Don't be so hard on yourself. A lot of us have better blogs than you. That doesn't mean that yours isn't worthwhile.

:-)

True. Too true. :-)

Just remember, dissent doesn't mean we're unpatriotic either. Many of us simply do not have the time to debunk your increasingly over the top criticism in a well thought out and comprehensive manner. I certainly don't. But just for you and that sweet lady you live with, I try.

No Mark,
Dean is right. All of us dissenters need to just shut up, after all what do you think this is a democracy? Come on now. If we don't like the way Bush is running the country we all just need to get out. There's no plce for varying opinnions and disagreement in this country. At least that's what I've been told...

Mark: There is patriotic dissent and there is unpatriotic dissent. But I've already explained that. It's not my fault if you won't even try to understand the difference. And, clearly you don't, and don't even care to try.

The "sweet lady I live with" is far more over the top than I am, by the way. You might even want to try asking her if she disagrees with me.

Carsen: No one said you need to shut up. We just said you're ill-informed jerkoffs and mindless partisans. Don't like it? Too bad. That's what democracy and free speech are all about, pal. You might want to try learning the meaning of those words some time.

I linked to Smash's piece as well. Thought it was a good one.

I only differ with him in that he implies that the American electorate might lack the will to win; I would say that it is the Bush administration that lacks the will (and the leadership skills) to lead us to victory.

So let me express my dissent in a way that is consistent with Smash's guidelines: I think President Bush is prosecuting the war to achieve a re-election victory and not a military victory.

I fault the Bush Administration for lacking the moral steel to do what it takes to achieve victory. I fault them for going wobbly again like they have so many other times in the past. Their June 30 hand-over date was always a fiction. It was designed to clear the front pages of Iraq news in time for the GOP Convention in September.

The last thing the War Cabinet wanted (6 months ago) was news of troop escalations and increasing casualties. But having come this far and having gone this deep, it looks like that is exactly what will have to be endured in order to win this war on all fronts. We cannot afford anything less.

Will the Bush Administration stand firm, or will it cave like it has on so many other occasions?

Unfortunately, Ara, your dissent continues to lack any backbone because you continually refuse to say what exactly you think it takes to assure victory. You merely say the Bushies won't do it, without bothering to say what "it" would be. Besides, you know, mantra-like chants of "Bush Doctrine" and "win now" and other meaningless slogans.

Makes it bloody hard to take you seriously.

Let's hear you advocate a specific course of action. Then show me the politician who will also advocate that course of action.

Come on, Dean. I'm sure Ara has discussed this extensively on his own site. He doesn't have to repeat it all here for your benefit, does he?

No, Adam, he has not. In two years he has steadfastly refused to do so. He's been challenged on it repeatedly, called on it repeatedly, and never, not even once, articulated it.

On the other hand, if you want me to articulate something, all you have to do is ask. Politely, of course, and without slimy insinuations about my character, and without piling a bunch of issues together all at once, requing page after page of response, and expecting an instant answer.

Got a request? Pick one. Ask with manners.

(By the way, here's my prediction: after two years of refusing to define what he thinks "winning the war" actually requires, Ara Rubyan will suddenly discover it just as soon as John Kerry tells him, and not one second sooner.)

Dean, great post.

Reminders to the dissenters among us:

1. Your freedom of speech equals my right to criticize, and vice versa. Criticism of speech is not equal to oppression of speech.

2. A right to free speech does not equal a concomitant obligation to listen.

The right as a whole gets this. The left as a whole does not.

"It's not my fault if you won't even try to understand the difference. And, clearly you don't, and don't even care to try."

I did try. Yesterday (or rather early this morning) about 7 threads back, I rose to your challenge. Clearly I do try. This smack is what I get in response? Bah! Not even a meaningful, "You're deluded, Mark," exits your keyboard.

Why do you have a blog? To bait Ara with "paint-by-numbers, contentless remarks?" Or only to accuse him of being an invertebrate when he put's some content on your digital rag which exposes your own hubris.

But don't take this too personal "pal." Because you too are are good enough, smart enough, and dog gone it, people like you.

I rather like your blog actually.

I'm not required to agree with your views, but for that matter neither are you required to agree with mine. Your straight forward, say what you think, but *usually* you don't try to shove it down my throat. Its more of a "This what i think if you don't like ti well, tough."

I agree there are different forms of dissent.

And there are just as many of us whose Blog is Not-Really-A-Blog-And-Everyones-Is-Better-Than-Ours-Anyway.

Like Mine :-)

L8r man

If you don't have a plan, your dissent is not valid.
Regime change in Saudi Arabia is a plan.
Bomb all the Madrassas from Pakistan to France is a plan.
Kill all the mullahs is a plan.

You have no valid opinions, no valid dissent, if you do not have a plan. But even a half thought-out plan is better than no plan at all thereby making it valid and the ensuing quagmire part of the plan.

Aw hell- nuke em all. Will you take me seriously now?

Mark: Yes, you finally, for once, actually spelled out what an alternative plan would look like. Which is a good start, and a nice change. Now if you'd stop acting like a hateful partisan hack, calling people liars (or using weasel words like "mislead" which mean the same thing), we might actually be able to have a useful discussion. Not before though.

Oh yeah. You could also stop saying that just because someone says you're acting like an asshole and a partisan hack, that means your dissent is being crushed and that your free speech is being destroyed or that democracy is threatened.

As for the rest: saying someone attacks blindly and gives no meaningful dissent because it's not based on any firm conviction other than "Bush sucks" is not "baiting." I only comment on certain Bush-bashing blogs when they send me trackbacks. Draw your own conclusions.

Observer: Given that we are at war and people are dying, it is, in my view, unpatriotic to dissent from the plans put forth by our leaders without articulating an alternate strategy, and without giving our leaders the benefit of the doubt and the best support you can even while expressing your reservations.

It is also unpatriotic to continuously call our leaders "liars" when a civil, decent person can clearly see that this accusation is totally unproven and that "wrong" or "drew conclusions different from mine" would work just as well.

You ready to stop calling people liars? Cool. I'll talk to you. Otherwise my jdugement of you as a partisan hack, a hatemonger, and an unpatriotic asshole stands.

Furthermore, if your alternate strategy is clearly one you yourself do not take seriously, then you're still just a partisan hack and an unpatriotic asshole.

And neither democracy nor free speech are threatened by my saying so. Just in case you were worried about it.

Dean:
Well, I sincerely thank you for that. And I never actually feared for my free speech perogatives. To mix the metaphor: not until they pull my keyboard from my cold, stiff fingers. :-)

BTW, my observation still stands, let me put it more plain. To require a complete and comprehensive alternative plan is an overly broad requirement to prove one's patriotism. If (in someone's opinion) a policy and/or the results of that policy are wrong-headed, or failing (once again, strickly a matter of personal perspective) then you have every right as an American to point your finger and shout "J'accuse". That does not, in-and-of-itselt, make you treasonist.

The resulting anti-American accusations are not merely inflamatory and diversionary, they add as little to the debate as the bald indictment you complain of. It's piling on and is all the more weak for it's ad hom derision. It's your opinion, that's ok. It's terribly judgmental, however, and does tend to squelch continued dissent by changing the subject into less subtantive discussion.

Rose is at least honest and wholy consistent in her patronizing, yet witty and "over-the-top" (bad word choice but I'll go with it) criticism of us liberals. Your fense is another matter however, and it must be a picket fense with uncomfortable points because you jump off it so often.

I'm wondering what Ara will do if Kerry ends up conducting the war (and the greater war on terror) in exactly the same way Bush has been.

Hypocrisy abounds wherever humans reside. We live in a world where the manipulation of perception is used cynically to further an agenda that on level, one is not ready to put on the table. Maybe the truth is too hard to bear, but a choice between two bad choices doesn't necessitate the need to sugarcoat, obfuscate or misrepresent your intentions.

I see no inherent difference between those who Bush bash and those who bash the Democrats at the same level. Calling one unpatriotic and the other, I dunno, patriotic?
Blind loyalty is not my game. For some it is and I'm sure many survive on account of it, as long as one is on the right side. Crystal Ball?

There is nothing unpatriotic about questioning 'the plan'. Your definition as I see it, is that questioning the validity of the plan without having an alternative plan is unpatriotic. Boo. Loyalty is a double edged sword. Ask the Germans.

Invading Iraq because Al Qaeda dropped the towers is a questionable plan. What's the justification? WMDs. Where are they?

Setting aside the plans of the previous administration to deal with terrorist groups while you forge a different plan that still hasn't been put on the table in any meaningful way that explains the full connection between Saddam and terrorism, is tantamount [to use the swatting of flies anaology] to letting the flies multiply and do damage while you figure out how to get rid of all of them.

Is this administration capable of only one plan at a time? It strikes me that some things could have been done simultaneously and should have. Or, shall we bring up the baseball analogy of sacrifice? Strikes me as inappropriate, but hell, whadda I know.

You can only hold people accountable to past actions and not to the future. If this administration didn't know, they should have. It WAS THEIR JOB. Were they busy figuring out the bigger plan?
I this dissent that is unpatriotic?
Those that support our 'plan' who spout anit-leftist, anti Dem., anti Kerry, anti-anything that doesn't agree with this administration, and come with up what I mentioned earlier are great patriots and not subject to the same derision as those who disagree. You call that patriotic? Sheesh.

This 'plan' we have is regime change in Iraq. And the strategy is kind of like the developer who tears down your house and builds you a new one and builds you one that he wants you to have and then thinks you have no right to complain about the imperfections or protest against it. Had you HELPED to build it, you would understand and accept the imperfections because you had a hand in it.

Getting rid of Saddam may have been humane to the vast majority of Iraq's people, but what is happening in the aftermath is fueling resentment. Reconstruction efforts should be overseeing Iraqis reconstructing, not Haliburton, among many others, reconstructing with the Iraqis watching from the sidelines. Unemployment is huge. What does that say about our plan? Questioning it or criticizng it is not a matter of patriotism. It's a matter of holding this administration accountable to the viability of their grand scheme to begin with.

It is an accident of nature or the wiliness of parentage, that I or anyone else happen to be born here and as such, we are not only lucky but have a RESPONSIBILITY to support our methods AND to call to task when we see that something is wrong.

Excusing the pre 9/11 administration for NOT having precise who, what, where and hows in order to take any action and then supporting the same adminstration for NOT having precise who, what, where, and how in order to take this country into a war is trying to have it both ways. Repeating the same thing over and over will never make it true, but it is one of those lovely methods of propaganda, i.e. marketing toweard human perception.

So tell me, is it vengeance for 9/11 or is it just support for Republicans against the Democrats?
Because the first reason is hard to support on the world stage and where my dissent comes from [among the few others here]; and the second is where ALL of this is turning into. And that above all else is truly destructive.

I'll take it that your use of the word 'You' is not referring to me personally, and if it was, then you haven't been paying attention.

Ara,

In your post I see honest evaluation suddenly subverted by partisan rancor.

"I linked to Smash's piece as well. Thought it was a good one.

I only differ with him in that he implies that the American electorate might lack the will to win; I would say that it is the Bush administration that lacks the will (and the leadership skills) to lead us to victory.

So let me express my dissent in a way that is consistent with Smash's guidelines: I think President Bush is prosecuting the war to achieve a re-election victory and not a military victory."

Me - I think the above is at least partially true, although I think you could also say Bush wants to incorporate the American electorate's view into the plan. After all, isn't the failure to do this exactly what people complained about in Vietnam?

"I fault the Bush Administration for lacking the moral steel to do what it takes to achieve victory. I fault them for going wobbly again like they have so many other times in the past. Their June 30 hand-over date was always a fiction. It was designed to clear the front pages of Iraq news in time for the GOP Convention in September."

Me - This is where I think your conclusions don't match the facts. You think Bush set a changeover date 4 months before the elections knowing the deadline wouldn't be met? This is ridiculous. You couldn't pick worse circumstances for the election, even if you grant the cynical POV that the issue was entirely decided by politics rather than by operational circumstances. He might set that date believing he would make it, but if he knew the transfer wouldn't occur he would have made the date 12/31/04.

On top of that, Bush is "going wobbly" by trying to take criticisms into account. While that doesn't excuse bad decisions it also doesn't say much for people who criticize Bush and then essentially blame him for listening to the criticism.

"The last thing the War Cabinet wanted (6 months ago) was news of troop escalations and increasing casualties. But having come this far and having gone this deep, it looks like that is exactly what will have to be endured in order to win this war on all fronts. We cannot afford anything less.

Will the Bush Administration stand firm, or will it cave like it has on so many other occasions?

Me - If the commander decides the changed circumstances require more men, more men should be provided. I don't necessarily see this as changing one's mind, just supplying new requirements. Commanders in Iraq have not been requesting more men, and despite outside claims that they are necessary I don't see any convincing evidence. If they were necessary despite the commander's contrary insistence I would think there would be a consensus on the matter, which there isn't.

You seem to be making the point that we need higher troop levels. At the same time you're criticizing Bush for potentially "cav(ing) like it has on so many other occasions" by providing more troops. Satisfying you on one issue requires violating the other. You regard one policy as necessary and yet have defined the circumstances such that his selecting that policy still yields a failure. This is very strange.

If you criticize Bush for selecting what you believe to be the right policy I think the only realistic explanation is that you are determined to claim Bush a failure regardless of the facts.

Mark,

Thanks! I'm glad someone around here thinks I'm witty!

Pointing out that speech has consequences is neither an accusation of non-patriotism nor a crushing of dissent.
Speech that encourages the Iraqi bad guys that killing a few more Americans might get them what they want (we quit) is, as one observer noted, baiting the Iraqis to kill more Americans.
That's a fact.
You can decide whether it's unpatriotic to speak in such a way as to encourage Iraqi bad guys to kill Americans.
But it's not an accusation of unpatriotism to point out the likely consequence.
And I dunno. Might speaking in a way as to encourage Iraqi bad guys to kill Americans be considered unpatriotic?

My favorite thing about the June 30 handoff was Bush's recent unequivocal statement that the June 30 date will stand no matter what, and then following it up with an admission that they have no idea who they will be handing the country off to. Does this sound like a good idea to anyone? To change the handoff date would be to admit they made a mistake, and they have a wild aversion to that sort of thing.

Dean,

We talk alot of smack about being the "land of the free", the free market, and just plain FREEDOM. And our media use satellites in orbit to beam whatever they want across the globe (liberal and conservative media). Now comes the dissenters. Who, for stories, are broadcasted across the world. Now we lecture the dissent. Qualify the dissent. And say they are "unlikely" allies with the Iraqi insurgents. We are out own worst enemy here. We show the dissent to the world cause it's good business. We put rival pundits in chairs to yell at each other cause it's good business. And we give the corporations a green light.

What is dissent without the means to make it heard? It's background noise. But you give it satellites, 24/7 coverage, etc, it becomes a power in the world. That's why I tend to HATE partisanship. Because both sides use dissent to their advantages regardless of the issue. If Kerry wins, the conservative dissent starts. And liberals will be up in arms. Come on folks. Too transparent.

See, that's why I blow up when someone labels me "unpatriotic" if I dissent against their views. So I just answer:

So what you going to do about it?

I'm not playing this game anymore. Our soldiers are handling their business cause there's work to do. As my close friend, a retired Marine 1st Sergeant told me:

When your engaged in combat, your mind is on the now. Your mind is on your fellow soldier. Your mind is on the objective. Home and what's going on at home is in the Twilight Zone.

I never criticize soldiers. But I have criticized out civilian leadership. Doesn't matter if it has been civil, some of you still think it's wrong (criticism during wartime). Whatever man. Come find me then and we'll take care of the problem...

Oh and before some of you classify me as some sort of barbarian because of this statement:

Come find me then and we'll take care of the problem...

You tell me what this implies:

Your either for or against us...

And that was our President. Talk amongst yourselves! ;)

Train,

The president implied exactly what we think he did. You're either with us or we'll kick your ass.

I like it. It's basic. :-)

Too bad he doesn't really mean it.

Rosemary,

That's how gang bangers operate too. :-)

Who needs nuance?

Didn't win too many hearts or minds either.

Too bad he doesn't really mean it.

Ara,
You only think so because he's not going in the order you'd prefer.

Observer,

Damn straight!

Mark,

Hearts bleed and minds get lost. Who needs it?

Dean,

I will now make a fool of myself by reading Ara's mind. I know I'm bad at this and I shouldn't do it, but the peacemaker in me is too tempted.

After much travail on Ara's blog, I would have to say that Ara is not a policy wonk. He is in fact the opposite of a policy wonk. Ara does not do policy. Ara only does people and horse races. This leaves him doing policy by intuition and impression. Ara has formed a negative impression of George Bush. It is intuitive, unshakeable, and tribal. The Democrats are Ara's tribe. OK. At least half the people in the world act this way. For this Royals fan it is exactly like my hatred of Steinbrenner. The leader of the enemy is to be hated. But Ara is also hospitable. If Ara had never seen or heard George Bush and George showed up, I bet Ara would like him. He's certainly welcomed me, even though I betrayed the tribe by switching to Republican.

So, Ara, how'd I do? (This is where the wincing and nodding comes in.)

Yours,
Wince

Thank you observer! That was my point since I'm an ex-gang banger. Wanna talk hard, be hard? Don't have a soft ass.

Rosemary, my wife Toshi now wants to blog since she reads you all the time. Pretty soon the S-Train Canvass going to be a big ol' family of bloggers. Thanks pal! ;)

Now she tells me I've lost my bleeding-heart mind. Probably accurate, I can't even find my keys half the time. :-)

Train,

Let the woman blog! That's what happened to me. I kept telling Dean junk, till he finally gave me a username and password. Put up or shut up he said. The rest is history...

:-)

Mark,

I call 'em like I see 'em. ;-)

Wince:

I love the word "tribal." Great word. I would apply it to Dean, as in, "Dean has formed a positive impression of the Iraq war. It is intuitive, unshakeable, and tribal."

I see the problem now: inequality in typing speed.

Bloviators have an unfair advantage. Slow them down, and the quaity of argument will improve,

Adam: I concur with Wince, and Dean. The most specific I've gotten Ara to get is "Smash Hamas, etc."

Well, gee, golly, that'll really knock 'em over! We'll just "smash" em!

I repeat a story I quoted at Ara's blog:

Back just before (or during, memory's fuzzy right now) WW2, Will Rogers came up with a solution to the U-boat menace: boil the oceans.

When someone objected that that wasn't practical, he replied "Heck, I've given you the solution. It's up to you to make it work."

Which, I think, says it all about a major part of the anti-war opposition.

The opportunity for dissent on the war in Iraq was BEFORE the war was authorized. Were you writing your Congressmen, sharing your opinion, and telling them to vote no? You weren't? That's where your dissent, your voice, is protected by the First Amendment.

Once that decision was made, once that vote was cast, you lost, get over it. The majority of Americans told their Congressmen they wanted them to authorize the war in Iraq.

It's all fine and dandy to laud a democracy, but the authorization of the war in Iraq was democracy in action--in our Constitutional Republic, that is where the "democracy" part comes in.

Now it's time to support the efforts that the majority of Americans, and our duly elected representatives, voted to support.

You didn't like the call? You want DIFFERENT Congressmen to represent you? Kewl. Next election, show up (along with your neighbors) and vote for someone else. Make your case, send your dollars, do whatever is necessary to get your guy elected.

If your candidate is not elected, there's that nasy ole democracy thing in action.

What is being described as dissent is NOT dissent. It is whining. The majority of Americans and our elected representatives have not faultered on our mission in Iraq, nor have they done something different from what The People want them to do.

"Dissent" has a fixed time period. That time has passed. Now we have American troops fighting a war. It is time to support them by recognizing that you are an American first. Like or not, by your staying in the country, by not renouncing your citizenship, you are bound to support (or at least remain silent and not give aid and comfort to our enemies) even on issues of this magnitude, especially in wartime. It is time to shut up over the fact that the American people did not agree with your dissent. Your continuing to "dissent" over an issue that is over is sabotage, plain and simple.

So, yes, there is patriotic dissent and there is sabatoge. Sound too simplimse? I don't care. If some of you would get your heads out of your asses, you might see that it really IS that simple.

Sheesh, Casey, what more do you want? "Smash Hamas, etc." seems perfectly clear to me. Smash. Smash who? Hamas. Etc. How specific do you want him to get? "Smash Hamas etc with cudgel"?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you with the finest example yet of intolerance of unlike opinions....pronounced by Mrs. du Toit: It is time to shut up....

I respectfully submit that now more than ever, as that Quadrannual Right of American Democracy approaches, that those voices of change fear no obstacle, permit no truck with accusations of anti-Americanism, give credence to no hyperboles of treason or other such bunk, and to let their voices rise up above the rancor and hate-speech to present their discontent and dissent with heartfelt passion and articulate reasoning --despite and because of those who would impune their patriotism and integrity.

The time has passed for dissent? Ha, I say the time is now! I have a vision of this nation and it's place in the world. A vision for humanity itself which is shared by many. I have written about it here in Dean's World, I have posted it on my own little blog. I argue its fine points with friends, family and collegues. I vote and write the newspapers.

I will not give up, I will not sit down and bahave. I get no immediate gratification for my efforts but my cause is right and good and has the promise of making this world a better one, not merely a more profitable one.

Shut up indeed. When I'm six feet under, but even then my thoughts will live on in cyberspace.

Shut up? No, you shut up!

Mark,

You are like so kewl. Way wrong but so kewl!

And, Mark, neither will I. I will continue to call you a traitor, a co-conspirator with the terrorists, and someone whose actions and words are emboldening the terrorist threat against us. In other words, the blood of American soldiers killed by terrorists empowered by your words will be on your hands.

As long as that's clear that free speech works both ways, I think we can all live with that.

Folks who say that sort of thing to my face, or in earshot of our soldiers, may get a bloody nose, but no one ever said that exercising Free Speech didn't have consequences.

That's right. Speaking your mind may put you in physical danger. Not anything we've seen before.

Conspiring with the enemy. Hmmm. That's treasonable. Bloody nose? Shouldn't we shoot folks for that kind of thing?

Careful Mark, the shirts are changing colors.

I'm sure the terrorists are hanging on your everyword too. You will be responsible.

I AM Kewl! And doggonit, people like me.

Hey Frenchy, er Mrs. du Toit, your shirt has a brown spot on it, and it's growing:

My assertations are protected political speech, you run the risk of actionable slander. We deluded educated elites know how to suppress unacceptable bloviated hate speech which serves more to inflame than inform as well.

You know what gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and I'm thinking of one particular indivudual sipping rancid water out of a goat's skin, shivering his jaundiced butt off in a cave somewhere. UBL smiles, not because of anything you or I say, but because your (and dammit, my) president has done exactly what UBL hoped Bush would do.

He must have thought it a crazy plan, but what the hell, worth a shot. Maybe, just maybe, the Americans would be so enraged by a highjacked airliner attack on the symbolic centers of their economy, military and (thwarted) government, that they would do more than chase him in Afghanistan, but go after Saddam too (who UBL had no love for), then perhaps that could united the muslim world against what UBL saw as the common enemy, the Great Satan.

Fools. We are the fools, all of us, who played out the script like Kabuki theater. Only the worlds biggest fools could united the Shia and Sunni, but it plays out.

Forget about comparisons like Vietnam and Tet, or USSR and Afghanistan, the playbook this bunch learned from was the 1979-80 Iranian revolution. That's what has been nagging me the last few days, why the kidnapping tactic? Then, thanks to a link by Ara, it hit me. Because they learned when they took US hostages, they had the power to influence a US election. The thing is, This is the one thing that could reunite us like we were on 9/12/2001. I might even consider changing sides, (or at least a resounding "I abstain") to face down that kind of threat.

Look, we broke the dishes like a bull in a china store, we have to clean up our mess, and pay for the damages and reconstruction. Nothing says we can't bitch and moan about shoveling the crap.