Comments Posted By ed
Displaying 181 To 190 Of 205 Comments
THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT
From the home office, Dick Cheney's Top 10 Excuses for Shooting That Guy:
10. Sure, like you've never seen seen giant game birds wearing day glo orange vests
9. Warrantless domestic spying revealed he was getting phone calls from al Queda
8. If the Vice President does it, its not against the law
7. Hoping to put him in a persistent vegetative state so the GOP could pass a law to keep him alive
6. Thought he was hunting Dan Quayle
5. The love between them could not survive back in Washington
4. Birds, Cows, People-- with my eyesight I'm lucky I hit anything
3. Positive the guy's family will welcome him as a liberator
2. Pheasants? I thought we were hunting peasants
and the number one Cheney excuse for shooting that guy:
Comment Posted By Ed On 13.02.2006 @ 15:52
1. Open season on liberals started early this year
A DEAD WRONG HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF 9/11
This is perhaps one of the most disingenuous pieces of writing ever posted here. The opening premise of the post is that historian Ellis cannot write history about 9/11 because it is too soon after the event. The actual premise of the article appears later. It is a strong defense of Bush's policies in conducting the War on Terror.
"Simply put, Ellis is dead wrong in trying to train his historian’s eye on 9/11:"
The author of this post relates Ellis's attempt to place 9/11 in context of other threats to American national security, specifically the Revolution, War of 1812, the Civil War and the Cold War as greater threats than 9/11. These threats are dismissed in quite curious manners. The Revolution was no threat, according to Moran, because even if Britain had prevailed militarily, the colonists would have defeated them later, according to some unidentified "school of thought". There is just nothing in history that would indicate extremely repressive measures to control the colonists might have been implemented if Britain would have achieved military victory (wink, wink). Even more curious is the notion that the Civil War, or perhaps for Mr. Moran, the Great Rebellion, was not a threat equal to 9/11.
"But for the same reason that even if the northern states had given up at some point during the Civil War the United States would have come back together at some point. The ties of history, commerce, and culture were too natural and too strong to break, even by war."
Well, what's a little secession among friends? Moran argues that secession is not really a long-term threat. If secession of states is not really a threat to the structural integrity on American governance structure (hey, they get back together anyway!), the logical extension would be that Lincoln was wrong in waging the Civil War, and certainly wrong in the suspension of habeas corpus.
The Cold War threat is minimized as well.
“I can’t argue that 9/11 was a greater threat to national security than the Cuban missile crisis. But I can certainly point out that the professor is comparing apples and oranges by failing to differentiate between an event like the Cuban missile crisis and the ongoing threat posed by those who perpetrated the attack on the Trade Centers. Taking the Cold War in its totality and putting it into the context of an existential threat to the survival of the United States is all well and good. But even here, given the implacable nature of our enemies compared to the Russians who after all were not willing to destroy themselves in order to defeat us, one has to take into account the fanaticism of the jihadists in order to appreciate the current threat – something I don’t believe the professor does.â€
Apples and oranges comparison? The tragic and horrible deaths of 9/11 are equal to or more important, as a threat to our national survival, than the potential detonation of tens of thousands of nuclear bombs in a Soviet Union/United States exchange? Someone so informed of history surely realizes that the exchange of warheads was only narrowly averted. Fanaticism of the terrorists and their potential for getting a nuclear bomb? First, carefully review what it takes to deliver and detonate such a weapon. Not as easy as learning to steer a plane. Second, as the Soviets did not wish to be destroyed, do the terrorist sponsoring states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran wish destruction? They certainly do a lot of self-protective behaviors that make that conclusion difficult to accept, and their cooperation and funding would be needed for terrorists to detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States. Terrorists are certainly fanatics. Let us remember only one entity has ever actually unleashed nuclear weapons to kill people. Over 120,000 people died in two bombings, 40 times the death toll of 9/11. Certainly the act of fanatics, no? Civilized people could never do such a thing.
“Do I detect a whiff of partisanship in the professor’s notation that there has been an “overreaction†to 9/11?â€
Now we get to real beef Mr. Moran has with Ellis. Ellis makes the argument that the reaction of the Bush administration to 9/11 is overreaction, in a historical context. Moran sees this as a political attack on Bush, the war and supposed violation of law in the NSA wiretapping issue. The deeply partisan Mr. Moran, in keeping his street cred with the conservative hard core, presents all of the above attacks on Ellis as a historian and his historical conclusions regarding 9/11 as lacking historical merit, when his real agenda is the political defense of the President. He even uses, as Moran frequently does, the patented conservative dismissive condescension toward the renowned historian.
"I will defer to the professor’s superior knowledge and judgment about how “lamentable†each of these reactions to crisis was in “retrospect.â€
Disingenuous. Using historical context and a historian you pretend to admire as a strawman for the defense of President Bush is beneath even a Republican.
Please feel free to call me stupid and ban me from commenting. I expect no less.
Comment Posted By ed On 28.01.2006 @ 12:45
TED RALL, ALL AMERICAN TRAITOR
Rick Moran:
I agree. What one choses to write, and how it is expressed, reveals a great deal about one's character.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.12.2005 @ 14:32
Its easy to write this type of stuff off as the ill-considered, fluffy, brainless goop that it is. The problem is that there is an apparently sizable market for Ralls. Someone's buying this crap or it would go away.
On the other hand, I can't begin to comprehend a half billion dollar investment in Howard Stern's pee-pee, doo-doo, oohhh look, boobies show either. Apparently, stupid is a bull market.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.12.2005 @ 11:42
docdave:
I respectfully disagee that specific opinions are not of value. Ideas drive behavior for individuals and nations. Political debate is vital. Your statement that emotions drown out debate is so true. In some quarters it seems mandatory to hate Bush if you disagree with him about anything. This also seemed to be the atmosphere during the Clinton years.
You stated that the proper retaliation for 9/11 was against the known enemy. The operations to shut down the terrorist training camps of the Taliban and the attacks on bin Laden fit the bill. It is vital to identify and neutralize further terrorist threats. A major problem is that wars happen between states. The terrorists are not nations, so the primary fight must, by definition, be law enforcement efforts and spying operations to intercede in planned terrorist attacks and the funding sources that can make the attacks possible. Military action can only be an adjunct to these efforts.
I agree that nations that support terrorists are indeed enemies. Since we cannot declare war on all of those nations, we are back to the painstaking efforts to identify and intercede in terrorist plots, useful planning in handling the results of attacks on American soil, and putting political and economic pressure on terrorist supporting nations. But then again, that's just one opinion.
Comment Posted By ed On 7.12.2005 @ 20:39
Eric, my suggestion was to follow his lead in being thoughtful and articulate in writing. I frequently disagree with Rick's positions, per my first comment in the thread, but I do appreciate the thought that goes into his writing.
Comment Posted By ed On 7.12.2005 @ 18:01
DaveG, that's quite a compliment. Thank you. This blog is so thoughtful and well written, it behooves all commenters to try to follow Mr. Moran's lead. We can go to the Huffington Post if we just want to call each other asshats.
Comment Posted By ed On 7.12.2005 @ 17:18
Excellent argument as always. The problem is that the argument is based on an assumption that the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are synonymous. They are not. The current Republican effort to say that the reasons for getting into the war are no longer a worthy topic of discussion is tacit admission that going into Iraq (as a part of the War on Terror) was misguided.
Terrorism was not a problem in Iraq under Saddam. The brutal bastard would never tolerate any form of opposition or resistance. Our efforts in Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and bin Laden were correct responses to 9/11. Eliminating the terrorist training camps, cutting into terrorist funding mechanisms, etc. were needed and effective efforts.
Stating that Saddam supported terrorists, was a brutal dictator, and was developing WMD were true statements, but not sufficient to trigger an invasion. The Arab world is filled with brutal, undemocratic governments (as is Asia and Africa). Should we have not invaded Iran with the rationale provided for the invasion of Iraq? A much more involved supporter of terrorism, clearly more advanced in developing WMD's than Iraq, and wildly undemocratic and openly threatening to the U.S.
Why are we not pursuing better preparation for terrorist attacks in America? Katrina exposed our lack of preparation for a major attack on America. Our borders are porous, open to terrorist infiltration at will. Our first responders still do not have a seamless communication network. Congress fights to spend anti-terrorist funding as typical pork (spend in my district so I can brag about bringing home the bacon in my next campaign), not on the likelihood of being an attack target.
It is nearly impossible to see how the fighting factions in Iraq will come together peaceably, no matter how long we stay. I would love to be wrong about this, but the past remains the best predictor of the future.
That said, the Democratic party is floundering, without direction or purpose. Every society or social group requires forces that promote change and forces that promote stability. The Democrats have traditionally been the progressive, or change component. This is needed as external and internal forces change the landscape. Too much or too rapid change can destroy the society, and respect for tradition and working traditional institutions is needed for continuity and stability. This has been the traditional role of the Republicans.
As the Democrats have become defenders of their outdated status quo (can there be a bigger failure than the War on Poverty?), the Republicans have been put in a position as being both the agents of stability and the agents of change. It is untenable for one component of a social system to do both. The natural results of trying to do both are corruption and lies, ala Tom Delay, etc. (The same results occurred when Democrats were in power.)
Democrats need to reformulate their goals and be an effective and useful opposition party for the 21st Century. Mr. Moran has drawn a correct conclusion regarding the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, conflating the questioning of the efforts in Iraq with seeking American failure is untrue. The 59 million Americans that voted for Kerry in 2004 (and the 61 million that voted for Bush) are largely patriotic. The fringe extremists that wish America harm, and they do exist, are a very small percentage of Americans.
Claiming all Democrats seek harm to America is disingenuous at best. If we want Democrats to step up and be real partners in the American efforts to defeat terrorism, some honesty from Republicans will be required.
Comment Posted By ed On 7.12.2005 @ 09:23
THE CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: THE SPOOKS BLOW IT AGAIN
Santay-thanks for the explanation. Kerry blew his chance at relevancy, but I have to admit to cringing every time the man speaks. The man can burn up massive amounts of words w/o saying anything.
Comment Posted By ed On 6.12.2005 @ 11:54
Santay-The Democratic party ran out of ideas and has been running on empty for decades, on that I assume we can agree. Your response to Mr. Moran's post on a serious threat to America is a smart ass, politicized comment. This knee jerk Rush Limbaugh-type thinking is why I am not a Republican. The party is filled with people who cannot look at any issue without trying to find how to use it against Democrats, in a pissy, condescending, dismissive manner. It is as if making a point in the above manner is more important than the actual point being made.
Comment Posted By ed On 5.12.2005 @ 15:13
The CIA is very ineffective in its primary mission of protecting the United States through covert means. The Republican's primary response is to worry about how CIA leaks damage the party, instead of the real risk America is placed in with a primary spy agency that cannot do its job.
Republicans have been in the majority and in control for decades. Act like a governing party, not a poor, picked on, petulant child. Some of us independent types might wish to join you if the grown ups were in charge.
