posts providing information about the motivation of our various enemies.

The Left is silent.

Someone makes an analogy about firemen and they're all over that.

That tells you everything. They avoid real substantive information , they will not accept it, they will not self-examine. Our enemy does not exist to the Left. They are like automatons who only react to bad US policy. Otherwise our enemies are brainless.. and have no agenda of their own.

I attribute this to the Left's inherit discursiveness towards other cultures who the Left view as interesting zoo specimens but clearly not people to take seriously.. not people to listen to.. not people whose viewpoint should be respected. Muslims, to the Left, are mad at the US for the reasons the Left invents for them.. not for the reasons they themselves claim.

And they think themselves the wiser for it.

Just curious, what do you think should be done with Muslims? Should they be allowed to live in the United States? And the other day you said Iran should be neutralized. What does neutralized mean? Also: Since Muslims are according to you inherently evil, how do you feel about

Quoting graz: So you are contending that the exercise of free speech is emboldening the terrorists?
And as to a solution? Censorship or what?

Don't be stupid. I'm suggesting that when your enemy views your society as unwilling to endure a war that you dont send him signal that says "You're right. You win" Does this basic thought never enter your superior head?

Quoting TwinSwords: Just curious, what do you think should be done with Muslims? Should they be allowed to live in the United States?

And the other day you said Iran should be neutralized. What does neutralized mean?

Also: Since Muslims are according to you inherently evil, how do you feel about our partnership with them in Iraq? Are you comfortable allying with them?

Answer your own questions.

Quoting VinceP1974: Don't be stupid.

I'm suggesting that when your enemy views your society as unwilling to endure a war that you dont send him signal that says "You're right. You win"

Does this basic thought never enter your superior head?

So much for the short lived civility. But I will concede that this is a "touchy" subject for all of us. As it is our right to dissent... what would you do with us dissenters?

Quoting VinceP1974: Answer your own questions.

I thought you were the one pleading for engagement. I thought you would be thrilled at the chance to expound on Mark Steyn's ... er, ... your brilliant ideas. I suspect you'd like to exterminate both the left and Muslims. Just something I pick up from your tone. But you know you can't actually say that, so when directly asked for your solution to all these big problems you harp about, you can't do it. If the Right's Bravest Avenger is too hemmed in by PC to speak freely, how will we ever defeat the Muslim hoards?

Quoting VinceP1974: I made about 4 extremely relevant content-rich posts ...

Counting yourself, nearly two people agree with this assertion.

The Left is silent.

You should start typing in all caps. That'll get Our attention.

Quoting graz: So much for the short lived civility. But I will concede that this is a "touchy" subject for all of us. As it is our right to dissent... what would you do with us dissenters?

Predicted answer:

Quoting VinceP1974: Answer your own questions.

Quoting VinceP1974: Answer your own questions.

One of the little tricks I dont fall for is this... The Left gives every trumped up reason why the past is a big mistake. But that's as far as they go. They dont look ahead, they dont try to predict the consequences of what they're proposing. They dont really put their ideas (since they have none other than "BUSH. BAD") up for cross-examination. I've been studying this problem for at least a decade. It takes a bit of courage to learn about Islam because what you learn really changes your view of the world. So this information disturbs a lot of people. And especialy the Left because their entire worldview is obsolete. They cannot say I'm wrong about the things I say about what our enemy believes, because I'm right. (All one needs to do is read what our enemies say) So they have only two ways to respond to the information 1 - Just attack me personally..as if I have any influence on the Islamic world and that any character flaws means my info on islam is wrong. It makes no logical sense, but thats' how Lefties operate 2 - Offer absurd

Quoting VinceP1974: ... they want to make me look like a nutcase.

Must ... resist ...

Quoting VinceP1974: One of the little tricks I dont fall for is this... The Left gives every trumped up reason why the past is a big mistake.

But that's as far as they go.

They dont look ahead, they dont try to predict the consequences of what they're proposing. They dont really put their ideas (since they have none other than "BUSH. BAD") up for cross-examination.

I've been studying this problem for at least a decade.

It takes a bit of courage to learn about Islam because what you learn really changes your view of the world.

So this information disturbs a lot of people. And especialy the Left because their entire worldview is obsolete.

They cannot say I'm wrong about the things I say about what our enemy believes, because I'm right. (All one needs to do is read what our enemies say)

So they have only two ways to respond to the information

1 - Just attack me personally..as if I have any influence on the Islamic world and that any character flaws means my info on islam is wrong. It makes no logical sense, but thats' how Lefties operate

2 - Offer absurd "solutiosn" like "So are

VinceP, I think some of the reluctance to engage with your Muslims are duty bound to kill you and eat your children, don't you know that you silly liberals! arguments is the fact that we've gone over, as you might expect, this claim before on these boards. There was one gentleman in particular who used to constantly "inform" us about these facts, for some strange reason his handle escapes me at the moment -- I'm sure Brendan or somebody else can remind us. Whatever happened to him anyway? That is not to say that the discussion was resolved to everyone's satisfaction or that everyone thought the same way, but that some of us may reluctant to go down that path yet one more time. I will again reiterate that I think viewing all of the Iranian regime's actions through the prism of your understanding of 12er Shi'ism is not especially helpful. Your ilk started the Iraq War supposedly to fight Islamofascists but the groups you've now empowered in Iraq are 12er Shi'ite religious parties that were formerly based in and whose militias were trained by, and will undoubtedly be allied with Iran.

Quoting VinceP1974: Answer your own questions.

Quoting VinceP1974: 2 - Offer absurd "solutiosn" like "So are you saying we should kill them all"

[...]

That may very well have to be the solution.. if their intent is to kill all of us.

Thanks, Vince.

VinceP, I'm just curious, really I am: Did your courageous 10 years (at least! -- so you started before 9/11 what made you start, then?) of study of Islam involve actually talking with or learning from any actual flesh and blood Muslims? You state you've read what "our enemies" say, was any of this from actually approaching something you found or had recommended to you in whole, or was it all cut and pasted by someone whose sole purpose was to inform you of why you should be afraid of Muslims? Did you start off your path of study already knowing that Muslims were "our enemies" and wanting to give yourself ammunition for the looming battles or did you start off with an open mind, not really knowing what Islam was about, and only realized that Muslims were "our enemies" after your "decade at least" of "courageous study"? I don't know if you've clicked through to my own blog, yet, but I am certainly a Muslim and I'm not sure if you think there are any "good" or "friendly" Muslims but even if you do, I'm sure I wouldn't qualify. Peace. Still, I have complimented you on your civility, but I'm sure it will

I think the guy I was thinking of her was jmcnulty...but there may have been others.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: VinceP,

There was one gentleman in particular who used to constantly "inform" us about these facts, for some strange reason his handle escapes me at the moment -- I'm sure Brendan or somebody else can remind us. Whatever happened to him anyway?

LOL! <---------- (see, I know THAT one) Ah... computerese. I'm an Hermano. Y mi esposa es Dominicana.

That may very well have to be the solution.. if their intent is to kill all of us.

Hey, I know. We can call it the "ultimate solution" or maybe just stick with Operation Iranian Freedom.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I think the guy I was thinking of her was jmcnulty...but there may have been others.

Yes! I was just about to post an apology to the effect that I had been thinking the same thing, but I couldn't come up with the damned name. Thanks. I gotta say, Abu Noor, that the statistical universe of VinceP, jmcnulty, and you clearly shows that an overwhelming majority of those who engage in prolonged study of Islam become aware of its overwhelming dangers, and so I gotta ask: what's taking you so long to get with the program?

Historically in the US there have always been a proportion of the populace that does not support kinetic diplomacy; yes even WWII. It is a fact that policy makers must be aware of and consider whenever the decision to use force is taken, especially in a protracted conflict. I also believe that it gives succor, to some extent, to those we are fighting and yes increases risks and casualties in proportion to the sustenance the other side draws from it. But it in general makes us a stronger country and a more deadly foe as it forces us to continually reevaluate the situation and take corrective action to remedy the inevitable mistakes that will be made in such a fluid and dynamic environment as combat and nation building. I have somewhat of a problem with the tenor, tone and depth of the rhetoric that has been used by opponents, of the Iraq campaign, but in general it has helped fix numerous problems that were occurring in that theater.

Quoting VinceP1974: One of the little tricks I dont fall for is this...
...
So this information disturbs a lot of people. And especialy the Left because their entire worldview is obsolete.
...
So they have only two ways to respond to the information

1 - Just attack me personally..
...
2 - Offer absurd "solutiosn" like "So are you saying we should kill them all"
...
That may very well have to be the solution.. if their intent is to kill all of us.
...
they want to make me look like a nutcase.

That's how the Lefties operate. When they "debate" they strive to destroy the legitmacy of the person they "debate" with.. not the information.
...

Vince. If you're there. I've distilled your post (above) down to its essence, if you don't mind. You know, this is just so interesting. You started out talking about how Muslims as a class are evil and dangerous, irrational animals bent on our destruction. None of this equivocating about "extreme" Islam or "radical" Muslims. With you, it's all of 'em. The purity, the undiluted hate, feels sooo right, doesn't it Vince. No gray area. no confusion. Just "all of 'em!" 1.3 billion people are "the enemy." So that was your case. You laid it out. And then what happened next, Vince? Do you remember what happened

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: There are many people here on the forums, such as Brendan, TwinSwords, graz, Joel Cairo, Wonderment and I'm sure many others who I consider to be (at least virtual) friends and they certainly don't share my religious or religio-political views in the least but I don't think any of them consider me their "enemy".

Thank you, I appreciate that. I've said this before, and you probably don't want my idle flattery, but I admire your courage in coming here and facing the kind of hateful rhetoric you are exposed to regularly by conservatives. I know how painful it must be, because I feel it myself. The reason it bothers me so much is because I was born and raised in Dearborn, Michigan. From the time I was old enough to ride around on a Big Wheel, half my neighbors were Muslim -- mostly Arab. For the first 19 years of my life, half the people around me everywhere I went were Muslims: my teammates in Little League, customers on my paper route, chaperons on school trips, teachers, mentors, co-workers, and most important, friends. My best friend in high school married a Muslim girl, and his sister (an Italian Catholic) married a Muslim man. His wife became a Catholic, and his sister became a

pisc:

Historically in the US there have always been a proportion of the populace that does not support kinetic diplomacy ...

If you're not being ironic, you just set a new record for Most Appalling Euphemism. Glad you're against censorship. This bothers me, however:

I have somewhat of a problem with the tenor, tone and depth of the rhetoric that has been used by opponents, of the Iraq campaign, but in general it has helped fix numerous problems that were occurring in that theater.

You are implicitly asserting that at some fundamental level, the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. That is your opinion, and it is not universally shared. It was not even shared during the lead-up, evidenced by the sell job and the arm-twisting the Bushies had to do just to get it rolling. It is my feeling that loud voices of dissent from Americans will, in the long run, proved to have helped us in rebuilding our relations with the rest of the world far more than they have hurt. It is good for others to know that not all Americans share the view that might makes right.

Quoting bjkeefe: If you're not being ironic, you just set a new record for Most Appalling Euphemism.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers

Quoting bjkeefe: You are implicitly asserting that at some fundamental level, the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. That is your opinion, and it is not universally shared. It was not even shared during the lead-up, evidenced by the sell job and the arm-twisting the Bushies had to do just to get it rolling.

That is your opinion, and it is not universally shared.

Quoting bjkeefe: It is my feeling that loud voices of dissent from Americans will, in the long run, proved to have helped us in rebuilding our relations with the rest of the world far more than they have hurt. It is good for others to know that not all Americans share the view that might makes right.

Merkel , Berlusconi , Sarkozy all confirmed leftest right?

Quoting piscivorous: Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers

Nice doubling down.

That is your opinion, and it is not universally shared.

I'll take that as you conceding my point. Thanks.

Merkel , Berlusconi , Sarkozy all confirmed leftest right?

Fair point. Still, it's less about some global pendulum swinging from ill-defined positions of "right" vs "left," and more about the average non-American thinking a little less frequently that we Yanks never mean it when we compliment their puppies.

Quoting TwinSwords: Just curious, what do you think should be done with Muslims? Should they be allowed to live in the United States?

Why would you even ask that? Why did you go from the claim, "the Iranian government is not to be trusted and should be dealt with aggressively" (and I'm not even sure Vince added the "should be dealt with aggressively") to "perhaps Muslims should not be allowed to live in the USA"?

Also: Since Muslims are according to you inherently evil, how do you feel about our partnership with them in Iraq? Are you comfortable allying with them?

I missed where Vince said this. Could you supply the quote? EDIT: OK, I posted this before I read the rest of Vince's responses and your responses to Twinswords's post. The "we may have to kill them all ... if they want to kill us" response is hard to defend. I mean, in fairness it does have that conditional at the end; I suppose if it could literally be proved that ALL Muslims want to kill ALL non-Muslims, then killing them all first would make sense. But the implicature of Vince's remark leads me to believe that he doesn't mean what I'm

It's not just hypocrisy and it's not just advocating. It's not just holding the view that military action is necessary. As I said to VinceP1974, there are many other elements that makes chickenhawkery distasteful; e.g., attempting to live through those in combat vicariously, viewing them as pawns, appropriating the work that they do for personal benefit and political gain, and so on.

The thing is, I don't think you have evidence that Goldfarb, or a lot of the people you label chickenhawks are acting from the psychological motivations you have attributed to them instead of the ones I have attributed to them. But whatever, that's not the most important thing.

Generally, yes. Put your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up. Big talk, no action. Many clichés apply.

Well...what if talking about the military is what Goldfarb knows most about? What if foreign policy is the issue he cares most about? And what if the role he's best at is convincing Americans that his view of things is the right one? If the cause is right, but controverted by lots of people, he quite plausibly does the most good by advocacy rather than combat.

And it's not

Quoting bjkeefe: I'll take that as you conceding my point. Thanks.

Gee do you think when I post an opinion that is in variance from your that when I acknowledge it is an opinion I am "conceding." No wonder you are such a Obamaphile you have similar opinions about your opinions.

Quoting piscivorous: Gee do you think when I post an opinion that is in variance from your that when I acknowledge it is an opinion I am "conceding."

Nope. I meant merely that you were conceding my complaint that what you were implicitly trying to assert as fact was, in fact, an opinion.

Bobby G: It is starting to feel like you're more interested in verbal jousting and lawyerish hair-splitting than you are in actually trying to understand what I mean by chickenhawk. In fairness, I may be failing to articulate my view clearly enough, but also in fairness, I don't think I'm talking about something that is that hard to grasp, and I don't think I'm being especially muddled about it. Granted, what we're talking about here is sort of a visceral reaction, which means that some amount of hand-waving on my part is hard to avoid, and that precision may be in short supply. I hope you will also grant that you may be asking for more precision than exists, even beyond my own ability to deliver. For example, for you to raise a hypothetical about someone who speaks in a pro-war mode less often than Goldfarb, get my answer to that hypothetical, and then follow up with:

So if someone just once argues for invading Iraq within your hearing, you're going to say, "if you're not fighting it yourself, you're a hypocrite"?

has to be seen as you being silly. Okay, so maybe you're trying to see if

But there are always horrific costs. People like Goldfarb never admit this. They delight in putting pictures of soldiers giving out candy on the covers of their magazines, and they stand four-square with the government in suppressing pictures of the wounded and the dead. They demonize those who do not share their love for war porn as "unpatriotic," "enemy sympathizers," and even "treasonous." They separate everything into entirely artificial groups of black and white -- we're the good guys, God is on our side, they're the bad guys, and they deserve whatever we want to throw at them. They care not at all about innocents who get caught in the crossfire except as a PR problem. They never think of military action the way it should be thought of, as the absolute last resort. Instead, they push for doing it first.

Well said. Chickenhawkery is a death cult. It's fueled by fire-breathing adolescent insecurity, a pathological lack of empathy, profound disrespect for the right to life and an undercurrent of sadism and schadenfreude. It's particularly toxic when mixed with jingoistic my-country-über alles, self-righteousness and a hyper-competitive lust for winning. It has nothing to do with

Quoting bjkeefe: It is starting to feel like you're more interested in verbal jousting and lawyerish hair-splitting than you are in actually trying to understand what I mean by chickenhawk.

I was engaging in moral casuistry in order to make very clear the reasoning I was using. This annoyed you, which annoys me, because I feel like you're trying to avoid being precise in order to be dogmatic.

I don't think I'm talking about something that is that hard to grasp, and I don't think I'm being especially muddled about it.

I know it's not hard to grasp, and I know how to use the term "chickenhawk". I just think it's almost always used as a term to go ad hominem against those with whom you disagree, it doesn't advance the debate, and it puts an undue burden on anyone who advocates a war with with you disagree. It's the anti-war equivalent of "appeaser", which is also used far too much. I would have stated the above point earlier, but I didn't realize I believed it until the discussion had reached this point and elicited from me.

I hope you will also grant that you may be asking for more precision

I think the "chickenhawk" label might not have quite the cache it now does if it hadn't been for the calumny spewed at veterans like John Kerry and Max Cleland during the '04 campaign, often (though by no means exclusively) by people who never served. The same folks seem to have learned the habit sliming Bill Clinton starting in the early nineties, and when a veteran won the Democratic nomination, apparently couldn't stop themselves. It looked to us (I'm speaking for myself, really, but I think my reaction was shared by a lot folks on the left) like the right was trying reserve a status for itself that rightfully has nothing to do with ideology. It seems like a segment of right-wing opinion reserves for itself, regardless of personal background, a status which it likewise refuses to grant anybody on the left, again regardless. The case of Max Cleland is particularly sickening. The sheer number of right-wing spokespeople who both lack a history of service and who seem to assume an unfettered right to slander people on the left who have (members of the staff at Weekly Standard, Fox News, and

Quoting bjkeefe: Nope. I meant merely that you were conceding my complaint that what you were implicitly trying to assert as fact was, in fact, an opinion.

This is my original commet around which you think I am implying something as fact?

I have somewhat of a problem with the tenor, tone and depth of the rhetoric that has been used by opponents, of the Iraq campaign, but in general it has helped fix numerous problems that were occurring in that theater.

. You will notice tat it starts with "I"

I pronoun, nominative I, possessive my or mine, objective me; plural nominative we, possessive our or ours, objective us; noun, plural I's.
–pronoun
1. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
–noun
2. (used to denote the narrator of a literary work written in the first person singular).
3. Metaphysics. the ego.

I have a hard time seeing how you could think that somehow either directly or indirectly this implies that a factual statement follows.

so lets see there are what 1%, 3%, 5% whatever percentage of individuals that actually volunteer for the services and since by your definition those are the only sub group of Americans that qualify, by the terms of your argument, the only individuals to discuss matters of war and peace does that not also disqualify all of those that also speak out against the war as well that have never served. That piece of bovine scatology belong in the rising mound of rhetorical leftist talking points if any does.

Quoting piscivorous: so letds see there are what 1%, 3%, 5% whatever percentage of individuals that actually volunteer for the services and since by your definition those are the only sub group of Americans that qualify. by the terms of your argument, are the only individuals qualified to discuss matters of war and peace does that not also disqualify all of those that also speak out against the war as well. That piece of bovine scatology belong in the rising mound of rhetorical leftist talking points if any does.

The word is "bullshit." Which is how I'm tempted to dismiss your retort. But, instead I'll respond. I said exactly nowhere that people who haven't served don't have a right to an opinion. What I did say is that calumny and lies directed at somebody's service are particularly stomach turning when the source is somebody who lacks a record of service. The specific implication that opposition to the Iraq war by veterans is an indication that they're unpatriotic, when they've in fact risked their lives and in some cases lost limbs, is an unforgivable insult. Doing so as a cheap way to turn votes adds injury to insult.

Bobby G: You make a fair point comparing chickenhawk with appeaser. I agree -- in some mouths, either becomes an overused epithet, both robbing the terms of meaning and coarsening debate. I myself do not apply the term willy-nilly to everyone who disagrees with me about when and where we should use military force. You can take my word for it, wait to see if my claim pans out over time, or search the archives. Sorry that I do not have much patience for casuistry, especially in the first sense of the word. It's just not my cup of tea. (Have you seen one of my favorite dingalinks?) There are others here who are more interested in such discussions. I hope you get a chance to engage with them, and that you and I find other things to discuss. To close this off:

Second, I suppose a good definition of a chickenhawk is: someone who agitates for war, is not willing to fight himself (or is at least protected from the possibility of fighting), and who agitates on behalf of war in such a manner that he shows himself to be callous towards the costs of war. I think this

pisc:

This is my original commet around which you think I am implying something as fact?

Yes.

I have a hard time seeing how you could hink that somehow either directly or indirectly this implies that a factual statement follows.

I thought the comment that you repeated itself carried the implication. If you insist that you were not implying anything as fact, fine. But that's how I read it. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Quoting AemJeff: The word is "bullshit." Which is how I'm tempted to dismiss your retort. But, instead I'll respond.

I said exactly nowhere that people who haven't served don't have a right to an opinion. What I did say is that calumny and lies directed at somebody's service are particularly stomach turning when the source is somebody who lacks a record of service.

The specific implication that opposition to the Iraq war by veterans is an indication that they're unpatriotic, when they've in fact risked their lives and in some cases lost limbs, is an unforgivable insult. Doing so as a cheap way to turn votes adds injury to insult.

I prefer bovine scatology myself but hey perhaps you should write my comments for me. So when President Clinton committed us to the Balkans was he not a chicken hawk. When Benedict Arnold went to work for the British was he not a traitor yet those who have never served are not qualified to call him such. When Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan refused to engage the southern forces, to the satisfaction of President Lincoln, was the President, who had never served his country

In 1989 Dick Cheney told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Fourteen years later, Cheney lied to the American people and sent soldiers off to die in an illegal war of choice, asserting, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." It seems to me that people like Cindy Sheehan must marvel at the murderous hypocrisy. How can you not be offended by that? How is it a morally defensible position?

Quoting piscivorous: I prefer bovine scatology myself but hey perhaps you should write my comments for me.

So when President Clinton committed us to the Balkans was he not a chicken hawk. When Benedict Arnold went to work for the British was he not a traitor yet those who have never served are not qualified to call him such. When Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan refused to engage the southern forces, to the satisfaction of President Lincoln, was the President, who had never served his country under arms, not qualified to replace Maj Gen. McClellan.

Your argument is facile and the use of the disparaging term chicken hawk makes all those implications for you.

C'mon Pisc. You keep countering with implications and assertions I haven't made. I've haven't exactly been inexplicit or indirect.

pisc: Your willful misunderstanding of both AemJeff and me does you no credit whatsoever.

I don't believe that I am the one that has been misreading things here. I'm not the one that can read into a sentence that stars with "I have somewhat of a problem with ..." as implying facts.

Right all you a have done is parrot old worn out talking points with a little bit of I agree with them but...

Zinged me there, pisc.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: VinceP,

I'm just curious, really I am: Did your courageous 10 years (at least! -- so you started before 9/11 what made you start, then?) of study of Islam involve actually talking with or learning from any actual flesh and blood Muslims? You state you've read what "our enemies" say, was any of this from actually approaching something you found or had recommended to you in whole, or was it all cut and pasted by someone whose sole purpose was to inform you of why you should be afraid of Muslims?

I already addressed this days ago on this very thread. I know what the typical responses are whenever Jihad is discussed.. so I wrote:

I assume you’re Muslim. Let me state that I have major issues with Islam regarding Sharia law, Jihad, dawa, etc… but I don’t believe that the Muslims worldwide are any sort of monolith.. and I really avoid going into labels like “moderate Muslims”.. one, it’s not for me to judge what a “moderate” believer in Islam is.. and I find the term to be condescending.

So when I criticize Islam, I do try to keep my critiques/attacks to the ideological aspects of Islam.. not blanket condemnations of groups of people.. and when I do criticize Muslims.. I am speaking of

VinceP, Actually that little statement doesn't address any of the questions I posed to you. Did you mean to indicate that you answered them elsewhere. Sorry I must have missed it.

VinceP, Here is a statement from the website of Iran's Mission to the UN. Apparently they don't realize that their religion requires them to reject the UN, the community of nations, and all of the other things you say that they reject. Of course this is just political rhetoric, I am not saying that the regime always acts consistently with this rhetoric...nor does it act consistently with some of the religious or saber-rattling rhetoric that you and your ilk stress we should be paying so much attention to. My question is how come Iran means what it says when it says things consistent with your view of it, but is to be ignored when it says things which are actually more consistent with the historical reality, which is that although it claims to be a revolutionary regime founded on the principles of Shi'a Islam (by the way as understood by Imam Khomeini which were a 180 degree turn in many ways from the way Shi'a Islam had been understood for centuries before him) it actually acts much more like any other regime, concerned

Josh Marshall -> Matthew Yglesias -> Eric Alterman.

Update: Kirchick apologizes, finally. Eric Alterman points out why it's not good enough. Worth reading. On Kirchick's post, commenter Rhubarbs adds another good point (sorry no direct link to the comment -- scroll down):

The second graf is problematic.

[...]

If this is supposed to be a correction, correct the facts and stop there. If this is an apology, then say you're very sorry and stop there. Don't tell us that you still think the people you've smeared are dangerously wrong even though they don't actually support the policies you earlier accused them of supporting.