Quoting uncle ebeneezer: He's talking about America, right???

Heh.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: He's talking about America, right???

Yeah, I was thinking a similar think. I.e., the pot calling the kettle black

Matthew is out of his league in this discussion about Iran. While renditions etc. are problematic, - how can the US aspire to moral leadership? - they are simply not equivalent to what the Iranians did to US troops in Beirut or the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. It is sort of like complaining about zits on your face when while you are wearing a colostomy bag. It is stupid to come back with that kind of argument. Of course torture is wrong, of course incarceration without trial is wrong, but WHAT the F..k! does that have to do with dead bodies strewn all over the place. Actually making that kind of argument undermines efforts to stop rendition, end indefinite incarceration and ban "enhanced interrogation". The way to respond to Eli is to point out that international laws must be respected....period...Don´t make inapt comparisons.

A very good diavlog, as is usually the case when Eli is involved, with someone who can keep a rein on him, as Matt did quite well. One point of craziness that I can think of that went unchallenged: Eli talking about Iran being somehow illegitimate for their various state-sponsored actions right after longing for the good ol' days when the good ol' USA woulda busted a cap in Ahmadinejad's ass. I was also a bit troubled by Eli blithely throwing off words to the effect of, "As a Jew, I would never be able to cut a deal with that guy." Sorry, Eli, but that's not a privilege you get to claim, unless you also want to acknowledge the legitimacy of someone else saying, "As a Muslim, I would never be able to cut a deal with the president of the United States." Or Hindu, or Buddhist, or atheist, for that matter. The reality is, if we can arrive at a place we can live with by negotiating with Ahmadinejad, then let that little eyes-too-close schmuck preen all he wants about how he scored on the Great Satan. He's not going to be fooling anyone but himself and maybe

Quoting Michael: Matthew is out of his league in this discussion about Iran. While renditions etc. are problematic, - how can the US aspire to moral leadership? - they are simply not equivalent to what the Iranians did to US troops in Beirut or the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

Michael, I agree with you it is wrong to assert that the incidents you cite are moral equivalents. However, I didn't hear Matthew making the argument that they are equivalent. The way I heard it, he was saying that even if the atrocities perpetrated by the U.S. are minor in comparison to what the Iranian government may be doing, they still undermine whatever moral authority the U.S. may be able to claim. The argument that while the U.S. has done horrible things, others have done even more horrible things, is just not going to be very compelling, regardless of whether it is true. And I also agree with you that international laws must be respected... period.

Quoting bjkeefe: A very good diavlog, as is usually the case when Eli is involved, with someone who can keep a rein on him, as Matt did quite well.

I enjoyed and appreciated your thoughtful comments. I had much the same reaction to the diavlog. I am always impressed when two people of differing points of view can interact with each other respectfully and are not merely trying to score points off the other. As a Jew, I also felt immediately uneasy when I heard Mr. Lake's "As a Jew," remarks, and you articulated well the reasons for my discomfort. To me, that was the moment in the diavlog when primal fear and anger seemed to overwhelm Mr. Lake's until-then reasoned demeanor. There seems to be something about tribal identification that brings out such reflexive, violently fearful responses in us, and that has always troubled me. Thanks for calling attention to that moment.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: He's talking about America, right???

Hmm, good point! Of course we're not anywhere near Iran in that respect, but it is very discomfiting to see this country moving in that direction.

Quoting listener: [...]

Thx.

So now that the President has secretly invaded Pakistan, not unlike President Nixon and Cambodia, does the Nobel committee rescind his prize and ask for their money back?

Quoting bjkeefe: A very good diavlog, as is usually the case when Eli is involved, with someone who can keep a rein on him, as Matt did quite well.

One point of craziness that I can think of that went unchallenged: Eli talking about Iran being somehow illegitimate for their various state-sponsored actions right after longing for the good ol' days when the good ol' USA woulda busted a cap in Ahmadinejad's ass.

I was also a bit troubled by Eli blithely throwing off words to the effect of, "As a Jew, I would never be able to cut a deal with that guy." Sorry, Eli, but that's not a privilege you get to claim, unless you also want to acknowledge the legitimacy of someone else saying, "As a Muslim, I would never be able to cut a deal with the president of the United States." Or Hindu, or Buddhist, or atheist, for that matter.

The reality is, if we can arrive at a place we can live with by negotiating with Ahmadinejad, then let that little eyes-too-close schmuck preen all he wants about how he scored on the Great Satan. He's not going to be fooling anyone but himself and maybe

Quoting listener: Michael, I agree with you it is wrong to assert that the incidents you cite are moral equivalents. However, I didn't hear Matthew making the argument that they are equivalent. The way I heard it, he was saying that even if the atrocities perpetrated by the U.S. are minor in comparison to what the Iranian government may be doing, they still undermine whatever moral authority the U.S. may be able to claim. The argument that while the U.S. has done horrible things, others have done even more horrible things, is just not going to be very compelling, regardless of whether it is true. And I also agree with you that international laws must be respected... period.

I think it was an especially good point that the Detroit bomber's father felt secure in reporting his son to American authorities. That says a lot.

Quoting look: I think it was an especially good point that the Detroit bomber's father felt secure in reporting his son to American authorities. That says a lot.

Yes, that was a good one. It was hard for me to single out anything specific Matt said, since I thought he did such a good job end to end presenting things as I see them.

Bob Wright's NYT column (also noted elsewhere) has some discussion and links on the issue of how much we can trust results from public opinion surveys taken in Iran.

The asymmetry of Bloggingheads is really starting to annoy me. I love Eli, but I don't like this pairing. Eli Lake is in no meaningful way the right wing equivalent of Matthew Duss on a majority of the issues they discuss here. Instead of making Eli say "some would argue", and to some extent defend positions he doesn't necessarily hold, how about actually getting people who hold and defend these issues, especially enhanced interrogation? If the view is as widespread on the right as Matthew claims it is, it shouldn't be hard to find someone. Just tired of the asymmetry, especially because it almost always skews left.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: The asymmetry of Bloggingheads is really starting to annoy me. I love Eli, but I don't like this pairing. Eli Lake is in no meaningful way the right wing equivalent of Matthew Duss on a majority of the issues they discuss here. Instead of making Eli say "some would argue", and to some extent defend positions he doesn't necessarily hold, how about actually getting people who hold and defend these issues, especially enhanced interrogation? If the view is as widespread on the right as Matthew claims it is, it shouldn't be hard to find someone. Just tired of the asymmetry, especially because it almost always skews left.

zoom in to 10,000% on this post, and you will see a little tiny violin playing for you... and then feel free to post a good argument in support of torture. I'm sure people will engage your arguments.

Well I appreciate the sarcastic douchey comments Karate, but perhaps you missed the point. It's not about what I want in terms of bloggingheads guests, but I think you can make a pretty compelling argument that higher amounts of symmetry leads to better arguments. I think it's more interesting to hear people making their own arguments against each other, than to hear Matt Duss rail against torture for 30 minutes and have Eli Lake basically say "Yeah, I don't disagree". To my mind, the point of bloggingheads is to have these debates and to hash these out, to clarify the arguments of each side. Having people on the same sides of a debate can just be...dull. I'm not going to say there's no room for it, because there definitely is, but I think more symmetry would lead to more fruitful conversations.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Well I appreciate the sarcastic douchey comments Karate

anytime, pardner

Quoting chiwhisoxx: but perhaps you missed the point. It's not about what I want in terms of bloggingheads guests,

really? - i guess i misinterpreted this:

Quoting chiwhisoxx: how about actually getting people who hold and defend these issues...it shouldn't be hard to find someone. Just tired of the asymmetry

because it really sounds like you want different guests...

Quoting chiwhisoxx: but I think you can make a pretty compelling argument that higher amounts of symmetry leads to better arguments. I think it's more interesting to hear people making their own arguments against each other, than to hear Matt Duss rail against torture for 30 minutes and have Eli Lake basically say "Yeah, I don't disagree". To my mind, the point of bloggingheads is to have these debates and to hash these out, to clarify the arguments of each side. Having people on the same sides of a debate can just be...dull. I'm not going to say there's no room for it, because there definitely is, but I think more symmetry would lead to more fruitful conversations.

and i'll give the same advice as last time, if its important to you - make an argument. I have no doubt

Ok, but there are reasons I'd rather someone on BHTV do it than me in the comments section. First of all, it's not even necessarily my position. Secondly, the people on here are a lot smarter than I am in their given areas of expertise, and can make the arguments with much more clarity. And lastly, having argument such as these through typing leaves a lot to be desired, and I think it's one of the great things of the BHTV format. You can get a lot more out of an argument when you can verbally hash it out with someone, and get instant feedback.

Shorter chiwhisoxx:

Torture turns me on, but I'm just paranoid enough not to say so in print.

You're an idiot Bj. Always been an idiot. Shorter this board: No one really likes BJ, but their time and energy is too valuable to call him out on his idiocy every time he strikes.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: You're an idiot Bj. Always been an idiot. Shorter this board: No one really likes BJ, but their time and energy is too valuable to call him out on his idiocy every time he strikes.

Oh, chi guy, B wants what everyone wants. Approval.

This Diavlog is so much more profane than usual. Sweet.

Wow, what a reasoned, intelligent, thoughtful diavlog.
Now, Eli, go out and talk to Mark Levin and Joe Lieberman and John McCain and Susan Collins and Lindsay Graham and all those other reasonable Republicans and see how far you get.

Quoting look: Oh, chi guy, B wants what everyone wants. Approval.

Actually, I think I got it from chi-double-x, if the old saying about imitation being the most sincere form of flattery still applies.

I made an account with one x a long time ago, forgot the password, so I just re-made it with 2. Hate to be the bubble burster and all, but yeah.

I normally like Eli but he completely failed to push back against the Duss/Brennan Miranda-or-torture false dichotomy. There is tons of room between immediately giving the underwear bomber a lawyer and waterboarding him till he talks. As The Washington Post editorialized:

UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.

It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous is exactly how I would describe the Obama administration's hadnling of Flight 253. That Duss can call it "responsible" and "effecitve" is an embarrasment. At least he declined to call the Washington Post terrorists.

Quoting conncarroll: I normally like Eli but he completely failed to push back against the Duss/Brennan Miranda-or-torture false dichotomy. There is tons of room between immediately giving the underwear bomber a lawyer and waterboarding him till he talks. As The Washington Post editorialized:

Myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous is exactly how I would describe the Obama administration's hadnling of Flight 253. That Duss can call it "responsible" and "effecitve" is an embarrasment. At least he declined to call the Washington Post terrorists.

Conn is in da house!

Quoting conncarroll: As The Washington Post editorialized:

Ah, yes. That collection of bed-wetters is who we should be looking to for guidance.

Quoting bjkeefe: Ah, yes. That collection of bed-wetters is who we should be looking to for guidance.

Is this the second time in as many days you've used the term bed-wetters? Is this the new shorter?

Quoting look: Is this the second time in as many days you've used the term bed-wetters? Is this the new shorter?

no, i think it refers to the new penchant for conservatives to piss their pants and demand that the government take away all of our civil liberties anytime they hear the word "terrorist". you know, 'cause terrorists can break out of super max prisons with their laser-beam eye weapons (keep 'em in git mo before i faint!). and they could probably blow-up new york city with their super-poweful-islamo-terrorist-farts if we tried them in civilian courts. thats my guess, anyway.

Quoting popcorn_karate: no, i think it refers to the new penchant for conservatives to piss their pants and demand that the government take away all of our civil liberties anytime they hear the word "terrorist".

you know, 'cause terrorists can break out of super max prisons with their laser-beam eye weapons (keep 'em in git mo before i faint!). and they could probably blow-up new york city with their super-poweful-islamo-terrorist-farts if we tried them in civilian courts.

thats my guess, anyway.

Got it in one.

Quoting bjkeefe: Ah, yes. That collection of bed-wetters is who we should be looking to for guidance.

Also, too.

Quoting popcorn_karate: no, i think it refers to the new penchant for conservatives to piss their pants and demand that the government take away all of our civil liberties anytime they hear the word "terrorist".

you know, 'cause terrorists can break out of super max prisons with their laser-beam eye weapons (keep 'em in git mo before i faint!). and they could probably blow-up new york city with their super-poweful-islamo-terrorist-farts if we tried them in civilian courts.

thats my guess, anyway.

I see. Brendan reads about

Tenured Washington Post oxygen-consumer Richard Cohen, the World’s Worst Writer, has constructed another hilarious screed about Terrorism from the chunks of waste that have long lingered in his adult diaper. At least that’s our guess! We gave this one the ol’ “blogger read,” where you scan the opening paragraph somewhat closely for hilarity and then just read every other topic sentence until it’s over, it’s finally over, and you can start typing.

in the always hi-larious Wonkette, and then posts a picture about soggy depends. You catch the bathroom-joke virus and mention super-poweful-islamo-terrorist-farts. I can see why you would approve of the term bed-wetters. Is there anything the brave liberals get all shook up about?

Quoting look: Is there anything the brave liberals get all shook up about?

The pathological lack of a sense of humor among wingnuts.

Quoting bjkeefe: The pathological lack of a sense of humor among wingnuts.

You're not trying hard enough.

In this diavlog I inaccurately referred to my friend Danny Postel as a Marxist. He is a radical and a leftist, but not a Marxist. I regret the error.

If Lake's going to start apologizing for inflammatory talk he's going to have a hell of a backlog to work through.

In this diavlog I inaccurately referred to my friend Danny Postel as a Marxist. He is a radical and a leftist, but not a Marxist. I regret the error.

In the comment section I inaccurately referred to my friend Eli Lake as a warmonger. He is a radical and a neo-con USA-exceptionalist, but not a warmonger. I regret the error.

You know, I'd like to see the level of political discourse raised as much as the next person, but Cohen's column was not a rational, substantive, fact-based argument that deserves a rational, substantive, fact-based response. His thesis was essentially that Obama shouldn't have to follow silly things like laws if doing so would make Americans, specifically Richard Cohen, wet their pants. Considering there are scads and scads of people, among them the former vice president, who make their living convincing Americans that they ought to be wetting their pants about terrorism, and considering that it's the job of your teddy bear and your blankie, not the President of the United States, to make you feel safer, Cohen deserves to be laughed at.

Quoting Eli Lake: In this diavlog I inaccurately referred to my friend Danny Postel as a Marxist. He is a radical and a leftist, but not a Marxist. I regret the error.

Yeah, but was he born in Kenya? Quit dodging the really important questions. ;-)

Quoting kezboard: You know, I'd like to see the level of political discourse raised as much as the next person, but Cohen's column was not a rational, substantive, fact-based argument that deserves a rational, substantive, fact-based response. His thesis was essentially that Obama shouldn't have to follow silly things like laws if doing so would make Americans, specifically Richard Cohen, wet their pants. Considering there are scads and scads of people, among them the former vice president, who make their living convincing Americans that they ought to be wetting their pants about terrorism, and considering that it's the job of your teddy bear and your blankie, not the President of the United States, to make you feel safer, Cohen deserves to be laughed at.

Isn't it one of his jobs? I'm not saying rachet us down to a police state, but doing things like checking incoming supply ships, making sure governmental agencies cooperate and share knowledge so people don't slip through the cracks, etc. As far a ridiculing Cohen, if that's what a person believes, do it. I just found Brendan's juvenile humor rather taxing. But to each their own, I do understand.

Quoting look: Isn't it one of his jobs? ...

I'd say his explicit job is to make you be safer. If that also helps you feel safer, so much the better - but, regardless of who has the job, some people will be happier about it than others.

Too much personality and too little policy substance in this debate. Mathew Duss conveys smugness and sanctimony that distastefully reminds me of the late 1960s left democrats, while Eli Lake conveys emotionalism in lieu of logic. Saying that as a Jew he can't accept negotiating with Ahmadi, and that in the old days USA would have popped him (although he doesn't advocate that now) is more heat than light. The latter idea... that someone eligible for execution is ineligible for negotiations.. is weird. A simple example shows it is unworkable: During the American War for Independence, King George considered the Independence Leadership traitors who were eligible for trial and execution. But once George decided that the UK couldn't win, he consented to the prime minister opening negotiations with them. Ant that is not sui generis... it happened for many successful and unsuccessful (e.g. Yan Smuts) independence movements. In short we want policy experts not silly hacks on Blogginheads!

Quoting look: Is there anything the brave liberals get all shook up about?

really, really stupid people with power is high on the list, especially if they are also bed-wetters.

Quoting look: IIs there anything the brave liberals get all shook up about?

The eagerness of bed-wetting wingnuts to trade our founding ideals and core principles for a false sense of security and five cents' worth of tough talk satisfaction. WOLVERINES!!!1!

Quoting popcorn_karate: really, really stupid people with power is high on the list, especially if they are also bed-wetters.

lol

Quoting bjkeefe: The eagerness of bed-wetting wingnuts to trade our founding ideals and core principles for a false sense of security and five cents' worth of tough talk satisfaction.

WOLVERINES!!!1!

I'm simply too stunned by the wit and eloquence to respond to this post. Oh, B, you're so cool. And 13,400+ posts! Sigh. What a guy.

Quoting look: I'm simply too stunned by the wit and eloquence to respond to this post. Oh, B, you're so cool. And 13,400+ posts! Sigh. What a guy.

Thx.

Quoting bjkeefe: Thx.

No. Thank you.

Quoting look: No. Thank you.

y/w.

Quoting look: Is there anything the brave liberals get all shook up about?

Wingnuts who want to burn books and act as thought police.

I wonder if liberals use cell phones because this justice department believes that there is not necessary to obtain a search warrant to obtain call information. But then it was the Bushes that were all for throwing privacy rights out of the constitution right?

Quoting piscivorous: But then it was the Bushes that were all for throwing privacy rights out of the constitution right?

Correct.

So now you are on board with, the current Justice Department stand, supporting warrantless access to all cellphone call data. If it weren't for your appetite for cherries I would have assumed someone was using your id.

Quoting piscivorous: So now you are on board ...

No, pisc. Try to read for context. I was merely ridiculing your non sequitur of a response. But, for a moment of seriousness: don't forget how many times liberals warned you all, back when you all were defending the Bushies' crapping all over the Constitution, how much you'd hate it once a Democratic president had those same powers. Of course none of you listened back then; you all just doubled down in wanking about the "war-time president" and "keeping America safe" and "Teh Unitary Executive" and on and on and on. Therefore, you have zero credibility when it comes to these complaints you're making now -- it's clearly just another case of IOKIYAR.

Quoting bjkeefe: Wingnuts who want to burn books and act as thought police.

I don't see anything about burning books. I'm concerned about throwing out pre-1985 books that haven't been tested for lead. But I guess that's one way to rid the world of non-PC thoughts. http://overlawyered.com/2009/02/cpsi...vintage-books/

Quoting look: I don't see anything about burning books.

Of course you don't, look. Of course you don't.

Quoting bjkeefe: Of course you don't, look. Of course you don't.

So it was just flame-baiting on your part...got it.

Quoting look: So it was just flame-baiting on your part...got it.

Of course you think that, look. Of course you do. Good thing you never sink to such levels, hmmm?

Quoting bjkeefe: Of course you think that, look. Of course you do.

Good thing you never sink to such levels, hmmm?

How many posts have I added to your count so far this morning, Altie? http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...&postcount=144