Left-Wing Hate
Dean
My wife made what sounded like a cheap shot this morning.
Unfortunately, it wasn't a cheap shot. It wasn't even prophetic. Before she'd even posted that, the left's #1 hate-site in the blogosphere, Daily Kos, had already posted an angry screed blaming Bush for provoking the attacks, and more were to come after that. (I never under any circumstances link Daily Kos. You can go search for the site if you want, or you can take my word for it.)
The fascist sympathizer British MP George Galloway today blamed the British government for provoking the attacks which, since the British government is united with our own in the fight against fascism, is clearly just another way of blaming the elected leaders of the free world for the actions of fascist terrorism. Then the hatemongers at Daily Kos got even worse.
Meanwhile, of course, some are blaming the Jews. Of course of course!
Enough is enough. It is time for honorable moderates and honorable liberals to take Daily Kos off your blogrolls and stop making excuses for their fans. Those of you on the right who regularly link Daily Kos just to point out its viciousness should also quit linking that site: just doing so feeds into these people's desire for attention, their desire to be seen as important.
These people are not liberals, they are not even decent people, and they have no place in civilized discourse. The left will be stronger, not weaker, if it purges its fascist element--the Michael Moores and the Markos Moulitsas'--from its ranks.
The right would also be stronger if it did the same with the likes of Coulter and Savage, who will undoubtedly be blaming weak-kneed liberalism for the attacks.
If you'd like to persuade some lefties (like myself) that the fascist element of militant terrorists is real, I recommend essays like this:
Nick Cohen on Normblog.
(Even if you don't want to do that, I still recommend the essay, which should appeal to old-school liberals of many stripes.)
I'm sympathetic to your desire for a "moderate revolution", and a return of the vigorous liberalism of years past. And I think the pieces are in place for that to happen eventually. But it's going to take leadership and persuasion, not more polarization, for it to take.
As for "more polarization" -- so in other words, let's put up with and not condemn the Ann Coulters, the Michael Moores, the Michael Savages, or the Markos Zunigas' of the world, because that would polarize people more? Please.
Much like Cohen I've had my worldview fundamentally shaken up. Unlike Cohen, it's happened to me more than one time, on multiple issues. It's a hard thing to go through, and a real test of character.
I, on the other hand, see no reason to be nice to people who spew hatred and fascist propaganda. None. Is that "polarizing?" I consider hatemongering fascist propaganda to be what's polarizing.
Here's my response to his post.
--|PW|--
Those of whom you speak aren’t straw men. They are the real deal: the enemy within.
Until the cockroaches are exposed to the light of day, the magnitude of the infestation isn’t easily grasped.
I much prefer sites like this where the opinions are original and unpredictable. You can read Dean for a year and he'll still surprise you. Read Kos for a day and you can predict what they'll say on every issue from war to the price of oranges.
I don't link to them not because they're fascist apologists, but because the site is just plain bad.
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, the #1 reason we were given for Al Qaeda terrorism was that we had troops on Saudi soil. Now we no longer have troops on Saudi soil and the #1 reason is that we're in Iraq.
My own view is that we're winning against Al Qaeda and that most of the terrorist activity is now in Iraq precisely because the fascists know that if they lose there they lose everywhere.
Is Little Green Footballs or Free Republic in the same category as Kos?
I have seen you be critical of the comments in LGF in particular. I link to LGF because Charles does post a lot of good articles. I never look at the comments because, well, it gets ugly in there.
I just never go to Free Republic.
And Alan, I think you nailed it on the head about tired old memes at Kos. An unexpected contrarian position there once in a while would be a refreshing thing.
Little Green Footballs is very borderline for me. I sometimes read it and occasionally find useful information there but the spin is so unrelentingly negative I find it hard to trust, and I think a lot of his commenters are just plain racist wackadoos. If he'd close off his comments entirely, or at least work harder to police them, I might like the site better, but I'd still criticize it on occasion for ONLY showing the most negative possible information most of the time.
I know a lot of people who used to read LGF who say the same thing--after a while it started creeping them out. I'm willing to stipulate that I don't think Charles himself is as crazy as some of his commenters, and that he isn't responsible for all of them just as I'm not responsible for every comment someone leaves here. But my tolerance level is obviously lower than Charles'.
Still, I think one must grant Kos that the London attacks have disproved the theory that fighting terrorists in Iraq means they won't attack us domestically.
You might respond that no one believes this, but in fact, I've heard people say it numerous times.
For an example of a classic "strawman" argument, read the previous post from Mathew....
Those who say it doesn't work need to be asking themselves important questions, such as: would terrorism really be lower if we were still protecting Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Saddam, and Saddam was still in power? Do you honestly believe that? If so, why?
Nothing is perfect, ever. Considering how dark the future looked on 9/12, all told things are going very well.
Does a seatbelted corpse disprove the view that seat belts save lives? No. No defense is perfect, but that doesn't mean a defense is valueless.
I think you're misunderstanding the flypaper strategy. It's not "Fighting terrorists in Iraq means they won't attack us domestically." It's "Any terrorist we fight in Iraq won't be attacking us domestically, so there will be fewer domestic risks." Unless a terrorist manages to be in two places at one, the first part of that statement is indisputable. The second part is harder to prove, because it depends on the unknowable: are terrorists killed in Iraq faster than they're recruited?
The idea was that if al Qaeda (along with like-minded groups) needed to fight a bad-ass enemy with a large military presence near its home turf, it would divert resources there and wick them away from funding and training smaller cells in the US and its allies. The number and scale of attacks it could plan abroad would then be reduced.
But the theory was never that all the terrorists stationed in the West were certain to pack up and return to the Middle East. A lot of us who supported the war from the get-go have also done a lot of complaining about transportation or border security, precisely because threats at home are still real.
In the end, nobody at this point in time knows who's right. We'll have to wait a few years to see.
Not invading Iraq probably would have meant an invasion of some other country, probably Pakistan. We'll never know if not attacking Iraq would have produced better results, therefore, it's pointless for war opponents to stop rehashing the initial decision.
sorry, but they are predictable. I could write all of his posts.
It is a daily rally of anger.
Even his consistent and classless use of curse words. Horrible.
He is an online Galloway! he is worse than Michael Moore - ok, not worse- but just as bad.
The left can refuse to put their extreme in check, and keep losing.
The problem I have is that those who opposed the war argue issues that are not relevant issues. They argue reasons that those who supported the war do not consider important. It is like they are telling war supporters they are stupid because they believe TheoryA, even though the war supporters never said TheoryA was the vital issue.
Yet, they keep screaming about theoryA. I have also not seen a single reasonable explanation fo how to deal with saddam and the other issues. Every scenario has huge downsides. They act as if we were faced with the choice of PEACE in the world OR evil WAR.
Those anti war hate Bush lefties also speak in such absolutes, while attacking Bush for speaking in absolutes. LOL. They act as if TRUTH is theirs, and they KNOW the TRUTH! Everybody else is stupid.
They never even seem to seriously or in an intelligent manner consider that it is possible they could be wrong. They never even consider the view from the opposing side.
Like most war supporters, WMD was not the end all and be all issue for going to war. (so stop yelling that issue!) I rarely hear most war supporters even mention Clintons actions. Most war supporters feel Clinton was wrong, but before 9/11 both parties ignored the issue.
Like most war supporters I know. I never expected a really quick war. I didnt expect it to be this rough in Iraq for this long. But not as surprised as I would have been, had it been easy. Like most war supporters, I think we are winning. I do not KNOW beyond all doubt if we are winning. I also think the resolution of the war is not clear, it is too early to make clear statments of victory or defeat. (BTW- interesting that those who accuse Bush of claiming victory too early, have no problem claiming defeat early and often)
It may turn out to be the wrong thing, or it may turn out that it is unclear if it was right or wrong. maybe it will turn out that the war was just one of many bad options, none clearly a "WIN". But, i hope and believe, it will turn out to be a victory.
Afghanistan was no threat to the US! They did not have WMD or even a real army. Why invade? why not just bomb the Al Queada sites. Or we could have just made some public proclamations and allowed al queada to operate. Then while keeping an eye on Osama, hit him with a missile from a predator. then it would have all been over. we would have killed the "real" enemy. Right??( FYI- I am being sarcastic in this last paragraph)
But he talked about the flypaper theory, by basically calling anybody who believed it still an idiot and cursing at them.
The he does a Michael Moore. he uses exaggerations to argue his point. (again, exaggerations with info is acceptable debate. harsh, but acceptable) He makes comments like "Do its proponents really, truly think there is a finite supply of terrorists, and that they'd all like to take us on in Iraq and nowhere else?". hello? There is an infinite number of terrorists? HUH. That is not what the flypaper theory relies on.
Is he saying that the terrorists have unlimited resources and unlimited recruits? (if that sounds reasonable, then I will remain unreasonable) THINK! Does he really think we could actually spend enough money to make America a fortress? Inpenatrable by terrorists. that they will throw up their hands and quit attacking. That it is easier to organize and attack America while also fighting an ongoing battle somewhere else? THINK! he is the one who assumes ONLY ONE theory can be relevant at a time. LOL. Its not like the flypaper theory could be part of a multiple strategy war. Usually wars are fought with multiple strategies.
(forget the fact that it is a real military strategy)
(after all we cannot attack a country unless it attacks us. so what incentive do terrorists have to not attack our military and citizens?) The threat- we will build bigger walls, so you cant get to the US!!! just you wait and see!
Just asking.
last time i checked our military was capable of walking and chewing gum at teh same time.
Did we let al queada off the hook, when we used our military to help with the Tsunami?
(Oops, sorry. I am asking for people to think through their issues before attackign others. sorry, people like Kos would not be able to earn a living and feed his ego if that happened.)
As for LGF, I have to disagree with you Dean.
I don't read the comments because I usually don't feel like reading 200 to see if my point had been made, and it probably has. Of course with over 200 comments on each post there will be nutjobs. But Charles' posts are not as bad as you make out.
He does point out the positive, he just has a problem finding it. There have been a number of times where he put up a post praising some imam and then gets an email with a link to another story where that imam called for death to the Great Satan and the eradication of Israel.
But when he does find something good he posts it.
His site is a valuable resource.
Lets start with the Hamsas charter .
A few of the points:
1: To wipe Israel from the map and replace it with a religious dictatorship. (Article Eleven)
2: They approve slavery (Article Twelve)
3: They're against negotiations and other attempts at finding peaceful solutions to the Palestine/Israel conflict. (Article Thirteen)
4: They want education based on fundamentalist brainwashing.(Article Sixteen)
5: Consider women's role in society as being to 'manufacture men' and educating the kids and sea women's liberation in Muslim societies as a conspiracy against Islam (Article Seventeen,Article Eighteen)
6: Base their view of international Jew-dom on The protocols of the elders of Sion (Article Thirty-Two)
True, this isn't Al-Queda , but nothing I've seen points to AQ being less extreme in their beliefs.
But for those to whom it applies: Your exculpatory phrase is the point of why Kos is considered illogical and hateful by the rest of us. He and his... followers never seem to even think that phrase, let alone show it in their writing.
To them, it's "The flypaper strategy is not working [and never has]." To you, it's "The flypaper strategy is [possibly] not working." See the difference? One (you guys) admits that it might be working and they just can't see it. The other (Kos) denies the possibility that it's working, and works hard to imply that it never worked, and that anyone who thought it might work is a total idiot, or a Bush-loving fascist (but they repeat themselves).
I'd like to disagree. I think the reaction of the left - especially Kos and the DU - are part and parcel in the overall War on Terror.
We're fighting this war as much at home as we are anywhere else. And while the echo chamber that the blogosphere is becoming may not be the best place to fight this battle, it's the only place that I personally can contribute.
I understand and sympathize with your impulse to ignore this kind of moral equivalency. But in many ways, I think it vital that it be opposed every way possible.
Rick Moran
Sadly, both for two-party democracy and for the republic, they are not being ignored. In fact, they are actually growing in influence.
At some point, they are going to have to realize the Democratic Party cannot serve its sponsors at the expense of its constituents, or it's going to lose the latter and with them all political relevance.
I voted Republican as a the lesser of two evils (I'm really a neolibertarian). I do not want to see 70 Republicans in the Senate, but we seem to be headed that way thanks to the Kossacks.
Dave Price
Dean is advocating that we treat the Kossites the same way we would treat neo-Nazi's. This is less of a reasoned arguement, than brute political and cultural force. Which is not to say its not justified. I'm becoming more "liberal" and less attack dog, but still there are some people beyond the pale of conversation.
If Dean's strategy works, the end result is a shamed majority of nuts muttering to themselves and treated by the majority culture as absolute nuts (and probably "Kossite" going into the dictionary as a synonym of "fascist"), and a small fringe of Chomskyite terrorists being hunted down by the FBI.
Hmmh, I really should write a SF near-future story about Chomskyite terrorists. Would irritate all the right people...heh.
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
The themes:
Threat to US
Harboring Terrorists
I mean if we cannot get beyond the idea of calling Bush a liar, and many on the left determined to prove it to you.
There is a difference bewteen lying and giving incorrect information. This is a simple idea. I always ask (and have never gotten a response) if Clinton lied about the factory in Sudan being used for weapons, when he bombed it?
Later, intelligence said it was just a factory, not conclusively producing weapons.
And yet, the "weak-kneed liberals" are partially to blame for the attacks. War isn't something to discuss, it's something that takes action. Something most liberals have a tough time with, unless of course, having a meeting counts.
"I don't blame President Clinton at all for bombing that factory in the Sudan. If his intelligence had reason to suspect it was producing weapons, then best not to take any chances."
That, Peikoff-obviously, goes for President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Even if we may not have found the WMDs some may have expected to find, we didn't dare take any chances on Saddam's having them or working to get them to destroy us. Anyway, as Dean has pointed out time and time again, WMDs was only one of the many reasons we had for overthrowing Saddam. That he simply needed overthrowing is good enough for me. I support this War 100%. Victory to our brave soldiers.
You left out all the fun stuff about the Freemasons (I forget which article).
Also the Rotary club, I think.
The charter is rife with conspiracy theories involving Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and not to forget my personal favorite 'gangs of spies and the like'.
I could also point out the frequent use of typical western radical rhetoric such as 'Imperialism' and 'Orientalism' or the Nazi-comparisons (actually one of them is a 'Nazi-tatar' comparison), but my main points where and still are:
1: The ideology laid out in this charter is so extreme that it excludes any compromise between Hamas and Israel or the west.
2: Any difference between Hamas and AQ marks AQ as being even worse.
I don't know of any equally comprehensive outlines of AQ ideology and goals, but the journalist John Miller did an interview with Osama BL in may 1998 wich to my knowledge remains the last interview of Osama done by a western journalist.
(Here)
By the way do you people here know a lot about John Miller? If the Teddy Roosevelt question is representative of what he actually means and not something he said because he thought he had to give some compliments to the bastard to get out of there alive he must be the American Robert Fisk.
Personally, I view LGF as the flip side of Chrenkoff. Just as Chrenkoff presents the other side of an issue that Old Media refuses to, LFG reports on things that Old Media avoids as well. In both cases they are not complete and accurate sources of information (and neither claims to be) but serve as valuable balancing agents to the biased reporting of Old Media.