You cannot be serious about depriving extreme left wing critics of the war of their anti-war vocabulary. Chickenhawk is a three syllable word which makes it difficult enough for them to pronounce. Once they have mastered the pronunciation of the word, and thus increased their vocabulary by at least 20%, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to prevent them from parroting the expression over and over, proudly. Be kind to the witless. They will not notice or acknowledge the kindness, partially because they lack the conceptual and verbal vocabulary to do so.

"Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" Anyonymous

I was visiting the President Eisenhower library this last weekend and saw the following poster there ...

http://www.snapshotsofthepast.com/tellthattothemarineswwiiwarposter.html

The hard fact of the Chicken Hawk label is that it is painful. You believe in the cause. You believe that what our country is doing is right. So why are you not fighting?

The label is painful because you ask yourself that everyday. But, it is something between you and your conscience. For a progressive to produce jokes and letters about the Republican cowards is rather funny to me.

Serving in the military is not about being Republican or Democrat. To quote General MacArthur the "great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution". So what is serving about? Duty, Honor, Country.

That goes beyond who is in office for 4 years. Beyond the legislative and judicial branches. It is about serving our country. We have a volunteer military and we expect the military to model the people it protects and serves. For example, 14% of our population is black and 15% of those serving in the military are black.

That representation should also extend across ideals. Polls show that in the general populous for every Democrat there is a Republican. But, in the military for every Democrat serving there are 6 Republicans serving.

My personal response to the low enlistment numbers: Where are the other 5?

I wouldn't endorse the chickenhawk argument except for the responses it elicits from most of the Republicans. (Maj. Sensing is an exception.) There was a pretty clear undercurrent that those liberals who did not support the Great Iraq Adventure were lacking in masculine fortitude—not necessarily the view of this site, but the meme was out there.

Most of our members either serve, have served, or plan to serve in the United States Armed Forces, or have participated in events or projects supporting the United States Armed Forces. We will not be intimidated.

Even though I don't claim to speak on his behalf, I hope nobody minds if I answer for Atrios:

Do you, Mr. Black, agree that you are kept free and safe only because my son and others like him are risking their lives on your behalf?

Yes

...What gives you the justification to speak against the war?

The First Amendment

...Do you agree that no one except veterans and presently-serving military members should ever decide when the nation shall go to war, and why?

No, because we don't live in Pakistan. It is the Congress of representatives who decides whether or not to go to war, but I'll bite. The answer is no of course. If this was true, Bush, nor anyone else in his administration, could have decided for war.

Bottom line is this: if I thought the standing army needed me AND ALSO I thought the cause was worth my life, I'd enlist. In WWII, both of these conditions were met for a whole lot of people and a whole lot of them signed up. So why no analogous outpouring for support even though condition 1, the army clearly needing soldiers, is met? Because for the most part, people don't think its worth their life.

So I wonder, for someone who claims that the conflict in Iraq (as opposed to the war against terrorism) is worth dying for, thus satisfying both conditions, why no desire to serve?

It's more of a rhetorical question than anything else. Probably a backhanded way of getting someone to admit that the Iraq conflict just isn't that important to them when it comes down to it. Where most of our (the left's) ire resides, though, is not with average joe's who think the Iraq war is a-ok. It's with the media blowhards and politician who pumped up, in my opinion, a bogus connection between Iraq and al-Qaida. Gov. Pataki is currently trying to get his Marine son out of having to serve. Doesn't that chap your guys' asses? I'd think it would. This is what we mean by "chicken hawk" Not Joe Sixpack, but the snakeoil salesmen who pitched the bill of goods, but would never in a million years touch the merchandise.

The cheap and dishonest namecalling of those using the "chickenhawk" slur is getting far more attention than it deserves.

The essential dishonesty of all those amused by using the slur is manifest in that they obviously have no intention to applying the label as anything more than cheap namecalling - they have no intention of turning it into anything so concrete as a principle.

Note that those who slandered President Bush with the label have never acknowledged that among the revelations of the investigation into Mary Mapes/Dan Rather's attempt to throw an election with forged documents was that Mapes had discovered witnesses to the fact that President Bush had actually volunteered to go to Vietnam when his unit sent a squadron of fighters there.

the military has spent the last 30 years drumming in the idea that enlisting is a career decision. Why would anyone be surprised that those for whom enlisting is clearly NOT a desirable career decision wouldnt enlist? You cant change a generation of cultural attitudes on a dime. And do we really want an army filled with right wing blogger types, who enlisted out of ideological fervor? Im skeptical. I think Id PREFER a military made up of guys enlisting for traditional reasons. More likely to make good soldiers, I think.

Also - If and when we do begin to draw down from Iraq, and enlisting cannot be tied to Iraq, rather than the general WOT, and general security needs, will we the exemption from the chickenhawk meme for Iraq war doves go away?

Liberalhawk
(who wanted to join the NG on Sept 12, 2001, but was too old)

Question for those on the left ...

Republicans out serve you 6 to 1 in the military. Why?

Would you rather it be greater than 6 to 1?

(Yes I am generalizing democrat = left and republican = right, but the 6 to 1 is very likely true still)

"Republicans out serve you 6 to 1 in the military. Why?"

Probably cause military values (order, etc) match better with GOP values than Dem one (self-expression, whatever). Also the GOP has traditionally been more inclined to spend money on military, etc. Also that many people from rural backgrounds enlist, and the Dems have fallen down in their appeal to poor rural folks. I suspect these numbers were different a few years ago, when the proportion of African Americans in the military were higher.

"Would you rather it be greater than 6 to 1?"

No. We should be getting people on BOTH sides to enlist. Not just Reps.

If and when we do begin to draw down from Iraq, and enlisting cannot be tied to Iraq, rather than the general WOT, and general security needs, will we the exemption from the chickenhawk meme for Iraq war doves go away?

I certainly hope so.

Robin, I was not alive back then and have no idea how I would have acted so I cannot make a value judgment on how others acted. Therefore, I will not call Bush's military service disgraceful. However, I hope it does not betray my prejudices too much to practically burst out laughing when I hear someone trying to convince me of the opposite - that Bush was in any way heroic or self-sacrificing when it came to service to his country. If you want valor, look no further than dubya's dad. But please don't even try to suggest that dubya himself, w/r/t military service, did anything but the bare minimum required (and at times even less than that).

liberalhawk:

As far as order vs self-expression, rural vs city, poor, etc. I think the defining reason is self sacrifice for the good of others. Conservatives understand it. To me it is the defining feature of what it means to be conservative.

Conservatives serve disproportionately in the military, police, and fire departments. And you may call it a desire for order. But, everyone of them know they are putting their life on the line for other people.

"We should be getting people on BOTH sides to enlist"

Well the dems better get busy. They are short 600,000 active duty members.

"But please don't even try to suggest that dubya himself, w/r/t military service, did anything but the bare minimum required (and at times even less than that)."

The fact that he served in the TANG shows that he did quite a bit more than the bare minimum required. Doing the bare minimum required would have led him to avoid service altogether through student deferments and the like. He certainly exposed himself to more danger than, say, Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney did.

Doing less than the minimum required would have led him to flee the country in anticipation of being drafted.

Bush wasn't anything near a war hero, but he wasn't a wastrel either.

Bush flew first generation all weather jet interceptors. That is a hell of a lot more dangerous than whatever Atrios and the other chickenchokers were did... nothing.

Silly post - false generalizations, not honoring the argument head on, not speaking in any personal terms about one's own relationship to the war, and the "chickenhawk" argument.

Silly.

Well, hit the send to soon - Sensing's arguments aren't silly, although Joe's hiding behind them are.

Nevertheless - if you believe in something like WAR passionately, it requires risk - and it isn't being done - and you impugn others courage who don't believe in the war - I'm sorry, but you should lead by example.

I think this is the same with firefighting or police work. If there aren't enough people to do it, the best thing to do is to lead by example, not from behind a keyboard.

This is WHY we honor our military, because they DO lead by example - and the examples of courage inspire us.

Horatio, your beliefs regarding George Bush's service are founded upon fundamental falsehoods. I am not responsible for the fact that you have adopted myths.

I think self sacrifice is not limited to one party or political persuasion - if you counted Peace Corps members, members of NGOs who serve in dangerous places, or just volunteers, blood donors, and the like, youd get different numbers. Making partisan remarks about the courage and self sacrifice of Dems, as arrasmith does, is just the sort of thing that tends to elicit the chicken hawk meme.

The proper response to the chickenhawk meme is to turn the discussion back to POLICY, and to get away from the name calling. Unfortunately too many people on BOTH sides are addicted to name calling.

If I had to roll up my definition of liberal vs conservative it is in the reponse to someone else's need. liberal responce: form an organization/govt solution that uses others to help. conservative responce: get off your ass and help. And I think that is why you will find more conservatives in the military, national guard, police, fire depts, volunteers in the inner city, rebuilding after hurricanes, etc.

Here is a stupid/simple test: what percentage of Amish go out and help others compaired to collage democrats?

As for the chicken hawk meme, it has been used in the past to emotionally push people into enlisting. The WWII poster is a classic example of it (look at the newspaper in the poster). But having those on the left use it as an attack against the right is stupid. Mainly because the right does serve in the military. And the left doesn't. If our military is supposed to represent us. The short fall isn't with the right. It's with the left. By 600,000+.

Serving in the military isn't about politics. Politics and war decisions are for civilians. BY DESIGN. Being in the military is not about finding a cause you are willing to die for (Horatio). It is only about serving. It is Duty, Honor, Country. Not duty, honor, country, and if I feel like it.

Which gets back to the question: Why is the left not showing up?

"Here is a stupid/simple test: what percentage of Amish go out and help others compaired to collage democrats?"

What percentage of Amish help others compared to college Republicans?

"It is Duty, Honor, Country. Not duty, honor, country, and if I feel like it."

But the vast majority of young Republicans DONT enlist. So obviously Repubs DO go by "if I feel like it" (which is ok, they have that right)

"What percentage of Amish help others compared to college Republicans?"

Well for Amish it is 100% (they are big on works) so more than college Repubs. But since they are both conservatives .. I win :) Anyway, anabaptist groups (Amish, Mennonites, Mennonite Brethren, Hutterites, etc.) are strange. Pacifist and conservative.

"But the vast majority of young Republicans DONT enlist."

Considering there are about 1.4 million in active service the vast majority of any group don't enlist. And actually a vast majority isn't needed. We are talking about tens of thousands being needed overall.

And if you look at the demographics of how many college age republicans versus democrats there are. Well ... the percentage of collage age repubs is a whole-monster-crap-load higher then any other group.

(did you like my very accurate numbers for percentages above?)

OT: Pile of 100 million skulls. Sorry. I felt the need to contribute that for some reason.

JC (#14), I agree Atrios' post was all of those things.

Now, let's get down to the fundamental creepiness of the "chickenhawk" argument. It deserves attention, not because of its validity, but because of the poisonous mindset its use bespeaks. As we can see in this forum, the poison has spread quite far.

• We begin with the structure of the American state, and civilian control of the military.

I don't know if Atrios has ever read the U.S. Constitution or studied its system of government in depth, but it's awfully clear to me that if so, he hasn't understood it. America is founded on the idea that non-military personnel make decisions about war, peace, and the military, as a result of the efforts of ALL citizens. The proper question is not "have you served," therefore - it's "do you understand". What he's criticizing is citizens exercising that important civic responsibility, and so his arguments are a fundamental strike at the very base of the American system. That's not just illogical - it's creepy and un-American.

• The not-so-veiled desire to have his opponents quit the donestic battlefield, so he can then go on to stab the serving military in the back and work to undermine them at every opportunity.

This is implicit in his admonishment. If everyone who supports the war is supposed to serve, and magically does, what is the effect? To remove them from the domestic front, and keep them too busy to offer opposition to his political program. Which, like a large segment of the Left, is to push American defeat in the war. This is self-admitted, in that he quite clearly places himself as a non-supporter of the War on Terror.

Every soldier fighting on the front lines today has tens of people in the serving military who do not fight and face little physical danger (in many cases, much less than air cadet Bush in his F-102), but whose efforts make it possible for those on the front line to fight effectively.

Because we're a democracy, that chain includes civilians outside the military. Morale programs, the war of ideas, etc. are all part of narrowing a gap that is affecting the morale of America's troops and hence their ability to fight. The gap is twofold: [1] Between their experience of Iraq and the media's reporting of it; [2] Between their support for what they are doing and public (incl. most especially political/Congressional) support for the mission. This comes from recent Congressional testimony by a general in theater.

It's unfortunate that the efforts of defeatists like Atrios, Kennedy et. al., established media bias, and the Left's array of America-haters who prefer to be al-Qaeda's co-belligerents make The Army of the Mind's job of countering their efforts and keeping the focus on Victory such an essential part of the war effort. However, it is so... and the nature of this war, in which the only way the USA can lose is essentially to talk itself into losing, makes their efforts extremely important.

Atrios' desire to have his opponents quit the battlefield of ideas is profoundly undemocratic, which is creepy enough. Given his thinly-disguised active desire to see his opponents die while he laughs at them and vilifies them, the creep factor goes up significantly.

• Now add the fact that the serving ratios ARE so unbalanced already, and that in fact many of his opponents are being killed in disproportionate numbers while he mocks them for failure to serve, and the creep factor breaks the scale.

One can argue for a greater ethic of service, and for enlistment to serve one's country. One should. One can even be part of it, as indeed many bloggers are by honoring people you should know (and usually don't, and why is that?), by celebrating and honoring their compatriot bloggers as they head into theater, by providing assistance to the on-the-ground efforts they set up (Hook's Operation Shoefly, Wiggles' Toys for Iraq, etc.). These are all efforts that encourage enlistment and service, and offer active help in winning this war. It's a role this American administration is not playing as well as it needs to. It's a role the media is not playing as it should. So we're stepping into the breach - and we'll continue to do so.

Duncan "Atrios" Black and his creepy co-belligerents on the other side of this war notwithstanding.

Hi , came over here from another blog looking for some debate instead of pointless name calling. oh well there is always hope for the future.

1 I live in a very red state , Alaska, and have worked in social service orgs( substance abuse treatment, homeless shelter for teenagers, treatment of mentally ill kids). In every case there were far more dem then repubs. The repubs were almost always ex mil. Libs are ubiquitous in school and every social org i have ever seen.

2 so what. Some people want to help other and sacrifice others dont. Politics has nothing to do with it. The entire country can not be split into to seperate camps. Nor are there two seperate species of people. There are even people who dont' like either party or who find some things to like in each party. they are called moderate's. ooooohhhh what a concept.

greg

"Considering there are about 1.4 million in active service the vast majority of any group don't enlist. "

precisely.

"It's unfortunate that the efforts of defeatists like Atrios, Kennedy et. al., established media bias, and the Left's array of America-haters who prefer to be al-Qaeda's co-belligerents"

who are these unnamed co belligerents? I dont read Atrios, so i dont know about him. Im quite sure Ted Kennedy does not want AQ to win, despite his mistaken view of Iraq. Carl Levin today opposed the idea of a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq.

The chicken hawk meme may be vile, but I agree with JC, when you start lightly tossing around terms like traitor against those who happen to disagree with you, you invite that kind of reaction. The Republicans who voted against the Lend Lease to Russia in 1943, or against conscription in summer of 1941 were wrong. They were NOT traitors, or cowards. The namecalling reflex reflects ill on all concerned.

#22 lurker:
OT: Pile of 100 million skulls. Sorry. I felt the need to contribute that for some reason.

;-)
i miss raymond too.

Need to fix some numbers ...

The 2001 poprep had the percentage of African Americans back up to 20% of the military (entering in 2001). I quoted 15% from an earlier report.

Throwing some rough numbers around from the 2001 poprep, 2000 census, 2004 election, and tossing men/women together (yes I know not accurate, but it gets close to the point).

About 3% of collage age conservatives/repubs enter military service. About 3% of African Americans do. And about 0.5% of liberals/dems do.

Which blows my above quote out of the water on repubs being the largest percentage group. But it also shows that liberals have a way to go. Surely we can think of a campain to get 3 out of every 100 collage democrats in enlist.

What really blows my mind: 20% of the military is African American and 13% of the military registers as democrat. That is a lot of non-dem African Americans and what do those numbers mean for the percentage of white liberals serving?

Lurker (#22): It's 170 million skulls.

"It's unfortunate that the efforts of defeatists like Atrios, Kennedy et. al., established media bias, and the Left's array of America-haters who prefer to be al-Qaeda's co-belligerents"

That quote is deeply offensive, and you must realize this.

To call an ACTUAL vet from the United States military (Kos), or Kennedy, a "co-belligerent" (I'm assuming since you grouped Atrios with Kos, that you include Kos in the co-belligerence statement), is simply atrocious. It's a smear-by-association, that only shows you as a loon.

Look YOU are a Canadian! YOU haven't been in the US armed forces. Kos has!

And from behind your keyboard you want to imply Kos, Kennedy, Atrios, are "co-belligerent" with AL-QUEDA??

That's the type of statement, if there was justice, that SHOULD haunt you forever.

Look, again, if pro-war people, FROM A KEYBOARD, call other people who disagree with the war "weak", imply that they lack courage, want to betray america, are betraying the soldiers, etc - THEN they open themselves up to the "chickenhawk" argument - BUT NOT BEFORE.

Look, say he's deeply misinformed, deeply wrong - but DON'T associate him with Al-Queda, DON'T imply he is against the United States, don't imply he's a coward - especially from behind your keyboard in Canada.

I think that's clear.

In my experience, leftists are prevailingly people who more or less hate their fathers.

Those highly negative feelings get transferred to any symbol of authority and power--corporations, Republicans, the military, God, rational thinking, successful small business people, clear standards of right and wrong, the police, and so on.

One of my standard interview questions for potential employees is "How do you get along with your father?" Father-issues will get played out with a boss or other authority figure, and the left has merely organised and ossified that process as a part of (at least) the American political scene.

"Nevertheless - if you believe in something like WAR passionately, it requires risk - and it isn't being done - and you impugn others courage who don't believe in the war - I'm sorry, but you should lead by example. "

If you believe in PEACE passionately, doesnt that require some risk? I mean aside from getting your pot confiscated by some pig when your blocking traffic at the ANSWR rally?

JC that isnt aimed at you personally. I actually think you make a good point. Calling people traitors is as bad as calling them warmongers. The vitriol and hyperbole is simply too high in national discourse these days.

Oh, I get the left now! The value of one's position is dependent only on how passionately it is held. WOW! Talk about a light bulb momemnt. Thanks JC.

I'm not sure whether its better to bite your tongue or not concerning visceral, divisive issues like the chickenhawk issue/partisan makeup of the miltary, etc. But in case there's anything that could use saying, here's my uninformed take on it. Apologies if it causes offense. My purpose in commenting is not to cause offense, merely to raise a few touchy issues which might be worth raising (or, OTOH, might not be worth it):

I think most of us in the blogosophere would agree that you don't deserve moral credit for the opinions you hold, as opposed to the values you live by. Well, that cuts both ways. In other words, either volunteering for combat in the Army is a moral imperative, or it isn't. Either volunteering for the fire department is a moral imperative, or it isn't. Either helping those in need is a moral imperative, or it isn't. Saying "I'm not a hypocrite. I never believed in helping the poor" does not get you off the hook. Neither does saying "I'm not a hypocrite. I never believed in the Iraq War".

More specifically, let’s take a closer look of the consequences of the “Chickenhawk” argument. First of all, in defining who is a chickenhawk, shouldn’t it include not only all pro-war people, but also all anti-war people who nevertheless believe that we shouldn’t pull out of Iraq immediately? That includes almost everybody in this debate, not just Jonah Goldberg & Peter Beinart. Second, shouldn’t the definition of “chickenhawk” include everyone who is not serving, yet thinks the US Army is doing something of value, not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, etc? Third, think of the effect of the “chickenhawk” doctrine for the troops who are serving in Iraq. Some of those troops are pro-war, some of those troops are anti-war. If those who are pro-war, but are not serving, can’t speak up in support of the war, then the anti-war troops are represented in debates back home, but there is nobody to represent pro-war troops, because those who would represent them are all “chickenhawks”. Why is this fair, or desirable?

Why so many otherwise great & good liberals have latched onto the "chickenhawk" meme is I think very interesting. IMO, it's a big-time case of projection. The main reason for the decline of liberalism politically and culturally is its post-Vietnam alienation from the military. The alienation is, to a disturbing degree, mutual, deep-seated, and very hard to bridge. In the military officer culture, once you get a reputation as a "liberal" or a "Clinton person", you have to walk on eggshells and make no waves, and you get no benefit of the doubt. Gen. Shinseki is loathed by many to this day because of a silly and unimportant flouting of army tradition, while Gen. Tommy Franks is still largely revered despite botching phase IV. The reason, of course, is that Shinseki is a "Clinton man", so treated harshly, while Franks is a "Bush man", so treated leniently.

The main reason Democrats are losing elections is that almost all the admired and revered cultural celebrities in America who take an active role in politics - Schwarzkopf, Powell, McCain, Giuliani, Tommy Franks, Jack Welch, Stephen Covey, Brian Lamb etc. - have lent their credibility to the Bush Family (EE) and the Republican party. I remember very clearly during the 2000 election many Republican hacks saying proudly, gleefully, almost like a doting parent, "I can't tell you how many officers and junior officers have come up and told me they're going to resign if Gore wins the election." In other words, these GOP operatives were saying that there were some officers and junior officers who were more loyal to the Republican Party than to the country as a whole. This is of course untrue, but the fact that GOP operatives are able to say something like this and get away with it says volumes about the nature of the contemporary political debate on military issues: the bitter polarization, and how that polarization works to the Republican advantage (In other words, Republicans have a huge political interest in creating polarization on national security issues).

Instead of discussing GOP leaders who really matter, like the above-mentioned, plus others like Michael Barone & Tim Russert, liberals prefer to go after clowns like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, Grover Norquist and the Chickenhawks (Perle, Wolfowitz, Goldberg, Lowry, etc.) because their obvious weaknesses make them easier targets.

And in discussing GOP people who really matter, like McCain & Schwarzkopf, liberals veer from delusion ("McCain is really a Democrat!") to denial ("sure, Tommy Franks & Colin Powell endorsed Bush, but I don't think it really matters, so let's not mention it and pretend it never happened") to dementedness ("Tommy Franks & Colin Powell are evil, fascist pawns and the entire evil, fascist military-industrial power structure is so . . .evil & fascist")

It is, however, important to note that Clinton still won and had a lot of political success, despite the liberal/military divide.

JC - I didn't name Kos in my comment (#23). Read for yourself. You did. Why would it occur to you to do so?

And I named Sen. Kennedy a deafeatist. His record and quotes more than amply support this.

I have not named anyone here a coward. They may be very courageous, for all I know (though Sen. Kennedy's driving/swimming record offers legitimate cause for scepticism). Courage has nothing to do with them being defeatists, or working for America's defeat, which could be for all sorts of reasons: ideological, blind partisanship, profit motive, not breastfed as kid, whatever....

Don't know. Don't care. I did not speculate as to motives. I noted positions and effects.

This is legitimate criticism of a policy position and its effects, using strong language. It is entirely possible to do so, and is entirely justified in political debate - including when dealing with "Copperhead Democrats" and their historical ilk.

This is precisely what Atrios is not doing, BTW. It is, to use a more left-wing example and build on the comment from Greg in AK (#24), the difference between saying that you believe Republican policies have the effect of stealing from the poor (strong, debatable, policy & effects argument) vs. saying that no-one who hasn't been poor has the right to discuss social policy (creepy and morally wrong). Only one of these approaches is designed to destroy debate itself, and it's the same one Atrios has taken.

And note the use of a very specific term: co-belligerent. It means having the same enemy and working for its destruction/ defeat without being formal allies.

Are you really going to deny that this is true for quitea few people among the Left? Walzer, linked in the article's main body, makes a point of noting their existence. So, too, do a substantial volume of quotes and events since 9/11, many of which we have covered here on a regular basis.

That, too, is an active front of this war.

As Greg points out in #24, to act in the spehere of ideas is a responsibility that falls on all free citizens, regardless of what else they do with their day jobs.

But the Army of the Mind in this war has gone beyond even that boundary. Its members reside in many lands, some free and some not-free. It is, after all, a global war. And so we welcome them. We will not be silenced. Not by the mullahs in Tehran, and their sticks. Not by Duncan "Atros" Black and his ilk, and their slurs.

JC: To call an ACTUAL vet from the United States military (Kos), or Kennedy, a "co-belligerent" (I'm assuming since you grouped Atrios with Kos, that you include Kos in the co-belligerence statement), is simply atrocious.

If you can still hear my voice from the majestic heights of your high moral dudgeon, I'd just like to point that it is you who is lumping Kos and Kennedy into the last clause of Joe's sentence: "the Left's array of America-haters who prefer to be al-Qaeda's co-belligerents." Your Freudian slip is showing.

So leaving Kos and Kennedy aside, you surely don't deny that such "co-belligerents" (in spirit, anyway) exist. Maybe you take exception to Michael Walzer's description of the left's ills, but no "chickenhawk" ultimate weapon is going to help you with that.

And BTW - some far-left America haters may indeed be veterans (thanks in large part to the late unlamented draft) but being a veteran does not mean that you cannot be a traitor. See ARNOLD, BENEDICT.

Even the French would agree with me: see PETAIN, FIELD MARSHAL HENRI-PHILIPPE.

So far as I know, at his trial Petain did not stoop to calling his accusers "chickenhawks" who had never fought a real live German, like he had. Even a traitor can have some sense of honor.

"Courage has nothing to do with them being defeatists, or working for America's defeat, "

surely you are aware of the difference between being a defeatist(an unwarranted, extreme pessimist), and working for Americas defeat (IE being a traitor) Its a crucial distinction, and implying that someone who is a defeatist is also a traitor, is well, I think you know what it is.

And what do we mean by defeatist? The British war cabinet at some point decided not to send more fighters to France, and to hold them for the defense of Britain. They were "defeatist" at that point about the battle of France, but not about the war. Kennedy may well beleive its impossible to win in Iraq - it hardly means he beleives its impossible to win the GWOT, of which the war in Iraq is at most only a part.

And I would note that AFAIK Kennedy has NOT said that defeat in Iraq is inevitable. Rather hes said that its MORE likely if we keep US troops there. Thats a stupid argument, IMHO, but I dont see that it makes him a defeatist, much less a traitor.

"So leaving Kos and Kennedy aside, you surely don't deny that such "co-belligerents" (in spirit, anyway) exist. Maybe you take exception to Michael Walzer's description of the left's ills, but no "chickenhawk" ultimate weapon is going to help you with that."

I rather doubt you share Michael Walzer's definition of the "left". Prof. Walzer is a democratic socialist - when he speaks of the left he is NOT talking about mainstream Democratic party politicians.

"And note the use of a very specific term: co-belligerent. It means having the same enemy and working for its destruction/ defeat without being formal allies."

Destruction in a military or terrorist sense, and defeat in a democratic political sense are profoundly different. Newt Gingrich wanted to DEFEAT Bill Clinton. Politically and legally. Slobodan Milosevich fought him in a war, Osama Bin Laden targeted the US when Clinton was President. Does that mean Newt was a "cobelligerent" of Slobo or Osama? Osama wants to the see the overthrow of the Mubarak govt in Egypt. Does that mean everyone who wants to see the overthrow of that govt, or who faults US policy on Egypt, is a cobelligent of Osama?

You are using language in a way that, while technically defensible, is profoundly, deeply uncivil.

and you keep pointing to Prof Walzers article.

It says:

"But ideologically primed leftists were likely to think that they already understood whatever needed to be understood. Any group that attacks the imperial power must be a representative of the oppressed, and its agenda must be the agenda of the left"

Obviously he is talking about Chomsky and his followers, ANSWER and its ilk, etc. NOT anyone of importance in the US Congress. IIUC Prof Walzer himself opposed the war in Iraq (though I suspect hes in the "make the best of it" camp now) I studied under Prof Walzer, and from what I know of him, I doubt hed agree with or be pleased at your implication that Senator Kennedy is a traitor.

and you keep pointing to Prof Walzers article.

It says:

"But ideologically primed leftists were likely to think that they already understood whatever needed to be understood. Any group that attacks the imperial power must be a representative of the oppressed, and its agenda must be the agenda of the left"

Obviously he is talking about Chomsky and his followers, ANSWER and its ilk, etc. NOT anyone of importance in the US Congress. IIUC Prof Walzer himself opposed the war in Iraq (though I suspect hes in the "make the best of it" camp now) I studied under Prof Walzer, and from what I know of him, I doubt hed agree with or be pleased at your implication that Senator Kennedy is a traitor.

You may be interested in what Prof. Walzer has to say currently

"In fact, ideology rules everywhere on the right, across the spectrum of issues in which right-wing intellectuals and activists take an interest (note the combination: it used to be only the left that had intellectuals and activists). Everywhere, we see radically coherent, single-causal analyses of social problems and radical proposals to deal with the problems once and for all: lower and lower taxes, privatized Social Security, tests and more tests in the public schools, torture for terrorists, war for Saddam, democracy for the Arabs. And everything will be wonderful, after the revolution.

This is the first crossover: ideological certainty and zeal have migrated to the right. Of course, there are still people on the left who are absolutely sure about their political position and zealous in its defense. But they don't set the tone; they are off on the margins, a frequent annoyance, but not a political force. Most of us on the near-left live in a complex world, which we are not sure we understand, and we move around in that world pragmatically, practicing a politics of trial and error. We defend policies like Social Security, which have worked pretty well, and try to make them work a little better. We want more redistributive tax and welfare systems, but we are not Bolshevik egalitarians-even if our opponents are Bolshevik inegalitarians. We opposed the Iraq War but are painfully unsure about how to get out and when. National health insurance is the most radical proposal that I've heard from American liberals in recent years, and it's a European commonplace.

.....

The non-zealous near-left might still win elections. Bill Clinton won twice, after all, and Al Gore really won (even though he didn't). Surely there have been occasions in the past when cautious reformers defeated ideological reactionaries. But the crossover of ideology and caution has come at a very bad time for us. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the world looks a lot more dangerous than it did before, and hesitant, pragmatic reformers don't inspire confidence. John Kerry spoke truthfully when he said in one of the presidential debates that a politician can be very certain and very wrong. But large numbers of Americans seem to believe, though they might not put it this way, that certainty will prevail in the end, even over its own wrongness.

....

"In the aftermath of the last election, some liberal Democrats, most notably Peter Beinart in the New Republic, argued that we once had a similarly recognizable picture and that we had better recapture it. They evoke the "fighting liberalism" and the militant anticommunism of the early cold war. The founding of Americans for Democratic Action in 1947 is Beinart's moment of truth, and he hopes for a similar founding today-of a new liberal-left defined by its militant opposition to Islamic radicalism. ADA was indeed an admirable organization (though the editors of Dissent in the 1950s criticized many of its political positions), and its founders were a memorable group: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Reinhold Niebuhr, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Walter Reuther were among them. Beinart doesn't mention that all these people were defenders of the "containment" of communism over against the "liberation" of Eastern Europe. It would be interesting to play out an analogous contrast in today's politics. But let's accept Beinart's description of "fighting liberalism." Then the crucial point to make is that this politics was not a great success. Harry S Truman won the 1948 election on domestic issues, with a populist attack on "special interests" that looked back to the New Deal, not forward to the anticommunist struggle-even though we would soon be involved in the Korean War. And then in 1952, the American people trusted the Republicans, not the fighting liberals, to see us through the war and to sign the necessary compromise peace. In 1960, John F. Kennedy won the presidency, claiming that Eisenhower had failed to push up military spending and that we were vulnerable, or soon would be, to Russian missiles. This was the biggest victory of cold war liberalism; for once, Democrats succeeded in looking tough. But that need to look tough and then, once they were in power, to act tough led the United States step by step into the awfulness of Vietnam. In 1968, Americans once again trusted the Republicans to see us through the war-to negotiate the necessary withdrawal and accept the inevitable defeat. This isn't a record that invites imitation today.

The major achievement of the ADA took place at home, not in the larger world, not in Washington, but in the camp of the liberal-left: the defeat of the old popular front, the end of "fellow traveling." Schlesinger, Reuther, and the others understood what communism was and why liberals and leftists had to sustain a militant opposition to it. We can indeed learn from their experience. Since 9/11, a number of Dissent writers have stressed the political danger and the moral awfulness of religious zeal and terror and have insisted, in the face of considerable reluctance among many leftists, on the necessity of militant opposition to both. This is an intra-left argument, and we need to have it out. I agree with Beinart that strong support for democratic forces around the world has to be a central feature of our opposition to zeal and terror. But I don't share his "fighting faith."

Above all, I don't share his ambition to make this fighting faith "the road back" to state power. Militancy is for movements, not governments. It rightly characterizes the ideology of intellectuals and activists, of labor unions and human rights organizations, of feminists and environmentalists in international civil society. All these people, all these groups, should be working with democratic activists around the world: committed democrats are our comrades, wherever they are found. But the idea of a state with a fighting faith is much less appealing, and an army with a fighting faith is positively alarming. Here the ideological crossover seems eminently defensible: leftists can legitimately be wary of faith-based politics. Certainly, the state should be guided by moral and political principles, but these have to be tempered by caution and pragmatically interpreted. Leftist intellectuals and activists support democracy because it is the form of government that best accords with individual freedom, equality, and collective self-determination. But the United States should support democracy because democratic states are our most reliable allies, with whom we are most likely to share not only principles but also strategies.
"Fighting liberalism" was at least partly responsible for getting us into Vietnam, just as "fighting neoconservatism" was at least partly responsible for getting us into Iraq. So we need to be careful about "fighting." Since the time of Machiavelli, military metaphors have been common in political life, and they work well enough: we have election campaigns, debates about strategy and tactics, ideological militancy, and "wars" on crime, drugs, poverty, and terrorism. But metaphors are dangerous if people take them literally. The liberal-left today should reject politics-as-war in favor of a political politics that recognizes that militancy means knocking on doors and talking at meetings, that the war on terrorism is mostly police work, and that persuasion and negotiation should always be our preferred strategies.

Maybe the struggle against Islamic radicalism and religious zeal is a world-historical struggle, as the struggle against communist totalitarianism was. I doubt that Islamic radicalism has the expansionist potential that communism had, but . . . maybe. Let the historians of the future worry about that. We should be looking for a version of ideological coherence and militancy that doesn't lead us into actual crusading warfare-that enables us to "fight" this "war" one "battle" at a time. "Fighting faith" as a state ideology belongs to the right today, and liberals and leftists have to oppose it, not only because it merits opposition on its own but also because opposing it is the best way to "fight" effectively against zealots and terrorists.

So, how do we bring coherence to a pragmatic, cautious, and highly moralistic left? We might begin by noticing that the succession of fighting liberals-Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy-shows a steady decline in commitment to the critical moral value of equality (that was one reason for Dissent's criticism). Anticommunism was a necessary politics, but it did tend, in the United States during the cold war, as in Eastern Europe afterward, to promote individual liberty and market freedom at the expense of social justice. In the sixties, the civil rights and feminist movements produced a radically egalitarian politics alongside the Democratic Party's liberalism and sometimes, uneasily, within the party. Today, however, the Democrats are a party of justice only relative to the Republicans. Egalitarianism is the distinctive mark of liberal-left politics, but in 2005 the distinctiveness is barely visible. This should worry us because any coherent leftist response to zeal and terror, to world disorder and global poverty, to tyranny and fear, has to have this distinctive mark. "

I dont agree with all of the above, but I think it clear that Walzers views, on the war, on current Dem pols, etc. are different than you imply.

LH -

My flat-out statement (no implication or hints) is that Sen. Kennedy is a defeatist. "Traitor," in your country, has a very specific meaning and is defined in the Constitution. Kennedy doesn't fit.

Steven Den Beste had an excellent article about the too-casual use of 'traitor,' and exactly what it meant. that's why I did not use the term.

You have nicely captured a very key quote from Walzer's article. It applies to a broad array of groups, and they too are part of the war of ideas - not just ranking people in Congress (I could go there, too, but it isn't necessary for this argument). They are numerous, and they are iunfluential. They are especially overrepresented in the Academy, in the media, and in the activists of the Democratic Party, which as you've very correctly pointed out elsewhere is not the same as its voting base.

The widespread prevalence of insane memes like "war for oil" is a good barometer of just how prevalent.

As I've mentioned, this too is a front in the war. It needs to be fought. It deserves to be fought. And we will fight it, whether Atrios and his ilk like it or not.

Nice try, chickenhawk wingnuts. We'll call you anything we like because we can. Life isn't fair. Get used to it.

liberalhawk: Prof. Walzer is a democratic socialist

Yeah, I've heard of Michael Walzer before. It's a rare "democratic socialist" who has the guts to speak up against leftist politicists. (And if there's one leftist publication worth reading, it's Dissent.)

Todd Gitlin is a left-head, too, but he has had the courage to speak up against the rising tide of left anti-semitism, and small thanks he's gotten from the left for that.

Credit where credit is due. So lay off the tribalism.

As for Walzer's note about the right having an ideology, that is to say a related set of positions and systematic critiques of the other side, he is correct. The Left had that when it was ascendant, but the Right's critique has largely destroyed its intellectual base and experience was not kind. It has not really found a new foundation, and this is part of its current difficulties.

The roles have been reversed - the Right now faces the twin poles of overreach vs. the imperatives of a majority party. The Liberal-Left now attempts to get by on tradition and reactionary politics, with interjections of hysteria. Normal political dynamics for this situation.

I'll add that "fighting faith" is precisely what is needed when opposing another fighting faith. The Democrat who talked about "pay any price, bear any burden in defense of liberty" sure had it, and needed to because the enemy had no compunctions about violence. "Fighting irresolution" ain't gonna cut it.

But then, what I was accepting is Walzer's diagnosis of the Left, not of the war.

#&

the military has spent the last 30 years drumming in the idea that enlisting is a career decision. Why would anyone be surprised that those for whom enlisting is clearly NOT a desirable career decision wouldnt enlist?

The recruiting slogans of a peace time military are not the realities of a wartime military.

The Army in particular is retooling its recruiting message to ape the Marines "We will send you where you will Fight" marketing.

The biggest beef I have with the Bush Administration has been its unwillingless to engage the American people in support of the war.

The weakness big government conservatives of Bush's ilk share with the Left is the belief that the American people do not exist as a seperate and distinct entity in American politics. One that stands apart from the various interest factions in D.C.

That is why we have seen WW2 style no bond drives, or recruiting drives or speeches discussing the conduct of the war with the American people. The only time Bush spoke directly to the American people was when he was acting from his gut on the pile after the WTC fell. By the time of his first speech in front of a joint scession of Congress, he was again captured by his bubble of advisors.

FWIW, I don't count Bush's recent speech as reaching to the American people because it looks to me to have been a planned one two punch with Karl Roves to placate the pro-war Republican base and to "brand name" Democrats as the party of defeatism.

If you've got the facts, it seems to me you don't need to call your opponents chickenhawks (I always think of that Foghorn Leghorn cartoon) or cowards. It's a matter of (trying to show) class. I don't always succeed at that, but I at least try to edit out the ad homs.

It is, however, important to note that Clinton still won and had a lot of political success, despite the liberal/military divide.

Clinton, like GW Bush, talked to people. Large parts of the vocal Left talk at them. Now, to be sure, you can find those people on the right too, but you've got to dig a good bit deeper to get to them. I think that's a large part of the ability of both of those presidents to drive their opponents nuts.

Nice try, chickenhawk wingnuts

Shouldn't that be:

Nice! Try chickenhawk wingnuts, new at Fridays!

Sorry, my diet is getting to me.

Oh and the next person to put something like this:

Al Gore really won (even though he didn't).

in the thread wins my stomach contents, as soon as I have a mailing address. I know it's a quote, but still....

(Stomach contents may or may not include Honey Mustard Chickenhawk Wingnuts)

Glen, Joe,

Of course I knew what Joe wrote - that's why I included the linking sentence in parentheses.

It's all about the linking, and the smear thus entailed.

Joe's a good writer - he wouldn't come right out and say Kennedy is "an Al-Queda collaborator".

But yet, there in the same sentence, is "atrios" "kennedy", and "al-Qaeda's co-belligerents". Nice "grouping", yes? Utterly smear-ific.

Seems kinda like the '9-11' and "iraq" conflation in the War on Terror.

(By the way, "War on Terror" is a completely inaccurate way to describe what we are doing - let's go with War on Extremism.)

Again, this type of sophisticated smear, simply is that, a partisan smear.

Back to the point though - "chickenhawk" is used to make fun of those who actually believe that are somehow "braver", and the democrats "weak", (as they write from behind their keyboard) because of believing (in this case) that going into Iraq was wrong. Other than this, shouldn't be used.

Look, again, if pro-war people, FROM A KEYBOARD, call other people who disagree with the war "weak", imply that they lack courage, want to betray america, are betraying the soldiers, etc - THEN they open themselves up to the "chickenhawk" argument - BUT NOT BEFORE.

Speaking of "projection", this liberal gets along great with his father—and is very interested in the relationship between the current President and his father. Maybe if GWB hadn't wanted to show GHWB what a tough warrior he'd become, we wouldn't be trying to find a path out of the IraqWagmire.

JC, my statement was very specific. Let's parse it:

It's unfortunate that the efforts of defeatists like Atrios, Kennedy et. al.,

Are they defeatists? Yes.

established media bias,

We've covered that on Winds statistically, anecdotally, and by noting omission. You choose not to believe it - you never will, because they're a friendly ideological force. You've made that clear. But it exists.

and the Left's array of America-haters who prefer to be al-Qaeda's co-belligerents

Now that the term co-belligerent is clear to you, no argument that they're out there. Good.

make The Army of the Mind's job of countering their efforts and keeping the focus on Victory such an essential part of the war effort.

All have different agendas. All are aiming toward the same result: a narrative of defeat and smear that never, ever speaks of victory, and that admits to ignoring the nature of our enemies.

If our agenda is resolute prosecution of the war until victory, each and every one of these groups are obstacles. Therefore, each one of them represents a reason that The Army of the Mind needs to exist, in order to ensure that the troops receive all of the support they need to do their jobs.

If our agenda is resolute prosecution of the war until victory, each and every one of these groups are obstacles. Therefore, each one of them represents a reason that The Army of the Mind needs to exist, in order to ensure that the troops receive all of the support they need to do their jobs.

And if you insist on viewing yourself as engaged, from the safety of your keyboard, in a war with your political opponents, you have no business getting your panties in a wad when they respond in kind with stuff like the "chickenhawk" campaign. The "chickenhawk" stuff would be out of bounds in a debate that started from the premise that we're united in wanting to protect America but disagree about the appropriate tactics for doing so. But if you view yourself as a valiant Warrior of the Mind defending the homefront against Osama bin Laden and his fellow-traveller Ted Kennedy, from which moral high ground you're entitled to smear mainstream Democrats as enemies of America, you oughtn't to be surprised that your slurs are returned in kind.

AJL, one is perfectly justified in making strong policy criticisms of another party. I'll repeat, since you seem to like the tactic:

"This is precisely what Atrios is not doing, BTW. It is, to use a more left-wing example and build on the comment from Greg in AK (#24), the difference between saying that you believe Republican policies have the effect of stealing from the poor (strong, debatable, policy & effects argument) vs. saying that no-one who hasn't been poor has the right to discuss social policy (creepy and morally wrong). Only one of these approaches is designed to destroy debate itself, and it's the same one Atrios has taken."

If a "Copperhead Democrat" or historical ilk thereof is called "weak" or described as "defeatist," betraying the troops," et. al., this is a policy criticism. Calling a pro-war Republican "reckless" or "warmongers" or accusing them of "forfeiting America's leadership" position in the world falls into the same category on the same issues. People are open to these arguments AT ALL TIMES, and they may be made by ANY citizen. Then they're subject to debate.

Saying that a fellow American has no right to discuss an issue or make a criticism because they don't meet some imaginary litmus test of membership... is the way of communists, fascists, and military juntas.

I'm not surprised the Left finds it congenial, given whom they seem to idolize. But it is the antithesis of democracy.

I repeat:

"The proper question is not "have you served," therefore - it's "do you understand". What he's criticizing is citizens exercising that important civic responsibility, and so his arguments are a fundamental strike at the very base of the American system. That's not just illogical - it's creepy and un-American."

For all the reasons noted herein (article, plus #23, #36, #44, #52).

arrasmith,

Anabaptist groups vary a lot in approaches to non-violence.

"... But there are ranges of opinion. The more morally confident are today called "conscientious objectors" who object to killing in war. They will use force and even kill to improve a situation when they feel it is morally justified. They just won't kill under orders from somebody else. Each individual must make his own calls and answer on Judgment Day for mistakes.

Indian encounters such as the one detailed above produced changes necessary for community survival, i.e., of course there were "enforcers".

... Civil War draft officials in Lancaster County, Pennsylvannia, learned the hard way about the distinction between pacifists and the 19th Century equivalent of "conscientious objectors". Consider the term "dry gulch" used as a verb. The only way to learn which Brethren were pacifists and which weren't was to go to church with them for twenty years."

RE: #38 and "Traitors" - Liberalhawk, read your own constitution. working for America's defeat does not = a traitor except under very specific circumstances:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Note that "aid and comfort" refers to actions that go far beyond mere moral support. It refers to things like giving significant amounts of money or military equipment to an enemy, or engaging in espionage on an enemy's behalf, or providing safe houses for enemy agents.

One can be disloyal, or anti-American, or even un-American (note: 3 different things), without being a traitor. But one can be criticized for any of those 3 things on moral grounds, in the realm of public debate.

Joe,

This is complete BS - you've gotta stop it, at some point. Your whole push on this is "creepy and un-American".

Why have you stooped to parsing? Are you going to let me know "what the meaning of "is" is", next?

Extract a SINGLE meaning of the sentence - what do you get? You tell me.

That's the overall point. If a single meaning is extracted, guess what? Kenney, Atrios, Al-Queda, end up on the same page.

Now for the sections

"media bias" - yes, there is media-bias - most of it skewed toward corporate agendas, then 'if it bleeds it leads" agenda, then a craven attitude towards power, then a fear of being labeled "biased", that makes the media bend over and kiss all Repubs on the tushie, and THEN maybe the press's internal "Yalie collegiate and democratic perception" bias that you get incensed about.

I can pull 300 stories on rightwing bias - do we really want to go there?

Defeatist - actually, according to the common wisdom at the same time, one of the many defeatist stances was the advocation of invading Iraq without a clear plan, without major support from our allies. Because this then reduces the US forces into another 'quagmire' type of situation, in Iraq.

This isn't Democrats or liberals, by the way - it's Bush I thinking.

So here you are simply using the "defeatist" label to disagree with any policy stance that isn't yours. And there is quite a lot of "incivility" in that, as LH says.

Co-belligerent - It means having the same enemy and working for its destruction/ defeat without being formal allies.

Again - a smear label -

"Red on red" terrorist/Baathist/Iraq insurgents are co-belligerents - you can't feasibly conflate that again with - who? who, in this case? Chomsky? Notice he isn't named, but Atrios, Kennedy, and Kos ARE.

It's clever writing, BUT ITS STILL A SMEAR.

DaveL (#53) - I find it fascinating that you would think of Atrios and Ted Kennedy as mainstream Democrats. But anyway...

I have no objection to the Left responding in kind. That is to say, with policy and effects based arguments, even strong ones. "War for oil" is patently insane when applied to Iraq (or - chuckle - Afghanistan), but at least it's policy based and debatable. I do have a more serious objection to arguments that betray zero understanding of citizenship or democracy, because accepting their legitimacy without challenge is not just a factual disagreement about policy but a surrender to a brownshirt ethos. It is also immoral for other reasons, which I have enunciated at length.

To repeat:

It is, to use a more left-wing example and build on the comment from Greg in AK (#24), the difference between saying that you believe Republican policies have the effect of stealing from the poor (strong, debatable, policy & effects argument) vs. saying that no-one who hasn't been poor has the right to discuss social policy (creepy and morally wrong). Only one of these approaches is designed to destroy debate itself, and it's the same one Atrios has taken.

If a "Copperhead Democrat" or historical ilk thereof is called "weak" or described as "defeatist," betraying the troops," et. al., this is a policy criticism. Calling a pro-war Republican "reckless" or "warmongers" or accusing them of "forfeiting America's leadership" position in the world falls into the same category on the same issues. People are open to these arguments AT ALL TIMES, and they may be made by ANY citizen. Then they're subject to debate.

Saying that a fellow American has no right to discuss an issue or make a criticism because they don't meet some imaginary litmus test of membership... is the way of communists, fascists, and military juntas."

That is more than just a smear.

One can bring up service on either side of the debate, but it's as evidence toward relevant expertise or experiences to draw on directly, NOT a qualification for participation in the debate. Again:

"The proper question is not "have you served," therefore - it's "do you understand". What he's criticizing is citizens exercising that important civic responsibility, and so his arguments are a fundamental strike at the very base of the American system. That's not just illogical - it's creepy and un-American."

Roublen,

You make a good point - Steve Gilliard had a good post on this, that made similar points, but I couldn't find it to link to it.

Could the distinguished posters on the right tell me what form of disent is acceptable? Can we say we shouldn't have invaded iraq? Can we say the aftermath was 100% screwed up? Can we say that the case for WMD and iraq's tie to AQ were always shakey at best? Can we say the pres is wrong?

What can we say in this time of conflict according to you?

This question seems to be the subtext of much of the hot air and name calling.

greg

Greg, why pretend that this thread hasn't been about the very topic? Why pretend that cheap namecalling is even "dissent" ?

Can we say we shouldn't have invaded iraq?

Only if you volunteered to join the air force to enforce the no-fly-zones OR the UN weapons inspectoin team. Otherwise, you don't have the courage of your convictions and are hiding behind the skirts of others. Right, JC?

Well I'm hoping that we can address the real underlying issue. that has potential to be informative and interesting as opposed to the junior high level bitch fest.

greg

JC,

RE: War on Extremism... I'm about 80% on board with that, think it needs refining but there's echoes of truth in it for the reasons set out in my Terror, Inc. articles et. al. plus what Armed Liberal has said over the years.

Disagreement time:

I parsed because you made a specific charge about a specific statement. Since it was clear to me that you did not understand the statement, I simplified it by breaking each part down and explaining the importance of citizen advocacy (which is exactly what Atrios seeks to foreclose) toward maintaining morale and the will to fight and win this war.

The bottom line is, your characterization of the statement (i.e., and I quote "Kennedy is "an Al-Queda collaborator") does not hold up.

If I wanted to smear Kennedy, I'd suggest that we threaten Gitmo inmates with a car ride from the good Senator if they didn't start singing like canaries.

Kennedy is a "Defeatist"... and the word does not mean what you think it means. Look it up in Websters - it means acceptance of, resignation to, or belief in defeat.

Wikipedia is somewhat more expansive:

"Defeatism is acceptance and content with defeat without struggle. In everyday use, defeatism has negative connotation, and is often linked to treason and pessimism. The term is commonly used in the context of war: a soldier can be a defeatist if he or she refuses to fight because he or she thinks that the fight will be lost for sure or that it is not worth fighting for some other reason. The term can also be used in other fields, like politics, sports or psychology. The term originates in the French Revolution."

This describes Kennedy's position on Iraq quite well. Atrios' too. Probably Brent Scowcroft to boot. Kennedy and Atrios go further, of course, and work very hard to spread defeatism as part of their political agenda. I believe that to be unwarranted and dangerous, to myself and my family as well as to Americans, and I will fight that.

It also needs to be fought in order to support the troops in a democracy, and so it becomes part of the military-logistical chain that also includes serving military (some of whom are the guys who swab floors on aircraft carriers, or count boxes in U.S. warehouses). As noted earlier, Gen. Abizaid to Congress: notes that troop morale is high, but:

"When my soldiers say to me and ask me the question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not, that worries me. And they're starting to do that."

Couple that with the consistent and very persistent complaint from serving soldiers that the media picture in Iraq bears little relation to what is going on, and statements like this from the high-profile IPS think-tank:

"Anti-war organizing that began within days of September 11th and kicked into high gear in the run-up to Bush's war in Iraq is paying off... [in calls for withdrawal, i.e. defeat]"

...so yes, defeatists at home, and a biased media, and an influential hard Left that wants America to lose - all have to be resisted and beaten or changed in order to maintain the allied soldiers' ability to fight effectively and achieve victory in the War on Islamofascism (and we'll get the rest of you violent extremists, too, because this war will be a defining template for that sort of thing in many ways).

Now throw in the malfeasance of the GOP Party HQ on this issue (which hasn't made it the communications focus it should be), and the fact that verbal persuasion is a weakness of W's.

Hence the serious need for an Army of the Mind. One that will engage policy and effects based arguments strongly, hold BOTH parties' feet to the fire, and push for nothing less than victory in this war.

And firmly resisting intimidation by brownshirt arguments that strike at the very notions of citizenship and democracy.

RE: #60... Yes to all of them. Those are policy and effects based:

"Can we say we shouldn't have invaded iraq? Can we say the aftermath was 100% screwed up? Can we say that the case for WMD and iraq's tie to AQ were always shakey at best? Can we say the pres is wrong?"

You'll be criticized on each point, as you'd expect in any debate. And you'll be asked about your alternative approach, as you'd expect in any serious policy sitution.

You can call them weak, stupid, warmongers, reckless, over-cautious, whatever. But there's a huge difference between any of those arguments and what Duncan "Atrios" Black et. al. put forward via their "Chickenhawk" tactics.

Again, saying that a fellow citizen has no right to discuss an issue or make a criticism because they don't meet some imaginary litmus test of membership... is the way of communists, fascists, and military juntas. That is more than just a smear, or a disagreement.

JC (#31) -

To call an ACTUAL vet from the United States military (Kos), or Kennedy, a "co-belligerent" (I'm assuming since you grouped Atrios with Kos, that you include Kos in the co-belligerence statement), is simply atrocious. It's a smear-by-association, that only shows you as a loon.

I respect veterans - all of them - and weigh their opinions heavily in these matters. But their views don't outweigh mine, or JC's, or Atrio's because they are veterans. We're all citizens - or we're not.

A.L.

Eh, as I've always said, virtually none of the folks throwing around the "chickenhawk" meme bothered to sign up for Kosovo, Afghanistan, or any of the other morally unobjectionable wars that the United States has engaged in in recent times.

That simple fact is all one needs to know about the intellectual merits of the people who use the phrase. It's nothing more than a smear tactic used by those who want to feel morally superior.

Cane: "Nice try, chickenhawk wingnuts. We'll call you anything we like because we can. Life isn't fair. Get used to it."

In this case, instead of the vague "life isn't fair" is would be more precise and entirely accurate to say "we're not fair."

Other than that, this is correct and almost all that needs to be said.

From anecdotes, it seems to me that on or soon after 11 September 2001, a lot of people who had never contemplated a military career suddenly felt strongly that they should do something to support their country's struggle, realised that they would be no use to the army (too old, ill, whatever), and started blogging, because they could.

If you call these people "chickenhawks" it's an effective way to hurt them. It treads on sore toes, emotionally. It can get a rise out of people, and it might bait them into saying things they'll later regret. Or it might cause them to subside, because nobody decent is going to want to shift the discussion to their infirmities, if any, or the pain of being unable to help the army as they would prefer to.

There's nothing other than emotional sting to the "chickenhawk" charge - no valid intellectual content at all.

So "get used to it," regardless of the spirit in which it is offered, is good advice.

AL... not sure about this one, still thinking, but a hero might get greater standing - not so much in war and peace matters, but just generaly, as an admirable person. Even if his name is John Kerry.

Try this concept on, I'm thinking out loud here:

It's one thing to say that someone by dint of expertise or experience brings something extra to the table on a subject, or is inherently seen as more trustworthy or someone others wish to follow or emulate.

But we are ALL citizens, or we're not, and one does not REQUIRE any qualifications beyond that to have an opinion and make recommendations regarding the polis on any issue.

The first is the due regard one pays to knowledge (with all your caveats about experts who work for folks like you applying) and virtue. And one may respect virtue, without letting that end debate. Likewise, the patina of virtue may be cancelled by subsequent acts, or it may fade before more pressing considerations.

Because in the end, the point of it all is the pursuit of the best answer. It's deeply embedded in our system, as Bronowski's points about Science and Human Dignity make clear.

Of course, the best answer doesn't always win. But we have a system that, unlike the aristocracies which preceded it or the totalitarianisms that followed, values the idea and the concept of the better answer, rather than the lineage or membership of the speaker.

"It's about the idea, not the title." "Every citizen is a somebody." Those are pretty fundamental things. Worth preserving. Even fighting for.

A.L.,

JC, the whole point of this is that you don't get dusted with Magic Powder by being a veteran, or even a hero, which gives you greater standing in our polity to talk about matters of war and peace

That's a fine statement, and I agree with that - but this isn't the chickenhawk argument, it is instead a straw man version. And it doesn't address the conflation of different entities that Joe so expertly uses his words to tar with the same brush.

That's what I'm objecting to.

By the way, since I'm one of those people who don't think the US should leave now, as pretty much everyone seriously studying this agrees on this (I'm pretty consensus on these things, leaving it to the experts - even if experts might be wrong, you have to be able to prove it), AND I recognize the shortage of forces, the chickenhawk argument could apply to me, to you, to your son, etc. Pretty much anyone who posts HERE, and takes national security and international relations seriously, would fit into this group.

Joe, another thing - you keep talking about "Victory", however, if you look at the recommended actions of, say, Cordesman, or Larry Diamond, to give us the best chance to succeed in Iraq, and put them on a matrix, checking off what the Administration is doing, as relates to their two (very similar) suggestions -

the adminstration are not doing a lot of those. While I am very glad that Bush came out and gave a somber speech last week, in front of grim-faced soldiers (and I was VERY annoyed at some of my side liberals who took the grim faces as "proof" that the grim-faced soldiers thought POTUS was BS'ing), you might want to take your verbal expertise, and urge from this perch the adoption of these recommended actions, instead of cleverly conflating Al-Queda, Kos, Atrios, Kennedy, etc - that's not too useful.

Joe,

Good that you bring this definition up:

In everyday use, defeatism has negative connotation, and is often linked to treason and pessimism

The "negative connatation", "linked to treason and pessimism" is WHY you used the word - again, you are very good with words, I'm the first to admit.

And as such, skews the argument - insinuates that the brother of John F. Kennedy is "treasonous and pessimistic".

Remember, in his mind, he's being realistic. He believes that staying in Iraq makes things worse. It isn't "defeatist" to think that I can bend a steel bar with my hands. He can't clap his hands,and magically make everything right in Iraq. He may be WRONG, but there is a "tinge" to "defeatist", you know? Similar to the tinge of "wingnut", "warmonger", "chickenhawk", etc.

I don't know - perhaps I'm reading too much into this - but this is what the dictionary itself says - the frequent association. Perhaps I should just, like Sargeant Friday, let these partisan swipes slide by, and just concentrate on "just the facts", man.

It's funny -

for all the objection that Joe has to "chickenhawk" as emblematic as how the "left" wants to stifle debate, it seems he sure uses loaded words himself (and that conflation thing), quite a lot.

I think this abstract stuff about citizenship is a false trail.

I'm an Australian, not an American citizen, yet I offer my opinions with only a caution from time to time when I'm speaking to Americans or U.K. citizens that since your countries are making a much greater effort, I'm not going to lecture anybody on exactly how you have to make it. In general, people think I'm right or wrong, and have argued with me on that reasonable level. I've never had anyone say I lacked standing to have an opinion because I wasn't a British subject or an American citizen.

I have had Americans say I didn't understand 9/11, because I'm not American and it wasn't my country - a view which I thought was wrong, up to Bali, and which I then thought was partly wrong but also partly right. In any case, this is not about citizenship and standing to speak, it was about sympathy, understanding, and what touches your patriotism personally. "Shut up, you're not an American citizen so you don't have a right to speak" would have been a very different statement from what I actually encountered, which was "I know you think you understand, but I don't believe you do, or can."

Our enemies also aren't drawing their battle lines based on national citizenship. To them, you are a Muslim (and the right kind of Muslim), or you're not, and if not the best way to defer your execution is to prove that you are a useful pawn such as anti-American journalist.

Jow Katzman: "But we are ALL citizens, or we're not, and one does not REQUIRE any qualifications beyond that to have an opinion and make recommendations regarding the polis on any issue."

I don't think that accurately describes the struggle we are in. Friends and foes (without standing to speak and be heard with respect) are not being recognised in that way.

In light of all the evidence not merely suggesting but proving that Iraq was a money war and not a war fought to protect American citizens it bewilders me to see the same tired criticisms of anyone to the left of center on this issue.

The "chickenhawk" thing is quite understandable to me. 9/11 happens (itself a VERY fishy situation, but I won't go there) and there's a rush of enlistments of good citizens who desire to protect their country. But instead of patrolling our borders and being here, in the USA, on call to protect our land, they're sent to Iraq, a mess on top of a mess. The ones who sent them there...do they know anything about fighting war, strategy, good sense regarding when and where to deploy forces? I doubt it, if their entitlements allowed them to skip the whole deal themselves. Were I in the service, over in the desert, doing nothing to protect America and risking my life trying to stop people from doing exactly what American citizens would do if OUR country were invaded...Yes, I am a progressive, but even if I was not, it would eat at me every single day - maybe even MORE if I were not a progressive because I'd have had higher expectations of my commander-in-chief.

To the fellow way up the thread who implied that sacrifice for the good of others is what it means to be a conservative; could you please deliver this message to our "conservative' leaders who are not sacrificing anything at all for the good of anyone but themselves? And also, maybe it would be interesting to deliver it to a few of the liberals who devoted their lives and monies to ending poverty, providing emergency health care, and feeding the hungry. I cannot help but wonder if they be amused or horrified to find they're actually espousing and practicing conservative values.

The whole liberal/conservative dichotomy is SO over with. The line between them has become very attenuated. Now, it is corporatists versus those who want big business entitlements, including those for the big war contractors, cut down to a reasonably gigantic size from its current leviathan gargantuan hulkingness.

Joe,
Great post and discussion. I agree with most, maybe all, of what you have said. I've read a great deal about the Atrios post (including the original post) and haven't seen any mention of the Baltimore Sun piece he linked to in order to bolster his argument. The following is lifted from the op-ed linked by Atrios:

"President Bush, moreover, has told Americans they need not make any sacrifices; to the contrary, he has pursued tax cuts. This is not inspiring. This is deceptive and dishonorable."

Of course it isn't true that Americans have been told they need not make sacrifices. While we haven't been asked explicitly, the President has repeatedly called on Americans to support the troops, as recently as the address from Ft. Bragg last week. I think it is time, however, to ask the far left in this country to sacrifice and discontinue their defeatist rhetoric and outright slander in some instances (Durbin comes immediately to mind), of the military and those who support the war. Of course he would never do such a thing but we can.

I'm sure I'll be flamed for suggesting such a "sacrifice" on the part of the left, but I don't believe it is asking too much. It isn't as if we'd be asking them to pay less taxes, after all.

well i'm glad i got an answer to my question about what form of disent is ok in the minds of repubs. i didn't expect an answer.

It would be easier to hear the voices from right if they didn't think everything they disagree with or don't have a good answer to is treason or defeatist.

Once on was on an airplane waiting to taxi. then they anounced that the flight was cancelled due to fog at our destination. was the pilot and the ground controllers defeatist for not following through on their mission and giving up? I was pissed but they did the right thing by adjusting their plans to fit the situation.

sometimes you have to change your plans and course to get to your ultimate goal. that is not wrong.

greg

D.M. Thraam: 9/11 happens (itself a VERY fishy situation, but I won't go there)

I'm not particularly interested in where you intend to go instead, and if I weren't in a good mood I'd give you some suggestions.

David Blue (#72),

Good point. Note the close to my comment #36, which notes that the Army of the Mind is international and goes beyond even the free peoples.

I stressed the citizen point, however, because it's fundamental. It's key within the US debate, and it applies for all the same reasons to those like you and like me who live in free countries.

People like us who are outside the USA are in an interesting position. We may have our personal security or that of our families affected by US decisions, but ultimately, we don't vote there and we don't get to decide. Our role is as friends, allies, supporters, commenters. We have standing to comment on whatever (it is not anyone's to give or withdraw), and to be evaluated on the merits. That said, we are open to potential attack on the grounds of promoting our own countries' interests rather than the USA's, if that can be credibly shown.

Chris... (#74) I think it's time for sacrifices from everyone. I reallt hated the "go shopping" bit right after 9/11 when it was uttered. I understand what W. was trying to do, but it felt wrong then and time has not improved my view. I'm with Trent, mobilization (literal or figurative) and sacrifice have been MIA far too much in this war. They need to come front and center.

As I've noted before: The 60s are dead... and so are the 80s.

JC,

There's just a bit of a gap between pessimism and treason (must have missed the Pooh episode where they execute Eeyore...). See my comment #56 for the clear definition of what treason is under your own constitution, and an equally clear statement that it does not apply to Kennedy.

Deafeatism, does. We could go into his statements if you like. His penchant for making public statements commemorating every blunder, while remaining utterly silent on other anniversaries like Saddam's fall. His reckless rhetoric, for which his own wobbly party has even censured him at times. It's a long list. And no, it's not a proud one for the brother of John "pay any price, bear any burden" Kennedy.

I can't help that. All I can do is to do my part to expose and counter at least some of the damage he does. Or Moore. Or... it's a long, long, long list these days.

Meanwhile, Greg in AK says: "sometimes you have to change your plans and course to get to your ultimate goal. that is not wrong."

True. But there's a difference between someone who criticizes with the intention of finding a better path to victory, and one who preaches defeat, or even sees the US as the enemy/main source of evil in the world... and most folks can tell pretty quickly.

Nothing Kennedy has done tells me he belongs in the first category - and lots of stuff suggests he belongs in the second. Ditto Atrios. IPS? No question where they stand: in category #3. And the manifold links and cites in The Low, Dishonest Road Through Gitmo - a very limited account at best of the full dimensions - tell a story too.

David Hackworth, on the other hand, was very much against the war. But he never stopped talking about what we had to do instead to win, and how to bust bureaucratic b.s. and get the troops on the front line the very best equipment and preparation we could. He shared the goal, and had another course. We gave him and SFTT.org a lot of respect here. Joe Biden is also a frequent critic. He shows up with serious ideas and approaches for fighting this war. He too gets a lot of respect here.

Michael Moore... doesn't.

There is a difference. It's a fundamental policy difference.

The difference matters.

And calling the intellectual heirs of the Copperheads on their policy patterns and priorities is the first line of defense. As it was back then, to preserve the Union against those who preached defeat and counselled surrender.

Greg in AK,
You analogy is actually pretty good, but you didn't take it far enough. Did you eventually make it do you destination, working through all of the problems and difficulties, or did you just give up and stay where you are?

If you gave up and cancelled your trip, then that's defeatism. If you muddled through that day and made or even cancelled your trip and rescheduled it then that's not.

Part of the problem is that Americans who never supported the Iraq war are not actively supporting our efforts now and even actively working to undermine them. Though it is arguable whether particular cases approach treason, it should be clear, at least WRT Iraq, that they are defeatists.

"Part of the problem is that Americans who never supported the Iraq war are not actively supporting our efforts now and even actively working to undermine them."

Wow, talk about blanket generalizations. Wait, that doesn't even go far enough. How about idiotic blanket generalizations.

Everyone who did not support the war prior to it's commencement is now actively working to undermine our effort.

You do realize that includes thousands of troops who either have or are now serving in Iraq right?

Just two quick comments from the guy who's brought this fine mess, see if you can guess who he is:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him."

"Bring it on!"

Give up?

Dunno, but even if it's Atrios, that's actually a smart attitude. A stopped clock can be right twice a day, and all.

In fact, if we had to get just one guy I can think of a couple who come before Bin Laden: Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Mugniyeh, to name a few.

We'd like to get Bin Laden, and we'll keep trying. Meanwhile, it's more important to take apart the nodes of the network, kill its competent field commanders, and break the states and fundraising networks that support and promote Islamofascism's ideology of hate and its murders. That's the path to safety, and ultimate victory.

Guess who said this one:

"The perpetrators of today's attacks are intent on destroying human life. The terrorists will not succeed. Today’s bombings will not weaken in any way our resolve to uphold the most deeply held principles of our societies and to defeat those who would impose their fanaticism and extremism on all of us.

“We shall prevail and they shall not."

In the end, that's what it's all about, and that's bigger than any one man. We shall prevail, and they shall not.

LOL Brian! That was a easy pitch. Joe had no trouble hitting that one out of the park!

It's the old "Iraq is a distraction from capturing Bin Laden" meme! Do you bring it up here as a zombie or a museum piece?

BTW, speaking of old memes, if Cliton had bothered to pickup Bin Laden when Sudan had offered him up, then maybe you're not here trying to have this discussion.

(Full disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat)

That's hitting one out of the park? Really? I guess the standards here are pretty low.

Actually joe, it was bush who said both. One was about bin laden, maybe you remember him, the guy bush said he wanted dead or alive? But I guess that dead or alive stuff was just talk right? Just theatrics to make himself sound tough? Lotta good it's done us here, or in Iraq or Bali or Madrid and now London. I guess he didn't really mean it after all, Right?

Or how about this gem when asked about the insurgents: "Bring it on." That was his bone-headed response. Taunting killers in Iraq to attack outnumbered soldiers who are already dealing with armour free humvees. But I guess that was just more tough guy talk right? Only problem is there's 1800 dead americans since he said that. But bush, he jut keeps on grinning.

You know what the really sad thing is? The first part of your post actually made sense. More sense than anything I've seen or heard coming from the white house in five years.

The last part? Just more talk, and we can't afford any more of that bullshit.

brian, you ever feel like everyone else is "in" on the joke, except yourself?

You know Brian, its not amusing when people make silly hay about things like President Bush's "Bring it on" statement. It just shows a petty obsessive nature on the commentor. President Bush made that comment to the troops in question and let me tell you something you don't seem to know - they loved him for it.

Pretending that his encouragement to the troops is some sort of silly cause de guerre only makes the unseriousness of your comment more manifest.

It'd be nice if they wouldn't misquote him either; Bush didn't say "I have no idea and really don't care."

3/13/02 Press Conference

Brian,

Glad it made sense. Understand, too, that you can want Bin Laden dead or alive, but you may also not want him at any cost. Let me throw something at you from Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, I know what the group he talked to said but I'd be interested in what you say:

"[Biden] told me about a recent visit to Los Angeles, where he met with a group of wealthy liberals and laid out the following scenario: "Assume you're the President, and I'm your Secretary of Defense or State or C.I.A. director, and I come to you and tell you we know where bin Laden is, he and four hundred of his people, and they're in this portion of Pakistan the Pakistanis won't go into, and they told us not to go in. This is going to cost us 500 to 5,000, of our soldiers, but we can get him. What do you do?"

Let's assume (and this is a big assumption) that if you do this, you can pull off the operation and you're 100% guaranteed to get Bin Laden. It also has implications vis-a-vis Pakistan in terms of "act of war," however, and you may or may not be able to finesse the aftermath. So there's that to think about, plus the casualties. You're the President. You do want Bin Laden dead or alive. What do you do?

Regarding defeatism- Many of don't see Iraq as doing anything positive in the fight against relgious fundementalists ( muslim). In fact many of us think that it is a distraction, a misplaced blow, spending our forces in a battle that does not help our fight. It is fighting the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong weapon in the wrong place. that is not the soldiers fault.

Part of getting on the correct path is getting rid of the fools who have made , at least in some opinions, a jillion errors. so critizing them is a way of pointing out errors so that they will be held responsible and others will see that our course is wrong.

OBTW I don't think we can pull out without leaving the situation worse then before we started.

greg

PS

"Bring it on!" Robin. Not to the troops, in front of them maybe, but TO them? No. It was to the terrorists and it was f*cking stupid.

Joe, take a deep breath and understand: The war in Iraq is a f*cked-up mess, right? It's been that way for awhile now and it seems to be getting worse. The guys in charge of running this mess, bush, cheny and rumsfeld haven't done a very good job. Rumsfeld even submitted his resignation. Twice.

So where do you go for leadership and assurance? Two vital ingrediants for getting people thru times of war? Not to the white house: How long will it take to get out of this mess? Depending on the timeline, the administration says six months, no wait, a year or two at most, welllll.., could be twelve, depends on what the meaning of the word "throes" is? And who are we fighting? Dead enders..? a few baathists? a well armed and trained insurgancy of up to 10,000? .. And why are we there? WMD!.. No.. wait.. 9/11!.. umm tosecuredemocracyforasecuremiddleeast! Oh, and 9/11..
And how does the administration pull together the nation while we're at war in two places? It doesn't. It calls anyone who voted against bush a coward who's against the troops, and that includes anyone who dares dissent.

So, there is no leadership, the cause is vauge and shifting and the rehtoric polarizing. That's where we are as a nation. You may enjoy eating this bulls*it, but I don't.

And now to answer the inevitable question, (well what would you do?) I'd start by leveling with people. Less Karl rovian bulls*it and more honest to God press conferences where I would answer real questions, not soft-balls from fox. I'd twist arms in europe and canada untill they pop out of their sockets to get them and anyone else into Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'd raise taxes. Yeah, I'd raise taxes. (I get three hundred dollars last year while soldiers are complaining about not enough armour on their humvees? Keep it!) After that? Maybe some down time at camp david.

Most importantly, I'd do whatever I could to get the entire country behind these missions. Something, anything to make the entire population feel that they were a vital part of the war(s) effort.

Well, there you have it. My worries and solutions in a nut shell. Obviously I'll get called a traitor, or libdem, or commie or whatever term Rush has invented out of his drug induced haze, but it doens't matter. Because it won't happen anytime soon. Well keep sniping at each other, Americans will die and nothing-will-change.

Ok, that's all I got for now, time to make some coffee and feed the dog.
Enjoy.

Joe,

I didn't post anything yesterday, but only sent out silent prayers to Londoners. This partisan stuff was the last thing that we need.

Today, I will engage again, but hopefully in the spirit of that unity that is needed to confront our extremist enemies. Please take this criticism in that spirit.

I have to say that you didn't really engage any of the points I made in #70.

"Negative connotation" isn't answered by your response of "bit of a gap between pessimism and treason". Yes, there's a gap - but the point is the connotations associated obscure that gap.

The "defeatist" Senator Kennedy. Again, quite the negative connotation - and yes, he is quite vex with the administration for the false pretenses under which the Bush administration took the US to war. His vexedness at the Bush administration does NOT equate to defeatism. You should know the difference.

But can't you be honest?

Here's part of a speech on Sept 22, 2004 by Senator Kennedy -

"As we move forward with the debate in the Senate, I am hopeful we will never forget that the blame for the attacks on 9/11 rests solely on the al-Qaida terrorists and Osama bin Laden and the people involved in the Middle East for a long time working at these kinds of things. We need to understand also that the threat is not over, and we need to continue to deal with it.

So our focus is trying to figure out ways to improve the situation and correct the problem so the events of September 11 will not happen again.

So this obviously involves increasing both the quality and quantity of human intelligence, and we need to take a look at our overall situation, intelligence as well as military, because things, indeed, have to change. We need to have coordination certainly among all the intelligence agencies throughout the country, in different agencies than they have been in the past. Whether they put them all into one is one of the questions before us, but whether we do or not there has to be coordination and conversation and information exchange among them. There has to be sharing. We have to define the goals we are seeking so we understand what it is we are putting forth and that each of these various units within our intelligence agencies know what their responsibilities are and their goals are and we can put them together to equal what our totals are. We need, obviously, to invest more in the technical intelligence capabilities. Those things change constantly.

So more importantly, I suppose most importantly, we need to ensure the coordinated use of these resources and the personnel and improve communications. It sounds like an easy thing, but apparently it is not. In the end, this type of reform and reform of our intelligence gathering process is necessary. I look forward to the debate we will have soon and I suppose some starting today, as a matter of fact, with the recommendation before us for Director of the CIA.

Again, I hope that we can aim toward fixing the problems, aim toward moving to solutions rather than again finding ourselves in the 40-some days from elections where nearly everything is talked about having to do with the elections.

Of course, overall, the most important challenge we have before us now is to win the war on terrorism in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan."

The dictionary definition of defeatist that YOU cite:

Defeatism is acceptance and content with defeat without struggle

is proved wrong with the quote above of Kennedy's: Of course, overall, the most important challenge we have before us now is to win the war on terrorism in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

And again, you DIDN'T EVEN GO INTO who the CO-BELLIGERENTS were, did you? Didn't even mention my distinction betwee red on red TRUE co-belligerents, and this facile grouping that you have created here.

Deeply uncivil, deeply irresponsible. Especially when we need to come together, let's agree to disagree, but not be dishonest, divisive, and tar and feather strong believers in democracy and freedom (Kennedy) WHO HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH YOU as "cobelligerents", as "defeatist".

And again - VICTORY. The matrix of the actions that are recommended by Diamond and Cordesman.

Silent on that too, aren't you? Isn't getting the recommendations rgiht more important than tar and feathering your political opponents?

I do hope that you repent this type of language, or, failing that, that these words follow you as the stain they should be - because there are deeply uncivil, deeply unhelpful, deeply divisive, and not useful to VICTORY.

Your truly, in the understanding that we must remain strong, firm and united in opposing totalitarian extremism of all sorts.