[H]e is still a registered Democrat, and Mr. Silver told his convention audience that he has not disavowed the left's social agenda. But at the moment he represents a particular slice of the American political spectrum: voters who put national security before ideology...
"I'm a 9/11 Republican," he said. "If we don't get this right, all the other things don't matter worth a hill of beans. I'll live to fight another day on health care, environmental concerns and sensible gun legislation. But this is such a predominant issue that it towers above all others, and I'm not certain both parties are capable of handling it the right way."
ADDED:
পোস্টগুলি
১১৬টি মন্তব্য:
I'm curious when you say he is a "brilliant actor" do you mean that he is brilliant at acting or an actor who is brilliant? Is there some work of his that you saw that you were particularly wowed by?
Actors are people who make their living pretending to be someone they're not. His take on security is thoughtful, but not necessarily brilliant.
I think he's a brilliant actor. I think that obviously refers to his acting. I'm assuming he's pretty smart though, based on... maybe nothing. He went to law school. He read "American Pastoral" with great depth of understanding.
Regardless of whether he is brilliant or not, he at least understands what too many Democrats do not.
For me, that's more than enough.
He played Dershowitz in Reversal of Fortune, if I recall correctly.
The linked story indicated that Rudy also garnered the endorsement of Robert Duvall, who I think you'll agree, Ann, is a far more "brilliant" actor than Mr. Silver.
"I'm not certain both parties are capable of handling it the right way".
Well, the Republicans have certainly mucked it up. As much as it pains me to say it, perhaps it's time to give the other side a chance.
Prof. Althouse,
Thank you for answering. I assure you that it was not obvious to me. I was genuinely curious.
Actors are people who make their living pretending to be someone they're not. His take on security is thoughtful, but not necessarily brilliant.
Indeed and I think that can be said about a lot of other issues from national security to the environment.
I'm pretty jaded when it comes to actors waxing philosophical on issues because I think they rely more on thier celebrity status to carry thier message versus actually having something meaningful to say. I was glancing through my wife's People the other day and saw how Kirsten Dunst had her $13,000 handbag stolen which reinforces my belief than when you can spend $13K on a purse, you're sufficiently enough detached from reality to have any meaningful thoughts on issues other than fashion.
I was glancing through my wife's People the other day and saw how Kirsten Dunst had her $13,000 handbag stolen which reinforces my belief than when you can spend $13K on a purse, you're sufficiently enough detached from reality to have any meaningful thoughts on issues other than fashion.
Rudy's wife has a $45,000 purse. It gets its own seat on the plane.
And she's gonna be sitting in on cabinet meetings.
I hope you guys are proud....
And, let me say, an actor has entered the fray, Fred Thompson. At least he has had other jobs in his life. I expect thoughtful analysis of worldly things, other than a perspective of events from the make-believe land of Hollywood. Whether he can lay a claim of brilliance, remains to be seen.
"I'm not certain both parties are capable of handling it the right way."
Many of us feel this way, but right now we have nobody representing us except Sam Waterston's eyebrows.
Rudy's wife has a $45,000 purse.
Don't really care much what Rudy's wife has to say much like I didn't care much what Hillary had to say when she was co-president.
Professor Althouse, there is one thing I don't understand about Ron Silver, yourself, and other like-minded so-called independents.
You say that you voted for Bush because he prioritized national defense, but you voted for him in the year 2000, when all he had on his resume was six years in a job unrelated to foreign policy and in which he had relative few powers under the Texas constitution.
If our national defense is so important to you, then why did you vote for him? Because . . . he SAID that he would be better at national defense than the other guy? Despite the fact that Al Gore had sixteen years of foreign policy experience and had held a prominent role in the most peaceful presidency in American history? And what, other than a war in Afghanistan which any Democratic president would have fought, did he do between September 2001 and November 2004 to sustain the illusion that he would keep you safer than any of his challengers?
Silver nails it. Fortunately, we have not been hit here at home since 9-11-01. The downside is that too many people have fallen back to a Sept. 10 mindset, that the threat is minor or illusory.
Steve Simels saidAnd she's gonna be sitting in on cabinet meetings.
Hillary Clinton said: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
cue sound of simels being strangled by the Hillary Force
Despite the fact that Al Gore had sixteen years of foreign policy experience and had held a prominent role in the most peaceful presidency in American history?
Peaceful compared to whom? Bosnia, Somalia, Operation Desert Fox, bombing Sudan and Afghanistan? And thats not counting the WTC in 1993, US Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers and USS Cole. Heck, I'd argue Clinton/Gore gave Reagan a run for his money in swordplay.
"If our national defense is so important to you, then why did you vote for him? Because . . . he SAID that he would be better at national defense than the other guy? Despite the fact that Al Gore had sixteen years of foreign policy experience and had held a prominent role in the most peaceful presidency in American history?"
Huh? I voted for Al Gore.
A) Fewer Americans died in all of those events combined than have died in Iraq in the year 2007 alone.
B) Do Republicans really think that Al Gore wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11?
C) Joe - Oh, what mindset is that? That the best way to prevent terrorism is through intelligence and making arrests, as the Germans did this week? Instead of the Bush method of starting enormous, aggressive wars that create more terrorists?
"And what, other than a war in Afghanistan which any Democratic president would have fought..."
Wade, how can you be sure tilting at alt energy windmills Gore would have fought this or any other anti-Islamist war when his WWIII seems to be something else altogether? And when he and Clinton did virtually nothing about the terror threat, first WTC bombing on?
"Rudy's wife has a $45,000 purse."
And Nixon's wife only had a "cloth coat."
Let's vote for people based on how we feel about the objects we find out they own.
Allright, my bad. But even if you voted for Gore in 2004, what did Bush do between 9/11 and 11/04 to convince you to vote for him again? You say that national security was the reason, but other than going into Afghanistan, which a Democratic president would have done, what did Bush do to convince you he was better at keeping the country safe, other going into hiding for a couple of days after the attacks, then standing on a rubbage pile with a megaphone and using a lot of hyperbole?
You say that national security was the reason, but other than going into Afghanistan, which a Democratic president would have done, what did Bush do to convince you he was better at keeping the country safe, other going into hiding for a couple of days after the attacks, then standing on a rubbage pile with a megaphone and using a lot of hyperbole?
Yawn. Are you a Kossack refugee? Standard BDS boilerplate won't get you far here. Why not try and express your own thoughts instead of regurgitating those of writers with far more skill than you (so far) seem to possess?
I don't know...Jeri Thompson has a black silk bustier I want to hear about....not to mention the leather catsuit.
What's BDS? All I know is that my high school buddies got shot at in Iraq for totally unnecessary reasons, and that's okay with President Bush, because he's convinced that in the year 2150 everybody is going to think he was a great president.
Jane, if you don't think that Democrats would have gone into Afghanistan, then I don't know what to tell you. Conservatives love to make the argument that because the Democrats didn't start a war when 6 people were killed in the World Trade Center in 1993, then they wouldn't have gone to war when 3,000 people were killed eight years later. Even Ralph Nader would have gone into Afghanistan in the fall of 2001.
Let's vote for people based on how we feel about the objects we find out they own.
I agree! Bush's favorite gun: Weatherby Athena 20 guage.
Wade,
We voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004. The reasons for this have been stated over and over. Why do you open this up again?
The left was against Afghanistan, and I have a flood of anti-war emails I received during that time to prove it.
Given an anti-military, anti-war Democrat running for president, most of us felt we were pushed into voting for Bush. Given their isolationism and anti-war stance that have followed, my fears were borne out, and I would vote for Bush again.
Fewer Americans died in all of those events combined than have died in Iraq in the year 2007 alone.
Well if the bodycount of Americans dying in conflict during a presidency is your benchmark of peace, then I'd say Carter and Reagan have the Clinton/Gore team beat. Most people think the absence of combat operations defines peace.
Do Republicans really think that Al Gore wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11?
When one looks at the list of terrorist attacks on US soil and interests abroad during the Clinton/Gore years and our subsequent response, or lack thereof, I think is reasonable to assume other than some cruise missle strikes, nothing further would have been done.
what did Bush do to convince you he was better at keeping the country safe
Being around here in fall 2004, I clearly recall Ann, trying real hard to find out what John Kerry was going to do, and found his answers lacking. What about Kerry's brilliant record and campaign made you think he would do a better job?
Gore would've looked for an aspirin factory to bomb in the middle of the night, and hit the Chinese embassy instead by mistake.
Wasn't Clinton/ Gore's Maddy Albright all about hey let's slow down and do this right, no matter how long it takes- find the 9-11 culprits, gather evidence, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law?
The Taliban must've been quaking in their boots. From laughter.
Although Judi Giuliani has that white nurse outfit with the white sheer pantyhose and the little cap that is definitely making the cut.
No, Jane, I don't believe they ever said that, because everybody knew that the Taliban was behind it.
On the other hand, when it comes to WMD's, actually taking the time to figure out what country has them before going in with guns blazing is not so bad of an approach, wouldn't you say? How many of your friends have been shot at in Iraq? More than ten of mine have been.
More than ten of mine have been.
What are their names?
Do they agree with you about the war?
My reasoning for voting for Bush is in the archives of this blog. Look for a post called "How Kerry Lost Me" to start.
You want to know their names? What, are you going to look them up or something?
Some of them initially supported the war because they thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Obviously, they now feel as if they were lied to. The others believe that it was a mistake to go into Iraq, but now that we owe the Iraqi people our best efforts in fixing it. Fair enough, but that still doesn't justify going in there in the first place.
Althouse, I know you're proud of that post because it put you on the map as a blogger, but if you think that low intelligence, poor standardized test scores, unclear manner of speaking, meandering non-answers and repitition of lines from one's stump speech make a presidential candidate unattractive, and you fail to see each and every one of those characteristics in the person of George W. Bush, then you are even more willfully blind than I had initially given you credit for.
If I can turn the conversation back to Ron Silver...
He was also terrific in Heat Vision and Jack. I so wish that had been picked up.
Wade: you have just described the Junior Senator from MA to a tee! well done!
Gee Wade, did you really read it? Please don't call your self smart.
Steve,
Unlike yourself, I know how to spell "yourself."
Ooh Wade you really showed me up!
Gore would still be dithering around with the UN, and issuing frightful predictions of "quagmire" in the "brutal Afghan winter." Don't BS us with what Gore coulda, woulda done. How about looking at the reality of what we knew in 2003, when the entire world believed Saddam had WMD, and Iraq was the next greatest threat because it was a rogue state and a shelter for al Qaeda? How about looking at your precious Democrats in Congress today, whose views on the war are indistinguishable from al Qaeda press releases? You people make me sick. Politics always comes before patriotism.
Wade Garrett wrote:
"Allright, my bad. But even if you voted for Gore in 2004...."
She voted for Gore in 2000. Despite our best efforts, we can't palliate it, and Ms Althouse will have to live with that, for the rest of her life. But she did not vote for Gore in 2004. Nobody could, and nobody did.
Mr. Garrett, I think you need to bear down a little more when you are writing on this site than you are used to doing elsewhere.
It must kill you, Wade, to know how awesome your standardized test scores are and yet how much of a failure you are in life in relation to those test scores and people like George W. Bush with lower test scores.
If only life could be determined by those scores...
Now Michelle Obama has an exact replica outfit from 1975's Cleopatra Jones and the Casino of Gold....a paisley mini dress, thigh high white go-go boots, and a rabbit fur half jacket with a peace medallion...that's hot.
Do Republicans really think that Al Gore wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11?
Wade, I agree with you. I think Gore would have gone into Afghanistan.
However, I think Afghanistan would have been a disaster without our invasion of Iraq. Currentlt, the casualty rate in Afghanistan is about the same as Iraq.
If we never vaded Iraq, the thousands of arab jihadists flowing into Iraq today they would be flowing into Afghanistan - exactly like they did when the Soviets invaded. Moreover, the terrorist money that is flowing into Iraq today would be going to Afghanistan, including money from Saddam Hussein, who would have a lot more of it from $75 dollar bbl oil.
As you know, Afghanistan is a very mountainous region. It is much harder to fight there. It is landlocked. There is no port to supply our troops. It is surrounded by Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan. We would have to rely un a single unstable ally - Pakistan to supply our troops. Doing a "surge" in Afghanistan would be impossible. If it wasn't for Iraq, we would be losing badly in Afghanistan.
If we want to fight Al Qaeda in a serious way we need to do it in a place where we have some advantages. In Afghanistan, Al Qaeda has all of the advantages. That is why we are fighting them in Iraq.
Seven - Read more closely, you idiot. You and I AGREE about standardized tests.
I didn't say that standardized test scores were important; I merely said that it was hypocritical to consider them to be an accurate representation of one person's intelligence, but not another person's intelligence.
But since you brought it up, I've done very well on standardized tests in my life, and, for what its worth, I'm doing far better than George W. Bush was doing when he was my age. In a related story, I don't snort cocaine, and I am not an alcoholic. Of course, I won't go from deadbeat to governor overnight at age 48, but then my daddy wasn't President of the United States, and his was.
I think I missed the memo. I understand the "I was shot at in Iraq" argument for giving sole moral authority to any and all war opinions. I also know of the "I was shot at in earlier wars" rule.
The "I was a veteran yet not shot at" moral authority seems popular though not quite as powerful.
Marriage and motherhood also bequeath moral authority we've been taught.
Has moral authority expanded to "I know guys" at some point recently? Is there a recognized standard of how well you know the guys? Or do we just need to have shared an English class with them?
I'm just not sure how to properly value opinions these days.
Oh, and while I'm asking, can I use this one for religion and state questions? I know a few guys who go to church, so I'd love to have authority on that issue.
I was so proud of Steve Simels when he left. Oh, well. The vortex must be like a black hole: nothing escapes its pull. Time to change the banner?
Cindy McCain has a set of black pajamas that she likes to wear with a pointed conical hat…but she accessorizes it with a long pointed stick and monkey feces…not so hot.
Conservatives love to make the argument that because the Democrats didn't start a war when 6 people were killed in the World Trade Center in 1993, then they wouldn't have gone to war when 3,000 people were killed eight years later.
I think there is some justification for that Wade. In other words, as long as terrorist attacks been limited to the single digit casualty count on our side, the Democrat response would have been (cue crickets chirping). Kerry made the comment that we need to get back to when terrorism was a nuisance, like illegal prostitution or gambling. Never mind the occasional embassy bombing here, Navy seaman executed and dumped on the tarmac over there, its all part of the big game.
Therein lies the rub to quote one of the more illustrious posters on here. Not only was there a failure of imagination on 9/11 there was a failure to realize that we’re up against a ideology masked by a religion, one that is more fanatical and destructive than what we have faced before. Today it’s gone beyond failure and has become denial just like that river in Egypt. Now we can debate ad nauseum whether or not our actions to date have helped or hindered the effort to combat it but all I have heard from the Democratic side of the aisle is that we will work with our allies. Hell, that’s happening now as the Germans proved and the Brits before that. But until the jihadists are made to understand that their ideology is a dead end, literally, all they have to do is get lucky once and in an age of nuclear and biological weaponry, once is too many. Don’t want to use the army? Fine, let’s get back in the assassination business and start targeting these people. Pinpoint training camps and turn them into craters. Because whether we went into Iraq or not, they simply will not stop. They didn’t stop all during the Clinton years when we didn’t respond so to make the argument that all we did was create more is specious. I can make the same argument that our lack of response prior to 9/11 only emboldened the current ones and made recruiting new ones all the more easier.
Okay Wade,
..."You want to know their names? What, are you going to look them up or something?"
Forget the names..
How about their units and dates of service??
You ain't gonna' cause your a liar.
And Nixon's wife only had a "cloth coat.
I think the full quote was that Pat had a "good, Republican, cloth coat".
Lars,
Okay, fuck you. Six of them served in the Army, three in the Marines, one in the Air Force reserve. I went to the University of Wisconsin law school with four of them, high school with four of them, Yale (undergrad) with two of them. The two who I went to college with were teammates of mine. I don't know all of their unit numbers, but five of them served until the summer of '04, one until December of '04, two of them served until the summer of '06, and two of them have done two stints in the desert.
I don't mention my friends who served because I claim that it gives me moral authority. I mention it because too often conservatives to advocate going to war fail to realize the toll that unnecessary wars takes on real families. Send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iran? Sure, why not!!! Nevermind that it kills thousands of our kids, wounds tens of thousands of others, and mentally scars tens of thousands of others.
Huh? I voted for Al Gore.
LOL! I was waiting for that perfect punch line. These people really are not paying attention!
children children children...stop squabbling.
Rudy took one from Karl Rove's playbook. anyone remember (or care to) Zell Miller? "I trust my children to GWB?"
This is right out of central casting for Christ's sake. It smacks of Beckwith with Bush at ground zero...Rove set that scene too.
Get with the agenda people.
On the other hand, Elizabeth Edwards simply wears the pants in the family...all the time.
Wade:
The closest you've ever been to some one in uniform is rubbing up against
A guy in an Imperial Storm Trooper costume at Star Trek convention.
P.S. JAG officers don't count.
as long as terrorist attacks been limited to the single digit casualty count on our side, the Democrat response would have been (cue crickets chirping).
How does this differ from the Republican Response in 1983 -- during Reagan's tenure -- when terrorists killed 220+ marines?
I haven't served, but then neither did Ronald Reagan, and conservatives get hard every time his name comes up.
As for your sci-fi fetishes, I think you've got the wrong blog. Just clean the KY off your hands before you type anything else.
Ann Romney has half pint's pinafore that she got at Juniper Creek...but she will only put it on when Mitt taps her on the shoulder...waggles his eyebrows...and says "You can call me Mr. French....I mean Mr. Edwards...well you know what I mean!"
Okay, fuck you. Six of them served in the Army, three in the Marines, one in the Air Force reserve. I went to the University of Wisconsin law school with four of them, high school with four of them, Yale (undergrad) with two of them. The two who I went to college with were teammates of mine. I don't know all of their unit numbers, but five of them served until the summer of '04, one until December of '04, two of them served until the summer of '06, and two of them have done two stints in the desert
Oooh oooh... Can I claim moral authority too. I have two nephews who VOLUNTEERED just like your friends to serve. One is an Army Ranger and involved in the initial Afghanistan action and then in the run up to the invasion of Baghdad. He served 3 tours and re-upped. The other nephew is in the Marines and was involved in the operation to take Iraq and served 2 tours. I can go even further back with military career relatives for a couple of generations involved in several little actions like...Oh I don't know VietNam, Korea, World War II in Europe and Japan.
Do I win? My moral authority is bigger than yours.
Most wingers hate "Hollyweird" and generally bitch when some actor singer doesnt' support their republican that they have a hard on for.
Intersting that when some "hollyweird" type supports a republican and the wingers get all excited about it.
Many republicans in the past have bitched (including Bush) about Hollywood values. Now someone from hollywood is supporting a republican and hollywood values seem to be ok.
Do I win? My moral authority is bigger than yours.
Almost, Dust Bunny Queen. Wade's matricular/moral authority might be bigger. Didya notice how he worked in his alma maters, because they're relevant, somehow?
Are Wade and Wade Garrett the same person?
Are Wade and Wade Garrett the same person?
For all intents and purposes..
Madison Man said How does this differ from the Republican Response in 1983 -- during Reagan's tenure -- when terrorists killed 220+ marines?
Not much. On the other hand Quadaffi was the headline backer of international terrorism during that time and I recall after lighting up Tripoli you didn't hear much of him afterward.
I see your point MM and it is well taken. What I was trying to convey is that the lack of response under the Clinton/Gore administration from terrorist attacks certainly didn't convince me it would be any different under Gore. When I look at Gore's main focus right now, he clearly sees global warming as the bigger threat than Islamic terrorism so I feel pretty comfortable in my position he would not have done much more than Clinton did.
Carol Paul normally sports a black shirt and black sweatpants with black and white Nike tennis shoes together with a square purple wrap.
Sorry, Wade, I should have said "Wade Garrett." Similar style, tho'.
Wade Garrett, I heard and saw with mine own ears and eyes Maddy say what I say she said- counseling patience and legal prosecution of the perps- on a television interview right after 9-11. Obviously, days later after checking the racing pulse of the American public, many establishment Dems changed their rhetoric and sounded more bellicose toward the evil-doers. Albright, included.
Thanks Ruth Ann...I quess I am one of the few hetero guys that dig fashion...but I am struggling with the final punchline...I think I have it...but I am not quite sure.
Trooper York, are you in NY and following Fashion Week?
Yes in fact I have front row seats for the Tadashi show...my fondest wish is that I can trip Sarah Jessica Parker as she walks by and she can smash her big horse face on the stanchion....sorry too much information.
There was a show in the '90s that lost out to "ER", called "Chicago Hope". On it Mandy Patinkin played a brilliant but borderline crazy surgeon/chanteuse, given to rants which Patinkin can be quite good at.
Ron Silver had a guest spot on once, and his character didn't get along with Patinkin's, with the two ending up delivering a rant at each other at the same time. I couldn't really parse what they were saying; it didn't really matter. I've never seen anything like it before or since.
But it did convince me that Silver had come a long way since his "Rhoda" days.
Is that like in Mary Tyler Moore's Rhoda?
The "feel safer" question cannot be dismissed by a string of anti-Bush insults.
The Democratic candidate is going to have to do a lot to convince people that they should have felt less safe during Bush's tenure than they, in fact, did. It does not require one to be a Bush-lover to note the stubborn fact that Al Queda escalated its war against the U.S. and its allies throughout the 90's and Clinton did nothing of substance to deter or destroy them.
Since 9/11, the Al Queda war has been mostly rhetorical with a few strategic blows designed to peel off ambivalent allies like Spain. This is because U.S.-led international efforts have broken up schemes and decapitated the leadership. Yes, now it is "reforming" -- like that's a surprise? But the net effect is -- no further attacks.
Oh, and the Iraq war seems to have drawn them into a battlefield where we can better manage them. The war might have been a mistake in retrospect, but you can't deny it has drained Al Queda's far more scarce resources at least as much as it has ours.
In business, CEOs are supposed to be judged on results. Americans are getting the results they want, even if the results are coming from a dufus. I don't have to like Bush to acknowledge what's right in front of my face.
The GOP will be eating out on the "9/11 Republicans" for a long time. There's no evidence that the GOP has done anything to increase American security at home or abroad, other than to use the issue as a platform, but that's enough, apparently. So that's a double helping for the GOP: they get the "national security" vote which in turn ensures they continue to advance their social agenda, with the help of moderates who put fear ahead of conscience.
The GOP will be eating out on the "9/11 Republicans" for a long time. There's no evidence that the GOP has done anything to increase American security at home or abroad, other than to use the issue as a platform, but that's enough, apparently. So that's a double helping for the GOP: they get the "national security" vote which in turn ensures they continue to advance their social agenda, with the help of moderates who put fear ahead of conscience.
How much b.s. can a person put in one paragraph?
"no evidence that the GOP has done anything to increase American security at home or abroad"
Yeah, if you completely ignore the absence of anything approaching a 9/11 type attack for the past six years, and if you ignore the countless plots that our multi-national intel has foiled. Other than that, yeah, they got nothin'.
"they get the "national security" vote which in turn ensures they continue to advance their social agenda, with the help of moderates who put fear ahead of conscience."
How insulting. You really have that little respect for people who disagree with you? The number one job of any government -- any government, at any time in history -- is to protect its citizens. But you make that sound like some kind of pathology.
It so happens, you moron, that the enemy we're fighting is a far bigger enemy to social liberals -- of which I am one -- than any Republican you can name. That's why the irony of Nancy Pelosi covering her head in Syria was so hilarious to people like me. She's got a great record on social issues, as she'll be the first to tell you. And yet she's willing to completely compromise it in the name of an illusory "peace."
I can oppose Bush and his cohorts' retrograde social policies in the legislatures and courts, and I'm confident my side will win. So I can set that aside and vote my conscience on an issue that matters more.
If Democrats are as foolish as you in posing the next election as national security vs. liberal social values, we will lose. We need to finally get to the point where we're all on the same side with regard to the jihad and, yep, even Iraq. If you want to make the next election about social issues, the only way to do that is by taking national security off the table. The Joe Lieberman route is good politics as well as smart policy.
"So that's a double helping for the GOP: they get the "national security" vote which in turn ensures they continue to advance their social agenda, with the help of moderates who put fear ahead of conscience."
Oh, Beth. Do tell. Please share with this misguided neo-con just what that awful "social agenda" is, because I just can't figure all the ways those bastards are manipulating me. The way they make so many news reports seem like those Islamic Jihadist types have it in for the civilized world, what with their beheadings, bombings, and such. What's a Cro-Magnon to do?
After reading john stodder's comment above, I am sorry I took such a juvenile tack in my response. His comment reflects a sober, mature approach that is all too rare these days.
I don't mention my friends who served because I claim that it gives me moral authority. I mention it because too often conservatives to advocate going to war fail to realize the toll that unnecessary wars takes on real families.
This is actually why I appreciate thoughtful, rather than partisan, anti-war folks. War in the past was too easy. It was a source of ego and pride and manhood, as it is still in much of the country. It should be very difficult to start and very pressing to continue precisely because we value lives.
Yet, we can also get into situations where looking only at the immediate costs hides the greater costs of not acting.
Some conservatives are like what you mention. Some liberals are indeed acting out there cowardice and avoidance of any thought of anyone's sacrifice. Most folks are in the middle, and we wrestle over costs versus potential gains.
Lincoln realized that the sacrifices of the Civil War were necessary. My great-great-great grandfather and his oldest son were killed in that war, leaving my great-great-great grandmother with seven children to raise and a farm to run.
Now we don't remember those family stories, of which there were millions, but instead remember the need to keep the nation whole and free slaves.
The great cost had a great goal.
And that is the main question here. The same question. Which is why I don't vilify most anti-war folks and would wish they wouldn't vilify those who understand the costs but think the goal will ultimately prove right. Millions of lives could be affected for the better if Iraq becomes stable.
Many soldiers know this and are honored because of the sacrifices they make willingly with the same hope for a better world. Many soldiers also lose that hope, as vicious struggles do that. But that doesn't mean their sacrifice of life or health is any less or with any less meaning. But, their lack of hope also doesn't necessarily mean they are right.
It's a big question. And one which 90% of us are genuinely seeking the highest good.
Getting back to Ron Silver. He is often quite a good actor, but I have not seen him in anything recently. Am I too much of conspiracy theorist if I think his politics have slowed his career? Or is it his own choice?
If Ron Silver and the Republicans' strategy to "win" the "war on terror" is to attempt to kill everyone that hates us (for our freedoms!), I honestly don't see how we can ever win. You can't kill or even convert every Muslim who hates us...in fact, the whole effort is counter productive because in doing so we perpetuate their ideology and new haters spring up two, three, four, or five fold- kinda like Gremlins.
Without appeasing and without ignoring them...there must be a more efficient, strong, and permanent way to stop these maniacs. Unfortunately, few are willing to use alternative methods or even consider another approach because, apparently, c-list actors, silver spoon coke addicts cum tough talking cowboys, and adulterous mayors are more convincing.
The Democrats will be living off the "9/10 Democrats" for a long time. Their refusal to admit that islamic fascists are a threat worldwide, their insistence that Amerika is the biggest threat to security, their love of government (when it spends other people's money on social services and health care), their hatred of government (when it involves security), their fondness for communist cranks like Castro and Chavez, and their paradoxical demand for complete sexual freedom and complete control over guns and media paints them into a 1970s corner.
The left wants to pretend that Islamic terrorism is some scam used to invent an American police state. No. Islamic terrorism is a war to invent an Islamic police state. The NYTimes may be ignoring Goose Creek. I'm not. And if democrats cannot admit we have a big job to do, one that's bigger than national health care, then I can never ever vote for them.
You can't kill or even convert every Muslim who hates us...in fact, the whole effort is counter productive because in doing so we perpetuate their ideology and new haters spring up two, three, four, or five fold- kinda like Gremlins.
Man, are you confused!
It's the radical jihad that wants to kill or convert the planet's infidels, in the name of Allah, with the destruction of life on earth an acceptable sacrifice to appease their impossibly strict God.
We have never talked about killing or converting a single Muslim. You cannot find a quote from Bush or any other responsible US leader saying that.
All we are doing is fighting back against an enemy that is attacking us and attacking our allies. We are working with very religious Muslims to defeat Al Queda in Iraq and other places. Did you miss that news, or are you just determined to be ignorant about it?
What is wrong with you that you have to impute your enemies' objectives to your own side? This seems more like a serious psychological disturbance than a political position.
You can't kill or even convert every Muslim who hates us
You can show strength to those who respect strength. Show honor to those who respect honor. Show loyalty to those who respect loyalty. Give good arguments to those who respect arguments. Give love to those who respect love. Offer peace to those who respect peace. Be pretty to those who respect beauty. Be rich to those who respect wealth.
All things to all people. America, I think, can be that. Which is why we are uniquely placed in global diplomacy.
"All we are doing is fighting back against an enemy that is attacking us and attacking our allies."
You said it.
And no matter how much we fight back...they keep attacking us. They keep attacking our allies.
So again, it wouldn't hurt to reconsider our tactics. I don't have the answers but I believe that what we're doing currently is not working. They still hate us and they still want to kill us. This is not to say that everyone should love America because that will never happen, but should so many millions always want to kill us? I leave it up to my leaders to have better, smarter answers. The current batch of Republicans (and several Democrats) seem to be offering nothing new.
"We have never talked about killing or converting a single Muslim."
I guess "talking" about killing Muslims and just killing them by dropping bombs aren't the same thing. But when you talk about going to war, you're essentially talking about people getting killed. Passive voice doesn't negate reality.
"This seems more like a serious psychological disturbance than a political position."
If sharing what I believe to be a reasonably thought out series of observations without individually attacking fellow commenters on a blog is considered a "serious psychological disturbance", then there's really no reason to write anything else.
That's all.
Pogo said...
The Democrats will be living off the "9/10 Democrats" for a long time. Their refusal to admit that islamic fascists are a threat worldwide, their insistence that Amerika is the biggest threat to security, their love of government (when it spends other people's money on social services and health care), their hatred of government (when it involves security), their fondness for communist cranks like Castro and Chavez, and their paradoxical demand for complete sexual freedom and complete control over guns and media paints them into a 1970s corner."
Yo Pogo. I'll give you one more chance to present a truly slanted, spun, and distorted view of the democratic party. I don't think you did it up right.
Fewer Americans died in all of those events combined than have died in Iraq in the year 2007 alone.
And fewer terrorist enemies were killed during the entirety of the Clinton Administration than were killed in Iraq in the last week.
The reason we're suffering casualties is that we're actually attacking and eliminating our enemies, rather than sitting at home like a bunch of pussies and patiently waiting to be murdered. If you think the latter strategy sounds like the right one, then by all means -- vote for Democrats.
I don't have the answers but I believe that what we're doing currently is not working. They still hate us and they still want to kill us. This is not to say that everyone should love America because that will never happen, but should so many millions always want to kill us?
They hate us and want to kill us because
a) we are not strictly observant Muslims, which, according to their ideology, makes us infidels;
b)we are a powerful cultural and economic influence and we transmit that influence through the media and through dangerous political ideas like "democracy" and "individual rights," thus creating daily contradictions with radical fundamentalist teachings.
It's really about that simple. There is no reconciling with that form of "hatred." There is no middle ground. The middle ground is that the more moderate forms of Islamic society prevail. If we let ruthless, murderous Al Queda thugs act with impunity, the moderates have no chance. They need help.
Sure, there is somewhat of a paradoxical effect of our involvement. Our presence does piss some people off, and gives talking points to demagogues. But the hands-off alternative simply doesn't exist.
What I described as a pathology, by the way, was the other commenter's insistence that it is the US that wants to "convert" Muslims. Convert to what? I mean, the comment was so off, it seemed more like a weird Stockholm Syndrome response to the jihad threat. I don't want to convert anybody. I just want them to stop shooting at us.
Attacking people who are shooting at us has nothing to do with "converting" them. If a burglar enters my house, I'm not going to convert him into being a good guy. I'm just going to try to take his gun away from him, and if that means hitting him with a baseball bat, so be it. Any Muslim who is not shooting at us is, as far as I'm concerned, a potential friend.
"If Ron Silver and the Republicans' strategy to "win" the "war on terror" is to attempt to kill everyone that hates us (for our freedoms!), I honestly don't see how we can ever win."
But it's not, and no intelligent person could think that.
Yep, Ron Silver was on "Rhoda". I'm trying to remember the context--if maybe he was pursuing Rhoda before/after the disastrous marriage experiment with "Joe".
But he turned up a lot in TV shows of that era, and you can see how much better he's gotten over time.
I think he's actually kept pretty busy recently.
So again, it wouldn't hurt to reconsider our tactics. I don't have the answers but I believe that what we're doing currently is not working.
Well the prior tactics included, doing pretty much nothing when we were attacked and that didn't seem to work so what's left? Surrender?
Why do they hate us so much? Some say Israel so lets cut all aid and vote against them in every UN resolution. Support dictators? Fine, no more money for Egypt and Jordan. They're on they're own and we can take bets to see how long they last.
Did it ever occur to you that they are simply pathological ideologues who are using their religion simply as a cover to accomplish what the Nazis and Communists tried in the past? Just listen to some of the rhetoric that comes from some of these imams, it sounds eerily familiar.
Pogo said: The Democrats will be living off the "9/10 Democrats" for a long time. Their refusal to admit that islamic fascists are a threat worldwide, their insistence that Amerika is the biggest threat to security, their love of government (when it spends other people's money on social services and health care), their hatred of government (when it involves security), their fondness for communist cranks like Castro and Chavez, and their paradoxical demand for complete sexual freedom and complete control over guns and media paints them into a 1970s corner."
Yo Pogo. I'll give you one more chance to present a truly slanted, spun, and distorted view of the democratic party. I don't think you did it up right
True. Pogo did present a fairly accurate picture of the democrat party. To spin and slant it from reality, we might say that the Democrats have the best interests of the country in mind and are not really out just to re elect themselves into power at all costs. They have no desire to control every aspect of our lives and "take away things from us for the common good". Punitive taxes are not a tool to redistribute wealth as it is in socialist societies. High taxes are actually good for business....just watch the businesses flock to the United States to hire and manufacture goods when taxes are doubled. The Dems certainly don't cater to special interest groups and promote division between classes and play the race card at every opportunity.
{sarcasm} in case you thought I was serious.
John S: here is a good website that discusses the pathology and psychological derangement of the left. Dr. Sanity is a psychologist and Doctor in aerospace medicine. The left is truly ill.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/09/paranoid-comfort.html
rather than sitting at home like a bunch of pussies and patiently waiting to be murdered. If you think the latter strategy sounds like the right one, then by all means -- vote for Democrats.
That was Reagan's strategy after the Beirut bombing. Wasn't he a Republican?
There hasn't been this much talk about Ron Silver since he teabagged Kevin Kline at sleepaway camp in 1961.
Yea, "the left" is just plain damn crazy! How they can't find the beauty and genius of George Bush's plan to invade and occupy an exotic country and install a democracy in a region without a working model of a democracy, and kill hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the process is cuckoo! Pathological I tell you.
That was Reagan's strategy after the Beirut bombing. Wasn't he a Republican?
I promise you, MadisonMan, if we should both get sucked up by the Wayback Machine and find ourselves deposited back in the 80s, I will stop using the present tense to speak approvingly of the Republican response to terrorism.
The non-smartass version: Republican leaders *had* a lousy attitude towards terrorism. Democratic leaders *have* a lousy attitude towards terrorism. And we're voting now -- not then.
For what it is worth, I think Clinton was better on terrorism than Reagan, and Bush was better still; since 9/11 Bush has been dramatically better. Hillary, however, is worse than her husband (although that may just be Clintonian political opportunism, since she used to be hawkish when that's where the votes were), and the other Democratic candidates are worse than Hillary. Current Democratic policy isn't even a return to 9/10/01 -- it is a return to 9/10/77 (and not just on terrorism, I would argue).
I think Clinton was better on terrorism than Reagan,
I wonder how much better he would have been had it not been for the Monica thing.
Oh well, you're stuck with the President you elect, not the one you want.
Democrats aren't even communists. Communists have a spine. Democrats are jellyfish.
I wonder how much better he would have been had it not been for the Monica thing.
I think he would have been worse if not for the Monica thing, since he tended to launch strikes on terrorists when he had bad poll numbers or some tricky testimony to give.
When he was cruising along on the tech bubble economy with his poll numbers looking good, his handling of terrorism consisted of little more than blaming it on Rush Limbaugh.
Yeah, if you completely ignore the absence of anything approaching a 9/11 type attack for the past six years, and if you ignore the countless plots that our multi-national intel has foiled.
No, John, I don't ignore those years, nor the six years before 2001. Are you saying only the GOP is responsible for six years of foiling plots? You seem to think that I'm discounting national security. I'm not. I'm discounting the bullshit assertion that the GOP alone is responsible for our national security.
If Democrats are as foolish as you in posing the next election as national security vs. liberal social values, we will lose.
That's an incredibly moronic spin on what I've said. I don't pose a national security v. liberal social values choice. The moderates who vote GOP on the manufactured assertion that the GOP is the only path to national security pose exactly that choice. I want my representatives in government to work for both national security and the social values I hold dear.
Beth,
If you think the democrats are good for national security, you cannot be looking at the 6 years before 2001. That would be the embassy bombings and the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole. Those were attacks directly against the US and went unanswered. In fact even after Bubba asked for and received permission for a regime change, he did nothing. Now all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that the democrats are totally different? I don't think so based on all the stuff they are doing in Congress and the Senate and the speeches they are making to discount anything Gen Petraeus will say before he even says it. Today we even see Rep Kuchinich meeting with Assad of Syria and making nice and he is one of your candidates.
Sure, but Kucinich is an outlier, as is Ron Paul, who would effectively do the same thing, GWOT-wise.
MM,
"How does this differ from the Republican Response in 1983?"
Umm, Republicans have learned something in the past 2 1/2 decades, and Democrats haven't? Does that meet your standard for "difference"? :-)
ZPS,
"You can't kill or even convert every Muslim who hates us...Without appeasing and without ignoring them...there must be a more efficient, strong, and permanent way to stop these maniacs."
There is, but no civilized person wants to go there. Sure, you might not agree with those of us who think a strong response now is the best way to avoid something much worse later, but I don't see how anyone can meaningfully discuss the subject without at least being aware of the argument.
Re: "I want my representatives in government to work for both national security and the social values I hold dear."
I wasn't aware Zell Miller was running for President. Or did you mean Joe Lieberman? No?
Clearly not Obama, not Edwards, and, in my view, not even Hillary, whose poll-taking voting record indicates a serious lack of a moral center on matters of defense. So who is this great Democrat willing to talk tough on national security?
Because all I ever hear from the democrats is that skedaddling from Iraq is paramount. And I hope that's not what you meant.
Oh, please. If the Republicans had been in power in the late 90's, those embassy bombings would still have happened, and they would have invaded the country in which the terrorists were hiding at the time, then invaded Sudan or whatever just to prove to the rest of the world that we've got the bomb dick.
Also, it doesn't matter how brilliant of an actor Ron Silver is. Republicans elected Ronald Reagan to be president, and he was a lousy actor. Similarly, they want to amend the Constitution to let Arnold be elected president, despite the fact that his acting mainly consists of having bigger muscles than the actor they cast opposite him.
What a lot of those who think that the war in Iraq was and, in particular, is, a mistake, let me suggest that the best way to change the dynamic that gave us Islamic jihad, 9/11, al Qaeda, etc. is precisely what we are trying to do there, establish a stable, democratic, Iraq, right at the spiritual center of Islam.
Yes, we may not be able to establish that stable, secure, democratic Iraq. The secure part looks more and more plausible. But establishing a strong democratic government is now more the issue.
Nevertheless, you just have to look at the location of Iraq, and you should be able to see why Iraq is far more critical than Iran here, and vastly more important than Afghanistan, much of it isoloated up in its mountain fastness.
More than anywhere else, Iraq is the center of what is now the Islamic world. Not precisely the geographic center, but sitting right between the Sunni leader Saudi Arabia and the Shi'a leader Iran in the cradle of civilization.
What that stable, secure, democratic Iraq would do is provide an alternative to Islamic fundamentalism and jihadist nihilistic terrorism.
Think of it as the question of fighting allegators or draining the swamp. Going into Afghanistan would have been fighting a couple of allegators, leaving the swamp there for more to breed in. But the center of the swamp, throught geopolitical accident, is Iraq. That is why there are more allegators there, but also why it is the most effective place to drain the swamp.
The leaders of al Qaeda know this, which is why they have been diverting resources into and concentrating their efforts in Iraq over the last couple of years. OBL and his leutenants have repeatedly made this clear. They know what is at stake, even though a lot here apparently do not.
What we have here is a war of ideas, between democracy, however that plays out, and the combination of Islamic fundamentalism and nihilistic terrorism. And there are over a billion Moslems in the world, many of whom are young enough to have to make this choice.
I haven't seen a cogent case made for an alternative to this that would solve the problem we face here. I hear a lot that the intervention into Iraq was a mistake, but nothing about what they would do instead, except to not having intervened, and one there, curring and running as fast as possible.
If you are in this later camp, please feel free to put out your vision and solution, and we can all debate the merits of our different solutions.
Elizabeth Kucinich enjoys sporting a simple frock made from the skins of the women Dennis keeps in an abandoned well in back of his summer home in rural Cuyahoga county.
then invaded Sudan
And thus stopped the Darfur tragedy that causes so much after the fact sadness.
But in most global politics it is much more polite to feel bad about a tragedy that happened then try to stop it before.
Jackie Tancredo loves to gad about in a crisp freshly laundered serape with a matching sombrero and sometimes accessories with a burro in the same motif.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন