And it's just as fair to point out that people said things that were patently wrong as it is to say that history isn't baked well enough for us to say just yet.

Relying on a future in which the current inhumanties will be justified is just like Stalin and Lenin.

Right, because the US is just like Stalin's Soviet Union.

We have a basement under the Supreme Court building where the convicted are taken and quickly shot...don't we?

A.L.

You really have to wonder at the people that are quick to scream that the current system is facist, terrible, practically Nazi Germany, but who also want to send people to reeducation centers, send thier political opponents to jail, and so forth.

#2 Armed Liberal -

The LOGIC is the same. Too many times thousands or millions have been sacrificed for the future/

Steve, if you think the logic is remotely the same, I genuinely worry about your knowledge of history.

A.L.

#5 Armed Liberal -

The appeal to a better future has been the excuse for many atrocities.

Good on you again, AL.

I suspect they really mean this stuff, although like you, I don't think they intend anything violent. I think that they mean that if people like Donald Rumsfeld or Doug Feith ever want a job at a university, unless and until they've had their confession and self-criticism, they should be protested every day, hounded out of their jobs, etc.

And really, the Left has the power to do that, using the protest machine. It'd be easy to raise the costs of employing a former Bush administration official to a degree that made it unprofitable for a business -- or unpalatable for a university, which might hate the negative publicity, security risk, and disruption of classes -- to employ them.

These protest machine groups, somewhat like the Red Guard, aren't formally part of the government or even the Democratic Party. Party leaders wouldn't even have to take formal responsibility for it: they could just say, "Well, it's a shame but, you know, they really ought to think about the harm they caused, and I guess many people feel they need to get right with America."

If that kind of thing isn't to happen to people, it'll be because good folks refuse to countenance it and call it what it is. I'm glad to see you doing that. It's not what America's system is about.

#3 Celebrim writes "who also want to send people to reeducation centers, send thier political opponents to jail, and so forth."

I think Mark Levin has called for something like that but of course it would only be for people who oppose the Iraq War.

OK, Steve - cite?

A.L.

#9 Armed Liberal -

Sorry, I got that from listening to Levin's radio show and I don't have a transcript. I also recall that he said that people who are anti-war need to be "rolled" - and by that I think he meant beat up.

He's got audio archives - if you remember the date, you could post a link. I'd love to add him to the Savage ship of tools.

Levin - like Olbermann, Coulter, the Air America crowd and Savage - is a clown, not a policymaker. When folks closer to the center of policy say things like this it matters a lot more.

A.L.

#11 Armed Liberal -

I don't write down the dates. I carry a little notebook and write down statements that I find provocative. Let me see if I can place it within the correct week.

PS - I strongly disgree with your characterization of Olbermann and Air America, I strongly AGREE with your position on Savage.

Having popped over to your site, I'm shocked of course that you disagree with me re Olbermann and Air America...

A.L.

AL -

Ok, as best I can tell, Levin said this after Pollack & Hanlon had their op-ed published. It was also after Liberberman had a op-ed in the WSJ.

I know that isn't much to go on but it's the best I can do right now.

Having popped over to your site, I'm shocked of course that you disagree with me re Olbermann and Air America...

:-)

It's sad, isn't it?

Almost tragic, in a way, and I don't mean that lightly. It's not that conservatives-- some conservatives, only, and in varying degrees-- haven't done this, don't do this, won't do this. That's self-evident bullshit.

It's tragic in a way because liberals-- some liberals, only, and in varying degrees-- are becoming like their opponents (I can't bring myself to use the word "enemies" when speaking of two nearly-halves of the American population) and just honestly don't see it. Of course it's not the same, they say. The difference is, they're right. Usually without an inkling of a real, visceral understanding that the impolite discussion we've been having on the ordering of society has been going on at least a thousand years. But, oh no, they're right.

I have a simple word of advice for the culture warriors on both sides, and the ones who think they need it the least usually need it the most: Stop knowing you're right about everything. Stop believing it, too.

Start hoping you're right, and maybe you'll get somewhere.

Is Clarke talking about thoughtcrime or is he talking about amnesty for genuine crimes, even, at least in South Africa, extending to government assassins? The idea is that the powers-that-were fess up in lieu of tumultuous judicial processes.

I'm not sure where, if at all, this fits in with the planning of Iraq, but I can see some prospects for it with respect to criminal abuse of prisoners, criminal embezzlement of "reconstruction" funds, criminal illegal domestic surveillance programs, etc. Of course, if we find that in the pre-9/11 meeting Dick Cheney held with energy company executives, the one where they stiffed Congress on the minutes, there was a Michelin Map of Iraq on the table and Cheney was divvying up the oil fields for future use, we might fold planning the war back into the agenda.

Zimbabwe?

How about Canada, or see a lot of what is here: http://www.thefire.org/

Clarke's right, until these people admit their guilt they should be excluded from jobs, etc. After all, shouldn't being a proven LIAR disqualify anyone from holding a serious job? I think conservatives call it "good business policy".

Because once we set that style of politics in place - once we 'ban' people until they have passed some kind of smell test, our politics are no better than Zimbabwe's.

I can only hope their clueless (especially about history, as you point out) and not doing this knowingly.

Good on you, AL. You detail all the reasons I am no longer a Liberal or a Democrat. I did not leave them, they left me. A long time ago.

Once we start enforcing speech codes in this country, we are done.

And, I fear we are not far from it.

This "Red Guard" process has already begun in the case of John Yoo vis a vis his "torture memos." Slide on over to Crooked Timber or Balkinization(especially Balkinization!) where they've been foaming at the mouth for weeks about whether he should have been given tenure at UC Berkeley--or even allowed to teach for that matter. Once again, it is a matter of our intellectual and moral "bettors"--those Liberals with "The Vision of the Anointed" (to use Sowell's term) that will use both the power of the State and the intellectual Red Guard to "march us sinners to virtue at bayonet's point" (as one commenter at CT so well stated).

"Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tarter," so the old saying goes; I've revised it to: "Scratch a 'Progressive' and you'll find a potential Robespierre."

PS: I forgot to mention the call for arrest and trial for War Crimes at both sites for the good Professor Yoo. Those guys don't hesitate to get to the bottom line real quick--but then "consider the source" applies per usual.

Let me beg to differ with you a little AL@#11. The Olbermann's of this world, etc., while not super close to the "centers of power" themselves, certainly can (and often do) insidiously create over time the sort of social atmosphere that allows real power-holders to use the "new reality" thusly created to act out their more Stalinist impulses than otherwise would be the case.

AL, what's your answer to the question posed by Olbermann: "Democrats, prominent Democrats said today that impeachment was not a remedy to this, but can anyone argue with a straight face, post-Lewinsky that these lies, the blood and treasure that they cost us, don’t deserve some kind of remedy. And is there some other kind of remedy?"

It's a fair question surely? This isn't about thought-crime and it certainly isn't about you. It's about serious crimes for which people have in the past been tried and punished. I find it very sad that after one generation of Americans did so much to establish the principles under which those who wage aggressive war can be put in the dock, another generation is reviving the doctrine that might is right.

I think it's a natural consequence of the wholesale adoption of utilitarian ethics by the left. (And in many cases, crude act utilitarianism, at that.) Rights are fundamentally a teleological concept, they have no grounding in utilitarian morality, where the end, and only the end, justifies the means. Efforts to sort of tack them onto rule utilitarianism are an obvious patch job, and not very convincing.

If you're a utilitarian it becomes all too easy to rationalize that any means at all which you think will advance your (Good, of course!) ends are justified. The actual utilitarian calculations to prove the contrary being not even theoretically possible. While a bad end, (Your opponents'.) can't justify any means at all, no matter how innocuous.

It's a recipe for evading all limits on yourself, and stripping your opponents of all liberty.

That's not to say that everyone will follow the recipe, but it's a characteristic hazard of the ethical theory.

Kevin, I think that's called the electoral process, and we're going through it.

To the extent that the GOP and other hawks are defeated at the polls, the public intellectuals, staff, etc. that work for them and support their ideas are going to be out of jobs - naturally, with a clear shot at redemption in the next election if their opponents fail, and if they can make good arguments.

No public hazing required.

A.L.

Further Kevin - we don't put people 'in the dock' for 'waging agressive war'. We put people in the dock for war crimes - murdering POW's, deliberate targeting of civilians, concentration camps. Think the Rape of Nanking or Bataan Death March; think Birkenau or Lidice.

When we commit those - at a policy level, as they were by Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany (and the Soviet Union) - you'll have an argument. We haven't, and you don't.

A.L.

"Because once they've shut them up, they'll come shut me up, and soon you'll be looking over your shoulder as well."

Oh please. Did you commit perjury? Any other crime? Did you lie to the American Public and redirect their tax money on that basis to initiate a disastrous and costly war? Have you stolen contracting money intended for use in Iraq? Approve illegal torture or detention of individuals?

Then you have nothing to worry about.

Kevin's right. This is about the sad state of our society where we allow criminals to walk free among us without recourse. That certainly is not censorship and it is not a slippery slope leading to a cranky blogger.

"Kevin, I think that's called the electoral process, and we're going through it."

Actually, what I think Clarke is talking about is the Judicial process, not the electoral process. You don't try crimes by public polling.

"To the extent that the GOP and other hawks are defeated at the polls, the public intellectuals, staff, etc. that work for them and support their ideas are going to be out of jobs - naturally, with a clear shot at redemption in the next election if their opponents fail, and if they can make good arguments."

So what do you do, what does society do, when this doesn't happen the "free-market" manner you suggest?

June 6 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was forced from his job amid a controversy over the firings of federal prosecutors, has been hired to provide assistance to a special master on a patent case.

Link.

You're essentially defending the "right" of these people to escape from potential crimes by suggesting that some kind of imagined market force of self-censorship will suffice.

I think you forget that we live in a country based on laws that are meaningless unless they are enforced. Unless, that is, you're suggesting that one only needs to abide by the laws they agree with, because to me it seems like in this case you don't.

"I think you forget that we live in a country based on laws that are meaningless unless they are enforced. Unless, that is, you're suggesting that one only needs to abide by the laws they agree with, because to me it seems like in this case you don't."

I think this is not a complaint Democrats are well positioned to make after the Clinton administration.

I think what needs re-examining is the principle of seditious libel. The traditional view is that the Constitution protects people who are wrong on public policy and who even lie in furtherance of it. NYTimes v. Sullivan suggests as much. But seditious libel does have a long common law background and the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional.

I would strongly urge President Obama to hire a Constitutional scholar, like John Yoo, with a strong background in antebellum era legal theory to develop these points. I am pretty confident that with strong public support and a good legal strategy, seditious libel could be dusted off for the twenty-first century.

Well, Brett, I'm not a Democrat, but I am a US citizen who wants the government to enforce laws. I don't think that's too much to ask.

But on your point, did Clinton commit potential war crimes, theft of government services and taxpayer dollars, and commit torture or rendition? Did he conspire to lie to the American public, to withhold information collected on our behalf and with our tax dollars? I really don't see the equivalence.

Well, Tyler, the commenters in Michael's Serbia post seem to think that Clinton did. And there's the risk.

Look, it's one thing to be wrong; and to bear the consequences for that. It's another to be criminal. And what I see in your comment, Tyler, is a desire to criminalize error and to criminalize political positions that are unfavored. And to me, that goes directly to the heart of the American project, and I'll speak and work against that - from either side - as hard as I can.

A.L.

AL:

Further Kevin - we don't put people 'in the dock' for 'waging agressive war'. We put people in the dock for war crimes

In fairness, and as a friend and supporter of yours, you should know that unjustified aggression is THE war crime. None of the others compares to it in severity. It is the crime that leads to all the other crimes that happen in the course of the war; as well as the non-criminal destruction that attends the war. We certainly did try the Nazis for it at Nurmberg -- two of the major counts were for planning and waging a war of aggression, and conspiracy to commit "crimes against peace."

The defense, in the case of the Iraq war, is deep: the failure of Saddam to abide by the cease fire that ended the Persian Gulf war; the uptick in murders from 2000 onward by his state apparatus, and the mass murders of the 1990s, which can justify a humanitarian invasion (not considered "aggression" because his state has failed in its basic duty to its citizens by mass-murdering them, and is therefore not a legitimate state protected by the laws of sovereignity); denial of basic human rights, such as freedom from rape rooms; refusal to comply with international agreements; etc., etc., etc. There's no reason to rehash it all.

But it is true that "aggressive war" is a war crime. It is the fundamental war crime.

"And what I see in your comment, Tyler, is a desire to criminalize error and to criminalize political positions that are unfavored."

Wrong. What your post indicates is a desire to forgive potential crimes, partly by raising this baseless accusation of "censorship".

I hope you're aware that "censure" (what Clarke said) does not mean "censor" or "suppress". Could it be that this entire post is nothing more than a rant by someone with a poor vocabulary? That would be rather humorous.

You're also ignoring the comments by Clarke that we should be willing to forgive those who lied if they own up to it, like McClellan has. His tone is actually quite reconciliatory in my view.

Really, you're making this out to be something entirely different than what it is. Let me guess...you're a pro-Iraq war holdout?

AL wrote: we don't put people 'in the dock' for 'waging agressive war'. We put people in the dock for war crimes - murdering POW's, deliberate targeting of civilians, concentration camps.

Grim, thanks for setting AL straight on that. I was about to post a little homily, about how Hjalmar Schacht and Franz Von Papen found themselves in the dock at Nuremberg, when I saw your comment.

As you probably know, the justifications you mention for the Iraq war were considered by Britain's AG, who rejected them. He fell back on the WMD issue. Given what we now know I don't think that would hold up in court. (IANAL however.)

I think what needs re-examining is the principle of seditious libel

Ding ding ding ding. Good going, Shaw.

FWIW, Shaw, the Sedition Act was used to attempt to outlaw political dissent. If you get that revived, you'd better hope your side wins the next election, because there probably won't be one after that. What do you want to do next - revive the tradition of Palmer raids and Comstockery, targeting your political opponents? Better bring some guns, pal.

Bottom line is Jonah Goldberg is right about the totalitarian tendency in 'progressivism'. Like a lot of other ideologies it is susceptible to it, and that side of progressivism is rearing its hydra head. Sorry if I'm getting a little bit snide but I'm unable to forget who has been lecturing us about Bush destroying the constitution for the last 8 years, and hearing the same people talk about punishing speech and thought and votes is a bit too much. Yeah, you're going make it illegal for politicians to cast the facts in a way that favors their preferred outcome? Riiiiight...

Clarke that we should be willing to forgive those who lied if they own up to it, like McClellan has.

When/where did McClellan admit to lying about the war?

McClellan (from his book):
I still like and admire George W. Bush. I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people.

Gonna' need another source.

The British AG has no authority over the United States of America; I believe we established that precedent in 1781. I certainly believe that all of those justifications are valid; and, as an American citizen, I've as great a right to speak to it as anyone.

What I would like to see is a decent respect for each side, of the sort AL intends to advocate here. I wish people would quit declaring that the other side are "liars" -- people who throw around fighting words like that are doing no one any good service, although of course it is true that politicians of every sort are untrustworthy. AL is right that the electoral process is the means to resolve this, and that we as a society will benefit from decency, and a commitment to treat each other not just fairly but generously.

That's hard to do sometimes, and I don't claim to be perfect. But it is also what's best for us all.

[....]You 'killed' me here several years ago

[And as far as I can tell you are still banned. Thanks for checking. --NM]

"Levin - like Olbermann, Coulter, the Air America crowd and Savage - is a clown, not a policymaker."

The difference between them is that Coulter is a professional clown. It's a shtick, she knows it, it's an act she does for the money. In that, she's a lot like Lucile Ball - on TV she was a The Whacky Redhead, in real life she was a VERY intelligent studio owner. Coulter's really as Glenn Reynolds, she leans to the right but not very far. Olberman, Levin, Savage and the Air America people (especially Rhodes) really believe what they're saying.

Hey [redacted], You're the one who gets his news and information from Think Progress, watching Richard Clarke on Olberman, etc. Surprised by that world view? You got what you deserved.

The Iraq war is not that complicated. We don't need an endless dialogue to figure out what happened. We don't need to rehash every decission during the war to know how to proceed.

Iraq is the strategic center of the ME. It is occupied by the US and our allies. We moved the fight from our soil to the enemies and in so doing we have co-opted an arab government and people to help us in our fight against Islamic extremism. We have weathered the worst of the struggle and come out virtually unscathed.

The path forward is equally simple. Finish the job! Establish a free and representative government in Iraq (and Afghanistan) that can defend itself and is allied to the US in important areas. These areas include military, logistics, long term strategic interests, short term forward deployed tactical interests, and other things.

The thing to avoid is unilateral US surrender for no other reason than domestic politics. Vote Obama, and you will have endless dialogue. Dialogue about how it was a good idea to surrender to the enemy, humiliate the US abroad, destroy the hard won progress made by our troops, and how to spend the dollars normally dedicated to the military on a new nanny state taking its direction from a neo-socialism similar to the failed policies of old Europe.

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

[Doug, in the interest of civility I cut out the insult. Be advised this sort of micromanagement is not the best use of either your time or mine. --NM]

Levin - like Olbermann, Coulter, the Air America crowd and Savage - is a clown, not a policymaker."

No, the main difference is that Olbermann is a news anchor who hosts a newscast and who co-anchors the news desk for MSNBC's campaign coverage.

At least, that's how Olbermann is sold to the public. As a: news anchor, news reporter, news host.

He and MSNBC say he keeps his opinions to himself and that he reports the news with no favor for anyone.

The others are commentators and pundits.

And if you believe all that about Olbermann, I'm going to roll the dice and say that you're not looking at things the way I do.

I suggest that the refusal to criminalize policy disagreement (the terms "crime" and "criminal" are thrown around in these comments a bit loosely) is the minimum price we pray for a free society. For if one side is "criminalized" by the other because it won the last election, what's to say the newly marginalized/criminalized just simply refuse to accept the state of affairs and seek to overthrow the new regime? If they lose freedom (literally) in the new state of affairs, why go along with it?

The "civil war" comment made earlier in the comments has been ignored a bit. My question is: say one wants to criminalize a particular approach to the war (either or con) and one attempts to enforce that with actual arrests and trials. What's to say that the putative criminal, and their sympathizers and supporters, will accept that state of affairs?

I posit with that way of thinking the death of the concept of peaceful transfer of power in American electons. Is the possible death of the American system of peaceful transfer of power worth the glib assertions and squawks of those who want to criminalize policy they disagree with? Or are those who argue against AL's position simply pollyannas, or just confident that if there is such a conflagration, that they will win it?

Or is peace the sacrifice we make for "correctness"?

#46 should read at one point "(either pro or con)."

Apologies for the error.

Would you mind a pedant pointing out that WTFG translates to "way to f***ing go". In the context of the sentence "WTFG is this, a Martin Cruz Smith novel?" . . . it makes little sense.

I believe you intended to simply type WTF, which translates to "what the f***". No G.

:)

Just knowing the liberal establishment as well as the Democrat Party are gung ho to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine tells me all I need to know about them.

Freedom of Speech my ass. Freedom of your speech is all the liberals care about.

Fairness Doctrine, a misnomer if there's ever been one.

[Mr Pelto, stop. Please. The "point" you are trying to make is bogus. Quoting from the linked article you seem incapable of comprehending,

Chuck Pelto (???) got into a serious scrap with A.L. back on armedliberal.com, and couldn't seem to resist derailing threads here to talk about [unrelated] or semi-related things and continue the feud (important troll signal). A.L. banned him from commenting on his posts, he was suffocating the whole discussion zone. I had much more time for Chuck but A.L. was right about that, and in his threads it's his call anyway, and so I asked Mr. Pelto to refrain. He couldn't seem to stop himself, so I enforced the request with a ban.

(Correction mine)

A decent respect, etc., etc.

--NM]

mea culpas -

I'm gonna go reread my Nuremburg history this month as penance, and less seriously - yes, I did mean "WTF". Correcting it now...

A.L.

[Rich, what you posted is just a little bit too "trollish-driveby" for a first post. Try something else. --NM]

What is unbelieveably disgusting about the entire "Bush Lied" crap is that the US Congress voted quite decisively (far more than in 1991) to authorize the war. And remember that Bush kinda hinted that summer that he did not need such authorization, there was a standard hue and cry, so the admin said, "Fine, let's put it to a vote!".

In October of 2002. "Whaaaat, right before the election!! How dare you!" As if there could possibly be a MORE legitimate time to ask the people's representatives such a momentous question.

"Ahh, but he LIED, doncha get it? How could the Congress vote adequately in such a case?" Huh?? Are these 535 children? (don't answer that). Do they not have ENTIRE committees and research offices paid for by you and me? Do they not pride themselves on being entirely separate from the executive? Can they not call the NSA, CIA, Pentagon, etc and get their OWN info, straight from the source? And of course, were they not all saying the same things about Iraq for years? That this subsequent "We didn't know what the hell we were doing" argument doesn't automatically disqualify one from public office shows just how far into childishness we have fallen at our highest levels.

That the administration did not listen to the now vindicated James Carville for political advice (from afar) is one of their worst mistakes in 7 years. Namely that you NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER stop making your case (EVERYONE said Saddam had WMD... everyone!, etc), and make it EVERY SINGLE DAY, DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY, until we are all so sick of it we want to scream, and THEN you say it THREE HUNDRED MORE TIMES! Because if you don't, your enemies WILL say it EVERY SINGLE DAY (Bush Lied, People Died, blah blah blah), and they WILL carry the day as a result.

Public relations and enery policy are the two places this administration has catastrophically dropped the ball. As I have said a hundred times about a bunch of people I thought were supposed to be business savvy: Where the hell is Marketing?

What's to say that the putative criminal, and their sympathizers and supporters, will accept that state of affairs? I posit with that way of thinking the death of the concept of peaceful transfer of power in American electons...

I think that's precisely correct. That's the chief danger.

I think that they mean that if people like Donald Rumsfeld or Doug Feith ever want a job at a university,... they should be ... hounded out of their jobs, etc. And really, the Left has the power to do that..."

...even to liberal apostates like Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard.

I think the original quote is:

"Have you no decency sir? At long last, have you no decency?"

Throw that back in these so-called liberals' faces and watch them squirm like the self-aggrandizing opportunists they are.

Let me guess… you're a pro-Iraq war holdout?

Let me guess: you're a “the Iraq War is Lost!” holdout? How quaint… how 2006.

Grim: The British AG has no authority over the United States of America....

Thanks Grim, actually I knew that. For my part I think the best outcome would be for an American court to try the matter. I don't see why you see a great danger in the putative criminal refusing to accept the verdict. Convicts frequently reject the verdict. They are not required to accept it, they just have to do their time.

What a nice change of pace. A discussion on the merits of policy, not on the personalities of the posters involved.

A tip of the hat to the moderators. :)

For my part, the idea that anyone 'lied' is pretty far out there. After 6 years, several dozen investigations, a change in leadership and a complete rethinking of the war there has been only one single criminal case made and that was spurrious at best. (Libby).

Were the war supporters painting the worst case scenarios? You bet. Were the Dems in Congress doing the same? You bet. Was there a reason? You bet.

Let's make the best of what we've started and drop the 'criminalization' of policy.

Otherwise, there wouldn't be anyone left in Washington.

Dear Sir:

You have nailed the single great flaw in many of today's "progressives." They hate and attempt to stop any and all rational debate and to paint those who who are not on their team as criminals. The constant attempt to turn policy differences into criminal acts is exactly what Lenin called "infantile Leftism" at its most extreme, most petty and most vulgar.

One reason why the "progressives" use insult and personal invective against the so called "neocons" is because they are unwilling and often unable to stand up and go head to head with them. Many if not most of these "neocons" are are bona fide intellectuals and many of them are renegades from the Left. Additionally many of them are from the very combative New York Jewish Intellectual scene and well trained in rough take no prisoners intellectual debate.

I happened to be in Berkeley in 1964 when the Governor, Jerry Brown's Dad, used University cops and California Highway Patrol officers to clear Sproul Hall and the sit in folks were loaded at four in the morning into yellow school buses waiting at the end of Telegraph Avenue. They called for "Free Speech." Today anybody calling for free speech would for sure be brought up on charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, intolerance of diversity or whatever unforgivable sins are an affront against the current hot intellectual fad.

The one thing that is common to both leftist "Moonbats" and rightist "Wingnuts" is their closed mind intellectual bigotry. The other thing they have in common is that their eyes glow in the dark.

Sincerely

John Kelly

Adverting to an earlier topic, Armed Liberal has no intellectual or ethical responsibility to search for that item. Steve J does, but it does not seem likely to happen.

The "civil war" comment made earlier in the comments has been ignored a bit. My question is: say one wants to criminalize a particular approach to the war (either or con) and one attempts to enforce that with actual arrests and trials. What's to say that the putative criminal, and their sympathizers and supporters, will accept that state of affairs?

Short answer: they won't. And the state of the nation could get very ugly, very quickly. Especially so, given that the aforementioned "sympathizers and supporters"--strong believers in the Second Amendment--will be far better armed as well. Shucks, if you can name me a leftist politician who admits to owning a firearm, let me know.

The other problem with attempting to criminalize policy differences is that it could easily lead to a massive alienation of the Armed Forces and much of the police from the government--resulting in their direct entry into the political process. Worried about a coup? Heck, the Armed Forces wouldn't have to even do that much--the troops could simply mount rolling work stoppages, "by the book" slowdowns, or just have everybody call in sick. The government would be then faced with a Hobson's Choice: cave in--and effectively grant political power to the Armed Forces--or use force, which could result in a lot of ensuing nastiness. Hey, after all, who could "President Obama" send to arrest generals buttoned up in M1 tanks? County mounties?

Look, it's one thing to be wrong; and to bear the consequences for that. It's another to be criminal. And what I see in your comment, Tyler, is a desire to criminalize error and to criminalize political positions that are unfavored. And to me, that goes directly to the heart of the American project, and I'll speak and work against that - from either side - as hard as I can.

AL, I think you're purposefully overstating the case here. There ARE errors that are criminal - and there are errors that should be criminalized - but I don't see anyone saying that it's political opinion that should be criminalized. That's a purposeful obfuscation that only comes out of your own writing. Some of those criminal errors are an outgrowth of political opinion, but it's the error, not the opinion, that deserves prosecution.

Insofar as it can be proven that Bush intentionally mislead us on WMD intel - and while there' a great deal of evidence that he spun it as hard as he could, I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove, in a court of law, that he outright lied - then yes, he deserves prosecution. Ditto directives like water-boarding that came straight from the top.

But the political opinions that drove this stuff are merely wrong, and should be rebuked and set aside, which, as you point out, is exactly what's happening. Clarke's not calling for anything more than that, nor should he.

Of course, it's to your advantage to make a big deal out of this, isn't it, AL? Without this kind of argument, you're merely somebody who's argued for a heck of a lot of ideas over the past five years - from the Iraq war to the need for Democratic, Lieberman-style "reform" - that have all been proven wrong. By grandstanding on how horrible Keith Olberman is (in the same league as Coulter? Please...) you redefine yourself as a champion of liberty and civil debate. Clever, but pity there's nothing more here than a straw man.

Convicts frequently reject the verdict.

All men of principle reject the verdict of a show trial.

I've seen this deja vu too many times over the years. A good organization doing good work is infiltrated by the left and bent to their purpose until it breaks or is broken by the push back. The left moves on to another victim. The left is a disease.

Moving on the American legal system is certainly ambitious.

Re this quote: "There's a long and messy conversation to have about Iraq and what it means, what led to it, and where it will lead.

And it's just as fair to point out that people said things that were patently wrong as it is to say that history isn't baked well enough for us to say just yet."

Actually it's pretty cut and dry.

The invasion of Afghanistan was prompted by its use as the major operating base for al Qaeda.

The invasion of Iraq was instigated by 12 years of nose thumbing on the part of a WMD-wielding terrorist-supporting megalomaniac. U.N. Resolution 1441 gave Hussein an ultimatum and us the specific authority to force compliance, by any necessary means. That included military force.

In case you didn't know, we found a substantial amount of hidden WMD along with documents and recordings in which Saddam Hussein emphatically stated his intention to continue WMD development and deception.

1) Declassified NGIC report

2) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

3) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

4) Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin: link1 link2

5) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

6) Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

Those weapons were previously unknown to U.N. inspectors.

Hussein gave thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers and in addition, Iraqi intelligence met with al Qadea operatives and provided with training camps in Northern Iraq:

The Mother of All Connections
From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn
07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41

Source:
link

I'm an Iraq War vet, and I'm damned glad we not only invaded, but took out the sonofabitch and got those WMDs before anyone had the chance to use them.

Had I the power, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran (for starters) would have been asphalt parking lots on 12 September 2001. But, I'm a former Soldier, not a diplomat.

[Bare links corrected. --NM]

Chris, by your definition, President Clinton deserves prosecution. And BTW, US troops are STILL in the Bosnian "quagmire".

Cato Institute: Bait and Switch in Bosnia

Recall how this mission began. President Clinton announced his decision to deploy U.S. military forces in Bosnia on November 27, 1995. In a nationwide television address, the president declared that his proposed mission would be "precisely defined with clear realistic goals" that could be achieved in a "definite period of time." What kind of time frame did the president have in mind? President Clinton assured skittish viewers that this mission "should and will take about one year." The White House and the State Department then went to work to sell the mission to a skeptical Congress.

Throughout the 1996 election year, the Clinton administration led voters to believe that the one-year deadline would be adhered to. Even into late October, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns adamantly denied that there were any changes in the Clinton plan to withdraw 15,000 American soldiers from Bosnia that December. As far as the voters were concerned, Bosnia was a non-issue -- especially since the Republican presidential candidate failed to express any interest in prolonging the military mission.

Within two weeks of securing his re-election, however, President Clinton suddenly announced a change in his Bosnia plan. "Quite frankly," the president declared, the "rebuilding process" was taking longer than anticipated. Because of the unexpected delay, thousands of U.S. troops would have to remain in Bosnia -- not just for a few more weeks, not just for another year, but for an additional 18 months!

Mysteriously, however, no cabinet official or military commander was dismissed from his job because of poor intelligence or planning. The timing of that policy declaration seemed designed for purposes of political cover. President Clinton spoke matter-of-factly and made it seem as if this lamentable extension of the mission was the result of an honest error in his own judgment.

Written in 1997. And there they remain.

Well, the US courts could try the question, but the US courts aren't governed by the precedents at Nurmberg. "Aggression" is a war crime; but it is not a crime under US law. US law establishes one test for whether an invasion is justified and lawful, and that is Congressional approval for the President's actions -- which, no one denies, was given. The war was fully authorized.

It was also reaffirmed constantly, through Congress' appropriation of funds.

If you ask the US system of law, there's no basis for prosecutions at all. (Internationalists who want to see Bush tried in some sort of international court are on stronger ground in pointing to Nurmberg, but they havet to contend with the fact that the UNSC also repeatedly authorized the Coalition forces' presence in Iraq under Chapter VII, and continues to do so to this day.)

The US system does envision an occasion when you can be prosecuted for political reasons rather than formal violations of law -- the impeachment process. But the Constitution also formally limits the penalties that may be imposed by that process to removal from office, a peanalty already effectively imposed by the simple arrival of January.

Thus, in emergency cases when we 'can't wait' for elections, we can deal with the situation without disturbing the basic trust that underlies the peaceful transfer of power.

When people stop believing that they are safe to relinquish that power -- that they won't be persecuted when power passes from their hands -- they'll fight instead.

That way does lie civil war.

It really is of no import that liberal would-be score-settlers may not mean to literally shoot or imprison persons they judge to be bad. Because the point is, all that self-righteous, self-serving, self-congratulatory twaddle they've smugly oozed since the 60's, about how they were the only champions of freedom of expression and conscience, is revealed as so much opportunism. It was merely a tool they used to ensure the levers of power remained in their oh-so-decent hands. So that they could realize their dream of replacing God with the State. And they've just about done it.

Reading thru the comments there seems to a fair amount of discussion as to criminalization of certain things like war or the consideration of it as policy. But has anybody considered that it may not be possible to do so constitutionally? The constitution specifically directs the Congress to go to war as circumstances permit. By extension the ability to enact such activities implies the tacit legal construct that both the policy and the action are legal by their mere presence in the constitution.

Just a thought.

As to the balance of the disucssion. I tend to abhor the current labeling going on. So my current assessment of policy makers are do they support the expansion of the State or not. If they are the former they are enemies of my personal freedom. Sadly that covers a lot of people.

it's the notion that somehow one's participation in the political process is conditional on having your thoughts vetted by the Right People.

Welcome to the left. How long was your nap?

Grim: Internationalists who want to see Bush tried in some sort of international court are on stronger ground in pointing to Nurmberg

It might be worth considering what the chief prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson explained at Nuremberg:

The Allies are still technically in a state of war with Germany, although the enemy's political and military institutions have collapsed. As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems, nor will its rulings introduce precedents into any country's- internal system of civil justice.

Andrew X, last I checked, the US was virtually out of Bosnia in 2004.

And it's hard to argue that there's no substantive difference between Clinton sending in thousands of ground troops for what really was a peacekeeping mission - remember, most of the actual fighting was carried out by airstrikes - vs. Bush sending in tens of thousands of troops into actual, grinding urban combat.

That said, for all the bitching and whining about how horrible the liberals are being with their political persecution, it's worth pointing out that Bush hasn't gone through one tenth of the political investigations that Clinton did. And while there are a few on this thread who probably were just as vocal about what happened to Clinton back in the day - AL likely being one of them, I must admit - I doubt whether many here were all that upset when a much larger shoe was on the other foot.

Tyler Jones, you really need to remember that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that we have a Constitutional right to trial by jury. You toss around the word "criminal" with a great deal of abandon, when all that you have is a difference of opinion until someone is actually convicted of a crime. And so far nobody's been formally charged, so you don't even have a defendant, let alone a "criminal."

And this "potential crime" term you've come up with is very troubling, as are your "you don't try crimes by public polling" and "we should be willing to forgive those who lied if they own up to it" statements.

A "potential" crime is no crime at all.

Defendants are tried by a jury according to the Rule of Law, and according to the U.S. Constitution they are innocent until proven guilty. Elected officials are chosen by public polling.

And "confess and you'll be forgiven" was a device of the Inquisition. Is that seriously something you want to revive?

Do you see the problem here? You, yourself, have decided guilt in advance of any trial. I believe the term for that is "prejudice."

In #22 "virgil xenophon" says "Scratch a 'Progressive' and you'll find a potential Robespierre." Remember Robespierre's end.

Regards #44.

NM you are right. Sorry.

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

Chris -

2004 minus 1996 = eight years, not one. Hence Clinton lied to all of us for political reasons and should be prosecuted.

Not. I actually remember Clinton making that one year pledge, and saying to myself "He's lying!". Not because I hate(d) Clinton, I didn't and don't. Not because I thought Bosnia was a bad idea, I didn't. I actually thought, at that time, that if NATO and US troops were needed to chill the place down, I was for it, and if Clinton had say something totally unbelievable like "one year" to get Congress to do what in fact had to be done, then so be it. I certainly would never consider prosecuting him for it. If Congress, one year later, had not the balls to pull the plug, case closed. If they did have the balls, then "problem" solved. Tout fini.

So the idea of prosecuting Bush for going into Iraq with the sanction of Congress (my argument on that is detailed in post #53 and needs no repeat here) is nothing less than obscene, and it IS in fact prosecuting for political differences, in essence, one side using courtrooms and lawyers to win a political battle that their politicians and legislators lost. And that is something we have seen all too much of.

NAS has already documented the fact that it's nearly impossible to obtain a BA or MA degree in social work without signing what amounts to an ideological "statement of faith." The accrediting association, the Council for Social Work Education, requires such a commitment before it will even accredit a school. A number of people have been denied degrees on the basis of their beliefs, or unwillingness to work for certain politically-correct causes. This is all, of course, far above and beyond the overwhelming ideological bias in the academy, and the numerous obstacles placed in the way of successful academic careers, tenure, etc.. It amounts to a kind of creeping fascism, but rather than simply placing one under arrest and before a firing squad they simply make it next to impossible to make a living.

Frankly, I don't see how the election of Obama won't further entitle this sort of fascism. Maggie Gallagher notes, for instance, that the really enraging thing about advocating traditional opposite-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage advocates use verbal bullying to imply that anyone advocating the former is, by definition, a bigot. There therefore can't be any legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, no matter how well it's documented, researched, or reasoned. Just one example.

The argument for the Iraq war is simply that Islam in the Arab world is a risk factor, and that some effort to mitigate the risk factor was required, before the takfirist revolution fully metastasized. I don't understand how this amounts to a crime against humanity, even if some public relations deception was involved. Abraham Lincoln rested the case for the Civil War on the need to preserve the Union, which was clearly a public relations ploy since he'd probably not be able to galvanize the public for the sake of anti-slavery. Did this make Lincoln a war criminal?

BTW, the 1864 vote was probably ensured by the fact that a lot of veterans were able to vote, even though soldier enfranchisement was vigorously (and successfully in some cases) opposed by Democrats. Sherman even granted furloughs so that some of his troops could go home to vote.

Well, I wandered rather far afield, but it was to touch upon the primary themes that the new soft-fascism uses to justify itself. Their case basically rests on flawed reasoning, or what AL calls "bad philosophy." It is real, unfortunately, and it is a problem.

The idea of the post is about is that government officials performing their legal duties in creating policy should be social pariahs and not allowed back in the hallow halls of academia.

The hallow halls of academia are full of totalitarian leftists who are positive that their worldview is the only correct one. If you do not believe please check the FIRE website and free speech zones.

What many leftists seem to want is an emotional punishment of Bush and Co. since they feel that their time is coming in the sun.
Many seem to have forgotten that several elections have occurred since the Iraq war was initiated. The American public agreed with the war and even that was a major issue of 2004 elections. Congress approved and voted for this war. WMD was only one of the reasons stated in the war resolution. WMD was found but not in the quantities anticipated. Intelligence from western countries agencies agreed with US intelligence that WMD existed. Bush never stated Saddam had nukes. Clinton administration also agreed that there were WMD.

The ME has been a problem but getting the strategic center as an ally is important in order to influence a perennial crisis area. That is a plus. If several posters do not agree, my question is do you support America or it's enemies? Iran is an enemy, so is Hezbolla and Hamas. If posters are more sympathetic to those entities, maybe they should question why they want to be US citizens?

I would wish that people would stop trying to change history and lie about it. They want Bush impeached because "he lied", but do they recognize their own lies? Bush did not lie, the genuinely believed that more WMD was in Iraq.

Get over it, Bush he is not running for election, Vote for your candidate but stop indulging in Bush Derangement Syndrome

A.L. is correct if he thinks that many in this country would tamely allowed themselves to be imprison for their beliefs and speech. People would start to revolt.

To those brownshirts among the above commentors who want to criminalize policy differences: This is a two edged sword. When you see the sharp end gliding toward your own neck, just remember you set it in motion.

These liberals should be afraid. Very afraid. They have aided and abetted genocide since 1917 and continue to advocate for, assist, and adhere to genocidaires, as long as they wear a leftist or anti-colonialist mask.

What we need is to deal with the people who have aided communism and its crimes against humanities. SDS membership = crime against humanity. Weathermen - crime against humanity. Aiding the VietCong through protest - crime against humanity. Denying the killing fields (aka Noam Chomsky et al.) crime against humanity. NYT - crime against humanity thanks to their little Pulitzer denying Ukrainian genocide. Protests against cruise missiles - crime against humanity for aiding and abetting the KGB.

It is far past time for consequences for treasonous and malicious political acts, its just that it's the left that is guilty of the murder of more than 100M. I look forward to seeing them hanging high! Side benefit, no more liberal arts profs!

Grim: US law establishes one test for whether an invasion is justified and lawful, and that is Congressional approval....

I repeat, IANAL so I really don’t pretend to know whether the American courts offer any redress. However it may not be as simple as you suggest. Yes, Congress approved the war, but was Congress intentionally misled? I recall that in 2003 John Dean suggested that some of Bush’s statements to Congress may have contravened the false statements statute. So it may be that the war was legal, but officials broke the law in order to get the Congressional approval they needed to make it so. I haven’t kept up with the topic and it may be that that avenue is closed. Maybe officials can be prosecuted after they leave office, maybe not. Hell, maybe Dean was talking through his arse.

I suspect that if any legal remedy exists it will be on a par with jailing Al Capone for tax evasion. It wasn’t all he deserved but it was all the prosecutors could get. But whether anything can be done or not, Olbermann’s question was a reasonable one and Clarke’s reply doesn’t justify AL’s outrage.

I'm not surprised that people who think Keith Olbermann is a news anchor and cite him approvingly will also believe George Bush victimized Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Baathist dictatorship by removing them from power.

Geezus friggin' Obama.

Some months ago, I looked into the NAS claims of bias in Social Work education.

They describe approximately three cases of egregious pressure on students from their faculty supervisors. In all cases, the faculty member was appropriately disciplined by their institution after a complaint was filed. In some cases, the student went on to graduate; in others, they changed their plans.

Of course, it would be lovely if no faculty member ever put inappropriate pressure on any student, just as it would be lovely if no student ever cheated on a test. But here in the real world, abuses will occur. The question, if you are looking for systemic problems, is whether those abuses are handled appropriately when the situation is brought to the attention of the academic authorities. And in these cases, they were.

LIkewise, the code of ethics that social work students are asked to sign includes phrases like "social justice". Parsed as simple English, it's hard to get offended at this. However, the NAS gets its knickers in a twist because this is a "code word" for an ideological position, and for some reason should not be interpreted as simple English. (This reminds me of silly school principals who prohibit wearing of red, because it's a "gang color".)

Finally, it shouldn't be a big shock that social workers, and the people who train them, are going to pay a lot of attention to the factors in our society that cause poverty, and seem to make it unfairly difficult to get out of poverty. (Surely, you are not going to try to argue that all such factors are fair!) Neither does it come as a big shock that the Business Schools, at the same universities, are filled with students and faculty who are big fans of capitalism, and arguably create an inhospitable environment for Marxist students who wish to earn MBAs. When such hypothetical Marxist MBA students want to discuss the Marxist critique of the capitalist system, they are told to shut up and do their assigned homework.

So, how big a problem is this, really?

The reason for the hyperbole on the left about the Afghan and especially Iraq liberations is their overwhelming success. 40 million people have been put on the road to freedom and self-determination for an historically low cost.

If such enterprises are not painted as failures, there is no reason not to go on to Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe and other places where people are being tyrannized.

The painting has obviously now descended to an ugly level.

When Faux Outrage meets The Strawman, as it so clearly has in this baseless post, you really do have to wonder what the motivation is.

Is the author (one "AL") purposefully misreading Clarke's comments?

In their anger, did they hear "censor" when he said "censure"?

The simple question, whether Clarke or anyone else for that matter is actually calling for anything other than a completely normal and justifiable confrontation of those whose obvious misdeeds have been so brazenly perpetrated on the US and Iraqi public, is purposefully ignored.

To A.L., these potential crimes (and there are many, perpetrated by many) are "errors", and to confront them is a form of political suppression.

Give me a G-d damn break.

You're no better than anyone else who thinks its ok to behave in one way if you're With Us, but not if you're Against Us.

_ ... there is no reason not to go on to Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe and other places where people are being tyrannized._

Didn't George Washington warn us against this kind of foreign entanglements? (His Farewell Address, 1796)

When I read this originally . I thought it was a reference to Professor Ayers, our unrepentant bomber from his Weatherman days that is a professor of education in Chicago and his lovely wife, B Dorhn who actually did kill people,but is now an acclaimed professor. These are the type of people that are accepted and and approved in academic circles. NO wonder that so many still think America is evil.

And here's a counter-example of a Right Wing ideology being forced onto public employees in California:

Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath

Cal State system ousts another instructor who objects on religious grounds to a pledge adopted by California in 1952 to root out communists.

I certainly think it is better for the civic health of the country if opponents and proponents of the war in Iraq can get to a point of mutual respect. I have been a proponent all the way through, and still believe it is much wiser for the US to stay in Iraq for tons of reasons. I also appreciate how someone could conclude that there is nothing in Arabia worth 4000 American lives.

But if O wins and his call is to pull out I am OK with that. I think it is a mistake, but I expect democracies to make mistakes in our long battle for freedom. I always have had this idea about politics that the important thing is not that we elect wise, intelligent men and women who will make good decisions to lead us forward. The best we do is a long and inefficient process, where over a series of elections opposing policies are enacted and a consensus builds. I have a lot of faith in the US to move to the right policies through that process. We have seen it happen on civil rights and tax rates and on our cold war policies. Maybe we will see it soon on energy policies and maybe on the battle with Islamic jihadists, too. Remember when I say soon my time sale is a decade or more.

"NO wonder that so many still think America is evil."

Sure, let's invade a country that didn't attack us, kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process, lie about why we went in, talk about being on a Crusade and distributing Christian religious trinkets to civilians there, hold secret meetings in the White House about how to divide up Iraq's oil wealth, make a big deal about giving up golf out of respect for soldier's families but miss no opportunity to screw them over when they come home, and THEN...

....let's blame academics for it all!

The Genius!

Here's a newsflash for you: Academicians and scientists are among the most highly respected US citizens; without them, the world would probably hate us even more than it already does for turning Bush and his criminal enterprise loose on them. At least there's one segment of society left that people can correctly presume has a firm grasp on reality.

Or, let's reply like the typical Neocon: "I really don't care if what we did caused anyone to hate us more or not. They already hate us, they don't need any more justification for it. And to accuse us of this is typical of the "Blame America First" mentality that we hate!"

Buck Smith [#88]: Good for you!

Our country has survived for so long because of the constant criticism of those in power, and the ability to people to switch who is in power. There's an essential feedback process there, that is fed by Freedom of Speech and the Press.

Realizing this makes it all the more important to fight hard against anyone who attacks the system of Checks and Balances that makes our Constitution work. It's obviously an acquired taste, but criticism of the government is a Good Thing.

Truth and reconciliation commissions...

In America, they're called book publishers.

Or, for those that don't read: Oprah.

Beard: Didn't George Washington warn us against this kind of foreign entanglements?

I have a more Jeffersonian outlook.

Just think about it... a coupla divisions in Burma, a couple in Zimbabwe. A coupla corp in North Korea, and millions will be freed, and dictators the world round would be backpedaling. The left doesn't like the idea because why?

I have my theory, but I'd like to hear yours.

_#33 from Tyler Jones at 3:34 pm on Jun 07, 2008
Well, Brett, I'm not a Democrat, but I am a US citizen who wants the government to enforce laws. I don't think that's too much to ask.

But on your point, did Clinton commit potential war crimes, theft of government services and taxpayer dollars, and commit torture or rendition? Did he conspire to lie to the American public, to withhold information collected on our behalf and with our tax dollars? I really don't see the equivalence._

Funny you should ask. Let's take them one by one regarding Kosovo:

Did he conspire to lie to the American public, to withhold information collected on our behalf and with our tax dollars?

Yes, when he told the American people that the Serbian government was already engaged in a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Albanians of Kosovo to justify war. In fact, no such campaign had started when he spoke those words. The fact that once the US and NATO started bombing, the Serbs did begin a campaign of ethnic cleansing does not alter the fact that Clinton was lying at the time he said it to justify war. Once the war had started and the ethnic cleansing campaign began and large numbers of refugees arrived in Macedonia, the Clinton administration then claimed their lack of preparedness for that eventuality was because they had no idea the Serbs would force so many people out of Kosovo. That statement was a lie as well, because the director of the CIA had specificly briefed the president on Serb plans to initiate just such a masive ethnic cleasing campaign if the US attacked them.

...did Clinton commit... theft of government services and taxpayer dollars...?

Given that president Clinton refused to comply with the War Powers Act by specificly requesting authorization for the Kosovo war within 60 day or requesting a 30 day exstention to seek authorization, the entire Kosovo military operation could be seen as a "theft of government services" to engage in a private act of war against Serbia.

...did Clinton commit potential war crimes...?

Clinton authorized the destruction of civilian target in Serbia (for example, the central heating facility in Belgrade, which provided the only source of private residential heat to large parts of the city) with the intetion of inflicting suffering on the civilian population with the hopes that the suffering population would put presure on the Serbian regime to end the war. Clinton also authorized the bombing of an occupied and operational TV studio (thus deliberately targeting the staff) in violation of international law. After the war ended, the Clinton administration allowed 90% of the Serbian population to be driven from their homes (thus giving the lie to the argument before the war that the purpose of the war was to provide security to all the residents of Kosovo as only the Albanian residents were protected).

As to this question:

...did Clinton commit torture or rendition?

It was the Clinton administration that formalized the rendition process. Before the Clinton administration it was known as "extrodinary rendition" and could only be done with presidential authorization. Clinton made the process more routine, allowing for a large increase in the number of renditions conducted and removing the president from the decision process.

See how much fun could be had with this concept of trying administrations once out of office!

So-called "progressives" who advocate prosecuting the Bush administration have lost their grip on reality. It's hardly worth engaging them on the subject, because you're likely to find that it's like talking to a crazy person. They want to turn the U.S. into another Latin America, where the s.o.b.s in power throw the s.o.b.s who are out of power in jail, or put them up against a wall.

Such behavior is a classic hallmark of a banana republic.

_TJ:

Sure, let's invade a country that didn't attack us,

kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process,

lie about why we went in,

talk about being on a Crusade and distributing Christian religious trinkets to civilians there,

hold secret meetings in the White House about how to divide up Iraq's oil wealth,

make a big deal about giving up golf out of respect for soldier's families but miss no opportunity to screw them over when they come home,_

Wherever do you get your notions of reality? I take it you don't think it has been a good thing to free 25 million Iraqis while disabling an international terrorist organization.

Just think about it... a coupla divisions in Burma, a couple in Zimbabwe. A coupla corp in North Korea, and millions will be freed, and dictators the world round would be backpedaling. The left doesn't like the idea because why? Charlie [#92]

And the rest of the world stands back and applauds while we do our good work, right?

I don't know who all has treaties with whom, but I do know that China would have strong opinions about our deciding to go in and fix things up in North Korea. In addition to having nuclear weapons and more than four times our population and being far closer to the conflict zone, we also depend on them to buy our national debt and keep our economy afloat. (And they depend on us to let WalMart keep buying their products, and so on. It's a complicated world.)

OK, that's one problem. Here's another.

However good our intentions, and however bad the guy we are displacing, it turns out that many people, in many countries, love their country. Even if they hate its current ruler. They want to see that ruler gone, but they sure don't want some large foreign power from halfway around the world to come tromping in, invading and occupying their country, and killing their countrymen. Even if the invaders kill their dictator while they are at it. He may be awful, but he's theirs.

This is the same attitude that thought that Baghdad would be Paris in 1944. Didn't work out.

These countries have serious bad guys leading them. The people would be better off without them. But an invasion from the outside is a huge problem. The question (and it's a terribly hard one) is how to empower the local people themselves, so they can retake their own country. But without tarring those leaders with being "tools of the CIA".

How much do you know about the people, cultures, and politics of Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and so on? Very likely, not enough.

The first step is to realize how hard the problems are, so you keep yourself from just charging into the quicksand. The second step is to start learning the background, so you have some basis for thinking about solutions.

Beard,

You might recognize these quotes from the old days when there were actual liberals on the left, not just "progressives."

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
Robert Kennedy

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy

I spent a good deal of time in Korea. I saw a North Korean spy executed in Inchon and dozens of old women wade waist deep into the harbor in their good clothes to spit on his corpse.

I'm familiar with the situation in Burma where you really do have a junta imposed on a populace.

North Korea has become such an embarrassment/burden for China, I bet they'd be open to a solution.

Ask yourself, in the spirit of a true lover of freedom, why not?

I take it you don't think it has been a good thing to free 25 million Iraqis while disabling an international terrorist organization. Charlie [#95]

Hey, Charlie, be polite and respond to the points TJ is making. You may think you have an answer, but being snide degrades the whole dialog.

On to your argument.

First, do you think that the 25 million Iraqis consider themselves to be "free" now? I doubt it. Nobody is shedding tears for Saddam Hussein, as far as I know, but a lot of people are pointing out that daily life in Iraq is a lot worse now than it was when he was in power. They don't want him back, but they don't thank the USA for the mess we've made of their country. (They don't want us to leave, either, since the internal conflicts we've unleashed would only make things much worse.) We've definitely embraced the tar baby. [Incidentally, I'm getting some of the information above from a dinner conversation with an Iraqi a few weeks ago.]

Second, do you think that our strategies believe that we have "disabled" al Qaeda? (I presume that's the "international terrorist organization" you were referring to.) I seriously doubt that, too. Their Iraqi branch is getting some serious push-back from the locals, but largely because they have started killing Iraqi locals, which is not wise when you depend on the locals for cover. So their own idiocy is costing them seriously, much more than our invasion is. (In fact, if we hadn't invaded, they certainly would not have had an Iraqi branch at all.)

And third, while we're at it, do you think it was a good thing for us to eliminate the biggest threat that was facing Iran, unleashing their ambitions for greater power and influence?

Why is anyone surprised that these people are talking about blacklisting and hunting down people whom they disagree with?

For god's sake, these are the same people who are creating tribunals to CRIMINALIZE dissent. The "human rights" courts prosecuting Maclean's Magazine, the liberal politicians and mouthpieces calling for impeachment in the U.S., the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons who repeatedly condemn the justice system for DARING to hold trials for people accused of oppressing blacks instead of just firing/incarcerating them five minutes after the story breaks... they are this era's brownshirts.

Disagreeing with them is a crime.

"the world would probably hate us even more than it already does for turning Bush and his criminal enterprise loose on them."

Tyler, the world has hated us since we kicked the British out. Read

Walt Whitman's Notes in his book from 1865 "Memoranda During the War"

"There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it. There is not one but would help toward that dismemberment, if it dared. I say such is the ardent wish to-day of England and of France, as governments, and of all the nations of Europe, as governments."

So, please, at least give up that old meme; they've always hated us and always will, except, you know, they want to move here and live like us.

I got forwarded to this site and am delighted to find it. Thanks especially for thoughtful posts at ## 46, 53, 67, 76, and 82. Thanks also for the amusing "troll" link and the reminder to keep a civil finger in my keyboard. Now for my screed:

It is unbelievably frustrating that anyone has succeeded in persuading even the most rabid Bush-hater into believing that Bush "lied" about the same WMD that everybody and his brother, including Pres. Clinton, had believed in for years. Saddam Hussein believed in them, for pity's sake. If the WMD weren't hustled over the border into Syria during the excruciating 3-month pre-invasion "rush to war," then, yes, it appears we may have been mistaken in believing they still existed. We also had other reasons to believe invasion was a good idea. As far as I can tell, events are rather bearing us out than otherwise concerning the wisdom of the decision to invade Iraq.

I understand many don't agree. But my complete inability to understand how anyone can believe any of this constitutes a lie, let alone a crime, makes me even more jittery than I normally would be at the proposals to establish "Truth and Reconciliation" tribunals for outgoing administrations and their supporters. The commenter above hit the nail on the head about how this threatens the system for the peaceful transfer of power.

Charlie [#97],

Robert Kennedy was talking about working to achieve racial equality in our own country. John Kennedy was talking about defending the people of West Berlin from the Soviet blockade.

Neither was talking about taking it on ourselves to invade a country that hadn't attacked us, just because they are ruled by someone evil.

Take another careful read of my message [#96], where I tried to address a number of the details of your suggestion. I'd be interested in knowing whether you can actually address my arguments.

I certainly think we should try to do something about evil where we see it. But we also have to make sure we don't make things worse rather than better. And, in my opinion, invading another country when they haven't attacked us first, is almost certain to make things worse rather than better. (This is one reason you don't get much push-back on Afghanistan, where the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda who attacked us, but Iraq has turned into a horrible mess.)

Beard,

I had/have no intention of responding to TJ until he starts making points with some resemblence to reality. And that's not being snide; that was just trying to put the brakes on someone who really has been degrading an otherwise promising comment thread.

First, do you think that the 25 million Iraqis consider themselves to be "free" now?

For the most part, yes. I read several Iraqi blogs. And I have a few Iraqi acquintances too. And nothing has happened in Iraq since we put Saddam on a short leash to compare to his gassing of the Kurds, his paving a highway outside of Basra over the bodies of Shias who rebeled against him or decimating the Marsh Arabs. In fact, the standard of living is well up and climbing. There has been a multifold increase in the number of news and opinion sources over the few state organs of the Saddam era.

do you think that our strategies believe that we have "disabled" al Qaeda?

According to the latest CIA report (I know, I know) Al Qaeda is greatly operationally degraded.

do you think it was a good thing for us to eliminate the biggest threat that was facing Iran, unleashing their ambitions for greater power and influence?

Do you mean that Saddam's Iraq was still an effective counterbalance to Iran's ambitions?

Taking that as your meaning, normally I wouldn't have been concerned but given that progressives have been maumauing against the liberation for four solid years, I'm not sure the political will is available to deal with Iran except in reaction to a gross provocation on their part. I liked the Bush doctrine better than sitting back and waiting for ugliness to go down.

"The US system does envision an occasion when you can be prosecuted for political reasons rather than formal violations of law -- the impeachment process"

IANAL, but I don't think that's technically accurate. I think there is a requirement for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It's understandable that some don't realize this, since so many believe Clinton was impeached for having an affair (it was actually for perjury and obstruction of justice).

No , it means that people who are guilty of lying Ameica into a war and were NOT punished for their crimes against humanity should not be able to live the rest of their lives carefree and rich. They must be punished by social scorn and be forced to live as outcasts for the rest of their lives.
You seem to hae a hard time understanding your crimes of enabling criminal behavior also.

#89 Tyler
bq _Sure, let's invade a country that didn't attack us, kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process, lie about why we went in, talk about being on a Crusade and distributing Christian religious trinkets to civilians there, hold secret meetings in the White House about how to divide up Iraq's oil wealth, make a big deal about giving up golf out of respect for soldier's families but miss no opportunity to screw them over when they come home, and THEN...

....let's blame academics for it all!_

A little less hyperbole and liberal fantasies, please.
Ok you did not agree with the Congressional resolution for war with Iraq. That's Ok quite a few people did not. But we did not "kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians" We were very precise in our efforts to kill the enemy not civilians. Now civilians did die since the enemy hid in the hospitals and mosques and among civilians and wore civilian dress. But the 60k number is pure fantasy. You may want to check your sources. This was one of the discredited numbers that could not be verified and even the Iraq government said it was a lie.

Bush never said we were on a Crusade, and the description of the war is irrevelant whether you call it a crusade or war. The Christian trinkets the soldier gave out, he has been disciplined. That is not governmental policy. Again a fantasy on secretive cabalistic meetings in the White House on how to divide the oil. If so, why do we have the Iraqi government control it now? we would not spend billions on the war effort , we just buy oil. We did not even get good contracts which would have been perfectly fine but we idiotically did not insist.

Academics are the most respected in the world. Maybe that is true. But I gave seen and read sufficient European ideas and rhetoric that are pure foolishness. The USA decided over 200 years ago that European ideas were something that we decided were not for us. The US defends Europe not the other way around. So the fact that they like our academics more than others does not impress me.

Our scientists are respected for what they do and discoveries not because of their political idealogy. Our scientists are not those that espouse " America is evil". No that is left to Rev. Wright and his KKK Amerika, Obama's pastor for 20 years.

Beard,

You agreed with my premise:

These countries have serious bad guys leading them. The people would be better off without them. [From #96]

You simply preferred to stand pat rather than undertake to free people, as I prefer. It seemed to me (and seems) that the best reply was an attempt to put you back in touch with your (likely) liberal (in the true sense of liberty-loving) sentiments of yore by reminding you that there were liberal stalwarts on the left.

Yes, Bobby was talking civil rights, but the quote applies perfectly well in the general sense.

Yes, JFK was springboarding off Berlin but was generalizing to facing the grim toll of Communism wherever, and (by my extension) all tyranny.

Yes, I am being a bit glib about marching on from Baghdad to Rangoon. But I stand by my point that the only understandable basis for the left hyperbole about the liberation of Iraq is in significant part to forestall any other such liberations.

Now you may comment to my question to you on this point in #92.

What is a WMD anyway?

The term technically covers chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. But when most people hear "Weapons of Mass Destruction", they think of nuclear weapons. The other kinds are no joke, if you are among the ones exposed to them, but they certainly don't pose any kind of militarily significant threat to the United States.

The Bush administration clearly exploited people's tendency to think nuclear weapons when they hear WMD. They did have legitimate evidence of chemical weapons. And, in fact, what was found in Iraq after the war (according to the list in post [#65]) was almost entirely chemical weapons. There was also material that might be usable to build a "dirty bomb" (a radiological weapon), but nothing that could have become a nuclear weapon. (Also, follow the link in #65 to the BBC article about the nuclear materials. They were useless for anything but dirty bombs, and possibly not even them.)

However, the Bush administration strongly pushed the image of a nuclear attack on the United States:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." [G. W. Bush, 10-7-02]

That same speech includes false and misleading references to Saddam's nuclear program and what it might possibly be able to do, without any legitimate evidence.

Watching people support the war at the time (2002-03), it was clear that the mushroom cloud image was a compelling one, and it convinced people to support a war they would otherwise have rejected. In retrospect, they should have rejected it. Many people, I believe, feel that if they had known that the kind of WMD attack we were really facing was more like the Japanese subway attack with sarin, they wouldn't have committed all that blood and treasure.

A classic trick by all kinds of politicians is to say something that is literally true, but invites the listener to jump to the false conclusion you want. This is an example of that. "Saddam has WMDs!" (true, but it's a few chemicals) "Do you want to wait for a mushroom cloud over an American city?" (not a statement, so it can't be a lie, can it?)

That's how it's done. And here we are.

Charlie [#107],

My intent in [#96] was to answer your question in [#92]. That is, to explain why it is a bad idea for us to rampage around the world invading countries that have evil leaders. Another reason, not included before, is that it is so hard to know when to stop!

I presume that many people on the Left agree with me, so that would be their reason. There are a certain number of idiots on both Left and Right, who may have other reasons that make no sense, but they don't seem worth the airtime to discuss.

#108 Beard.

Very true but Bush specifically said he did not have nukes but was working to get them. That we should not wait until he does and possible has a city destroyed. A dirty bomb delivered by terrorists to a city would cause a lot of death and injuries. That is a serious risk. Not as bad as a airburst nuclear weapon.

I agree that the arguement for war did not advance until the WMD issue was argued. But the resolution had many reasons for the war, not just WMD and promoting a policy is not criminal even if it did play on fears of nuclear bombs. I knew that the WMD was an exxageration when it was argued.I worried that Bush would be severly criticized if none were found. He was. But WMD was found, just not as serious as feared. THe MSM ignored this news and