Redstate

I feel his pain.

but this is not even well written, beyond being rather ridiculous.

I believed Reagan right in saying the Soviet Union was an evil empire.

What that has to do with Iraq is impossible to fathom.

As for January 30, understanding that Iraq is a mess is not to say you will not fight for oppressed people. Because the election was sold as the panacea for the Iraq Debacle, something that has been shown to be false, saying that it will NOT solve the problem is not failing to stand up for oppressed people.

See, I am a Democrat who has no trouble calling Castro a tyrant, Chavez a thug, N. Korea a Stalinist state, etc.

The objections to the Iraq policy are not because of the "help" for oppressed people, it is because, as policy, it was spectacularly catastrophic and was carried out in incompetent fashion.

If saying that makes one unacceptable, then the truth has become unacceptable.

Generally, most of you folks highlight better arguments than the one presented here.

This is simply poorly written and poorly reasoned.

Hewre's a hint, just because it attacks liberals doesn't make it good.

His piece appeared in the SF Chronicle which really surpised me. It must have been their token nod to sanity.

From the Harry Reid School of Literary Criticism and Grammar?

Instead of saying 'it isn't well written' mightn't you include some of the structural problems you found?

It doesn't help your bald assertion of poor writing quality when you include grammatical errors and errant keystrokes.

The impression I got from the article was that he is a well known quantity, a Reagan Democrat.

But GWB is no Reagan and SH's Iraq was certainly no Soviet Union.

Grade my typing and grammar.

Tremendous critique.

My comment was an honest one and respectful of the proprietors of this site.

I think they are better than this article.

You I don't know and don't care to engage. This was directed to the poster, who generally writes quality material.

As for January 30, understanding that Iraq is a mess is not to say you will not fight for oppressed people. Because the election was sold as the panacea for the Iraq Debacle, something that has been shown to be false, saying that it will NOT solve the problem is not failing to stand up for oppressed people.

I believe that the President as well as other have made it quite clear that Iraq was only one more step on the road to a democratic Iraq, and that much is left to do.

See, I am a Democrat who has no trouble calling Castro a tyrant, Chavez a thug, N. Korea a Stalinist state, etc.

Well, at least your moral compass points in the right direction.

The objections to the Iraq policy are not because of the "help" for oppressed people, it is because, as policy, it was spectacularly catastrophic and was carried out in incompetent fashion.

And this is why I believe the anti-war critique in Iraq is entirely unreasonable.

In less than two years, Iraq went from Stalinist dictatorship to nascent democracy. That sort of thing is absolutely unprecedented in human history. We managed to topple the Hussein regime with a rate of casualties that had never been achieved before. After two years, the US body count is still exceptionally low. (And please don't think I'm discounting the value of those lives lost - I've lost friends in Iraq, and I know firsthand that each death is a tragedy.)

Quite frankly, the outcome in Iraq is several orders of magnitude than I thought it would have been going in. I figured we lose 3,000-5,000 fighting street by street in Baghdad. (Think the Battle of Fallujah with better-trained troops and on a larger scale.) I figured the first elections wouldn't be held in Iraq for at least 5 years, maybe longer.

And the outcome catastrophic? A free Lebanon? A Libya sans WMDs? Syria feeling the pressure to democratize? Hardly a catastrophe.

Carried out in an incompetent fashion? How many countries have gone from Stalinism to democracy in two years? Given all that we've had to deal with - from the decrepid state of Iraq under Saddam to constant attacks by foreign jihadis we've done a damn good job of keeping things together.

The fact that the Iraqis are united in the cause of a free Iraq and the terrorists are earning no sympathy from the Iraqi people also shows that Iraq's future is not so dim as the media portrays it to be.

In less than 3 years, the war in Iraq has removed a vicious tyrant, led to the disarmament of another, led to the fall of Syrian occupation in Lebanon, is pushing Assad to democratize, and has been as much of a watershed event as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

If that's catastrophic incompetence, then "success" has been defined in unreachable terms.

I believed Reagan right in saying the Soviet Union was an evil empire.

Surely you realize that you are among a minority of liberals who truly felt that way? I'm sure that through the lens of hindsight, many more may CLAIM to have felt that way, but I'm old enough to remember the aghast reaction from the left when Reagan said that.

In any event, it's certainly not unfair to characterize that as being one of the items that caused him to realize that he was at odds with most liberals. For instance, I don't think the Lawrence ruling was any big deal (wrong for separation of powers reasons, but no big deal). But I can certainly call it an honest characterization of the average conservative position that most of us were greatly upset by it.

Now, that certainly wasn't a watershed moment for me, when I began to realize that my worldview was fundamentally different from most of my conservative compadres. But for somebody else it might be. And for this guy, that might very well have been the beginning point for him.

As to whether it is a well-written article or not, I'm completely ambivalent. Personal experience stories (even good ones) have never held a lot of worth for me. I'm not here to debate people, but rather ideas.

I believed Reagan right in saying the Soviet Union was an evil empire.

What that has to do with Iraq is impossible to fathom.

It's not "impossible" at all.  In fact it's quite clearly spelled out for you in the article-- the author's experience at the dinner party is marked as an early point where he could no longer join the left in their ideological blindness.

The left's current position on Iraq marks the latest egregious example where the left is in lunatic denial, and he can no longer commiserate with them; it marks the point at which he leaves for good.

Get it?

Hewre's a hint, just because it attacks liberals doesn't make it good.

Here's another hint:  just because it "attacks" liberals doesn't make it "not even well written".

It doesn't make it wrong, either.

Cheers.

If your comment is what he think is right thinking, to wit, only a lunatic could disagree with this Administration's policy in Iraq, then he really was not a liberal in the first place.

He discusses becoming a liberal in the 60s. On Vietnam his states "I began my activist career championing the 1968 presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, because both promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam."

On Iraq, he says "Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom."

You must see where I am going - were and are the people of Vietnam any less lovers of freedom than the people of Iraq? Is it possible that Iraq, like Vietnam, is an American misadventure?

See, that is the ridiculous aspect of this column. The obvious inconsistencies, the intention to ridicule dissent. This from someone who became a liberal by supporting Eugene McCarthy?

Red State is not run by people who write such obvious nonsense. Red State is populated by many intelligent people. That this gentleman chose to move to the Right is certainly acceptable and respectable, but his parting shot at liberals is nothing but incoherence.

You folks should recognize it. Thus, my line, just because it criticizes liberals doesn't make it wrong. Because the poster has shown himself smarter than being someone who really thinks this column compelling or insightful. It simply is not in my opinion. It is a poor man's warmed over David Horowitz.

when he implied that the reason liberals were so shocked by the prospect that the Soviet Union was evil.  As a current bleeding heart liberal, who was pretty damn close to socialist (and I hung out with some honest to God card-carrying communists) in college when Reagan made the evil empire speech.  What upset liberals was that Reagan would make such a inflammatory statement about the Soviet Union.  Similarly, As much as North Korea, Iran and Iraq are bad actors, calling them the "Axis of Evil" doesn't really help matters at all and is probably counterproductive.

So eventhough the Soviet Union was an evil empire, Reagan was wrong in saying it.

obviously.

from Stalinism to democracy in two years?

Umm.  Most of the countries in Eastern Europe and Russia itself with a whole lot less loss of life than Iraq.  

And by the way, we are far from democracy in Iraq.  We have had one election in which the people voted for parties, not individual candidates.  The country is unable to maintain domestic security, let alone defend itself from any external threat.  The minimum number of deaths of Iraqi civilians in this war is 29,000, some estimates put it at more than 100,000.  The U.S. government is not even attempting to quantify either military or civilian deaths of Iraqis.

We have spent $300 billion dollars of borrowed money on this war.  It is far from being a watershed event like the fall of the Berlin Wall.  That was a triumph of peaceful, homegrown revolution.  This war was a poorly planned unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation.  The  moves towards democracy in the Middle East have been incremental or illusory.  Look at Egypt, the so-called democratic reforms have turned out to be a sham.  I haven't heard anything new from Lebanon recently.  The Saudi elections, as meaningless as they were, resulted in the election of Wahabi hardliners.  Our military is bogged down in Iraq and being bled dry.

Making of a 9/11 Republican is an op-ed by Cinnamon Stillwell from February.  Here's a couple comments from it:

I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn't matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground.

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. Its democratic form of government and capitalist economic system was nothing more than a machine in which citizens were forced to be cogs. I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. Freedom of speech, religious freedom, women's rights, gay rights (yes, even without same-sex marriage), social and economic mobility, relative racial harmony and democracy itself were all taken for granted in my narrow, insulated world view.

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11...

As I spent months grieving the losses, others around me wrapped themselves in the comfortable shell of cynicism and acted as if nothing had changed. I soon began to recognize in them an inability to view America or its people as victims, born of years of indoctrination in which we were always presented as the bad guys....

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal....

Like many a political convert, I took it on myself to openly oppose the politics of those with which I once shared world views. Beyond writing, I put myself on the front lines of this ideological battle by taking part in counterprotests at the antiwar rallies leading up to the war in Iraq. This turned out to be a further wake-up call, because it was there that I encountered more intolerance than ever before in my life. Holding pro-Iraq-liberation signs and American flags, I was spat on, called names, intimidated, threatened, attacked, cursed and, on a good day, simply argued with. It was clear that any deviation from the prevailing leftist groupthink of the Bay Area was considered a threat to be eliminated as quickly as possible.

The whole thing is worth reading.

I don't think you read the column very well, instead just skimmed over it and pulled out your standard criticism folder.

I believed Reagan right in saying the Soviet Union was an evil empire. What that has to do with Iraq is impossible to fathom.

That paragraph marks a turning point in his belief, he said. It could have nothing to do with Iraq and still be an important piece of the narative he lays out, informing the reader of his journey. If you will notice, the column isn't entirely about Iraq, but talks about other topics such as personal responsiblity and equality of outcome.

However, I believe it is left up to the reader to infer the comparison between Reagan calling the USSR the "Evil Empire" and Bush calling Iraq, North Korea, and Iran the "Axis of Evil." Many on the left were bent out of shape because of that remark. Maybe I hang out with the wrong crowd, but I know a few Iraqi and Iranian immigrants that cheered that remark while some on the left tried to apologize for those regimes. (Sometimes it even goes into lionization when Democratic leftists beging to talk about Castro and Chavez.)

As for January 30, understanding that Iraq is a mess is not to say you will not fight for oppressed people. Because the election was sold as the panacea for the Iraq Debacle, something that has been shown to be false, saying that it will NOT solve the problem is not failing to stand up for oppressed people.

Again, that isn't quite what Thompson was writing about. He refers to those "smirking" at the election, that is, those showing scorn for Iraq's election. He isn't upset at those who truly acknowledged the greatness of the event, aside from other problems that still exist.

He goes to ask what of those who stoodup "in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise", asking why those same people didn't appear to be the least bit happy for the historic election.

Generally, most of you folks highlight better arguments than the one presented here. This is simply poorly written and poorly reasoned.

He's not laying out arguments, but instead telling his story of why he is upset, glossing over things quickly to compress fifty years into a couple thousand words.

You can disagree with him, but at least try to comprehend his words and let them digest before critiquing it. You seemed to have done no actual thought about what he was trying to say.

Hewre's a hint, just because it attacks liberals doesn't make it good.

I might as well say to you: "Here's a hint. Just because it attacks liberals doesn't make it 'poorly written and poorly reasoned.'"

Just as you didn't take the time to try and understand what Thompson was writing, you didn't understand what Joel was writing.

His second sentence was the important one: "Instead of saying 'it isn't well written' mightn't you include some of the structural problems you found?"

And don't try to say that it wasn't rasoned well that is why it was poorly written, because you made both critisms separately (something zeppenwolf pointed out to you in the subject heading of another comment).

It seems like you just tried to pile on negatives without much regard to what you were saying, the rable-rable-rable style of argument.

Sometimes the Chronicle gets a bad rap for being overly liberal, c.f. http://chronwatch.com .

One easy critique.

The column is completely disjointed. He rotates from screed to his history to gawh knows what.

I hope you guys stand by this article.

It is really pretty lousy.

If you think it is good, then keep pushing it. Spread the word.

so his conversion has nothing to do with Iraq? Or Iraq is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Or what?

See how badly written this is? You cannot even construct a coherent defense of it.

Frankly. this is pathetic.

As I say, you love it, sell it far and wide.

I am making fun of it because it is laughable.

"Here's a hint. Just because it attacks liberals doesn't make it 'poorly written and poorly reasoned.'"

I believe we covered that in the first class of LitCrit-1 here at RSLC&G.  

You have confused 'does' and 'doesn't'.  

But you did see the point I was trying to make about his critique-- simply saying something, without particulars, especially something general and subjective, is not often convincing.  

I did think my post was criticism of exactly the same kind which he gave.

What he wrote is hardly a "screed." Besides Thompson's relatively mild tone, it isn't even close to being long enough to qualify. But there you go again, just tossing out any pejorative that pops into your head.

Did you even read it? I first thought that you just skimmed it, but now I even question if you read the whole thing? Come one, you can admit to not reading the column in its entirety.

The piece starts with an introductory paragraph about the Iraqi election, a topic that he will come back to. The next few paragraphs give the basic overview of why he is "leaving the left," and the seventh paragraph begins his narative where he grew up. He moves linearly up to the present and then bullets a few current events over three paragraphs while talking about his political shift moving into how thinks that shift is important for the country as a whole. In the last three pargraphs he reconciles how he used to think with how he currently thinks returning to the topic of the Iraqi election to tie up that introductory loose end.

so his conversion has nothing to do with Iraq?

What is wrong with you? How do you get from "the column isn't entirely about Iraq" to "nothing to do with Iraq"?

Stop and think before you post.

See how badly written this is? You cannot even construct a coherent defense of it.

You are such a tool. You seem too upset to either read and comprehend or think straight.

Either post something intelligent or stop posting. Aren't all y'all over at dKos constantly patting either other on on your backs about how rational and intelligent you are? Show it then.

jjayson:

Are you back to your old tricks? But this is home now I see.

With that wondrous attack on me, you win the prize.

Yes, you found me out, I didn't read it. I'm so ashamed.

Please sell this as a treasure dude. Please.

Your last paragraph - just beautiful.

thanks for that.

You want to discuss the ins and outs of what I honestly feel is a piece of crap. I don't.

But I'll make you an offer. Respond to my post comparing his views on Vietnam and Iraq.

And explain to me how you can possibly reconcile the 2 views while excoriating those who disagree with him. It is impossible to do of course, but I'd love to see your effort.

Maybe it will be as good as your guide to the column - which was really a thing of beauty.

Look, my point is it should not require convincing because it is self evident from the piece.

But evidence was sought.

I gave two examples - one on writing - the piece is completely disjointed.

Indeed-, in defending the piece, jjayson makes myu case -

"The piece starts with an introductory paragraph about the Iraqi election, a topic that he will come back to. The next few paragraphs give the basic overview of why he is "leaving the left," and the seventh paragraph begins his narative where he grew up. He moves linearly up to the present and then bullets a few current events over three paragraphs while talking about his political shift moving into how thinks that shift is important for the country as a whole. In the last three pargraphs he reconciles how he used to think with how he currently thinks returning to the topic of the Iraqi election to tie up that introductory loose end."

I could not have argued my point better.

On substance, the contradiction of bragging about supporting Eugene McCarthy, because of Vietnam,  while excoriating opponents of Iraq, is so absurd on its face that it is a wonder that you folks would require it to be explained to you.

But please please please, champion this piece. I beg you.  

You don't even say anything, just attack. I least I provided some substance, regardless of how little you may view it, is it still much more than you bring to the discussion.

What a crock.

I could not have argued my point better.

Notice, you still don't say anything instead just assert as if everything is only visible from your perspective.

You bold words in my paragraph seemingly at random. Are you against introductions, overviews, and paragraphs? Amazing. You are even a progressive when it comes to standard writing devices. I applaud your sticking up for the Kerouacs of the world.

I did a couple years in a Liberal Arts major, tutoring and being a TA, and doing writing and editing work, so I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to this. I would, and so would many others here, be able to understand your powerful and blinding insight were you to grace us with a little of it.

A five paragraph essay it is not, but it isn't a very complex piece of writing either. It can be cleanly broken into a begging, middle, and end, yet you cannot seem to grasp its basic structure because of your self-defensiveness. It is certainly no worse than the average column from TAP, Mother Jones, or the New Yorker.

And you aren't even one of those the column is really desribing because you do show a propensity to stand up to quaisi-fascist ideologies even if they are anti-American, and this is who Thompson reserved the bulk of his criticism for. However, I do understand how you can feel defensive without being the one to be attacked. I get defensive when liberals attack conservatives even though I don't really fit in that category.

On substance, the contradiction of bragging about supporting Eugene McCarthy, because of Vietnam, while excoriating opponents of Iraq is so absurd on its face that it is a wonder that you folks would require it to be explained to you.

You are not even dealing with the substance of Thompson's criticism. It isn't directed at all of those against the Iraq war, but reserved mostly for those who could barely stomach the Iraqi elections and almost seem to enjoy the news of American setbacks in the world. As Thompson put it, those "who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere" but are now "actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom."

Deal with the actual criticism instead of stuffing strawmen. Aren't you a lawyer or something? Shouldn't you be able to understand the claim and disect it? Come on, the high school debaters I coached can do a better job than this.

Even simple responses such as "the election wasn't truly democratic because of the way ballot was done favored those already placed in power by the US government" or "very few and only those far out of the liberal mainstream scoffed at the election" would be a huge improvement. At least then you would be actually adding something to the discussion. And there is probably some merit to both those claims, but you just refuse to engage, preferring to throw one sentence quips about dumb we all are for not agreeing with you.

Say something intelligent, please.

You want to discuss the ins and outs of what I honestly feel is a piece of crap. I don't.

So you don't want to discuss the piece? Then why did you even bother to post, and why are you responding to anybody? Nobody will fault you for just posting a top-level comment and leaving it at that. We all understand that sometimes you don't feel like defending your opinions and just want to get them out there, but don't try to pretent to be backing them up like you are now.

It seems more like you don't really have any reasons to attack the piece besides you disagree with it. When challenged on that, you holed up and simple repeated your strange attack on the writing style of the short narative.

...and volunteer to serve in Iraq.

None of us posters seem to have the courage of our convictions to even call for others to go fight the war we supposedly support.

I exempt myself 'cuz I'm an old dude who didn't support the war from the git go. I'm just thankful I don't pay taxes anymore to support it.

Khrushchev destroyed Stalinism beginning with his speeck to the 20th Party Congress in 1956.

By 1989 there were two Stalinist regimes left in the world: Albania and North Korea.

And your disinterest in following the news from the region doesn't, contrary to your belief, mean that nothing is happening. Rather it is an indicator of an intellectual laziness that assumes that it knows all there is to know.

in what your hero writes about Iraq and Vietnam.

I take that as an admission that you accept that the piece is absurd on that point at least.

And that pretty much is game set match.

Good luck in your future endeavors on this.

You think so?

I think maybe you are wrong on that.

Well that settles it.

BTW, here's a stirring defense - "It is certainly no worse than the average column from TAP, Mother Jones, or the New Yorker."

Enough.

Apparently we just disagree.

With the patent contradiction of this statement -

"I began my activist career championing the 1968 presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, because both promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam."

Why was he NOT celebrating the Vietnam election of 1967?

Why was he AGAINST freedom for Vietnam?

Did he hate LBJ so much?

Please. Enough. The column is so absurd and so obviously hypocritical as to be ridiculous.

Beyond the doofus nature of the comment, it should occur to you that if someone was old enough to be involved in the 1968 presidential primary that they would be older than 34, the maximum legal age for enlisting.

But maybe one day you guys will get your wish and the only people allowed to vote on matters of war and peace will be those who have served in the Armed Forces. But I don't think you'll be real happy with the outcome.

No one else in this thread has stated that opinion.

We'd be at DailyKos, not here. I believe that an enterprising person could find Kos saying verbatim the exact same thing you are saying now, if he diligently read - oh, say, every other post - at dKos.

We have discussed this worthless smoke screen ad nauseam already here, and if you want to know what anyone here thinks about it, you can consult it yourself.

Also, I know it's in fine print and all, and that it's positioned so it's very easy to miss, but RedState has a policy that Profanity is not tolerated. Look very hard before you post next time, and I think you'll be able to find it.

you're Josh's friend.

You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

what you're doing is analogous to wrestling with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig loves it.

But why have none of you addressed the absurd contradiction of this man's celebrating his opposition to Vietnam's freedom while attacking those of us who supposedly oppose Iraq's freedom.

Someone tried the 'he just means those who aren't celebrating the election' gambit, but that requires ignoring the 1967 elections in Vietnam, not to mention that the war was still ongoing in 68 (was there an election in Iraq when Bremer was in charge?), when Clean Gene and Ho Chi Minh were his heroes.

The contradiction destroys his entire column.

See, he has top do a Horowitz - hairshirt and all, about his activities in the 60s, otherwise it simply fails on its face.

That is problematic to me.

That is not honest debate.

Indeed, it is beneath this site.

This article a just bunk and I think you must see it.

Forget about the things we are sure to disagree about. Explain how he can square his opposition to freedom in Vietnam, which he STILL celebrates, with his attack on those who oppose the Iraq War?

They cannot be squared.

Instead of personal insults in violation of the rules of Red State, you know that I have made no personal attacks on anyone here, it would be better to address the argument I make as best as I can.

Instead I am offered personal insults. What of the rules of Red State? Is it now ok to offer personal attacks?

Although the thread has become so convoluted that it's hard to tell. If you click the "parent" button, you'll see that I was actually replying to EconRadical.

I made a simple statement. A true one as far as I can tell.

And your response is that I leave you alone? How am i not leaving you alone?

You would rather I not comment here? That's fine. i can see why you want that.

But let's be clear that there is NOTHING I have posted here that is in any way offensive are derogatory to the site, its proprietors or any fellow posters.

You don't like what I am saying. And that is the only reason for this request.

I do honestly believe highlighting this column is below the standards of thesite and was hoping someone would acknowledge the inherent problem with this column.

I have  been asked to leave you folks alone (well, just him, but he attacks me through responses to other folks, so I don't think that is playing fair myself) and will do so.

This post and thread have not been Red State at it s best, in all honesty.

in an earlier comment in this thread that I am completely ambivalent about these kinds of "personal experience" posts, whether they're well done or poorly done. So I really don't care to engage in a debate on its merits.

As I said, I'd prefer to debate ideas, not people.

What I'd like for you to answer is this, because I think you are failing to acknowledge that many of the things he brings up are fairly characteristic of most liberals (while perhaps not yourself), and might present a point of significant departure in his own mind.

Having said that, the extent of my interest in this article as a whole is, "Great. Glad to have another Red voter, and I'm also ... um... glad that he decided to share in lengthy fashion with us how it came to be."

heck are you talking about?

You get insulted by analogies. Thank heaven I didn't mention a pot calling a kettle black. Or a camel's nose under a tent. Then you'd really be upset.

I was just telling the poor soul you were hounding that it was a waste of his time and effort to engage on this subject.

Your cry of victim here just reinforces my opinion.

I don't find you particularly insightful. But I also know Josh has asked you post here on occasion.

Personally, I don't see where you have added a whit to the discussion here but that isn't my call. Feel free to continue using our bandwidth.

All I am saying is that as a courtesy to Josh I'm not responding to your crap and I was merely seeking reciprocity.

And that is the limit of our conversation, or at it is to my end of any conversation.

Bye.

How about talking to you is analogous to talking to Stalin?

That is silly.

You know what you are doing. It does not matter to me but your analogy game is weak.

Off I go.

Peace.

Yes. You are truly filled with stellar arguments.

But I'm off.

Peace.

His idea is that liberals were good and true way back when - and he specifically cites his opposition to the Vietnam misadventure and his support for Eugene McCarthy as what he admired about Liberals.

Then he argues that today's Liberals have lost their way by opposing Iraq.

These ideas are in direct contradiction.

Since this is his central thesis it pretty much undermines everything he  here.

To me it is impossible to escape.

Perhaps I am still being unclear. I am completely uninterested in this stooge or the personal experience of his past that led him to abandon modern liberalism.

I am slightly more interested in discussing questions of history, although generally they tend to be counterproductive - for instance, we might rightly point out that the Democrats used to be the pro-slavery party, but that really is irrelevant to the current issues at hand.

What I am interested in discussing are the ideas and policies that shape modern liberalism and conservativism, and the merits thereof.

that Hussein's regime was not Stalinist, I decided to use JayReding's rather loose definition of Stalinism to point out that many countries had gone from one party dictatorships to budding democracies in the last twenty-five years with very little help from us.

Thank you for pointing out that Saddam's regime was not a Stalinist one.  I'm sure that if I had made such a statement on this site all kinds of people would have jumped all over me calling me some kind of defender of Saddam Hussein or traitor when nothing could be farther from the truth.

And I am following the news in the region.  That is exactly my point.  Democracy is not spreading like wildfire.  There has been some incremental movement but overall the status quo remains.  After the demonstrations in Lebanon earlier in the year and the withdrawl of the Syrians, the country is calm but there has been little structural change.  Not that structural change would neccessarily be a good thing for us since the current structure of the Lebanese government gives inordinate power to groups (especially Christians) that are more sympathetic to the West.

Good for you.

i'll look at your link and see if I can form a coherent argument.

there is no doubt that the Dem Party was hopelessly naive on dealing with the Soviets and Communism.

If this fellow had left Liberalism THEN based on this I could completely accept that.

But, as you say, that seems as relevant today as the Dems' sorry history on race relations.

But, as you say, that seems as relevant today as the Dems' sorry history on race relations.

It is slightly more relevant in that we are dealing with a problem that is at least within our generation - and it is a perception that modern liberals are going to have to work hard to address. I think that one of the things that makes the average voter queasy about putting an avowed liberal in the oval office is that most average voters remember the obtuseness of the Dems in the 80s, and perceive the same obtuseness in the face of modern Islamofascism. As to whether that is a fair characterization, that is another discussion for another time, and one that I am frankly sick of having.

This is why every liberal who runs for President flees from the liberal label as though it were Mad Cow Disease, while GOP candidates can flatly run on being "compassionate conservatives" (GWB) or just "conservatives" (Reagan).

I always thought conservatives simply wanted to paint liberals as evil Godless, traitorous, family-destroying, man-on-dog-sex loving, commie, pinko, affirmative action, flag-burning, unamerican, baby-killing, judical-activist loving, gun-hating beasts.

The Right sneers at "Hollywood liberals" (apparently it is only okay for actors to be politically active if they are Republicans, then they are suddenly qualified to be governor, congressman, or even president) and uses them to represent the entire liberal community.  I know I don't care what Cameron Diaz has to say about anything, yet Fox and other rightwing media kept flogging her stupid statements on rape during the presidential campaign like they were the official position of the Democratic Party.

"Because the election was sold as the panacea for the Iraq Debacle..." would definitely qualify as an example of "the left's anemic, smirking response to Iraq's election in January".  The elections were never "sold" as such, and you know it in your heart.  If you want to believe that, go ahead, but Keith Thompson has left that fantasy world.

You state the left's problem precisely when you say you have "no trouble calling Castro a tyrant, Chavez a thug, N. Korea a Stalinist state, etc."  In general, the left will say anything as long as it is no trouble, but hates to act on anything requiring exertion or sacrifice, preferring to criticize those who attempt solutions.  No one says your words are unacceptable, only that they are unserious, and Keith Thompson knows it.

that is certainly a political problem for us Dems.

You may know this and be tweaking me, but it is a mantra for me that Dems must make improving their image and outlook on national security their number 1 priority.

I always thought conservatives simply wanted to paint liberals as evil Godless, traitorous, family-destroying, man-on-dog-sex loving, commie, pinko, affirmative action, flag-burning, unamerican, baby-killing, judical-activist loving, gun-hating beasts

No, we have to work at this as well. Otherwise we wouldn't win all the elections. But yes, we do take time out to party.

How was the Democratic Party "hopelessly naive" on dealing with the Soviets and Communism?  

Which Democratic Presidents are you picking on?  FDR during WWII?  Are we going to go over Yalta again and blame him and Churchill for selling out Eastern Europe?  Truman?  JFK? LBJ? I know you think Carter was a wimp (and maybe even a traitor) who cared too much about human rights.

The simple fact is that for most of the Cold War the threat of the Soviet Union and communism was overstated.  Their economy was never as strong and their military never as invincable as our government painted it.  

We will argue to the end of our days whether or not Reagan's policies were the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.  But one thing is certain, the events of 1989 took the government of this country completely by surprise.  They had no idea that the Soviet empire could collapse so completely, rapidly, and peacefully.  The Soviet Union rotted from within and our government was apparently so invested in the idea of the "evil empire" that we didn't even see the rot.  

and... and... like, um join the 101st parachuting keyboardists!  And did I say a$$?  OOOhhh, let me say it again! A$$. Us have no courage... none of us. But not me. I exempt myself, cuz I'm old , on the dole, and I don't want to cut my ponytail.

... that this was a personal journey which led him to this point.  Just because you think his decision illogical does not make it any less real.  The fact that you dismiss and ridicule David Horowitz will not make him go away, either.  The simple fact is that idealistic supporters of leftist and progressive causes in the past are quietly leaving the Democrat party in numbers that would frighten you if you dared to look.  Keith Thompson just happens to be  more public in his dissent. Calling them turncoats and hypocrites will not bring them back, and neither will ignoring them.

"evil Godless, traitorous, family-destroying, man-on-dog-sex loving, commie, pinko, affirmative action, flag-burning, unamerican, baby-killing, judical-activist loving, gun-hating beasts."

I simply cannot WAIT to put that on a bumper sticker. Meanwhile, let's have one drawn up for the other side shall we? After all, isn't the left merely interested in painting all conservatives as voodoo-doll fearing, backward, illiterate, sister-marrying, racist, nazi, sheep impregnating, hippie-murdering, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-human, anti-anti, nuclear bomb launching rednecks?

In fact, if we may bring this back to the topic, that sort of cyclopean fanatacism is one of the factors in the authors conversion, is it not?

That's the first constructive comment of yours on this thread.  I just wanted to show some appreciation for that.  Furthermore, it has the distinction of being a correct opinion (IMO).

we didn't even see the rot.

The entropy detectors are always slipping out of calibration.

Too focused on grammar and not enough on the substance, Armando.  

The objections to the Iraq policy are not because of the "help" for oppressed people, it is because, as policy, it was spectacularly catastrophic and was carried out in incompetent fashion.

The objections from the left are because, from the very get-go, you and your ideological comrades opposed our going in and removing Saddam, and you opposed the president who made this happen.  I don't know of anyone who called the January 30th election a "panacea", but it was a major milestone and a major turning point in the reconstruction of this country.  You should read a little Ajami.  Too sad, really, because the Left should be embracing the Bush quest for freedom and democracy in the Middle East, not talking down and minimizing the accomplishments made.

with you I can't say I'm surprised.  Conflating two very shallow, ill-informed points you think you've stumbled upon a contradiction.  But you haven't.  Support of McCarthy in 1968 is not somehow synonymous with "opposition to freedom in Vietnam" or even mildly anti-elections.  Google McCarthy and Vietnam and read some quotes or speeches.  The man, albeit with hindsight, was not all that radical in his anti-war beliefs.  He wanted the same thing the government preached--a democratic south Vietnam but his vision came with NLF participation.  McCarthy has been caricatured over the years into a morph of his long-haired hippie supporters.  He was most certainly NOT the Howard Dean of his times.

If you want sources I'll go ahead and dig them up but I'm guessing you'll ignore me and drift away from this thread like before.

anything for this war I would be more sympathetic to the cause.  But I just don't see it.  

No matter how much you claim to support this war and the troops, what is the Right doing to really support this war?  Putting a magnetic ribbon on your SUV?  I don't see you demanding tax increases or any real sacrifice to pay for this war instead shifting the cost of this war to our children and grandchildren.  What kind of policy is it to lower taxes, especially disproportionitally on the rich, during a time of war?  And every month this year, the Army has fallen short on its recruiting goals.  If everyone with those "Support Our Troops" magnets was encouraging their sons and daughters to enlist, or enlisting themselves, I'm sure that the recruiting goals would be met.

My wife is a Major in the Army.  She got back from Kuwait in November.  She is going back for a year in July.  That's right, two tours in less than two years.  Some of our soldiers are on their third tour!  Her father was career Marine Corps through the entire Vietnam Era (He was in from 1955--1978).  He did two tours in Vietnam but they were separated by three years, not less than a year.  We are abusing our military in this war, worse than we did in Vietnam, yet the Right claims they support our troops.  What nonsense.  If they did, they would be demanding that we had sufficient forces and a plan to get the job done.

We have spent $300 billion dollars of borrowed money on this war.  That was a triumph of peaceful, homegrown revolution.  This war was a poorly planned unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation.  The  moves towards democracy in the Middle East have been incremental or illusory.

No we haven't.  We haven't even spent $200 billion although the $80 billion budget request will get us to that point.  The first step in making a reasoned argument is to get your facts straight.  What is illusory is your view that the movement toward democracy is illusory.  What is taking place in Asia and the Middle East is wholly unprecedented.

It always is, even in peace.

All of my family one both sides is  buried in Arlington, ever since we came here from Ireland.

My mother's brother was in the Army from 1930-1955.  He was in the Philipines for three years during peacetime and then during the war he went back.  Again during peacetime he was sent to West Germany less two years after coming back from the PTO.  Overseas service is part of military life.

My father was in the AF from 1955-1978.  He only did one combat tour.  So what?  He did numerous TDY rotations to Clark to support combat.  He was away from home an average of 19 days per month during the time he was flying 130's in noncombat roles.  Flying 124's he was on Midway island waiting for a trip for over a month before he could get back to the states.

Majors are supposed to be overseas during wars, it comes with the job.

This will be fun.

Eye of the beholder I suppose.

Do you have an answer for the Ho Chi Minh/Saddam paradox?

This is the problem here.

Moreover, you don't know what i am willing to accept.

But one thing remains unanswered - how come Ho Chi Minh was ok?

And the freedom loving people there?

That would be Mr. Thompson.

Can someone please explain his pride in supporting Ho?

does not make it illogical, and thus a ridiculous argument.

If you support abortion, why aren't you working in an abortion clinic?

not illogical.

...Iraq is another Vietnam, Armando?  Could it just be that Thompson talked about Vietnam so that we would know where he was politically in the 1960s and how he has traveled since then?  He wasn't comparing Vietnam to Iraq.  Only you are making that absurd connection.

My point is a simple one.

You guys picked a bad poster boy.

We all know it is true.

The guy's position is completely illogical.

I know it is hard to admit it.

But I wasn't going to leave this glaring nonsense unexposed.

And because of that, people have not liked my comments.

But I'm gone. And you guys can go back to echo chamber fun. I'll be back at my own echo chamber.

Though many support a womans right to choose.

Right to life v Right to choice.

Simple.

That is completely false.

He proudly talks of liberals in the 60s and why they were RIGHT!

And how they left HIM!

I connect it precisely because it is the ELEPHANT in the room!

He leaves the Liberals for doing precisely what he FIRST did as a liberal, oppose a war.

I expressly drew the comparison to Vietnam and Iraq, because this obvious hypocrisy from Thompson was cheerily ignored by your side.

But his touching life story and his laughing about how his friends say he moved to the right demanded it.

You really don't want to make this empty argument do you?

"I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.

My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.

... I began my activist career championing the 1968 presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, because both promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam. I marched for peace and farm worker justice, lobbied for women's right to choose and environmental protections, signed up with George McGovern in 1972 and got elected as the youngest delegate ever to a Democratic convention...."

Sorry Charles. How come it was ok to be for McCarthy, McGovern, Ho Chi Minh - that was "good" liberalism - the freedom loving people of Vietnam be darned - but that liberalism was abandoned by opposing the Iraq war?

Simply put, Thompson is absurd.  

If you support the right to choose abortions, surely you'll work at a clinic? Fund raise for poor, poor Planned Parenthood? Spend your time and energy lobbying for and with NARAL, the March of Dimes, and whoever else is fighting to make it possible to slaughter children in the womb?

I merely support a womans right to choose, that is the full extent of my commitment.

And were the voters of the US ever given the opportunity to vote their conscience on the issue I suspect they would overwhelmingly agree with me.  Abortion should be freely available yet rare, if you were to approach the issue from this standpoint you would have a lot more success than with abolition.

Tell me have abortions increased or decreased under the Bush Presidency?

I support the war in Iraq. That's the full extent of my commitment.

I'm glad to see that you backed away from your error.

Armando--

I think you missed the forest for the trees in Thompson's piece, focusing exclusively on an alleged contradiction you picked up on, but I'll take that alleged contradiction since it is your only serious critique of the article. (the hit on whether or not it is well written really doesn't matter.)

First, as another commenter noted, a personal story is a tough one to dissect because there's no way to adequately represent everything that goes into a person's personal story, especially one about political nuances, told in under book-length, spanning nearly a half-century. So right off the bat, i think you were a tad too literal, too simplistic, too quick-to-judge Thompson's rationale and boil it down to "he liked Ho Chi Minh, but dislikes Saddam, ergo he's unserious and should be scoffed at by all rational people."  I don't think his personal story in this column was intended to sway anyone else, nor was it meant to be an exhaustive survey of every single last thought that went into his "metamorphosis without the bug," and i don't think Pejman posted it here thinking it was otherwise. I'd rather think Pejman posted it, and Thompson wrote it, as a basic explanation of the general circumstances and moments that fed the internal movements of his heart and mind and led to where he finds himself today, and as such, it is an interesting look at something many people suspect: that the modern "left" bears little resemblance to the "left" of the 1960s and 1970s, and is instead whiners, complainers, and power-hungry snobs who will kick the hopes and dreams (and self-determination) of minorities and residents of third-world countries down the stairs of progress in the name of "progressivism" if it means holding onto power or removing the political opponent from power; and I should add, few, if any, original ideas aside from 'gay marriage,' 'abortion on demand,' and other causes that many believe coarsen culture.  I mean this all as dispassionately as possible.  

All that said, I'll attempt to rectify the contradiction you perceived in Thompson's personal story.

First, I don't see where Thompson says anything along the lines of liking Ho Chi Minh, as you allege in one of your comments. I know how you arrived at it, but that statement is built on a sandcastle you built from some things he did say.

He did call the war in Vietnam a misadventure, while he supports the liberation of Iraq. Not an unusual stance, and, I do not believe, contradictory. The war in Vietnam was not prompted by actions on the scope of 9/11.  (please, hold the Saddam-didn't-do-it arguments, the 'war on terror,' launched rightly after 9/11, includes Saddam's Iraq for reasons that, ex post facto have been found to be questionable, but here we are, so let's move forward) The war in Vietnam was, indeed very poorly executed, and had no progress that was not yielded the next day without a fight, and with no discernible objective or end-goal. Iraq has been executed well -- not perfect, but well -- and there are signs of progress (the election being one of them) and there is an objective end-goal (a self-sufficient, democratic state). Vietnam was led by feckless U.S. Presidents and other pols who did a piss-poor job of selling any real good reasons for going into Vietnam in the first place, and then did a worse job of pretty much everything else politically involved in that war. This war has been handled by a steel-spined President with a vision and clear goals and an unwavering commitment to those goals.

I can guess you'll disagree mightily with much of my assessment.

And THAT, I believe, is the point at which Mr. Thompson departs with you and yours. He, I believe, would agree that this war bears little resemblance to Vietnam -- the "people longing for freedom" part being where the similarities end. I'll venture to guess that he believes this war is "worth it" while Vietnam was not; that Americans are actually accomplishing something here while in Vietnam they were just being sliced and diced; that we now have a President and leadership with vision, determination, and a good heart while back then we did not; and other vast differences that you ignore, focusing instead on the one similarity. In short, this is not Vietnam, not least because of those elections, and the reactions afterward, which finally pushed Mr. Thompson over the edge.

You ask how he can stand by his protests to Vietnam and attack those who currently protest the Iraq war. Examine the content of those protesters' grievances: in Vietnam, the protestors (who weren't all left-wingers: my very conservative grandfather was quite opposed to the war and considered sending my dad to Vietnam if his number came up, which it miraculously didn't)  were protesting a poorly-executed and poorly-led and poorly-sold and poorly-conceived war in which 58K Americans were slaughtered, and without any appreciable return on their sacrifice. Not hard to protest that because no one was freed, no real goal was accomplished, and no political leaders really talked about end-goals or accomplishments with conviction. Contrast that against what today's protestors (while also including some conservatives, overwhelmingly, predominantly left-wingers and rabid ones at that) are saying and protesting against: that this is a "catastrophe" as you have put it but is demonstrably not true (or questionable at best), that Bush "lied" us into war, but a "lie" requires premeditation and fore-knowledge of faulty information so Bush didn't lie; that 100,000 civilians have been killed -- you admit that's not true, thanks; that it's a "quagmire" -- nope, sorry; that we have no "exit strategy" -- yes we do, just not a timetable for public consumption; that our soldiers are committing atrocities and the Iraqi people hate us -- the record and the soldier blogs and the civilian Iraqi blogs and the (none-too-American-friendly) media don't support that; and so many other criticisms that make it seem like Bush should have had heaven-on-earth yesterday but doesn't so he's evil and this war is Vietnam.  No. It's not. And no amount of saying it is will make it so. Thompson realizes that and now realizes that the left in this country can't come to grips with that.

So please, don't over-simplify a man's 40-plus year journey distilled into a few paragraphs because you choose to focus on one contradiction that is only a contradiction in the minds' eye of people who share your political proclivities; because a significant portion of this country -- a majority even, if the last Presidential election is any indicator -- disagrees with your assessment... and that majority now includes Mr. Thompson,

Cheers.

my grandfather considered sending my dad to Canada if his number had come up

allways to pick the minority view is noted, let's hope this continues.

But surely you see your problem don't you?

Your argument is necessarily premised on Thompson having been right on both Vietnam AND Iraq.

His argument is premised on

Liberals formerly having loved freedom and now hating it.

Bit I disagree with your assessment of Iraq and many many many disagreed with Thompson's assessment of Vietnam in 1968 and 1972 and even today.

See, it is not a question of who loved freedom when - Thompson's argument here - but who is right on the efficacy of the respective war, be it Vietnam or Iraq.

I am not saying he has to have been for Vietnam to be for Iraq, or vice versa.

I am saying he cannot accuse me of hating freedom because I oppose the war in Iraq when he opposed a war for "freedom loving" people in vietnam.

I don't think he was for Ho or against freedom in Vietnam and he should not think I was for Saddam or against freedom in Iraq.

and this is where the rhetoric about Iraq is full of it.  I saw no evidence of Iraqi citizens under sadam 'longing for freedom,' and see very little today.

People 'longing for freedom' in the former Eastern block walked into red square to protest afganistan and got whisked away to prisons, many never seen again.  They did it knowing that there was a slight chance that their 5 minute protest would be captured by film and might make it out to the world.

People 'longing for freedom' tore down the berlin wall without any help from a US psyops towtruck.  

People 'longing for freedom' took on the red army  in Poland and fought and died against the Nazis in France.

A modern day example - lebanon, clearly the counter-protest against Hezbollah and Syria.

Maybe I'm too jaded, but I saw none of that in Iraq.  I don't believe you can run a revolution by proxie - all you can do is occupy, along the lines of the Marshall plan, what we plan on doing in Afghanastan (i hope).  

Doverspa made a comment earlier this thread along the lines of, "liberals believe that democracy wont work there".  Well, ya, I guess I don't.  Not because of any inherent inability to have it, certainly, but because they didn't really want it.  If they didn't have enough passion to wfight for it initially, what makes you think they will want it badly enough to keep it?

Given that my minority views invariably win elections, I'll stick with them, while you can keep sticking with majority views that consign you and yours to minority status.

I'll allow you to ponder the paradox for a while.

not mine.

"His argument is premised on

Liberals formerly having loved freedom and now hating it."

No, it's premised on liberals of today belittling the very real steps for freedom taking place in Iraq in the name of political expediency. That's hardly accusing them of "hating freedom."

"Bit I disagree with your assessment of Iraq..."

As I suspected.  And that's the crux of it.  Thompson -- I assume -- agrees with my assessment and disagree with yours, and neither he nor I nor many many many people see any contradiction in his opposition to Vietnam but support for Iraq.

The rest of your comment, since it's based on the false notion that Thompson accuses you of "hating freedom," is superfluous.

"My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom."

Adapted for Thompson re: Vietnam:

"My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming . .. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate Lyndon b. Johnson more than they love freedom."

Sorry, your argument holds no water at all.

to the cost of military expenditures on the war on terror, not just the cost of the war in Iraq.

This from the May 19, 2005, Christian Science Monitor (hardly a left wing rag):

As for all military operations combined, add in the $50 billion in war spending the Senate Armed Services Committee last week added to the fiscal 2006 defense budget bill, and the total will surpass $320 billion in US funds.

This of course neglects homeland security spending--which is also borrowed money--and who knows how much money we spend on "black ops" and intelligence operations related to the GWOT.

And go back to sleep.

If you didn't see the men trying to chop down the Saddam statue with an axe before the psyops truck arrived then you must not have been watching TV. If you didn't see the 8 million people go vote under threat of murder and then hold up their ink-stained fingers then you must not have eyes.

Think: three decades of Stalinist-style oppression by Saddam and a disgusting tacit approval of such by the West during the Cold War, during which time the West was actively promoting revolution in those Eastern bloc countries you cite -- countries that were already more technologically advanced at the citizen level; then, after Desert Storm the coalition buggered off rather than march to Baghdad and remove Saddam, so Saddam brutally suppressed the revolution that we encouragedin the south. After all that, they were a little gun-shy in demonstrating prior to our arrival... And I can't blame them for waiting to make sure we would finish the job and remove Saddam before rejoicing since we'd burned them before...

But really, you don't approve. I'm glad you're able, from thousands of miles away, to assess whether or not people desire self-determination simply because the media hasn't shown images of thousands of people demonstrating to your satisfaction. With such clarivoyance, you should get in touch with Dion Warwick for employment.

Thanks for your input.

I should correct one facet of my original post, that Master and Commander here made me think of.  The Kurds have fought against Sadam pretty consistantly for over a decade, and I think its pretty clear they want some sort of democracy and are likely to get it.

So thats my counterarguement to my previous post.  Whatever we do in Iraq, I think the Kurds will make something good out of it.

You continue to base your critique on a notion that Iraq=Vietnam and there's no two ways about it.

Wrong.

Thompson states in that quote that the left is cheering against the progress in Iraq because they hate Bush, not because they hate the progress. That's pretty much what I said in my quote.

I'll say it again: Iraq is not Vietnam; the left's complaints about Vietnam are not the same as their complaints about Iraq; and the chasm between the two is significant enough to make his shift entirely consistent.

I am not complaining about the sacrifices my wife voluntarily makes.  I am complaining that the Right in this country is all too willing to demand sacrifices of people like me and my wife while they seem unwilling to make any sacrifice, even monetary (other than the $1.99 for the "Support our Troops" magnet), to "win" this war.  And believe me, military members are sneering at those magnets.

During the Vietnam War, at least people who ostensibly supported the war but were unwilling to face combat had to at least put some effort forth to avoid putting their lives on the line.  They had to enroll in college, get married, get their wife pregnant, etc. and apply for a deferment.  Or they had to use family connections to snag a coveted spot in the National Guard to avoid overseas assignments.  Nowadays, all you have to do is ignore a recruiter.  

And even during Vietnam the career military was not stretched so thin.  My father-in-law's experience was typical.  Two tours, three tops, in Vietnam for career soldiers was standard unless they volunteered for additional tours.

Thompson states explicitly that the left does love freedom, but that they hate Bush more, and that hatred for Bush prevents them from cheering for the freedom which they do love:

"...cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom."

And that is the "political expediency" end of things. They do like the freedom the Iraqis are getting, but hate that a Republican (worse yet, a conservative) is doing it, and is couching it in absolute terms of good v. evil. My guess is that, like in Kosovo, they would have no real problem with the whole she-bang if a Dem were in the White House and conducting it, even if they talked about it in the same terms of good v. evil.

My argument depends not one whit on Iraq being Vietnam.

My argument is simple - Vietnam was a war for freedom in Vietnam - Thompson opposed it.

Iraq is NOW a fight for freedom in Iraq (it was about WMD) - I oppose it.

Thompson's criticisms of opposition to Iraq applies to his opposition in Vietnam.

See, he was the one to ignore the details of WHY folks oppose Iraq. Ignoring the details of his opposition to Vietnam leads to the same critique.

His piece is an empty hypocritical piece.

It is absurd.

You argue well, but you are not arguing what Thompson argued.

First, i could say his opposition to Vietnam was done due to his hatred of LBJ and I would have as much of an argument.

Indeed, I juxtaposed it just like that.

It is not because we hate Bush. Ill will for Bush is due to many thing, incuding his Iraq policy. The hatred came after his errors, not before.

the same with LBJ.

He hates Johnson more.

You get nowhere with this.

False characterization does not save his argument.

Because I can falsely characterize his opposition to Vietnam as well.

He leaves the Left for his own reasons, I would argue primarily because he support the war in Iraq, not because of any change in Liberalism.

He should have said that and not pretended Liberals had left him.

Ok, i'll accept that you're not arguing Vietnam=Iraq.  But what you pretty much just stated is equally wrong.  It seems to me now that you equate the complaints of the left against Vietnam with the complaints of the left against Iraq.

Neither Thompson nor I equate them.  And he states, as noted in comment #102, that the left does love freedom, but hates Bush too much to acknowledge the good happening in Iraq.  And that is why he left the left

Look at this thread.  There are a lot of smart people here.  You disagree about politics and you are arguing to death some guys article about his change in political affiliation.

Can't you talk about issues?  Better yet, can't you come up with a goal that both Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals as American Citizens, want to see accomplished?

Our politicians are busily blowing hot air about changing the rules so their party can get their way.  Can't we the people be a little more constructive?

because he doesn't give you enough to do so.

You've manufactured so many meanings and motives in this discussion about why he did things then and now. He never states explicitly why he disliked Vietnam, he merely calls it all a "misadventure."  So to impute any motives would be speculation, at best.

It's very difficult to be a recovering leftist.  I know it.  David Horowitz certainly knows it.  Anyone who has ever tried it realizes how difficult it is to change their entire view of the world -- and it amount to nothing less than that.  I wish him a lot of luck, and I applaud his perspicacity, but in a sense I feel sorry for him, too:  it's tragic that he had to come to this realization through the force of such overwhelming evidence.  It's a terrible shock.

Everyone at RedState should send him an email and wish him their best.

I use his simplistic frame -"not loving freedom enough" and apply it to his action on Vietnam.

It's called "being hoisted by your own petard."

His critique is easily applied to his actions on Vietnam.

It is as simple as that.

I can't believe you'd come here and lecture us on what's appropriate to argue and what's not.  i think you did it because you hate freedom and think all people missing a digit should be flown to the moon.  

But now that you've come by, Nanny, I see the error of my ways and will forever and forthwith refrain from arguing about anything not approved as "important" by dissension in the ranks.  In fact, this blog should be titled "DITR's forum: where only this guy's topics and arguments are discussed."

Go suck an egg, killjoy.

It seems to me you miss my point - I apply his technique to his actions.

Proving the emptiness of his argument.

You've equated two things that he and I do not equate.  And therein lies the tension, and the impetus for his departure from your ranks.  

I'm glad we could resolve this.

Cheers.

He didn't manufacture the opposition to Iraq, he reads the headlines and listens to the left's talking points... not muc manufacturing needed... and then he notices that they are opposed to what he and others said about Vietnam -- things which he decided not to relate here.  Again, he never states why he opposed Vietnam, but does explain the leftist positions that turned him off these days.

This is getting too thin to read, and I believe we've reached the crux, as stated above.  You will continue to insist that he's illogical, and I'll insist it makes sense; and we'll both have our very good reasons for thinking so, based on a fundamental disagreement.

I'm out.

Cheers.

because it destroys his argument.

the comparison is obvious.

Which was my poit all along.

Because you and he ignore the obvious hypocrisy does not mean it does not exist.

I give you actual paragraphs of reasoning. I go though the trouble of pulling out quotes from what Thompson actually wrote and try to give some sort of explanation. You on the other hand just made stupid nide remarkd and don't even bother to engage in a meaningful way.

This is why conversation and debate with many current liberal Democrats has become impossible for most of us. You treat us like idiots incapable of understanding your brilliant observations, so you don't even bother to say that as if we are too low to converse with. That is the elitism that upsets everybody and that is seen as the heart of the left.

Say something intelligent with that supposed big brain of yours. If you are so superior to me, you should be able to defend a simple claim like the column was written poorly. If not, then just sit down, shut up, and stop interrupting everybody else.

now you fall into circular reasoning - since he is right in his characterizations therefore he is right in his characterizations.

He is wrong however. I can make the same characterizations of him on vietnam.

And when you strip away to the bare facts, he stands exposed as a hypocrite. His argument makes no sense.

 

He didn't equate it because it destroys the argument you've imputed upon him.  That's like saying Catholics don't deny Peter went to Rome because it destroys the Roman Catholic Church... OF COURSE he didn't say it, because he DIDN'T MEAN FOR IT TO BE SAID.

Why do you insist that he meant something that only became connected in your mind?  YOU made that connection between Vietnam and Iraq, not he.  Now you're saying he's illogical because he meant to say something that is in fact illogical, but that he NEVER SAID.  

it's like when Bill Press, in the wake of the Koran in toilet fabrication, on Hannity and Colmes said "Well, it could have happened!"...  Yeah, and JFK could have shot himself somehow (after all, the top of his head DID explode upward and back)...  

Argue against what is actually said, not what you wish had been said.

honestly i took his description of opposition to Iraq and creditably applied to his actions on Vietnam.

It is pretty darn simple.

you seem to have some theory that because he did not characterize Vietnam in those words it is unfair for me to do so.

hogwash.

As I said, the application is obvious and apt. you provide not one argument why it is not.

they're his characterizations, with little supporting explanation for why he thought the way he did...  You're the one who assigned a fully-developed thought process to his conclusions.  You're the one who said his reasons for opposing Vietnam were the same as the reasons the left opposes Iraq, not he.  He offered no hint as to why he opposed Vietnam, just stated that he did.

He's entitled to his characterizations, and his thought-processes, and his conclusions, and doesn't have to give you every last detail, especially not in an op ed not intended to be exhaustive.

I hope you never get upset when someone imputes motives upon you that you did not intend, simply because you used that motive in a previous, similar context.  Because that's what you just "simply" did.

I find it interesting, Rotwang how you veer off into "101st Parachuting Keyboardist" territory, even though it has little to do with this discussion.  You really should have just copied your comment from the "Shrieking of Rectitude" post... here, I'll do it for you:

"How about showing support by at least being willing to spend a little money on this war instead of funding this war entirely on borrowed money?  Except for the uniformed military, the president has not asked for one ounce of sacrifice from the people of this country for this war, and except for slapping a magnet on their SUVs most people in this country have been unwilling to sacrifice anything for this war.  How can we justify cutting taxex during a war that has already cost $300 billion?  Why does our energy policy refuse to seriously address lowering depedency on oil consumption through developing alternatives and mandating conservation (by more stringent CAFE standards and higher gas taxes)?

And before you attack me personally, I have sacrificed personally.  My wife is getting ready to go back for her second tour in Kuwait."

I realize you probably wanted to embellish your sacrifice a bit, but you could have changed your stock argument to fit this post a little better.  

This is a medium length newspaper column. It wouldn't even make a short magazine article. Your standard for the depth of explanation you want is drastically out of touch with what is possible within the confine of the limited column space. You hold this unreasonable standard simply because you disagree with it. When Krugman writes columns with even greater wholes, he is upheld as a great polemicist.

Why was he NOT celebrating the Vietnam election of 1967? Why was he AGAINST freedom for Vietnam? Did he hate LBJ so much?

This is the first even whiff of an argument and it only comes in a couple of rhetorical questions.

(1) The column isn't nearly large enough to offer a detailed constasting between the anti-war left of the '60s and anti-war left of today. However, obviously the author does see a difference or he wouldn't hold his current views would he? Just because the physics of newsprint don't allow for a hundred page dissertation to fit in six inches doesn't mean the column is bad. It is just a reflexion of reality.

(2) Thompson would know this much better than I, since I wasn't even conceived at the time, so the best I could do would be to guess at what he sees as the difference. However, let me make a few short guesses that Thompson might agree with:

(a) In the 1967 election people were threatened to go to the polling station, while in the 2005 they were theatened to not go. And in 1967 they thought not voting would get them labeled as against the country, while in 2005 voting would get them labeled as against the country.

(b) The 1967 Vietnamese widely saw the election as rigged, but the 2005 Iraqis widely saw the election as fair.

The implication is that the Vietnamese saw the election as something unwanted, and while the Iraqis didn't want the war, they saw the election was something to risk their lives for.

However, this is actually something you could say something intelligent about. Like I wrote in a previous comment, calling into question the fairness of the election is fair grounds. However, you don't even bother to. Either you think I am too stupid to understand what you want to say or you are too stupid to say it. I don't know for sure which one it is, but I think it might be the first.

(P.S., I was actually in Washington before the Iraq War to work to prevent it, so don't bother to label me a pro-war. I wrote about it on Kuro5hin occassionally after I got back.)

Armando, you wrote:  "I am saying he cannot accuse me of hating freedom because I oppose the war in Iraq when he opposed a war for "freedom loving" people in vietnam."

Thompson did not accuse you of that.  Because someone says "because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom" does not mean that Thompson is accusing the Left of hating freedom.

for an answer because I am still angry about this war and the false patriotism of the right.  Patriotism without sacrifice is nothing but posturing.

And it has everything to do with this post because this post condemns the left for being soft on everything from communism to the war on terror and the article (if you read the whole thing) accuses the left of forgetting about duty.  Here is a paragraph from the article that is not cited in the post:

Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.

Now it is all well and good to complain about "leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens".  But where are the Rightists who speak of the duties of citizens.  I see rightists demanding more tax cuts but I don't see them talking about the duties of citizens either.  In fact the idea that we have any duty to sacrifice for the common good seems to be alien to the modern conservative movement.

I don't care what you are willing to accept.  I was referring to this comment by you:

"The objections to the Iraq policy are not because of the "help" for oppressed people, it is because, as policy, it was spectacularly catastrophic and was carried out in incompetent fashion.

If saying that makes one unacceptable, then the truth has become unacceptable."

I will say it again:  your comment was perfectly acceptable, but unserious... or I can say it was hyperbolic, and then you can come back with " Oh yeah? well, Keith Thompson is hyperbolic."

Ho Chi Minh may have been OK to a half-baked 20 year old in 1968, but must he still be OK to the same person in 2005?  Must a person always migrate to the Left for change to be authentic? I am trying to follow you argument, but I must have missed something.

Step away from the Ho, Armando.

"Just because it is real does not make it logical, and thus a ridiculous argument." OK...

  I'm going to  say this another way: They are leaving your party, and they are taking their votes with them.  Do you think repeating your tired, worn arguments louder and slower will make them come back?  

To quote Keith Thompson:

"This was all that my 10-year-old psyche needed to know. The knowledge carried me for a long time. Mythologies are helpful that way."

But somewhere along the line, he had doubts and changed his mind about some things.  Is that so wrong? Is that so hard to understand?

There is only one thing worse than the realization that you are 40 years old and you are no longer living your life according to the ideals of your youth.

And that is realizing that you are 40 years old and you are living your life according to the ideals of a youth.

Maybe I'm too jaded, but I saw none of that in Iraq.

You're too jaded.  Despite threats of terrorist acts, eight million Iraqis longed freedom enough to vote in the first democratic election in over fifty years.

Thompson said nothing in opposition about us "going to Vietam".  We were already there in 1968.  All he said was that he supported two candidates who "promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam".  Why are you unable to fathom that the only point he was trying to make was to establish his historical liberal bona fides?  Thompson said nothing about "freedom loving people in Vietnam".  He also wrote nothing about supporting Ho.  If you're so interested in the facts, Armando, why all the unfounded speculation on your part?  And why are you smearing him with all these baseless conclusions of yours?  It would seem so much more reasonable for you to spend less time disparaging those who left the liberal fold, and more time wondering why you're alienating these people in the first place.  It would also be much more reasonable for you--rather than say he's full of it just on your say so--to explain why he's such a misguided soul.  "Because I'm Armando" is not a reason to be persuaded to your line of thinking.  All I'm really getting from you is your misinterpretation and misreading of his all-too-brief reference to Vietnam.  Quite frankly, you're not making sense.

How come it was ok to be for McCarthy, McGovern, Ho Chi Minh - that was "good" liberalism - the freedom loving people of Vietnam be darned - but that liberalism was abandoned by opposing the Iraq war?

Where exactly did Thompson make reference to Ho Chi Minh and the "freedom loving people of Vietnam"?  Oh yeah, he didn't.  Sounds to me like you're inventing reasons to criticize him, basing your rationale on things that Thompson never even wrote.  Again, Armando, he brought up McCarthy and McGovern in order to establish his longtime links with liberalism and liberal causes.

Also, is it not possible that the liberalism of the 1960s is the not the liberalism of the 21st century?  Is it not possible that the leaders of the Left took the cause too far around the bend?  That seems to be what he was writing about when he said, "Just as a body needs different medicines at different times for different reasons, this also holds for the body politic."

I'll refrain from holding my breath for a rebuttal.

I do not believe that the National Liberation Front, the successor to the Viet Minh which defeated the French and which, in the eyes of the Vietnamese people, freed the country from the yoke of Western imperialism, can be denied a role as a political force in the future of South Vietnam. The Front is the government in large parts of the country. It is just not feasible to try to 'roll back' a political structure that is deeply rooted in the thoughts and feelings of the people; nor is it necessary from the point of view of American interests.

I've been saying that I intended to stop the war, and I've been, I think, explaining how, by proceeding to negotiate a coalition government, or at least to be prepared to accept a coalition government.

While the United States should not insist on specific agreements, we should press the Saigon government to enter into negotiations with the NLF as a political force. The question of whether there should be a coalition government, or an interim government, or some other mechanism, can be settled among the Vietnamese themselves.

Let me say that--as I am sure I shall be charged--I am not for peace at any price, but for an honorable, rational and political solution to this war....

There wasn't much difference between the mainstream pro-war and anti-war positions in '67-'68.  One was for a conditional end to bombings and the other for an unconditional, unilateral end to bombings.  One was for a democratic south sans NLF and the other was for a democratic south with NLF participation.  It's really not that complicated.  McCarthy never did triumph the radical anti-war positions and has since stated that he was not with them.

National Security Archive interview:

INT: What links did you and your campaign have with the anti-war movement?

EM: We didn't have any kind of formal links with them - you know, they were kind of doing their own thing. In fact, some of them were a little upset when we started the campaign saying we were draining off energy; they were more radical. And they weren't harmful, but they weren't much help to us. So... I wouldn't say we distanced ourselves from them: we just sort of let them do their own act.

His main disagreements were with further escalations, bombing in relation to negotiations, and the inclusion of the NLF.  In the end all that he wanted happened.  There were no mass deployments after '68.  Troops in theater peaked around 550,000 and declined every year thereafter.  Bombing was unilaterally halted more than once to spur negotiations.  And the NLF was brought into the game in '69.  McCarthy was not opposed to intervention in Vietnam.  He subsequently voted for the Tonkin resolution.  And he supported the goals of the administration--democracy in south Vietnam.  He merely disagreed with the policies enacted to achieve those goals.  He was not a Kucinich or Dean of '68.  If anything he was a Kerry of '68.

And just for the record...the radical anti-war positions in 1968 were championed by McGovern in '72.  Questioning the initial intervention.  Reunification of north and south Vietnam.  Immediate, unilateral withdrawal of all U.S. personnel and support.  And for this McGovern got 18,000,000 fewer votes than Nixon.

Suggesting googling was obviously a bad idea.  After 3 hours I never did find the full text of any of his speeches in the Senate or on the campaign trail.  

Anyways, your contradiction still doesn't exist.  McCarthy was pro-democracy in south Vietnam and there's no inconsistency in the author's article.

I am not complaining about the sacrifices my wife voluntarily makes.

versus

I am complaining that the Right in this country is all too willing to demand sacrifices of people like me and my wife

Military life is sacrafice.  

It is not necessary to be a combatant to see the wisdom of war against terror states.

How is the US better served if your wife has more time stateside?  How is the US better served if the Bush daughters join the Army as nurses?  

In no way.  

Recruitment goals for the active service are still being met.  

Civilian sacrafice would just be symbolic and wasteful.

Recruitment goals for active and reserves are not being met.  

Even if they were, the current policy is breaking the Army and the Marine Corps.  We are running out of both personnel and materiel for this war.  To continue to try and fight this war and pretend we can do it at the current manpower levels is preposterous.  And to rely on the Reserves and National Guard to do it borders on criminal.

Symbolism is a powerful thing.  Why do you think the Army tried to pretend Pat Tillman wasn't killed by friendly fire?  It would be wonderful symbolism for the Bush twins to enlist, although of course they are not qualified to be nurses.  It is the modern military though.  There are lots of positions available for women, some pretty close to the fighting.  

It is certainly not wasteful to pay for at least part of this war out of current tax receipts rather than expecting our children to pay for it.  In World War II, the Government raised taxes and borrowed most of the money to pay for the war.  And most of the borrowed money was borrowed directly from the citizens of the United States in the form of War Bonds.  Who is paying for this war?  The Chinese?

OBL is your friend not your enemy, without 9/11 Bush wouldn't have stood a chance in 2004.

But like the man said - "you can't fool all of the people all of the time" - there will be a reckoning.

Ponder that!

Dude, you lose on this one.

Moreover, he is not disvowing his position in 68 and 72.

He says the Left did.

You're trolling here. The first clause of your first line is metonymic of your time here to date. Begin adding substantively to debate around here or pack up and au revoir.

Insofar as the rest of your comment has substance -- which is like accusing Rosie O'Donnell of having self-control where a table of whipped cream pastries is concerned -- I know, I know, if only the people actually listened to Democrat ideas, then the Donkeys would win. That's what y'all have said pretty much every year since 1980. Keep running with that -- and be sure to keep backhandedly insulting the American public while you're at it. That consistently brings in the votes.

OK, Armando, let's try it this way.  Since he does not say when he was ten, let's assume he was a good baby boomer and he was 10 in 1958.  That means he was 20 in 1968.  Now I will repeat his quote for you:

"This was all that my 10-year-old psyche needed to know. The knowledge carried me for a long time. Mythologies are helpful that way."

"The knowledge carried me for a long time."

"The knowledge carried me for a long time."

"The knowledge carried me for a long time."

Ten years is a long time for me, but judging by the haste evident in your comments, ten minutes is a long time for you. However since this is all hypothetical I will just leave it at that, although I am not sure what you mean by this:

"Moreover, he is not disvowing his position in 68 and 72.

He says the Left did."

Are you trying to say that the Left disavowed his position in 68 and 72?  

You'll find wrong-headedness as well as wide-spread decency on both sides of the political divide.  Remember being among people of only one outlook when you were young?  It sounds like you have been influenced by a concentrated single outlook again.  The only attitudes I've observed among Dem friends match my own -- all are encouraged, even enthusiastic, about the courage the Iraqi people showed by going to the polls.

Your disgust with some Dems seems well-placed, but you can attack their narrow-mindedness better from within, and I wish you would.

And by the way, you can ignore Armando.  Your article was well-written.

said the Left disavowed its position. That is the whole point of his column.

The Left left him.

And the whole point of my critique is how absurd that argument is.

He's drawing a line connecting four forms of oppression, and noting that while 'liberals' once were on his side, they are now on the opposite.

He joined the left to oppose oppression of people here at home.

He supported the left when they opposed oppression in Spain.

He offended the left when he opposed oppression in the USSR.

He broke with the left when he oppposed oppression in the Muslim world.

The narrative might be easier to follow if you're used to it, because conservatives have told this story before.  So yes, maybe he could have been clearer in drawing this line.

...here is you and your restatement of a demonstrably fallacious notion.  

keep saying it often enough and you will continue to believe it.  doesn't make it so, though.

Absurdity is not subjective.  Your inability to grasp the actual meaning of the man's words, despite the many well reasoned attempts to help you out, does not render his post "absurd," but it certainly does demonstrate your confusion and white-knuckled, self-blinded, foot-stamping adherence to your position by virtue of it being your position. It really is an example of what Thompson left and what reasonable people (conservative or liberal -- though I find fewer of them on the left) find so daggone annoying about extremists on either side.

May you find peace and a nice padded room.

Cheers.

where he said he was becoming a Republican, just that he was leaving the "left," presumably to call himself "conservative" or some such thing -- which is certainly not synonymous with "GOP."  So he may well retain his Dem registration, but cease to align and surround himself with left-wing influences.  I could have missed it though.