Its come to this - Frum and Klein. Sigh, what BHTV could have been.

I often disagree with David, but I am always happy to hear what he has to say, and I think he is great on BhTV. Now: can someone get him a headset? The phone is so 1842.

Once again, a dialogue predicated on a (tacit?) understanding that the USA needs to participate in, micromanage and control militarily every conflict in the region. But we don't have to be the military police of the world and we don't have to project a fantastical National Security Interest on everything that happens anywhere. And even if we do profess national security interests in Af-Paq-Iran-Iraq-Israel-Palestine-Lebanon-Syria-etc.-etc., we don't have to resolve them with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and a robotics war waged against three countries. We can't extricate ourselves from this mess overnight, but we never will if we don't challenge the militaristic premises. There is NO ONE in the Obama government, including the newly-skeptical military ambassador to Afghanistan, who is a proponent of ending this war. In the current governing coalition, there are only a few dozen Congress members who advocate peace. They are backed, however, by millions of voters who oppose perpetual war. Democrats won't get re-elected to the White House and won't hold their majorities in Congress if progressive voters get sufficiently disenchanted with Obama's foreign policy. Liberal hawks, beware.

Quoting rcocean: Its come to this - Frum and Klein. Sigh, what BHTV could have been.

Golly, they're reasonable, smart, well-informed, usually civil, have disparate points of view, and generally have interesting things to say. What else do you require?

Next time Joe Klein comes to Bloggingheads tv he should debate this guy http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...her_from_t.php

Quoting BeachFrontView: Next time Joe Klein comes to Bloggingheads tv he should debate this guy

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...her_from_t.php

Kirchik's a twit, I think. TwinSwords linked this elsewhere, but, it's definitely in context here. Here's the Kirchik column that set Klein off: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ic-of-letters/

Perhaps some feel that you should have some on that have gotten it right more often than they have wrong but that is just my perspective.

Quoting AemJeff: Golly, they're reasonable, smart, well-informed, usually civil, have disparate points of view, and generally have interesting things to say. What else do you require?

Maybe we could follow this up with a David Broder - Frank Rich Diavlog. I'm sure you'd find it fascinating.

Quoting rcocean: Maybe we could follow this up with a David Broder - Frank Rich Diavlog. I'm sure you'd find it fascinating.

Now that's slander! But, jeeze, just because Frum hurt your feelings regarding Sarah Palin, it doesn't follow that he's a raging centrist. I've been a fan of Klein's since he was outed as the author of Primary Colors - which was just a stupendously great example of observational politics. Broder and Rich lack his imagination and wit.

Quoting AemJeff: Kirchik's a twit, I think. Twinswords linked this elsewhere, but, it's definitely in context here.

Here's the Kirchik column that set Klein off:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ic-of-letters/

I read TNR for almost 20 years. It was Kirchick that made me give it up.

Could somebody please get David Frum a new phone?

I agree with aemjeff and disagree with rocean about the quality of this exchange. It's fine and is a credit to this site; and it's good enough for the reasons aemjeff points to, however briefly, so as to ask rocean: what would satisfy you and who, for goodness's sake, meets your oh so high standards? Itzik Basman

Quoting piscivorous: Perhaps some feel that you should have some on that have gotten it right more often than they have wrong but that is just my perspective.

I'm surprised to hear you asking to have mainstream Republicans permanently banned from BhTV!

Quoting AemJeff: Golly, they're reasonable, smart, well-informed, usually civil, have disparate points of view, and generally have interesting things to say. What else do you require?

I agree. I was happy to See Klein's cheeful visage on the BhTV homepage, and I hope he returns often, even if I do disagree with him quite often. And I am always happy to see Frum, who I never agree with, but whose diavlogs I always find very enjoyable and worth listening to. Welcome, Joe, and welcome back, David! Haven't listened to it yet; wondering if David is going to explain his rebranding...

Quoting AemJeff: I've been a fan of Klein's since he was outed as the author of Primary Colors - which was just a stupendously great example of observational politics.

Hmm... I really need to read that. Have you seen the movie? Is it any good? Or a poor substitute for the book? Did you read it before you knew he was the author?

Quoting AemJeff: Broder and Rich lack his imagination and wit.

Hey, now! Rich is one of the greats!

I guess in your own perverted sense that my wishing too have someone else besides these two, whom I think are often wrong in their opinions, could be considered an appeal to ban these two, but only in your semi perverse interpretation of reality!

Quoting piscivorous: I guess in your own perverted sense that my wishing too have someone else besides these two, whom I think are often wrong in their opinions, could be considered an appeal to ban these two, but only in your semi perverse interpretation of reality!

I was just kidding, pisc. You said BhTV should have on people who "have gotten it right more often than they have wrong," ergo my observation that you're asking to have all Republicans banned forever. Get it? I'll grant that it wasn't very funny, but please know I wasn't actually suggesting you were calling to have anyone banned. [Added: Looking back, I should have said, "I'm surprised to hear you asking to have ALL mainstream Republicans permanently banned from BhTV!"]

I can find the humor in that.

Quoting basman: I agree with aemjeff and disagree with rocean about the quality of this exchange. It's fine and is a credit to this site; and it's good enough for the reasons aemjeff points to, however briefly, so as to ask rocean: what would satisfy you and who, for goodness's sake, meets your oh so high standards?

Itzik Basman

A sincere question deserves a sincere answer. I'd love to see David Gergan and Steve Roberts. Or perhaps Bob Herbert and Nina Totenberg. Either would be a truly fascinating discussion, break new ground, and hit BHTV's target demographic -square on. And be more interesting then Klein and Frum.

For all those that disavow evidence of a God take note, miracles do exist, I have found an instance where David Corn actually makes some sense.

My, but Jamie Kirchick looks like a doofus in that picture. Also, I'm glad to know exactly which expletive Klein used that the Washington Post was too delicate to print. (Since it couldn't have been "asshole", I was thinking that he called him "a dishonest shit", assuming that the rules about swearing in the newspaper are similar to the ones about swearing on the radio, and remembering the list of the seven deadly words plastered all over the college radio station. But "dishonest prick" describes him just as well.)

Self-professed anglophile Klein: "We're still recovering from the British colonial experience in that region." Surely the wrong verb and the wrong object? How about: "We are still succumbing to British colonial hubris in that region." The discussion of Afghanistan would have been more enlightening if, instead of canvassing what everyone already knows about the strategic options open to Obama, the speakers had a clearer vision of the future of Afghanistan, and how exactly the US military is going to make that future possible. I always have the impression when listening to American journalists discuss foreign policy that they are too bound by the conventional wisdom in Washington. I prefer to listen to someone like Rory Stewart, a foreign policy expert who has lived in Afghanistan, knows the languages and the people, and has that rarest of all things---an independent, non-governmental mind. At the end both Frum and Klein confess that neither they nor anyone else knows what is the best option. Modesty becomes them.

Thank you for actually adding a comment that has something to do with the actual vlog.

Quoting TwinSwords: Hmm... I really need to read that. Have you seen the movie? Is it any good? Or a poor substitute for the book?

Did you read it before you knew he was the author?

Hey, now! Rich is one of the greats!

Read the book. Then see the movie. They're both excellent, though the book is a truly great thing. I did read it before he was outed; it was one of the few books I've ever bought at a Wa-Wa market.

Quoting Wonderment: Democrats won't get re-elected to the White House and won't hold their majorities in Congress if progressive voters get sufficiently disenchanted with Obama's foreign policy. Liberal hawks, beware.

I want out of Afghanistan too. But it's interesting that Joe Klein says that he has talked to no knowledgeable person who advocates leaving Afghanistan.

Quoting rcocean: ... and hit BHTV's target demographic ...

What the hell is that? Why don't Funm and Klein hit the demographic?

Shout out to Klein on his conclusion that certain folks who make a connection between Hasan's murder-spree and his religious beliefs are "Jewish extremists" being "odious", and furthermore, anyone else who makes these connections is commiting "anti-Islamic bigotry". You've managed to encapsulate the sort of thinking that permitted Hasan to remain at his post after all the warnings he himself gave off, which btw all involved his religion and not his state of mind.

Joe, Joe... don't look, do not look, but (whispers) she's followed you home.

Quoting harkin: Shout out to Klein on his conclusion that certain folks who make a connection between Hasan's murder-spree and his religious beliefs are "Jewish extremists" being "odious", and furthermore, anyone else who makes these connections is commiting "anti-Islamic bigotry".

You've managed to encapsulate the sort of thinking that permitted Hasan to remain at his post after all the warnings he himself gave off, which btw all involved his religion and not his state of mind.

After calling Martin Peretz a "Jewish extremist" (duh!) Klein goes on to say: (linked above)

To be sure, extreme religious beliefs and violent insanity are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to track--among fanatics of all religions. There was, for example, the lunatic Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein, who opened fire on Muslims praying at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994, killing 24 and wounding more than 100. There was also the lunatic Jewish settler who assassinated Yitzak Rabin. I can't remember many Jews calling these effusions of violence as a natural consequence of devout Judaism. They were acts of psychopathy, as was Hasan's bloodbath.

harkin seems to argue that if the psychopath is Islamic, then his beliefs are an a

Quoting AemJeff: Golly, they're reasonable, smart, well-informed, usually civil, have disparate points of view, and generally have interesting things to say. What else do you require?

Well put. I was very happy to see Joe Klein was making his Bh.tv debut, and now that I've watched the diavlog, I'm even happier. I found a lot of what he had to say about Afghanistan highly informative. I will also second your recommendation for Primary Colors. That's a truly great read. (I read it after JK was outed, but before I knew anything about him, if anyone is curious.)

Such an impossibly complex situation in Afghanistan with no easy solution. The 24 hour news cycle encourages the idea that policy decisions are made on a political whim, when the complexity of the situation demands long term consideration. Blogging Heads needs a producer who can advise the bloggers on how to set up their recording environment. Doing things like sitting with your back (or one side) to a bright window messes up the camera. I also wonder if Klein really intended to have Hillary looking over his shoulder like that. Would it be so hard to ask everyone to consider their recording setup and do things like face a window, turn on the lights, or hang a backdrop? Logitech makes a webcam that includes a microphone with echo cancellation. They also offer an easy to use webcam service that even the technically-challenged can figure out. So, no phone or headset needed, just talk to the camera like a normal TV interview. EDIT: I have one of these: http://cgi.ebay.com/PHOTOGRAPHY-10-x...%3D5%26ps%3D63 It works great and is cheap. Go to a fabric store if you don't like black and buy a couple of yards of something you

Quoting kezboard: [...] But "dishonest prick" describes him just as well.)

Let me add my voice to the chorus saying we have no desire to see Jamie Kirchick back on Bh.tv.

Quoting Simon Willard: What the hell is that? Why don't Funm and Klein hit the demographic?

Unfortunately, Klein is right on the numbers.

Quoting basman: I agree with aemjeff and disagree with rocean about the quality of this exchange. It's fine and is a credit to this site; and it's good enough for the reasons aemjeff points to, however briefly, so as to ask rocean: what would satisfy you and who, for goodness's sake, meets your oh so high standards?

Itzik Basman

basman and god work for me.

Quoting Wonderment: there are only a few dozen Congress members who advocate peace. .

I think everyone advocates peace unless one is a mental case. The problem people are having is that leaving the region doesn't neccessarily lead to peace.
It would have been nice if the US had never been involved in any of this or any of the adventures/misadventures of the past. It would be nice if the US never stick it's nose in anyone's business.
But the chance for that is long past and may have been impossible to begin with. We're stuck.

Quoting tomw: Such an impossibly complex situation in Afghanistan with no easy solution. The 24 hour news cycle encourages the idea that policy decisions are made on a political whim, when the complexity of the situation demands long term consideration.

Blogging Heads needs a producer who can advise the bloggers on how to set up their recording environment. Doing things like sitting with your back (or one side) to a bright window messes up the camera. I also wonder if Klein really intended to have Hillary looking over his shoulder like that.

Would it be so hard to ask everyone to consider their recording setup and do things like face a window, turn on the lights, or hang a backdrop? Logitech makes a webcam that includes a microphone with echo cancellation. They also offer an easy to use webcam service that even the technically-challenged can figure out. So, no phone or headset needed, just talk to the camera like a normal TV interview.

Yes, or at least send a kit with a length of string to set minimum distance, directions to avoid up-the-nose angles, and a quality head-set. I listen to podcasts a lot, and it's

Quoting piscivorous: For all those that disavow evidence of a God take note, miracles do exist, I have found an instance where David Corn actually makes some sense.

Really good article. However the numerous quotations from Gibbs were incorrect. There were no uhhhhhhs. Ever heard that guy talk? It makes your skin crawl.

Quoting Whatfur: Thank you for actually adding a comment that has something to do with the actual vlog.

Was this addressed to franco? I was going to say something in the order of....'it's nice to get some substance from you instead of the usual snotty critique of the speakers' talking style'. Maybe there will be more forthcoming.

Quoting Simon Willard: What the hell is that? Why don't Funm and Klein hit the demographic?

Don't you love it when people take five words out of a post and then ask what you meant. And I think Simon missed the point. Never mind.

Quoting badhatharry: Was this addressed to franco? I was going to say something in the order of....'it's nice to get some substance from you instead of the usual snotty critique of the speakers' talking style'.

Maybe there will be more forthcoming.

Poor little badhat....still smarting from my critique of...what was it now? Oh yes, I remember: Obama the marxist. Actually, most of my comments have substance, unlike yours.

Quoting Francoamerican: Poor little badhat....still smarting from my critique of...what was it now? Oh yes, I remember: Obama the marxist.

Actually, most of my comments have substance, unlike yours.

thanks for your sympathy, franco. i really value it.

Quoting rcocean: A sincere question deserves a sincere answer. I'd love to see David Gergan and Steve Roberts. Or perhaps Bob Herbert and Nina Totenberg. Either would be a truly fascinating discussion, break new ground, and hit BHTV's target demographic -square on.

And be more interesting then Klein and Frum.

The pairings you mention would be okay though they are middling pundits all imho with Gergan the best of them, Totenberg and Roberts okay and Bob Herbert running dead last. But again imho save for Gergan, none of the mentionees are as good as either Frum of Klein. Itzik Basman

Quoting rcocean: Don't you love it when people take five words out of a post and then ask what you meant.

Come on, how can those words be out of context? I just want to know what you mean by "BHtv's target demographic"? I want to know if I've come to the wrong place.

I want out of Afghanistan too. But it's interesting that Joe Klein says that he has talked to no knowledgeable person who advocates leaving Afghanistan.

That's exactly what I mean. Joe Klein only talks to generals, diplomats, politicians and their think tank co-dependents. They all talk in terms of the success of the military mission, which Time Magazine and its corporate sponsors support. Joe Klein would be laughed at and lose all his credibility with his sources if he asked deeper questions about US militarism, about why we need hundreds of military bases around the globe and why we need to spend trillions of dollars on defense (dwarfing the rest of the world's defense expenditures). This AfPaq consensus is the same mindset we had in Vietnam. There was no dissent at all among the experts in Vietnam (the dissent was outside the establishment bubble). We also same almost the same universal bi-partisan consensus when Bush invaded Iraq (although our allies around the world generally recognized the endeavor as crazy). Many of the "knowledgeable" journalists of the NYT, New Republic,, Slate, Time, etc. all signed on for the mission. They will sign on to

I think everyone advocates peace unless one is a mental case.

The problem is that they advocate peace by waging war.

It would have been nice if the US had never been involved in any of this or any of the adventures/misadventures of the past. It would be nice if the US never stick it's nose in anyone's business.

But we continue to do the same crazy stuff expecting different results. You don't bomb the shit out of countries and occupy them for world peace.

But the chance for that is long past and may have been impossible to begin with. We're stuck.

I disagree. I think there are always opportunities for nonviolent conflict resolution to succeed. The Soviet Union collapsed without one foreign soldier occupying it. No bombs, no napalm, no dead children. It's true that we're not very good at solving conflicts without murdering people. But then we don't invest trillions of dollars (or even a few million) in learning how to do it right. It's also true that the foreign military entanglements we've created are very messy and hard to extricate ourselves from. But that's the challenge. Just like with global

These guys are great together (despite David's "Axis of Evil" past association).
HOWEVER, David needs to fix his phone. His words were getting all chopped up so I couldn't understand what he was saying much of the time.

Quoting Wonderment: That's exactly what I mean. Joe Klein only talks to generals, diplomats, politicians and their think tank co-dependents. They all talk in terms of the success of the military mission, which Time Magazine and its corporate sponsors support.

Joe Klein would be laughed at and lose all his credibility with his sources if he asked deeper questions about US militarism, about why we need hundreds of military bases around the globe and why we need to spend trillions of dollars on defense (dwarfing the rest of the world's defense expenditures).

This AfPaq consensus is the same mindset we had in Vietnam. There was no dissent at all among the experts in Vietnam (the dissent was outside the establishment bubble). We also same almost the same universal bi-partisan consensus when Bush invaded Iraq (although our allies around the world generally recognized the endeavor as crazy). Many of the "knowledgeable" journalists of the NYT, New Republic,, Slate, Time, etc. all signed on for the mission. They will sign on to Afghanistan even faster because they all adore Obama and despised Bush.

Ordinary Americans DO ask the harder questions, but of course they are dismissed as

Quoting tomw: I also wonder if Klein really intended to have Hillary looking over his shoulder like that.

Yes. It's Time Magazine and he wrote the cover story.

Quoting Whatfur: Thank you for actually adding a comment that has something to do with the actual vlog.

That's bollocks. When is Franco ever not on-topic?

Quoting Francoamerican: Poor little badhat....still smarting from my critique of...what was it now? Oh yes, I remember: Obama the marxist.

Actually, most of my comments have substance, unlike yours.

One of the books I am currently reading is the McCullough, John Adams biography...I have to give it to the French. They are consistant. But I do thank them for their assistance in building our little republic.

Quoting Toryentalist: That's bollocks. When is Franco ever not on-topic?

Ummm....like two posts ago in response to BHH. He has other qualities that he is far more consistant with. Oh, and no thanks to the Tories in the building of our little republic.

Quoting Whatfur: Oh, and no thanks to the Tories in the building of our little republic.

'Toryentalist' (or 'Tory-entalism') is a sub-chapter in Niall Ferguson's book 'Empire'. It doesn't describe my political philosophy.

Thanks, but that's just going too far afield. Sort of like how setting up a Department of Peace is far afield of the questions we are grappling with.

I don't think so. Decisions about how to deal with conflict and violence are fundamental to our human existence. They are very personal, and dare I say, spiritual. My position is that killing is wrong. I won't live or die by the sword. I also believe that war is obsolete. My view is shared by many Americans, but none of them are officers in the Armed Forces. So if you ask the military for their view on conflict, it will inevitably be shaped by their ideology that permits and often promotes coercion and killing. This distorts the possible outcomes (nonviolent resolutions) from the git-go. If civilian leadership simply defers to the military (as they are often wont to do) they betray civil society, act immorally and pass the buck. Our country has a president-commander-in-chief -- a role which may make sense administratively -- so the POTUS and the Pentagon are often in lockstep. It is probably impossible to become POTUS without the approval and confidence of the militarism establishment. But we're also

Quoting Wonderment: My view is shared by many Americans, but none of them are officers in the Armed Forces. So if you ask the military for their view on conflict, it will inevitably be shaped by their ideology that permits and often promotes coercion and killing. This distorts the possible outcomes (nonviolent resolutions) from the git-go.

And how. America spends $1,000,000,000,000 on the military every year. War and occupation are good for business. This ain't news.

Joe Klein: I think the highest praise one could have for the man is, that his many detractors come from all sides of the spectrum. He must be doing something right! I read The Natural and thought it was an excellent and, for Clintonistas, pithy account of the Clinton administration. David Frum has completed a transformation from "arrogant jerk" to "informative", and now I'm actually looking forward to what he brings next time.

Quoting Baltimoron: Joe Klein: I think the highest praise one could have for the man is, that his many detractors come from all sides of the spectrum. He must be doing something right!

See sub-thread starting here. Which is not to say I dislike JK.

David Frum has completed a transformation from "arrogant jerk" to "informative", and now I'm actually looking forward to what he brings next time.

I'm not quite ready to go there. I find him tiresome and ridiculously unreasonable whenever Israel is under discussion. But he's pretty good on some other topics, even when I disagree with his views.

Oh dear! Not another thread about centrism vs. conformity! I'm embarrassed to say I had to learn about the dangers of allegiance to one party or position so late as a young boy of 12. But, as much as I appreciate logic, I've witnessed sane people use it to justify horrendous propositions. Experience has taught me never to cooperate longer than it takes a group to start excluding others. That's why I can never belong to a temple: sooner or later every believer just creates another hell.

Quoting Toryentalist: 'Toryentalist' (or 'Tory-entalism') is a sub-chapter in Niall Ferguson's book 'Empire'. It doesn't describe my political philosophy.

Haven't read it. I will put it on my list and we can thump foreheads someday.

Quoting Wonderment: My position is that killing is wrong. I won't live or die by the sword. I also believe that war is obsolete.

My view is shared by many Americans, but none of them are officers in the Armed Forces...

I'm not sure what you mean that none in the military are against killing. I grew up- in a military family, served myself and know current military personnel. Of all the military personnel I have known or know today all believe that killing is wrong, the difference is that they believe that sometimes killing becomes necessary even though it is wrong. While I once told myself that I would never use this against you, when you make such irresponsible and despicable generalizations about a group of people that provide the security that you so gratuitously now besmirch, we did have a discussion in the old forum in which you expressed your doubts as to ability to live by your pacifist convictions if it were a threat to your child/children. If need be I will take the time and put in the effort to find it. But my memory is not a short as

BHTV's target audience: Uber-DNC hack BJ Keefe and;
B-moron. 'nough said.

My view is shared by many Americans, but none of them are officers in the Armed Forces. So if you ask the military for their view on conflict, it will inevitably be shaped by their ideology that permits and often promotes coercion and killing. This distorts the possible outcomes (nonviolent resolutions) from the git-go.

I have to take exception to this as well. Piscivorous makes the better argument. I can only relate, that some of the most contemplative and spiritual men and women I have ever met were my fellow soldiers and commanders. The military services are huge organizations with incredible diversity.They are also incredibly rigid, and like big ships that don't answer the helm quickly. The size also encourages ferocious infighting. But, I've never met an immoral leader, or believed for a minute that the other leaders would not intervene if some immoral act were to occur. And, civilians cannot ask a military organization to be prepared to kill for it, and question that. But, America requires that with every bad civilian decision, whether it be from corporate contractors, bureaucrats, or elected politicians. It's our fault as citizens that our military has problems.

I thank you but I am disappointed in myself none the less.

Quoting piscivorous: I thank you but I am disappointed in myself none the less.

If it makes you feel any better, we're ALL disappointed in you.

I'm disappointed in myself because I let my anger get the better of me. Why anyone else should be disappointed is beyond my comprehension.

For whatever it's worth, Pisc, I agree with Balt.

What kind of an ass are you?

Quoting piscivorous: I'm disappointed in myself because I let my anger get the better of me. Why anyone else should be disappointed is beyond my comprehension.

I'd like to think rc was joking. But as a sometimes opponent of yours, I want to extend an offer of thanks for your service. And I hope that the anger passes quickly, but also forgive yourself. Perhaps Wonderment can flesh out the distinctions between the value of service and the absoluteness of his position?

I debated that myself but due to the brevity of the post there is little evidence either way. As the old song lyrics so aptly state one drink of wine, one drink of gin and I'm lost in the ozone again. But I suspect that liberal dose of herbal medication will have the desired calming effect.

Thanks.

Quoting Whatfur: One of the books I am currently reading is the McCullough, John Adams biography...I have to give it to the French. They are consistant. But I do thank them for their assistance in building our little republic.

The French, from my personal experience and from my readings in history, are probably the most inconsistent people on the planet. But we (one half of me is French) have always had a special place in our hearts---of love and hate-----for our sister republic across the seas. Adams was a sour, puritanical francophobe. His francophile rival Jefferson was closer to the truth when he said that every man has two countries, his own and France.

While I don't doubt your words you have a strange way of showing it!

Quoting piscivorous: While I don't doubt your words you have a strange way of showing it!

If you mean my remarks about American foreign policy, I am unapologetic. Personal remarks to you or others are free of chauvinism.

I'm not sure what you mean that none in the military are against killing.

What I mean is that there are no pacifists in the Armed Forces. If you are a pacifist, you object conscientiously and don't serve or serve only in a non-combatant capacity. Thus, the military -- particularly its leadership -- is made up of people who believe in a Just War doctrine. I don't. It's not any more complicated than that, so there's no reason for you to whip yourself into a frenzy.

Quoting Wonderment: What I mean is that there are no pacifists in the Armed Forces. If you are a pacifist, you object conscientiously and don't serve or serve only in a non-combatant capacity. Thus, the military -- particularly its leadership -- is made up of people who believe in a Just War doctrine.

I don't.

It's not any more complicated than that, so there's no reason for you to whip yourself into a frenzy.

Sometimes people go out of their way to misinterpret your remarks.

Quoting Baltimoron: What kind of an ass are you?

Sayeth the foul mouthed, pompous B-moron. Can we say faux-outrage, boys and girls?

Sayeth[???]...blah blah

Who talks like this in this day and age?

Quoting Wonderment: My position is that killing is wrong. I won't live or die by the sword. I also believe that war is obsolete.

My view is shared by many Americans, but none of them are officers in the Armed Forces. So if you ask the military for their view on conflict, it will inevitably be shaped by their ideology that permits and often promotes coercion and killing. This distorts the possible outcomes (nonviolent resolutions) from the git-go.

Quoting Wonderment: What I mean is that there are no pacifists in the Armed Forces. If you are a pacifist, you object conscientiously and don't serve or serve only in a non-combatant capacity. Thus, the military -- particularly its leadership -- is made up of people who believe in a Just War doctrine.

I don't.

It's not any more complicated than that, so there's no reason for you to whip yourself into a frenzy.

Does the phrase "my view" in the first quote could refer to pacifism (as you say later) or to the view that killing is wrong as appears in the paragraph right before? Based on the context provided the second is a plausible reading of what you said which

Bullshit! Is there no end to your hypocrisy!

Quoting Wonderment: That's exactly what I mean. Joe Klein only talks to generals, diplomats, politicians and their think tank co-dependents. They all talk in terms of the success of the military mission, which Time Magazine and its corporate sponsors support.

Joe Klein would be laughed at and lose all his credibility with his sources if he asked deeper questions about US militarism, about why we need hundreds of military bases around the globe and why we need to spend trillions of dollars on defense (dwarfing the rest of the world's defense expenditures).

This AfPaq consensus is the same mindset we had in Vietnam. There was no dissent at all among the experts in Vietnam (the dissent was outside the establishment bubble). We also same almost the same universal bi-partisan consensus when Bush invaded Iraq (although our allies around the world generally recognized the endeavor as crazy). Many of the "knowledgeable" journalists of the NYT, New Republic,, Slate, Time, etc. all signed on for the mission. They will sign on to Afghanistan even faster because they all adore Obama and despised Bush.

Ordinary Americans DO ask the harder questions, but of course they are dismissed as

Quoting Francoamerican: The French, from my personal experience and from my readings in history, are probably the most inconsistent people on the planet. But we (one half of me is French) have always had a special place in our hearts---of love and hate-----for our sister republic across the seas.

Adams was a sour, puritanical francophobe. His francophile rival Jefferson was closer to the truth when he said that every man has two countries, his own and France.

As with most things Frank, your knowledge of the actual generally falls in the superficial category. Adam's feelings towards France and the French was nothing like you describe (albeit those whose history comes from the back of a cereal box may share your view). But you are correct, he did not take up with the thousands of legal whores there nor grovel at the feet of Vergennes. Adams had the audacity to work in America's best interests even when France was waffling in its allegience. Jefferson's arrival in France came after the signing of peace with Britain and thus most the hard work was done. Adams and Jefferson were almost inseparable

Quoting Francoamerican: Without being a pacifist---I think that some wars may be unavoidable even if they are not "just" in the traditional sense of just war doctrine-- I agree with many of the points you are making. Both Klein and Frum confine themselves to the narrow range of viewpoints represented by the political-military-diplomatic-pundit world of Washington. In this little world of solipsists a largely unknown Afghanistan figures as a country that must be "saved" from its Islamic demons, even though these demons pose no real threat to the security of the United States and could probably be contained at less expense and certainly with less "collateral damage" to the civilian population. As in Iraq the threat of terrorism has been grossly exaggerated. It has also been deliberately confused with the threat of a Taliban takeover of the country. Even if that were likely (the experts seem to differ), it is unclear to me why the United States and its NATO allies think that they have the right and the duty to prevent by military action what the Afghans are unwilling or unable to prevent by themselves. Does

Quoting rcocean: BHTV's target audience:

Uber-DNC hack BJ Keefe and;
B-moron.

'nough said.

That seems incomplete. Given your prolonged presence here, I think it's safe to say the Bh.tv's target audience also includes those who, when momentarily unfulfilled by the wankfests in the Althouse and Malkin comment sections, enjoy the sensation -- a metaphorical change of hands, if you will -- that comes from spurts of condemning insufficiently pure conservatives and posting links to cryptoracists.

Quoting bjkeefe: I admire Wonderment's ideals while not completely sharing them. I have grown over the course of my adult life into accepting as reality that there are people in the world who sometimes must be opposed by force. But "sometimes" does not mean "always," and while I will be the first to say that we need a strong military to protect our way of life, I will also say that we have fallen into a rut over the past half-century or so of thinking only in terms of military solutions to problems.

I think Wonderment's getting to me. I'm almost all there. I recently posted a link to "The Moral Equivalent of War" by William James. It was from 1906, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War (shorter James: people like war). Not too much later WWI started. Then Veterans Day rolled around, and I noticed this post by John Quiggin. Quoted in full:

91 years ago, the world marked the end of the Great War that had consumed tens of millions of lives, mostly those of young men sent to die far from home in a cause that few could explain, then or now. It was a false dawn. The chaos

Quoting Whatfur: As with most things Frank, your knowledge of the actual generally falls in the superficial category. Adam's feelings towards France and the French was nothing like you describe (albeit those whose history comes from the back of a cereal box may share your view). But you are correct, he did not take up with the thousands of legal whores there nor grovel at the feet of Vergennes. Adams had the audacity to work in America's best interests even when France was waffling in its allegience. Jefferson's arrival in France came after the signing of peace with Britain and thus most the hard work was done. Adams and Jefferson were almost inseparable there physically and mentally and what Jefferson enjoyed in France he enjoyed generally in the company of Adams and his family.

Thank you, whatfur, but when I need a lesson in history from a cereal box like you I will stop having croissants for breakfast. I am aware of the facts you mention. But it is still true that that Adams did not like the French and said so repeatedly throughout his life. Jefferson on the contrary was an ardent francophile.

Just because I am a fussbudget, here is a link to Quiggin's post. Good stuff from him and you. Thanks. One quibble:

Quoting claymisher: It's a straight-up prisoner's dilemma problem. This ought to be a no brainer.

We need more brains if this is ever to be realized. Problem right now is that all too often, everything but brains is what drives the decision-making. It's all gut feelings and emotional appeals. Not to be overly literal or anything. ;^)

Quoting bjkeefe: I admire Wonderment's ideals while not completely sharing them. I have grown over the course of my adult life into accepting as reality that there are people in the world who sometimes must be opposed by force. But "sometimes" does not mean "always," and while I will be the first to say that we need a strong military to protect our way of life, I will also say that we have fallen into a rut over the past half-century or so of thinking only in terms of military solutions to problems..

Self-defense, I agree, is the only legitimate reason for war. The bloated, overarmed US military grew out of the Cold War and the exaggerated fear of the Soviet Union. Self-defense and the defense of Europe and the "free world" were its raison d'être. So in a sense the US could view itself as a benevolent hegemon, a global policeman, although I doubt if all the peoples of the world shared this view at the time. Since the end of the Cold War the American mililtary has been searching for a new raison d'être. But what is it?

Quoting claymisher: I think Wonderment's getting to me. I'm almost all there.

I recently posted a link to "The Moral Equivalent of War" by William James. It was from 1906, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War (shorter James: people like war). Not too much later WWI started. Then Veterans Day rolled around, and I noticed this post by John Quiggin. Quoted in full:.

James' essay is memorable, but his solution---putting the idle rich to work digging ditches, washing windows and building roads etc.---might not inspire the masters of the universe on Wallstreet.

Quoting claymisher: Until we get rid of our armies it'll just keeping happening. In addition to a negotiated worldwide drawdown of our nuclear weapons the major powers should do the same with conventional forces. It's a straight-up prisoner's dilemma problem. This ought to be a no brainer.

The world that produced WW I seems almost as remote to me as the world of Homer. Well, not quite, but it was a world of competing and more or less equal great powers.The only country today that seems bent on building up its military even though there are no other countries that could challenge it is, need I say, the US of A.

I think Wonderment's getting to me. I'm almost all there.

Don't be shy Thanks to all of you (Brendan, Twin, Franco, Clay and others) for taking pacifism seriously enough to discuss rationally. I find that most people are quite willing to consider pacifism as a serious moral and practical philosophy and as a guide to political activism. Sometimes, however, they need "permission" to do so. Warists make such a concerted effort to promote militarism and chauvinism and to ridicule and demean pacifists that it's often hard for us pacifists to "come out of the closet" and serve as role models for others. I wish there had been more pacifists speaking out when I was a kid; it might have made my life a lot easier. It certainly would have saved many families from the horrors of Vietnam. When I'm speaking in public I always make a point of using the P word, just in case someone needs to hear it, which I suspect is often the case. It's easier nowadays. A large proportion of the pacifists I know today are combat veterans of Vietnam and Iraq. Nobody waves the flag in their face. Thanks to the many veterans opposed to war, the public

Quoting bjkeefe: I woke up this morning thinking about what Wonderment has said in this thread. I was going to post some thoughts that you have already touched on, so, thanks. But I will add a few more words, at risk of repetition, for emphasis.

And here is something else of relevance: a book review by B'head Jacob Heilbrunn, titled "The Lies They Told." The book in question is The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11, by John Farmer, but Jacob also discusses larger aspects of our "defense" mindset and how the MSM helps reinforce it. Also worth a look: the posts by my hat-tippees, DougJ and Atrios. It sure would be nice to have Jacob back on, to do a diavlog with John Farmer.

Quoting bjkeefe: Problem right now is that all too often, everything but brains is what drives the decision-making. It's all gut feelings and emotional appeals.

Even for the Dean of the "Middle Ground."

Quoting Francoamerican: Thank you, whatfur, but when I need a lesson in history from a cereal box like you I will stop having croissants for breakfast.

I am aware of the facts you mention. But it is still true that that Adams did not like the French and said so repeatedly throughout his life. Jefferson on the contrary was an ardent francophile.

I think you would be hard pressed to find quotes to that affect other than from other people...the following may be enlightening...(It's almost as if he read your post.) From David McCullough's, John Adams.: "In later years much would be written and said of John Adams's dislike of France, his puritanical disapproval of the French and their ways. But while, to be sure, there was much he disapproved of, and even disliked, much that he found shocking, such as the forwardness of the women, also did most Americans of the day. Adam's objections stemmed not so much from a Puritan background--as often said --but from the ideal of republican virtue, the classic Roman stoic emphasis on simplicity and view that decadence inevitably followed luxury, age-old themes replete in the writings

read more . . .

Quoting Whatfur:
From David McCullough's, John Adams.:

"Adam's objections stemmed not so much from a Puritan background--as often said --but from the ideal of republican virtue, the classic Roman stoic emphasis on simplicity and view that decadence inevitably followed luxury, age-old themes replete in the writings of his favorite Romans..."

Irony! If he had known Americans in the last several decades!

And although the forwardness of French women may have shocked him, he wrote to his wife...

"To tell you the truth, I admire the ladies here. Don't be jealous. They are handsome, and very well educated. Their accomplishments are exceedingly brilliant. And their knowledge of letters and arts, exceeds that of the English ladies, I believe"

It does sound like a Puritan's reaction formation...

Of the men he wrote...

"The men here remind me of hairy women".

Ok I made up that last line. ;o)

LOL!

Some thoughts on these important decisions.

Quoting bjkeefe: That seems incomplete. Given your prolonged presence here, I think it's safe to say the Bh.tv's target audience also includes those who, when momentarily unfulfilled by the wankfests in the Althouse and Malkin comment sections, enjoy the sensation -- a metaphorical change of hands, if you will -- that comes from spurts of condemning insufficiently pure conservatives and posting links to cryptoracists.

Like the word "cryptoracists" is that kinda like "neo-communist" and semi-traitor"?

Quoting Whatfur: I think you would be hard pressed to find quotes to that affect other than from other people...the following may be enlightening...(It's almost as if he read your post.)

From David McCullough's, John Adams.:

"In later years much would be written and said of John Adams's dislike of France, his puritanical disapproval of the French and their ways. But while, to be sure, there was much he disapproved of, and even disliked, much that he found shocking, such as the forwardness of the women, also did most Americans of the day. Adam's objections stemmed not so much from a Puritan background--as often said --but from the ideal of republican virtue, the classic Roman stoic emphasis on simplicity and view that decadence inevitably followed luxury, age-old themes replete in the writings of his favorite Romans. Like so many of his countrymen, then and later, Adams boths loved and disapproved of France, depending in large degree on circumstances. What, in fact, was most interesting, as expressed repeatedly in his diary and private correspondence--and what seems to have struck him as most unexpected--was how very much about France he found appealing, how much

Quoting Francoamerican: Thank you whatfur. I will stick to croissants however.

...

There would be no reason for the author to manufacture an angle whereas it is obvious there is reason for you to deny its authenticity. Whether his framework was Roman or Puritan was really not the point I was pressing. Matter of fact, while we are on it, Jefferson had many of the same feelings towards the French as Adams. In any case, yes, go on believing what you will...wouldn't want facts to get in the way.

Quoting Francoamerican: Thank you whatfur...

And I might add re: your last line: a clear case of repressed homosexuality.

The evidence is mounting...

Quoting Francoamerican: ... I will stick to croissants however.

I can't blame you for that. Cafe au lait avec croissants! Yum!

Quoting Whatfur: There would be no reason for the author to manufacture an angle whereas it is obvious there is reason for you to deny its authenticity. Whether his framework was Roman or Puritan was really not the point I was pressing. Matter of fact, while we are on it, Jefferson had many of the same feelings towards the French as Adams. In any case, yes, go on believing what you will...wouldn't want facts to get in the way.

What point were you pressing exactly? I doubt if you know enough about American history or French history to press a point that would rise above the level of your last observation.

First of all, I don't want to get into the Israeli/Palestine issue, it's not something I know anything about, and I am not interested in getting into that. My question is, why have we, for longer then I can remember, had such close ties to Israel? I can't see any sort of strategic benefits we gain from having such a close relationship with Israel. I mean, I can't really recall many times when a presidential candidate had to stand up and say "I am a friend to X"...when X isn't Israel.

Quoting Francoamerican: What point were you pressing exactly? I doubt if you know enough about American history or French history to press a point that would rise above the level of your last observation.

Whatever Frank...and you must know everything there is to know...even more than one who wins Pulitzer's writing it. I would press the point but I would have to ask you to remove your hat.

I'm sure mvantony knows this a lot better than I, but the reasons I'm familiar with is that they have valuable intelligence to share with us, as well as weapons to buy from and sell to us, as well as military techniques. If I had to bet--and happily, I don't have to--I would bet that, while all that stuff is worth something, it's not worth what we're paying for it. Most likely, the main reason we give them so much aid is that they're a Western democracy, broadly speaking, and we want to make sure things are as easy as possible for them in the Middle East. So, I doubt that strategic interests play the main role.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: First of all, I don't want to get into the Israeli/Palestine issue...I can't see any sort of strategic benefits we gain from having such a close relationship with Israel.

Good luck with that.