Asymmetrical Information

Oh gag.

That may have been the most torturous post I have ever read on this website.

Interestingly, I read the entire thing thinking that it was Megan talking. I missed the fact that Mindles had posted it and I thought that it was Megan explaining hers and "Jane's" behavior.

Please stop apologizing for what you believe. That is the sure sign of your being a liberal. You may not think that you are a liberal. You may not feel like a liberal. You may not even LOOK like a liberal, but if you feel the need to justify your postition to others you can be assured that you MUST be a liberal.

That is why CONSERVATIVES HATE liberals. Not for what they believe, but because they don't believe what they believe strongly enough that it doesn't matter what YOU believe. Should you stand for something clearly, and confidently without the approval of the authorized group of approved leaders you must be a CONFUSED and MESSED UP person.

Find the place in which you can lose the angst. You and Megan, both.

We love you,

Inquisit

Posted by: Inquisit on June 28, 2004 11:44 PM

I completely agree and sympathize with Mindless' post. In contrast to Inquisit’s comment, it’s not a question of not having conviction in your beliefs, but the problem that your actual beliefs generate this entire set of assumptions by others that are not at all accurate (for example, that supporting the war means you support Bush). Also that those who disagree with you on one issue (Iraq war) have an emotional and irrational reaction to those beliefs that is not at all productive or interesting to argue about. Nice post Mindless.

Posted by: KoolKeith on June 28, 2004 11:56 PM

I admit, the first time I saw Jane in years, at a neighborhood holiday party, I naturally assumed she was a liberal democrat...being on the Upper West Side and all (you know, the home of the uppity socialist). It was years ago, and as my circle of friends has expanded, both dogmatically and politically, since then. I sympathize with your plight Mindles.

But I identify with Tim's plight too. I'm glad your so optomistic, but I don't understand how you can be. I see things on the news that continue to frighten me, more than the cold war ever did. I hear reports from independant journalists which indicate things aren't so hunky-dory in Iraq, that the citizens, who were never much of islamic fanatics before, are joining the Jihad against this country. And while I know they're wrong, I can't blame them.

I was never for the war in Iraq. Do you remember what that was like, a year and a half ago, when those of us who were not in favor of the war were called unpatriotic? Do you remember the looks we got and the way we were treated and the names we were called? I guess you know what it feels like Mindles, to be chastized for your beliefs.

But I don't understand how you can be blind to what Tim and I see. I don't understand how a lower tax rate or the, in my opinion, misguided belief that the conservative movement will be better for the economy or your wallet is in any way worth the drop in creability that this country has faced in the international comunity. How a marginal tax rate be worth the over 800 dead in Iraq.

I'm not "anti-war". I still support the war in Afganistan. That one was the right, the only, move we could have made. But Iraq damages our credibility, and moved the majority of our resources, elsewhere.

And I just don't get why you don't see it. And it worries me. I ask people I know who are voting for Bush why they will and I keep hearing these very wishy-washy answers. And mostly it boils down to "I'm a Republican/conservative and in theory the Republican/conservative party reflects my interests better than those liberal pansies." But that's not true any more, and it's as if, out of habit, people will continue to vote for a party that says one thing, and does the exact opposite.

If a Democrat was pulling this crap, there's no way in hell you'd even consider voting for them.

Posted by: Kate on June 29, 2004 12:43 AM

Most people would term me fairly conservative. But I live in Utah. So, many here probably consider me Lefty. I doubt I'll ever vote for a Democrat for president, but that's not for disliking Republican options. I'd never call myself an Independent (they're the most partisan, anyway). But the fact that I have sympathies for some Democrat positions angers friends. Try explaining to a friend who thought that Clinton should have been impeached because he was the worst president ever and a corrupter of the people that you thought he should have been impeached but on fairly intricate grounds and that overall he did some good things as president. A professor of mine was shocked to discover that, though I totally agreed with her when she called Dean a demagogue, I happen to think that immigration needs to be opened wider and that an amnesty for illegals already here isn't the worst idea.

Ditto to KoolKeith's comments. To Inquisit, if one doesn't offer justifications for one's positions, well, one is an ass. Disagree with me, and do it lively, but do it intelligently, with decorum, and with a dash of wisdom, or you'll just be another Ann Coulter/Al Franken/Rush Limbaugh/Michael Moore partisan. And we don't need any more of their drivel.

Posted by: Nate on June 29, 2004 12:49 AM

Things aren't that bad in Iraq? I believe that the number of Iraqis who want the U.S. out NOW is 90%. The neocons who pushed the war waxed rhapsodic about how we would be welcomed as liberators. They then promptly proceeded to completely screw up the post-war process so badly that Iraq has now become what what they were claiming it was (and the 9/11 commission has pointed out that it wasn't), a hotbed of terrorist activity in which we can't even arrange for basic services to be delivered reliably to the average Iraqi. In spite of the hyperspin that Cheney and Bush have tried to put on it, the commission referring to contacts between Bin Laden and Iraq wherein Bin Laden's requests were either ignored or refused does not constitute a "relationship" that threatened the U.S. If Iraq had been done in anything approaching a competent manner I might agree with you but I can't see where this Administration has done anything right until today where a jump was gotten on the terrorists who have poured into Iraq.

In terms of Kerry having to prove that changing leaders in the U.S. will help with our foreign relations, I wonder if you really begin to understand how much he is despised in the rest of the world. I recently was chatting with a moderately well travelled South African who is currently living in the U.S. with his British wife. He is a quite personable and reasonable young man who is well read and follows the news from multiple sources, including those outside the U.S. His contempt for Bush was palpable and he was quite capable of ticking off data points to show how badly Bush and his policies are regarded in MOST of the world. While Bush persuaded some governments to go along with him many of them will be weakened if not voted out of office because of it.

I used to be able to vote for moderate Republicans but no longer. First, I can't find any in my part of the country to vote for any longer. The only candidates they put forth are too far to the right for me to consider since I believe in the separation of Church and State among other things that the modern conservative movement has abandoned. Secondly, voting for a moderate Republican gives more power to Tom DeLay and George Bush and I will not contribute to that.

Posted by: Jim on June 29, 2004 12:55 AM

The need for humans to form coalitions, and to firmly identify themselves as members of a particular group, is evidently a very strong instinctive influence on our behavior. I've been ruminating on this for some time, but Inquisit's viscerally anti-intellectual response to Mindles's post caught me completely by surprise. That anyone could so spectacularly miss the point is truly fascinating. My big question, at this point, is this: Why is this Us vs. Them attitude getting so strong and vicious lately? (Or is it just something I become more aware of as I get older?)

Posted by: Josh on June 29, 2004 02:43 AM

Reply to Josh:

Spot on, sir. Mindles' post was thoughtful on several issues; and everybody jumps in with their own personal version of Us vs. Them.

I think a big reason why is - the lefty major media organs are creating the Us vs. Them frenzy. It's their ax to grind, you know. The righties have mostly responded in kind. It then feeds on itself and has to be *actively* resisted. But it takes a willingness to think dispassionately for it to work.

I agree with Mindles that Bush has made a geopolitical bet in Iraq - and who knows yet whether he made the right bet? But there's no doubt that the ME swamp needs draining - and fast! Is he doing a good job of it? Not sure - but I sure want it done ASAP!
And I want the fighting to happen *over there*; not here.

You want to see some liberals scream for Muslim blood? Just wait till a suitcase nuke explodes in downtown San Francisco
and takes out a hundred thousand people! They'll change their tune so fast it'll make your head swim. The pressure to nuke Rihyad and Tehran etc. etc. would be unimaginable!

I agree with Mindles doubts on Bush domestic 'policy' also. Why the heck is the Congressional money spigot wide open?? Does he even know what a veto is? Does he have any coherent thought about immigration? What insane man dreamed up Federal mental screening for all? The man seems to have no imagination or insight how dangerous this Homeland security BS can be. Farm subsidies? Don't make me cry. Energy policy? don't make me laugh. Etc. etc.

But he does seem to understand that the external threat to us from fanatic terrorists *must* be eliminated - right now, at the source. Kerry merely seems clueless on everything. It's embarrassing that the Democrats couldn't put up a candidate with a voice and a backbone. The country needs leadership. badly. Bush's version is damned bumpy; but I shudder to think how disastrously ineffective Kerry would be. There's a reason that Senators don't often make it to the White House - it doesn't suit their temperament or skill set.

Posted by: Mark on June 29, 2004 04:51 AM

Dear Kate and Jim,

Since you regret the war in Iraq, please tell us which course you think would have been preferrable, 1)continued containment, or 2)detente with Saddam, or 3)total withdrawal from the Gulf and/or the Middle East? Explain why your preferred course would leave us in a better situation than where we are now. Can you persuade some of us non-skeptics?

I suppose that if you opposed invading Iraq, you certainly have the right to complain about the fact that it is still a bloody mess and outraged about the WMD mystery. But I believe you are mistaken to despair. No matter who is in the White House, I think that in the near future, Iraq will be a secular democracy with a growing economy. Then it will be time to focus more on the other wretched, terrorist factory countries with their awful kleptocrat regimes.

I'm sure it was a horror to meet a well-traveled, well-read S. African guy with a pommie wife and hear their low opinions of Bush. But that doesn't mean that I should vote for Kerry. I'm an expat and I know very well how Bush is viewed from outside. I also know that most people who hold those views are less informed and rational than they realize, despite the fact that they consider themselves (and apparently you do too) cosmopolitan bien-pensants. Like the Pershing Missiles in Europe in the '80's, we must forge ahead despite the international outcry and hand-wringing.

Posted by: John in Tokyo on June 29, 2004 04:53 AM

"Do you remember what that was like, a year and a half ago, when those of us who were not in favor of the war were called unpatriotic?"

I don't, actually. I remember an ill-advised and poorly worded comment about 'watch what they say'. "Unpatriotic" is something I hear mostly from people who say they stand accused of it. Maybe I'm not listening to the 'right' sources.

Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on June 29, 2004 07:46 AM

The comments thus far have borne out the main points of the post - fortunately, they also show cases where reasoned discussion is not dead.

I have noticed one effect of the polarization described is that, from both sides, different standards are applied to those supported and to those opposed.

People we like can be forgiven anything, so long as their ideas are the right ones. People we don't like must be perfect, at a minimum, to get even grudging respect.

People we like get to have their assertions accepted without question. People we don't like must have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and even then their motivation makes them wrong, if not actually evil.

It strikes me that the left is somewhat more guilty of this than the right - but perhaps I'm just another polarized quasi-pundit...

Posted by: Parker on June 29, 2004 08:33 AM

Being partisan means forgiving your side's bullshit while holding the other side to an exacting standard.

Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on June 29, 2004 08:57 AM

I'm a two issue voter: War on Terror and legalizing gay marriage. I'm for both, but winning the war is more urgent right now. Kerry isn't going to make any moves towards legalizing gay marriage, and Bush can't make the FMA happen, so now I'm looking at who will win the war for us.

Right now, neither one looks great.

Posted by: shell on June 29, 2004 08:58 AM

" I don't understand how a lower tax rate or the, in my opinion, misguided belief that the conservative movement will be better for the economy or your wallet is in any way worth the drop in creability that this country has faced in the international comunity. "

I don't understand why the opinion of "the international community" matters one bean's worth in my calculation of what's good for my nation's or my own personal economy. I should support the 34.66 hour work week in the United States in order to gain the approval of France? I should work to restrict retail operating hours from 0900--1800 to gain the approval of Germany? I should vote to impose a Federal Value Added Tax in order to impress chicks in England? And all that assumes we agree to discuss actual economic policies... If the same leader who proposes a tax plan upon which "the international community", whoever they actually are -- what, the "Elders of Zion"? -- smiles, also proposes a military effort upon which the Community of Elders -- or whoever -- frowns, are we then constrained to oppose the tax policy as well? I mean, that claim would seem to buy into the conspiratorial notion that international opinion, the Gnomes of Zurich, the Trilateral Commission, etc etc etc should dictate our own choices. Is that really what is being suggested?

"How a marginal tax rate be worth the over 800 dead in Iraq?"

How can the two be connected to even begin to calculate whether the first is "worth" the latter? One right-wing criticism of Shrub that has some fairness to it is that he should have called for an INCREASE in taxes -- perhaps in gasoline taxes -- in order to pay for the military effort. Is it the liberal claim that, had Shrub increased the marginal income tax rate to 50% upon annual-earned-incomes exceeding $340K, -- or whatever --, then the war WOULD be justified? Or, perhaps, that 620 deaths (but not 800) would be justified? (To justify 800 deaths, Shrub should have -- what, indexed the AMT to inflation and lifted caps on FICA?)

I don't understand how the left assumes that support for the war translates into support for particular tax or other economic policy.

I don't understand the left at all.

Posted by: Pouncer on June 29, 2004 09:09 AM

Excellent and thoughtful message, Dreck. The increasing polarity of the "Us v Them" paradigm is getting rather tiresome - particularly if one likes to maintain logical consistency of thought: The support of free trade = freedom of personal choice on a social level (Gay marriage, drug laws, etc). It's rather insulting on a personal level to automatically be stereotyped basis one's beliefs on any one issue - especially when the accuser simply does not ask.

OTOH, perhaps this should not come as a surprise. Xenophobia is one of man's most deep-seated instincts - and this Us v Them mentality is nothing more than a social Balkinization along those lines.

A challenge to all: Just ask. You might be surprised to find that the person you are making assumptions about basis one particular issue, just happens to agree with you on others.

Posted by: jon on June 29, 2004 09:19 AM

I'm a one issue voter, what message will we send to our enemy if we elect Kerry President? I think the rest of the world will interpret it as a loss of our nerve and that we are vulnerable, thus the will see it as an opportunity to attack us again.

Posted by: Vince on June 29, 2004 09:20 AM

I'm a Bush supporter, Kate, and I'll tell you why and you will refuse to hear it. But, why not try?

1. I'm a white man and my wife is Asian. We're at the bottom of the Democrat's quota ladder. Republicans aren't much better here, but they are better by a bit.

2. Democratic social policy has been an instrument of social devastation in black communities, and my wife and I have broad and intimate ties to that community. Convincing that community to ditch its allegiance to the Democratic party is the most important domestic political priority.

3. I don't care whether our foreign policy is moral. I expect the president to represent the self-interest of the U.S. in international relationships. He is supposed to prosecute our interests, not appeal to do-gooder instinct.

I have had the same experiences the original post cited in trying to express my support for Bush. I am a registered Democrat, although I'm thinking about departing. My favorite absolute refusal to listen occurred when a Bush basher was trying to find the ultimate insult about the war and he said: "You don't really buy that nonsense that we will have to fight them here if we don't fight them there, do you?"

I was so dumbfounded that I didn't even remind him that I lived through the attack on the World Trade Center and watched the murder of 3,000 of my fellow New Yorkers.

Pointless, isn't it?

Posted by: Stephen on June 29, 2004 09:24 AM

>>
There's a special exemption for 'Neo-Marxists' who are considered nobly idealistic and kinda cute.
>>

That is the most repugnant statement I've ever heard. Imagine if the screams of disgust if Bill Buckley ever said that, "While wrong, Fascists are nobly idealistic and kinda cute." Color me strange, but anyone who espouses an ideology responsible for the murder of 100 million people is far from cute.

Posted by: John Bono on June 29, 2004 09:47 AM

The employment of irony, Mr. Bono, seems to have escaped your attention.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 29, 2004 10:04 AM

Our political culture has become nothing more than base tribalism, largely stripped of reason, and many of the posts above illuminate this phenomena. Well, at least nobody is having old tires filled with burning kerosene placed around their necks yet. All in good time, I suppose, assuming the Bin Ladens of the world don't get their hands on some enriched uranium, which is what it will probably take to get people to grasp that it really isn't all that damned important whether the top marginal income tax rate is 6 percentage points higher or lower.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 29, 2004 10:12 AM

Here is the bottom line: what ever you or anyone else thinks, the Islamofascists think that every vote for Kerry is a vote for them.

Now, do you want our mortal enemies to be comforted? If not, you vote for GWB. Because every vote for anyone other than GWB is a vote for the Islamofascists who are intent on killing us all... asap.

Posted by: paul a'barge on June 29, 2004 10:12 AM

Maybe it's always been this way. Maybe it's just that the internet that brings us mass exposure the the intractable 180-degree Other Guy's Opinion.

But it really does seem like people are talking right past one another, with not even a gesture towards listening to the other side. When somebody's arguing with me, I try to listen carefully to what they're saying, and address exactly what they say, either as responses to their my own questions or answers to mine. If they then evade answering questions, or change the subject (like, say, Mike Moore in a newsconference), or otherwise try to change focus, well, what are you going to do? Tell 'em they've got deficient argumentative skills?

I just try to keep people on point with the issue at hand, and state my case as calmly as possible. that's all you can do. You surely can't expect anyone to do something crazy like go off and AGREE with you, so just make your case as well as you can and bail out before it gets tedious. Probably you won't change anybody's mind, but only the most stalwart and incurious will not at least go through a mental routine of considering you case, if only to dismiss it. It's just as important to confront somebody's notions of what's true as it is to convince them, and most of the time that's all you can expect to do, anyway.

And, who knows, there may be someone listening, and you might convince them.

Probably the most important thing, though, is just stay calm. Save the freaking out for later when you tell your friends about it.

Posted by: Twn on June 29, 2004 10:14 AM

Oh -- I almost forgot. Do actually listen to your opponent. Hell, maybe they ARE right.

Posted by: Twn on June 29, 2004 10:17 AM

I'm also planning on voting for Bush, and I still think the tax cut was a necessary move to fend off a deeper recession. In March 2000 it was quite obvious to me that the economy was running out of gas. Take a look at the Nasdaq then if you doubt that simple assertion. (yes, I know the stock market does not equate to the macro economy but it can be a leading indicator...)

The war in Iraq was a slamdunk for me. Only a willfull suspension of reality could allow one to gloss over all the evidence that Saddam's Iraq was a danger to the USA and the rest of the post-9/11 world. Bush didn't "fool me" into believing anything at all about Iraq. The mere idea that Saddam would still be shooting at our fighters patrolling the no-fly zones after 9/11 was more than enough indication to me that he had to go. And setting up Iraq for a shot at being the first real Arab democracy is worth a try, no? As far as 90% of Iraqi's wanting us out NOW, as asserted above by Jim, I note that he's using a Moorish technique of leaving out all the relevant facts. 90% of Iraqi's want the occupation over. It is as of yesterday for all intents and purposes. The new government could ask us to leave and we would. However, that same poll Jim was using also finds that there are quite a large percentage of sane Iraqi's who realize our troops will be around for awhile - necessarily - to provide security and stability as they prepare for national elections.

However, I also differ with Bush's policies on a number of fronts. Actually, more precisely, I differ with some Republican party planks and I differ strongly with whatever it is that is causing this president and congress to spend money hand-over-fist. The tax cuts were fine, just reign in spending a bit. At least reduce the rate of increase in spending for crying out loud.

Gay marriage? Fine by me. Legalize pot? Sure, why not. Clamp down on illegal immigration? Sounds OK. Offer amnesty to those who are already here, perhaps illegally? I could live with that (unless they have committed other meaningful crimes...) Abortion? I think there should be some sane limits but otherwise let society work it out. Government should stay out of it for the most part. Socially, apparently, I am rather liberal. Religion injected into politics? Yuck.

So I suspect that many liberals would consider me to be a knuckle dragging neocon. Some conservatives would be exasperated at my social views. I live in a red state, Missouri, that has correctly called the past dozen or so presidential elections. It will be close this year.

Posted by: Brent on June 29, 2004 10:22 AM

I know the author is using it ironically. But that isn't why I find it repugnant. I find it repugnant is that there is a large section of the left which *doesn't* find it ironic, but actually revels in "commie-chic".

Today, about 1/3 of the American left thinks Stalinists like Castro are somehow reformable, and that for all the evil that was present in Communist regimes, they at least provided free health care, making them morally superior to the United States.

What is repugnant is that 30% of the American left feels the need to make exuses for an ideology that murdered twice as many people as Hitler. Imagine Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, or Pat Robertson saying that "while fascism might have some troubling aspects, it at least gives the people a sense of national identity."

Posted by: John Bono on June 29, 2004 10:28 AM

I have to agree with Twn on this one. My best political discussions are with a friend who is my polar opposite politically. What makes the discussion great is that we don't just look at positions but at why we hold them. And we often find that we share the same motivation and the same goals, and just have different ideas on how to get there.

Once, he shared that he felt that conservatives hate African-Americans. I asked him if he felt I (a conservative) hated him and he laughed. That discussion turned to sharing our different views on solving the issues of race and poverty. Our viewpoints still differ but I respect his because I see his heart and the motivation behind them. (And hopefully he sees the same thing in me.)

Posted by: King of Fools on June 29, 2004 10:30 AM

I believe that the number of Iraqis who want the U.S. out NOW is 90%.

And I believe you need to take your meds. The United States liberates 25 million people from a brutal dictator, and 22.5 million of them wants us out NOW? Right.

I'll bet you won't even find 90% of former Baath Party members thinking that way...

Posted by: RMc on June 29, 2004 10:32 AM

Oh, and one other thing. Remember the following--twice as many people were murdered under Communism than under Naziism. The Nazis murdered between 25 to 40 million people. Communists murdered anywhere from 80 million to 100 million.

Posted by: John Bono on June 29, 2004 10:33 AM

I liked Brent's comments, and I would appreciate it if more posters would look at mine and compare.

People have different self-interests! Isn't this astounding. The fact that we have differing self-interests means that the same political issue may mean something different to each of us.

Take it at its polar opposites, say for the quota system. If you are black or female, the quota system probably looks pretty appealing because it serves your self interest. If you are a white man or Asian, that quota system penalizes you and it doesn't look so appealing.

I find a consistent refusal among people to recognize this fact. People tend to argue political issues in the abstract, as if individual self-interest were not even a factor.

I view the war against terrorism from the perspective of self-interest. I'm not interested in abstract issues of justice or morality. I live in New York City, and all I care about is how this city will be defended. Even here in New York City, self-interest differs. For many, the morality of killing even in self-defense is the over-riding concern. It is not for me.

One of the best ways to defuse the hostility is to understand that the person you are arguing with may have a radically different self-interest. If you comprehend this, you might understand that global issues of morality and right and wrong are not really the issue.

Posted by: Stephen on June 29, 2004 10:34 AM

Mindles writes,

I'm a very unusual animal where I come from, sort of like a large reptile or rodent. Just a mild-mannered profession of non-Democratness is very disturbing to the equilibrium. For some reason, it's OK to wax polemic for a half-hour at a time if you are dissing Bush, but non-Democrats must stay in the closet.

This is a fascinating phenomenon. As someone who grew up in NY suburbia, graduated from a reputable local public school, a well-known New England college and grad school, and lived among the "correct" sort of Manhattanites, I have had to keep my right-leaning politics low key for much of my life or face a subtle (well, usually subtle) sort of ostracism.

This ninth-grader has seen the phenomenon:

I live in a town, and region, of the country that is largely populated by liberals. In fact, in my social milieu, it has become a custom to be liberal. This custom alienates me because I am not a liberal. I have chosen to cleave to my own conservative principles. In my community, being conservative is viewed as a character flaw.

So has this journalist:

The profile of people who use the term "Republican" in a bigoted fashion tends to be fairly straightforward: Educated, intellectually gifted and generally thoughtful in their speech. They are the very people I sat next to in newsrooms in New York, Chicago, Tokyo and Johannesburg. They are my friends and neighbors. They are academics, lawyers, bankers and stay-at-home moms—decent, kind and sensitive people, for the most part.

Posted by: David M on June 29, 2004 10:35 AM

John in Tokyo:

"Since you regret the war in Iraq, please tell us which course you think would have been preferrable, 1)continued containment, or 2)detente with Saddam, or 3)total withdrawal from the Gulf and/or the Middle East? Explain why your preferred course would leave us in a better situation than where we are now. Can you persuade some of us non-skeptics?"

Since Hans Blix seemed to think there were no WMDs, there was little or no link between Osama and Saddam, and Iraq, while headed by a bad bad man, was, in fact, more secular than most of the middle east and since our forces were already committed elsewhere, yes, I think continued containment was the correct response. Given that the majority of the "evidence" against Saddam turned out to be from unreliable sources, the international community was against us and we would receive no help from other nations in containing whatever threat was established after we choose to invade and occupy a country that did not want us, I suspect that would have been a more appropriate action. Saddam was not an immediate threat. It's becoming apparent that the Bush Administration knew that. The fact that they have *Faith* in an Osama/Saddam connection after 15 months of evidence to the contrary scares the bejesus out of me. We should not be making militaristic foreign policy based on faith.

Mindles:

"I don't, actually. I remember an ill-advised and poorly worded comment about 'watch what they say'. "Unpatriotic" is something I hear mostly from people who say they stand accused of it."

I'm not claiming you ever called anyone unpatriotic. I'm saying that I remember hearing people claim protesters were unpatriotic, that exercising the right to assemble and say what they felt was unpatriotic. I remember being told by posters on other boards that my distaste for the war in Iraq was proof that I did not love this country. My inability to support the President unconditionally meant I was for the terrorists. It pretty much sucks.

Stephen:

Are you sure your not my brother? Couldn't be, he's wife is Asian, he had significant ties to the black community but he votes along a progressive line. What I find interesting is that I tend to agree with you on all but number 3 of your post. But I don't think the conservative movement is doing anything any better than the progressive movement at this point on the first two. Democrats passed through there ideas and they didn't work. You'll never see another policy like that pushed theough by them Democrats again.

As for #3, that's your opinion, albeit I think an unwise one. When you take a fight to another land it's important that you have the world behind you. In Afiganistan we did. I think we could have done great things in Afganistan. I think we could have done great things to show we were right and terrorists were wrong. Now all we've done is make a predominently secular country hate us, and take terrorist money to fight us. I believe this has increased the terrorist threat on the U.S. I think it is urgent that we have the international community behind us to assist in preventing this threat from becoming a reality. I hear you, but I think you're wrong.

Pouncer:

It's because many of the conservatives I know think Kerry will do a better job, but will cost them more money in taxes and so their voting for Bush. That's the connection.

Paul a'barge:

"Here is the bottom line: what ever you or anyone else thinks, the Islamofascists think that every vote for Kerry is a vote for them."

Here is the bottom line: the terrorists love Bush. They want him to stay in office because it gives them a moral victory. They can say, "look we said that the U.S. would invade our land, counquer our people and claim moral supremacy. Then they would attempt to give equality to our women and show their superiority over us. And, in fact, they did just that. Now we must kill them because we were right and must defend our land."

The truth is, neither of us have any idea what goes on in the mind of a terrorist. You just made that up. As did I. You wanna show me supporting facts and figures for your statement, fine, I'll show you supporting facts and figures for mine. It's a specious arguement.

Then why do I go to conservative blogs (although I find this one tends toward moderate)? I go because I want to hear other people's opinions. On occasion I have had my opinion swayed. Generally it has not been on issues like the War in Iraq or Abortion, but I often find points of view I wouldn't find elsewhere. It gives me a better perspective regardless.

Posted by: kate on June 29, 2004 10:54 AM

Mindless H Dreck wrote:

Both parties are chickenshit on gay marriage. I don't think the state should have anything to say about it. On the other hand, it's sad to me that anybody thinks state recognition should be important to their own sense of worth. This is what becomes of subsidies (which the legal status of marriage is). They are inherently discriminatory. It's appalling that people think marriage has to be 'defended' with subsidies or other attempts at social engineering.

I disagree except to the extent that neither party wants to mess around with a four thousand plus year institution. Either way the POTUS has no role in a constitutional amendment so it’s pretty much a non-issue as far as the presidential race is concerned.

Free trade is incredibly important to the growth of the world economy and the distribution of wealth to the far corners of the earth. Steel and agricultural subsidies are inexcusable even if the other guys are doing it. These protections simply slow us down and screw the little guy - in Africa or South America, that is.

Granted, on the other hand a voter has to recognize that there are simply no truly “free trade” (or for that matter purely “protectionist”) candidates running in the major parties. Every POTUS (including Clinton) supported some combination of trade liberalization and protectionism (even NAFTA and GATT institutionalize a number of protectionist measures). However in so far as Kerry supported both the agricultural subsidies (when his party controlled the Senate) and steel tariffs (which have been repealed and seemed to be political horse trading to get votes for TPA), while Bush has pushed for expanding markets in the Western Hemisphere and with Africa and Kerry has stated his opposition (including voting to essentially gut TPA), Bush is still the better candidate in this regard.

The FCC's actions are just chilling to free speech. The new fines are restrictively punitive, and create at least the moral hazard of using them to shape political speech.

I’m not a fan of obscenity regulations but frankly have a tough time getting worked up over someone enforcing these regulations. And no, I don’t believe that they are going have an impact on “shap[ing] political speech” either.

Bush never saw a spending bill or entitlement he didn't like, all small government rhetoric aside. Descriptions of his spending policy as some kind of fiscal rope-a-dope defy imagination.

I disagree somewhat. The Medicare prescription drug benefit that was (rightfully) vilified for costing $534 Billion also began the process of introducing means-testing to the program and gave us health care savings accounts. Considering that the alternative (supported by Messir Kerry) was priced at $700-900 Billion and had no HCS option, it was still preferable. Also I do not believe that President Bush has offered anything like Kerry’s $900 Billion proposal to bail out the insurance industry in the name of “health care reform.” Also the fact that he got us out of the Kyoto Accords (which per Jane would have cost about 1-2% GDP permanently on the low end) and he’s the only major candidate to favor Social Security reform and Bush goes from being marginally better than Kerry to actually pulling ahead in a couple of key areas.

As I mentioned a few posts ago, the decision to transplant Gitmo's prisoner treatment guidelines to Iraq is a textbook example of bureaucratic stupidity. The lack of control of potential WMD sites immediately after the invasion is a major screw-up - one that made the world a MORE dangerous place (remember the 'one vial' argument? Since we really thought they were there, job one should have been lockdown, regardless of the invasion pace).

Just out of curiosity, have we been able to determine if the potential WMD sites were looted before or after the liberation of Iraq?

I'm tired of people who think that businespeople are automatically immoral actors, or that the mere existence of profit or business self-interest signifies a problem. In my experience, the profit motive often protects us from the human instinct to control others when we gather in groups. Without the more objective monetary yardstick, it seems like the unspoken prime directive of groups (read:bureaucracies) is to control others, despite the best intentions of the individuals involved. I sit on a nonprofit board and I've seen it in action.

I whole-heartedly agree.

I endorse the mission in Iraq, which WAS, contrary to much invective, about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Or did I just imagine all the pre-war criticism of the administration being in the thrall of a 'cabal' of Straussian Neo-cons with precisely that mission? You remember, back when everyone thought WMDs were a lock? I understand some people thought Saddam could be deterred. I don't understand people who think it is all about oil or Halliburton. An immense good has been done getting rid of Saddam. It is beyond me why people are so vested in portraying that as entirely venal. Counter-tribalism, I guess.

Given the formidable risks and obstacles undertaken, the situation in Iraq does not appear to be as bad as critics paint it. If we had outlined these conditions as success criteria before the war, many would have been glad to accept them (or bet against them). The desire to make Bush look bad has gotten the better of many folks' judgement, and a high-stakes mission is evaluated in hindsight on distinctly unrealistic terms. Incidentally, I don't think our popularity on the continent is the right indicator for success, they tend to be quite hostile to change. I spent plenty of time in Europe during the Reagan era, and I'm quite pleased he didn't use Continental opinion to keep score.

I agree for the most part. The opposition domestically to the liberation of Iraq seems to be driven mostly by domestic political concerns really than a principled disagreement with the mission. These were largely the same people (as Putin pointed out when he revealed that Russia warned the United States that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks on our soil post-9/11) who generally had no problem bombing Kosovo which had far less justification from a national security perspective.

As far continental Europe is concerned, I’m not convinced that they like or dislike us anymore substantively than they did before Bush was in office. They were, as they always have been, driven by what they see as their own self/national-interest regardless of who our POTUS is or what they United States is doing. More importantly, given their cooperation in Afghanistan, the reconstruction in Iraq, intelligence, law enforcement, and the fact that they really don’t have much in the way of a military to contribute anyways – I don’t believe that it affects the level of support they could or would provide anyway.

For the me the election is about three major issues.

One, who is most likely to appoint constructionist judicial nominees to the courts and that’s Bush.

Two, who is most likely to support a market-oriented entitlement reform. We tried it with divided government for Social Security in 1983 and got a tax increase (arguably we had divided government in the Senate thanks to the Democrat’s threat of a filibuster which resulted in a much larger prescription drug entitlement that was originally proposed). Not only does this refute the “divided government leads to smaller government” meme IMNHO but it stresses the importance of making sure that when it comes time to negotiate and get reform passed, we want the sides to be as one-sided “pro-reform” as possible which means (a) conservatives controlling both the House and the Senate and (b) reelecting Bush over Kerry who doesn’t even think that there is a problem.

Finally who is most likely to champion policies geared towards long-term economic growth. Bush supports an investment option for Social Security while Kerry has pretty much ruled out anything but a tax increase. On the tax cuts, the only issue where they differ is whether to keep the portion most likely to encourage capital formation which Kerry denounces as “tax cuts for the rich” and Bush favors keeping. Bush is also generally more pro-trade than Kerry and has a more market-oriented and cooperative approach to regulatory reform.

Posted by: Thorley Winston on June 29, 2004 10:56 AM

Kate, one of the frustrating aspects about debating the Iraq war is how the descriptions regarding the pre war situation varies so widely. To speak of pursuing containment as an option is to ignore that containment was going to fail, because major actors in the international arena, namely France and Russia, wanted containment to fail, and were actively lobbying for it's failure. The reason Colin Powell was speaking favorably of "smart sanctions" prior to 9/11 was becasue he knew the containment regime was failing, due to non-cooperation of other important actors, and therefore he was trying to construct a fallback position, which in all likelihood would have failed as well. If one wishes to portray coninued containment as the preferred policy, intellectual honesty demands that one acknowledge that important actors, actors who you, in another context, portray as being nearly essential, energetically were seeking to undermine containment.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 29, 2004 11:21 AM

Kate - And I don't get why you don't see it Barely anyone sees it the way you do Kate. For instance, what percentage of people think like you, that Bush wants them barefoot and pregnant? There are people who think like you but if you are saying that you don't get why people don't see it the way you do, then that should be an indicator to you that your perception is off, or you need to explain your position better (not a bulleted list but a detailed explanation of a position).

Posted by: Pat in CA on June 29, 2004 11:22 AM

Jim - Sure Iraq is on a scale of -10 to +10 somewhere in the negative range. So was the rebuilding of Japan and Germany (you hear conservatives mention). When in one practice session day before D-Day you see 800 of our soldiers were killed we tend to have a little more perspective I think. I have hear the president say repeatedly that this will be a LONG war with many battles. The war on terror is not just Afghanistan or Iraq. The war on terror and the war on Iraq were always portrayed as tough but something we must do.

What is the alternative Jim? Kerry's solution is to try to convince the UN to do our war on terror. Bush has tried to convince the UN to do stuff but the UN won't step up to the plate. Besides the BASHING and perception portrayed by liberals that are "off" to the point of lying about Bush, we wonder what YOUR SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS... Take time out to tell us a solution without casting aspersions at the same time please.

Posted by: Pat in CA on June 29, 2004 11:30 AM

Kate writes: "And I just don't get why you don't see it. And it worries me. I ask people I know who are voting for Bush why they will and I keep hearing these very wishy-washy answers."

Here's my answer, and I doubt that you'll be able to dismiss it as wishy-washy.

We are currently fighting World War IV. (World War III was the Cold War, which we won.) This war is nothing less than the final showdown between Western civilization and the barbaric savagery of the Arab world. Winning this war will require us to systematically clean up the entire Middle East, removing ALL of the corrupt dictatorships that harbor and support terrorists. Afghanistan and Iraq were only the beginning. We have to deal with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Eqypt, and Pakistan at the very least. Some of these nations may choose to reform themselves when they see that the only alternative is invasion by U.S. forces. But one way or another, they will have to change.

I will vote for whichever candidate strikes me as most willing to fight this war to win. Right now, that candidate is Bush. I am far from delighted with his performance, and I flatly disagree with his positions on numerous issues, but he is better than any of the alternatives.

"If a Democrat was pulling this crap, there's no way in hell you'd even consider voting for them."

If there were a Democratic candidate who was more hawkish than Bush, that person would get my vote in an instant. Joe Lieberman had an excellent shot at getting my vote. But Kerry isn't even close.

I am not a Republican. In the presidential elections since I came of age, I have abstained, voted Democrat, or voted Libertarian. But this year, I am going to vote for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in my life, because I see Arab terrorism as the greatest threat in the world today.

As far as I'm concerned, the war is the only issue that matters, because none of the others will mean anything if we lose. And lose we will, if we don't fight tooth and nail. Gay marriage? I happen to think Bush is dead wrong on this issue, but I also know that if the Arabs succeed in establishing Sharia throughout the world, the question will not be whether gays can legally marry, but whether they can avoid being hunted down and lynched. Budget deficit? I think the Bush administration is spending way too much, but if we lose this war, no one will care.

Prescription drug benefits? Social security? Give me a break. I don't lie awake at night worrying about those things. I lie awake wondering which American city will be the first one destroyed by a terrorist nuke. I lie awake wondering if my children will grow up in a liberal democracy or an Islamic "republic". When that issue is settled, I'll be happy to debate prescription drug benefits. Until then, those issues strike me as trivial.

There's my answer. I'm sure you'll disagree with it, but wishy-washy it is not.

Posted by: Pat Berry on June 29, 2004 11:32 AM

The real question everyone needs to answer is "Are we:

a) At war with a worldwide dangerous enemy that will take years of focused, determined and united effort to defeat

b) At war with Al Qaida and his followers who are mostly on the run but still capably of attacking us

c) At war with some misguided poor uneducated Muslims who need our simpithy, understanding and support.

d) At war with ourselves to fix all the great sins of the past which has created the worldwide hatred that causes people to want to attack us.

e) Never were at war. Some isolated terrorists just got lucky once and it is unlikely to happen again.

I am, only for this election cycle, a single issue voter that believes there is only one answer to the above question and only one candidate for President has answered correctly. Can you guess which one?

Posted by: Kamakazi on June 29, 2004 11:36 AM

"Socially, apparently, I am rather liberal. Religion injected into politics? Yuck. So I suspect that many liberals would consider me to be a knuckle dragging neocon. Some conservatives would be exasperated at my social views."

Brent, just wanted to tell you you aren't alone. I have a Ph.D. in the social sciences, and it's bad enough that all the radical-chic types assume that ANYONE with a Ph.D. must look down their noses at conservatives.

But I'm also a Goth, alternative, heathen type who has many Wiccan/hippie/gay friends. It's fun at parties when someone new insists that I MUST be a Democrat, because you can't be that socially liberal and still vote for Bush, right? Wrong. I think the government should pretty much leave us alone, except when people (who happen to be fundamentalists, by the way) are trying to kill us (and kill other freedom-lovers). I have no problem with the wars that topple dictators and squash terrorists, especially when those terrorists are as misogynistic as they come.

(But if the government insists on doing something, like run a public school, they should do it right and be held accountable, which is why I support testing and oppose "progressive" education.)

It's amusing to see people try to pigeon-hole me. My lefty friends consider me the token Republican in the group, while to my conservative family, I'm the left-wing whacko. So I know how it feels. Neither side really thinks I'm on "their side," and that seems to be a very important thing these days.

Posted by: Kimberly on June 29, 2004 11:40 AM

Pat Berry, if we are indeed in a war which requires us to get rid of every corrupt dictatorship in the Middle East, then we ought to stop fighting it right now, since neither Bush nor Kerry, nor anyone in any position of power is seriously suggesting doing anything about Musharraf in Pakistan or the Saudi leadership either. Both are clearly corrupt dictatorships and both have done their part to foster terrorism and anti-American hatred. Pakistan is particularly troubling and far from showing a willingness to do anything about, Bush seems to have his lips permanently affixed to Gen. Musharrag's posterior.

Posted by: Eamon O'Brochlain on June 29, 2004 11:46 AM

That was a real frog-choker of a rant, Mindless. Sometimes you just have to let it out all at once. Permission for one comment, please.

I hate to be the only defender of agricultural subsidies here, but I must. Every time I hear that we would be better off without them, I think of the real people I know who are still trying to make it on an old style, commodity production farm. Does it make sense to prop them up?

My position is yes because agriculture is, in the final analysis, a regionally based activity if some disaster - natural or otherwise - destroys the global distribution process that our current industrial model is predicated on.

Depending on where you live and how, it is an outcome that one should think about.

Posted by: Gary Owen on June 29, 2004 11:51 AM

I would like to take a crack at what the terroists are thinking.

See, if I was a terroist, I would be thinking about defeating the United States now that I am fighting them in Iraq.

"Since I can't defeat those darn Marines or those darn Army dudes with their 50 cal sniper rifles, I'm just going to defeat democracy using democracy's own tools. I'm going to get the military pulled out by convincing their civilian masters. I still remember Black Hawk Down and how the American satanists were humbled. "In Somalia, killing is negotiation". Americans are weak since a soldier can't even negotiate when captured, not even if he was a General. All power comes from their "President", and their President rules by polls and what the mob thinks. Here in Arabia, the people think what we tell them to think, and in this war we know how to win and have the tools to do so.

With the help of Western Media, we can bloody the American civilians without even touching them. Spain was a soft target and we hit them, what we didn't expect was how the elections changed magically in our favor. Who knew that bombing people made them favor policies that would put less pressure on us and more pressure on our enemies? We thought Americans were spineless like that, but maybe we were wrong, but that doesn't matter, we will still win. Spain already knows that and soon the world will know it as well.

There's a candidate called Kerry, and people tell me that if he gets elected he will be just like the one we forced the Spanish to elect in Spain. Except the US is a hard target to hit again now, so if Kerry gets elected we will have been proven right. So afraid of an attack from us, can't even stand a hit. The US are cowards, spineless. No matter who their leader is, they will always be so. Their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is just the tough talk of a strong man, it is only Bush we fear, since he feels no Democratic guilt about conquering nations as we tried to make them feel. What idiots would believe we believe that conquering jihads are not justified? Tthe American public is as we thought they were, too weak to face us in jihad, too guilty to conquer us allowing us to conquer them. Bin Laden was right all along, Allah is with us, show enough pictures of American "Rangers" dieing and they will defeat their own military for us. No need to fear Bush, if they are willing to elect someone else cause they fear our prowess in Iraq.

Such a victory is a sign that Allah is with us and that the tide of Satan's power has turned from our light. What FOOLS Americans are and always will be, if I had such power America would be under Sharia already! Democracy has always breed weaklings too afraid to use their own power. That is why we will win and they will not, evil is always weak in the end. GOD IS GREAT!"

Kerry's response.

"I think international terrorism will be solved when we bring the world in on policing international terrorism inside their borders".

What do you think the terroists are thinking when they read such things as that or see them on AL-Jazeera?

Posted by: Ymarsakar on June 29, 2004 11:53 AM

Will Allen;

I always appreciate a comment from you. It always gives me something to think about. Here is the problem. Saddam had been pretty silent for about 10 years. We didn't like that he was there, we were pretty sure he was up to no good, he was ignoring U.N. resolutions. He was generally not behaving appropriately toward the international community. But we had a lot on our plate and there was no imminent threat. We just knew that at some point we would have to really deal with him.

We could have played the political game with the U.N. and eventually I suspect we would have had to join U.N. forces go in there. But it wasn't within the time-table the U.S. wanted. So we went in there without the U.N. and I think this was a terrible, terrible mistake.

I understand that France and Russia had a vested interest in Saddam remaining in power. But the fact that Iraq had ties to these western nations, allies of the U.S., is even more evidence to me that they did not pose an imminent threat to me or my country. We see the same facts, but read them differently.

Kamakazi --

I'm guessing (a). If I win to I get a cookie ;-)

(I myself fluxuate wildly between a, c, d & e...but tend to believe a more often than not.)

Posted by: Kate on June 29, 2004 11:57 AM

Eamon, I agree with you completely about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But I think you missed my point. I am not 100% satisfied with Bush's performance in fighting the war so far, but he's better than the alternatives. Show me a candidate who's willing to go after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and I'll vote for that person in a heartbeat. Kerry is not that person, and there aren't any other choices, are there?

Posted by: Pat Berry on June 29, 2004 11:58 AM

On the subject of agricultural subsidies, Gary Owen writes: "My position is yes because agriculture is, in the final analysis, a regionally based activity if some disaster - natural or otherwise - destroys the global distribution process that our current industrial model is predicated on."

If the global distribution process is destroyed by some major disaster, then agricultural subsidies will not help a bit. American agriculture would grind to a halt without fuel to run the tractors. And that's assuming that the farmers would still be able to obtain parts for those tractors, seeds to plant, fertilizers and pesticides to keep them growing, and so forth.

If international trade stops, the U.S. is screwed no matter what. Subsidies will not change that reality.

Posted by: Pat Berry on June 29, 2004 12:04 PM

"Pat Berry, if we are indeed in a war which requires us to get rid of every corrupt dictatorship in the Middle East, then we ought to stop fighting it right now, since neither Bush nor Kerry, nor anyone in any position of power is seriously suggesting doing anything about Musharraf in Pakistan or the Saudi leadership either. Both are clearly corrupt dictatorships and both have done their part to foster terrorism and anti-American hatred. Pakistan is particularly troubling and far from showing a willingness to do anything about, Bush seems to have his lips permanently affixed to Gen. Musharrag's posterior."

President Bush can't invade and topple every dictatorship in the world. If Reagan was the President he had succeded, perhaps. But with the military being what it was when President Bush got ahold of it, what with all Clinton's military cut proposals added in with what the Democrats did with the military spending budget in return for balanced budget, it was particularly hard for any NSA adivser to say "We can take them all on, just let them try us".

Churchill didn't invade Hamburg by sea, he decided to get a beachhead, a toehold, on France. Iraq is a toehold, that is becoming a beachhead and then a dam bursting.

The only other alternative is to start a nuclear war in order to wipe out Arab civilization itself from afar, nuclear arsenal we have plenty of, but that alternative is not one that's very tempting to the American public. Nor is it really necessary.

Diplomacy back in the Ottoman Empire days was considered to also mean a "knife in the back. I am sure Pakistan knows this. They can either get stabbed in the back after Bush is out of office where they can then have a chance to deal with a more weak successor, or they get stabbed now. Iran and North Korea has decided now is the time to stand up to the Americans.

When the time comes, who will be in a stronger position. Pakistan and Iran or the US? Which countries now surround Iran btw? Which countries surround Syria?

Israel is besieged, but that's cause on their west is the sea and on their east is the Arabs. What's on the west and east of Iran anyways?

Posted by: Ymarsakar on June 29, 2004 12:06 PM

Kate writes: "I understand that France and Russia had a vested interest in Saddam remaining in power. But the fact that Iraq had ties to these western nations, allies of the U.S., is even more evidence to me that they did not pose an imminent threat to me or my country."

There's just one flaw in your analysis: France and Russia are not allies of the United States.

Posted by: Pat Berry on June 29, 2004 12:17 PM

Mindles I totally totally sympathize with you. I do label myself a conservative. There are 2 points:
1st point:
1) Others define conservatives many times and so many do not understand what a conservative is.
2) Just like liberals there are many variances to a conservative and for a liberal to assume or perceive that a conservative thinks like Pat Robertson is not doing anyone any good.
3) It may be useful for liberals and conservatives to talk about an issue instead of the a) personality (like Bush or Robertson), b)lumping everyone into a certain disdained mindset (as Kate thinks Bush wants her barefoot and pregnant etc.), c) try to come to an agreed set of facts that do not have spin interlaced or someone elses perception in the story first (as in the world temperature has risen in the last century .1 degree now what do we do for a solution (without bashing each other))

2nd point:
To every conservative in my circle it isn't about Bush. But it seems to us as if to the liberal it is about Bush. It is "anybody but Bush", it is "Bush is a liar", it is "Bush wants me barefoot and pregnant" (Kate's view), etc. To us conservatives we have our core beliefs and we seem to only agree with Bush between 50%-75% of the time. We have a set of core beliefs and there is no way that we'd vote for Kerry when we believe either a) he has a perception problem or a set of core beliefs because of that perception that would take this country farther left than even Bush would.

Now - Kate (in a post up above) likens that to people who are voting for Bush as being wishy washy as if we have to AGREE with Bush 100% of the time before we vote for him.

Remember Mindles, it is ok to espouse your views. There are those on the right and left who will attack you for your perception or belief. I have been trying to hold up a mirror to attackers in the last month. It doesn't work. I'll try a different tactic maybe in the next month. One thing is for sure to me though, the more speech the better and if the leftists are more prone to attack instead of write with logic, common sense or facts then they do theirselves more harm just as I've probably in the last month done some harm to the conservative position for trying to hold up a mirror.

Posted by: Pat in CA on June 29, 2004 12:33 PM

Kimberly wrote...

But I'm also a Goth, alternative, heathen type who has many Wiccan/hippie/gay friends. It's fun at parties when someone new insists that I MUST be a Democrat, because you can't be that socially liberal and still vote for Bush, right? Wrong. I think the government should pretty much leave us alone, except when people (who happen to be fundamentalists, by the way) are trying to kill us (and kill other freedom-lovers). I have no problem with the wars that topple dictators and squash terrorists, especially when those terrorists are as misogynistic as they come.

Interestingly, last Saturday I was waiting for my wife to get ready to go out to a friend's going-away party and posted on some blog comment page about Michael Moore and what I consider to be his despicable tactics. Asked if I had seen F9/11, I said no as it is not being shown in my area (I wouldn't likely go see it anyway...) Immediately a few Moore supporters ridiculed me for being a red-state hick, and one guy made the comment that (I'm paraphrasing) he wished that the blue states could simply get rid of the red states because that is where all the rich, interesting people live while the red states are full of dull-witted blindly-Bush-supporting Walmart-shopping racist homophobes.

A few hours later I was at the party listening to live alt-rock, talking to two lesbian friends who were quite open about their relationship - in homophobic Missouri? My they are brave! ;) The guest of honor was drunk and flashing her breasts at our table, and I had an interesting conversation with a guy who happens to be black and gay. So here is a gay black guy and two openly lesbian women hanging out in a town most people from NYC would automatically assume was smack-dab in the middle of red state hell. And did they have any problems that night, despite a decidedly hetero/midwest/ethnically-no-so-diverse crowd? No, of course not. They never do. If anybody gave them a hard time they would be quickly dealt with by myself and any number of other people there.

Just interesting on how perceptions some hold so dear are often just plain wrong.

And don't even get me started about how people treated me differently when I had long hair and wore it down. Nutz!

Posted by: Brent on June 29, 2004 12:33 PM

This is my first post to this site, came over from Instapundit, so I don't know the history here. I consider myself a moderate Republican, a supporter of lower taxes, smaller, less intrusive government. On social issues, I think I would be consdiered more to right vis a vis the folks I have seen here but among some Republicans I am viewed as a wishy-washy type. I have no problem with gays marrying but I am very concerned with HOW that change comes about. I am a Bush supporter and a supporter of the war in Iraq. And I will be casting a very enthusiastic vote for him this November, even though I have been very unhappy with his record on government spending (way over the top...the man has never even introduced himself to the veto pen and I wish he would). The reason I cannot wait to get to the ballot box is that I believe we are at war with an implacable enemy, an enemy that adheres to a totalitarian, nihilistic belief system whose only foundation is the destruction of western values (liberal values, actually), particularly America.

I have been stunned by the statements of some of my very liberal frienjds about terrorism lately...stunned. I have had several of them totally dismiss the possibility (in my view, the inevitability) of another attack on this country, that these killers aren't coming back, that the terror alert system (which is, admittedly, pretty rudimentary and unhelpful) is simply a ploy by the Bush admin to scare us into voting for him. The people who have said this stuff to me are my loved ones, dear friends, but I believe these statements are truly ignorant, verging on crack-pot, and I think they are rooted in a blind hatred of Bush, desperately searching for a rational basis. It seems to me we have two choices in the future....the first one, the one that is being offered by Kerry (and the hard-core isolationist libertarians on the right, as well), is to revert to our previous policy approach to terrorism, which is to attack only after we have been attacked first, so as to avoid being labeled preemptive and try to talk some sens einto these folks. But in order to do that, we will have to create a fortress in this country and a liberal administration could never and would never agree to the kinds of safeguards and infringements on our liberty that would be necessary to truly innoculate us from global terrorists. These are people who have promised us publicly that they intend to destroy us. I, for one, am taking them at their word. The Bush administration, for all of its faults, undertands that there is no internal defense against these people and that the only policy that will work is to 1) go out and root out the cells and eradicate the authoritarian regimes that either finance them, tolerate them with a blind eye, or are simply so chaotic that they are ripe for exploitation by terrorists elements (Sudan and Somalia, for examples), and 2) use all the diplomatic, trade, tools available to chip away at the regimes in that region that are spawning these groups. Does this mean that we must rush out quickly and invade more countries? Absolutely not. There is no one-size-fits-all template that can be slapped on. Would that it were true, we would have used it by now. The liberals I talk to fall back on a tired argument that goes something like this...."well, North Korea is a bad actor, why doesn't Bush go after that regime?" as if the Democrats would actually support such a move. But the carrot is no good without the stick. Themelimination of Global Terrorism, which includes the previous regime in Iraq, in my opinion remains the single most important issue facing our country. I agree with a previous post that said that kerry would not be some unmitigated disaster (the country will survive any one person, in my view), but I think that reversion to the old tired principles that he is espousing on the foreign policy front would be debilitating.

Posted by: Leslie on June 29, 2004 12:35 PM

Mr. Berry, I agree with much of your thrust, but differ in the details. Sharia is not going to arrive the U.S., under any circumstances. However, what will happen absent rapid, revolutionary, change in the Persian Gulf despotisms, is rather hideous.

As long as a giant portion of the world's most imprtant mineral resource is despotically controlled, theocrats with designs on mass slaughter will have ample resources with which to pursue their goals. Even despots must have means of garnering support, and the way for Islamic despots to do so is to lend aid to their murderous theocrats, who, in turn villiainize the U.S., because the U.S. is influencing their culture, and a world-dominant infidel nation like the U.S. is, in their view, an apostasy. If the U.S. is to remain influential in the world, and economically dynamic, it cannot withdraw from the Persian Gulf, because such a large percentage of the world's oil supply is there. Hello, vicious cycle.

A couple of other nasty factors have rendered this conflict unlike that of the Cold war, where decades were available to wait for the adversary to implode (this where critics like Zinni and others go wrong). First, the genie is truly out of the bottle when it comes to the technology of mass slaughter. Ten nations have now developed nuclear weapons, including poverty cases like North Korea and Pakistan. Absent extreme luck, Iran will soon join the list, and it will not end there. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that any any entity, including a non-state actor, which is highly motivated to acquire such technology will eventually do so, if they have ample resources. The despotically controlled Persian Gulf oil will provide the resources, and the Islamic theocrats are nothing if not motivated.

In addition to being motivated, they are also not nearly as sensitive to deterrence in the manner of the Soviets, and this is the final factor which, while not posing the existential threat of a Soviet Union with thousands of nuclear warheads, makes this situation more tactically dangerous. Their view of the world makes the Islamic mass murderers extremely prone to massive miscalculation. When they obtain such a device, they will most likely use it.

When they do, the U.S., isn't going to submit to Sharia, and isn't going to withdraw from the world. In such a circumstance, when millions, if not tens of millions of Americans are burying somebody they know (it is striking how interconnected the modern world is; I live in the Western U.S., and am from a non-military family, and I knew people killed at the W.T.C. and Pentagon, and someone I knew fairly well was recently killed in action) , a large majority of the population is going to conclude that the root problem is that there are great masses of people on the other side of the globe who are alive that they would prefer to be dead.

Then a 21st century technological and industrial colossus will get down to the hideous business of a systematic slaughter, the likes of which the world has never before witnessed, by means which we likely cannot imagine, since the desire will be to kill a lot of people without destroying all of the infrastructure. That is what is coming down the pike, unless the people of the Persian Gulf gain control over their mineral wealth. No, they will not love us if they have the opportunity to self-govern. That isn't important. What is important, however, is that they recognize that providng resources to those elements which seek to wage war on the U.S. is manifestly contrary to their own self-interest, and will result in their utter annihilation. In short, the goal is to make sure the mineral wealth of the region is controlled by people who are sensitive to deterrence, and unfortunately, there aren't decades available to have that development slowly unfold.

Of course, if the people of the Persian Gulf decide to employ their resources to wage war, then war will result no matter what strategy is employed. First, however, we must find out, and somewhat quickly, if that is what they desire.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 29, 2004 12:36 PM

Eamonn, Perv is stepping up to the plate. They're starting to clean out the rat's nest, he gave a very interesting speech to a college graduating class about extremists, another author published a thought-provoking piece about islam and progress recently and Bush has calmed down India and Pakland rattling sabres. they're even talking trade ties and are going to be visiting each other.--

Kate - get over wanting to be loved or liked by the rest of the world. We never were, we're the original rogue nation with a different vision which upset the "natural order of things" as they see it.

We have always and will always be the bastard child. We, our money, and power are tolerated. We will work w/them when we can and won't when we can't. At this point in time, they know they need us and wished that they didn't. But quite a few of us are not as magnanimous as we used to be. 20th century's over.

France has not been an "ally" for decades. You don't pass on bombing info to the enemy - and that was in the mid-90s.

Posted by: Sandy P on June 29, 2004 12:36 PM

I have tried to understand what is behind the venomous hatred of our President, and my head swims. The criticism of him inevitably boils down to nearly fact-free, incoherent and contradictory arguments. I have concluded that it is visceral, but I don't understand why. My deepest disappointment is that so many liberals want to look the other way when it comes to the human rights abuses in the Arab world so they can advance an anti-Bush agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves.

/
We all are products of our experience, and bring bias to any debate. I think it is important to keep our own biases in mind when looking at current events. Here are mine: I come from a solidly Democratic area; Republicans rarely even run a candidate for local offices. I was raised in a blue-collar world with traditional liberal values: the rights of the individual must be protected, and the violation of civil rights (by bigots, corporate America, or government)is one of the greatest betrayals of American values; that America remained isolationist too long in the 20th Century, leading to great human tragedies which might have been prevented or lessened by earlier American intervention; that we should be reluctant to use our military power unless it is to defend US interests, or to prevent genocide or help free people from tyranny, which is still widespread, unfortunately.
/

The criticism of Bush is self-contradictory. He is criticized for spending too much on the war, and not being able to predict the total cost. Critics also say he should have greatly increased the number of troops, which, of course would greatly increase the cost that was already considered excessive. He is criticized for extending the tours of reservists, which was necessary to keep troop levels at proper levels. The same people who criticize the number of troops used also claim our troops have been too visible and vulnerable to attack. So on the troop level issue, according to the critics Bush should have used a larger, cheaper, invisible force, not exposed to combat risks, without extending any tours of duty while having plenty of reserves for other contingencies. Remember, Bush inherited a military cut almost by one-half from the time of the first Gulf War. He is criticized, really, for not doing the impossible. Instead, he steered a course up the middle, which I think is his usual practice, despite all the talk about extremism.

/
Bush is also criticized for "running up" a deficit. Well, he came to office with a recession, which to the extent a President can, he eased and shortened. The economy suffered an unprecedented shock from 9-11 (hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars lost to economy), we had to hire tens of thousands of new government employees (Homeland Security, etc.)and we needed to greatly increase intelligence and military resources (combat air patrol in the US, changes at NORAD, Afghanistan, FBI, CIA, etc.). How could the deficit not go up? Could he have cut some of the business-as-usual government waste? Not without a paralyzing political fight with the Congress, particularly the Democrats. So he again, steered a middle course, and is damned from all sides.

/
There are many other examples of the incoherence of the Bush critics, such as, is Bush too stupid for the job, or is he an evil genius?

/
I also think the Bush critics do not take in to account the monumental task we have undertaken in Iraq. Bush critics forget that defeating European fascism and reconstructing parts of Europe took millions of more troops, many more dollars, and nearly a couple of decades to achieve. There were many set backs, horrific human losses and success was uncertain. People should not expect that establishing a tradition of human rights and self-determination in the heart of the Middle East can be simply, and quickly accomplished. People should recognize that this will advance Human Rights and enhance US security at the same time. What is there not to like about that?

/
The War in Iraq is the right thing to do for numerous reasons. Honest liberals should support the effort on humanitarian grounds alone. There is simply no honest debate that the people of Iraq deserved the oppression of the Saddam regime.

/
The internationalists should also support the war. Saddam invaded a neighbor, was kicked out under UN auspices (and US muscle) and agreed to certain terms, including disarmament, in the cease fire. Saddam did not comply with disarmament, committed almost daily acts of war against the aircraft enforcing the UN no-fly zone. The UN is meaningless if someone like Saddam can get away with committing genocide and thumbing his nose at the world.

/
The anti-capitalists should have criticized France, Germany and the USSR for their shameless greed and corruption in the "Oil for Food" scandal. They seem to be silent, because it was not American companies which acted so amorally and cravenly.

/
Finally, I think people should recognize that persons who would do us harm work very hard to keep their activities hidden from us. That our national leaders will always be working with imperfect intelligence prepared by fallible human beings. But considering the catastrophic harm which will befall us from these threats, that if we must err, we need to err on the side of our national security.

/
We should also realize that today's threat is fundamentally different than in the past. Today a relatively small number of terrorists can commit genocidal acts. These enemies do not need to hold much territory, but desperately want the support and protection of nation states.

/
Initially, European fascists could not do much harm to the US, unless they got the atomic bomb first. Back then it took the resources of an entire country (or the axis powers) to be able to threaten us or attack us. This is no longer the case, which unfortunately will require a more vigorous military posture for the US to protect itself.

/
To summarize, when I look at the situation Bush was given, I am glad he made the decisions he did. I wish no American had to die to free the Iraqis, but Bush always warned that we are taking on a difficult, but worthy task. The Bush critics are all over the lot, but seem to have a common thread: the lack of any plan which can be demonstrated to be superior to the one chosen by Bush. I wish we could put the hysterics aside and recognize that Bush is trying his best to protect the US; that he was dealt a lousy hand, but for the most part is succeeding better than anyone predicted; that there is more than one right way to do things and the worst thing we can do for our national security is to continue to take cheap shots at Bush, and lead our enemies to believe that we lack the will to see this thing through.

Posted by: jmurphy on June 29, 2004 12:39 PM

Mindles - I'm tired of people who think that businespeople are automatically immoral actors, or that the mere existence of profit or business self-interest signifies a problem.

I agree. In my circle of people there are a few leftists. One common thread between them is that they have a very negative view about "corporations" and "business". They throw the words around as if they are unseemly and evil and what we need to fight against. On top of that they associate corporations as being for the Republicans. But what has happened is that corporations tend to give money to the political party in power. During the Clinton administration there was more money given by corporations to Democrats (fact).

There is a guy who sits a cubicle across from me who every political discussion he is in he is railing against the "corporations" (yet he is a contractor who has his own business). He claims he is a moderate but he sounds exactly like Ralph Nader when he goes into his diatribes.

I've pointed out that it is against the libertarian and conservative principle to either a) give just a tax break to a certain business but not others in the area just to lure jobs b) have the taxpayers pay for things like stadiums and sports centers such as:
1) The 49ers stadium that Willie Brown (d) wants the taxpayers to spend money for a new facility.
2) The new Kings basketball arena in Sacramento that Heather Fargo (d) wants the taxpayers to spend money on for a new facility.

This country is definitely headed in the wrong direction. If a pollster asks I'll say that. But the reason is because Bush is too left for me and the alternative (Kerry) is even farther left. For 50 years this country has tended towards larger and larger government and each department, agency or program administered by the government tends to grow itself, justify itself, fight against any plans to shrink it, reproduce, and just about every politician whether Republican or Democrat has the propensity to SPEND SPEND SPEND. Just look at the data on NTU.org's website that shows how little difference there is between the two parties.

Posted by: Pat in CA on June 29, 2004 12:44 PM

Kate wrote:

Here is the problem. Saddam had been pretty silent for about 10 years.

Well I suppose if being “pretty silent” includes refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, firing on US and British aircraft, sponsoring Palestinian terrorists, and continuing to keep illegal weapons systems, then yes Saddam had been “pretty silent.”

We could have played the political game with the U.N. and eventually I suspect we would have had to join U.N. forces go in there. But it wasn't within the time-table the U.S. wanted. So we went in there without the U.N. and I think this was a terrible, terrible mistake.

Just out of curiosity, what additional forces do you honestly think we could have gotten to go into Iraq had we but waited? Which countries could and would have been able to send in more troops?

Posted by: Thorley Winston on June 29, 2004 12:50 PM

Will: I wish I could share your confidence that Sharia will never be imposed in the U.S. But if the U.S. is attacked with nuclear and biological weapons, there are those who will argue that we should try to appease the people who did it. That sort of weakness will open the door to more attacks, leading to more concessions. Laws can be changed. The Constitution can be amended. Nothing will be sacred if the American people are frightened enough, and our leaders tell them that making compromises is the only way to be safe. It's already happening in places like France and Canada.

But that's a worst-case scenario, I agree. And you're certainly right about the nuclear genie being out of the bottle. Nevertheless, we have to fight to slow its proliferation while we eliminate the bloodthirsty ideology that is willing to use it against us.

Posted by: Pat Berry on June 29, 2004 12:52 PM

Kate , you seem to ignore the structural deficiencies of the U.N. where one actor on the Security Council can stymie any chance of effective action. France and Russia's interest in seeing containment fail, given their seats on the Security Council effectively meant that the U.N. could not address the issue in the future.

Also, see my post above in regards to how I see the larger strategic picture. Iraq is but one part of a larger puzzle, but one, if handled with even a modicum of success, makes the rest of the puzzle easier to work on. Was it risky? Entirely so. Given the hideous nature of the status quo, however, large risks are entirely appropriate.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 29, 2004 12:55 PM

Shell - Your post at 8:58 AM was so good to me. Bush cannot do a FMA unilaterally. In fact the FMA is the most UN-unilateral approach that could be taken. It is for this reason that people who are voting AGAINST Bush because of this one issue are short sighted. Bush is sort of leaving it to the states and Congress to have an FMA passed and I believe that process is good for the country. BTW, I could almost care less about this issue. I just get tweaked a little that leftists want to be AGAINST Bush on this issue when Bush has taken the most UN-unilateral approach.

Posted by: Patrick in CA on June 29, 2004 12:56 PM

I agree. In my circle of people there are a few leftists. One common thread between them is that they have a very negative view about "corporations" and "business". They throw the words around as if they are unseemly and evil and what we need to fight against. On top of that they associate corporations as being for the Republicans. But what has happened is that corporations tend to give money to the political party in power. During the Clinton administration there was more money given by corporations to Democrats (fact).

Certainly, largely this is because Democrats tend to be more inclined to support “industrial policy” more so than Republicans. Clinton was a strong supporter of business subsidies which was actually a large part of the 1995 showdown with the GOP Congress that tried to cut about $15 Billion of them from the federal budget.

There is a guy who sits a cubicle across from me who every political discussion he is in he is railing against the "corporations" (yet he is a contractor who has his own business). He claims he is a moderate but he sounds exactly like Ralph Nader when he goes into his diatribes.

I have made it a rule to assume that, unless proven otherwise, most people who proclaim themselves to be “moderates” are generally actually on the Left and use the term to give themselves what they think is greater credibility. Posted by: Thorley Winston on June 29, 2004 12:58 PM

I greatly appreciated the tone and message of Mindles's post. It's good to see confirmation every now and then that you and most people here are not one-dimensional. However, now into the fray...

Mark writes, "Kerry merely seems clueless on everything. It's embarrassing that the Democrats couldn't put up a candidate with a voice and a backbone."

This is a case of what SomeCallMeTim spoke of as I see the sun and you the moon. But I ask, have you seen Kerry speak, in debates or in interviews? Have you gone to his web site and read through the positions there? Have you reviewed his record as a senator? How can you possibly call Kerry "clueless"? How can you possibly refer to a lack of voice and backbone?

As for Mindles's professed reason for the war in Iraq (funny how everyone brings up a different one), if we wanted to "establish democracy in the Middle East" there are a lot of other places where it would have been easier (and not requiring of total war) and more effective. For example, Saudi Arabia. A monarchy hated by many of its citizens, that spawned bin Laden, that spawned 18 out of 20 hijackers or whatever it was, that as far as can be seen continues to be a hotbed of terrorist fomentation, and that we presumably have some influence with given our long military and industrial cooperation. John in Tokyo, how can you call Saddam's Iraq a "terrorist factory country" when the terrorists we know of come from other places?

Regarding Kamakazi's options (what kind of "enemy" are we up against), the only way to get to this is to understand the perspective of people in the populations that are producing terrorists, and also to understand that their perspective does not form in a vacuum, but depends on how we, the United States, act. Sitting here in our armchairs we cannot know in depth or detail, but we can reasonably infer from the sources of information we have that terrorists are created by a combination of feelings of desperation, perceptions of injustice, senses of righteousness. Are suicide bombers a natural development of Palestinian culture, or a result of hopeless war against a formidable foe supported by an invincible one? It may be comforting to think that we can just strongman our way to victory in the conflict against muslim "terrorists" as it is, but can such a strategy really work if this is the situation? Those of you who believe that Bush's stance in this arena is better than Kerry's, please consider this.

Posted by: ABR on June 29, 2004 01:01 PM

Stephen - Thank you for trying at 9:24. Your positions align with what I believe is conservative. Unfortunately for the both of us, Bush and Kerry are to the left of us.

On your preferential treatment stuff, here in CA Ward Connerly (who I wholeheartedly agree with) was able to get the CA Civil Rights Initiative passed which bans the CA state from having preferential treatment in the hiring of contractors or acceptance of college students, etc. George Bush is not aligned ideologically with Ward Connerly. Bush is to the left of Ward's thinking but the left attack Bush vehemently about race with the famous James Byrd commercial that was aired in Texas and stuff and other examples.

Glad to see you write.

Posted by: Patrick in CA on June 29, 2004 01:07 PM

jmurphy writes: "I have tried to understand what is behind the venomous hatred of our President, and my head swims. The criticism of him inevitably boils down to nearly fact-free, incoherent and contradictory arguments. I have concluded that it is visceral, but I don't understand why."

I think I can explain. These people simply don't take the war or the terrorist threat seriously, and are focusing entirely on domestic partisan politics. To them, September 11 is ancient history, and Afghanistan and Iraq are just places on the other side of the world that don't matter. What concerns them is that there is a Republican in the White House. They want a Democrat there. And they'll say or do anything, as long as they think it will increase the chances of replacing Bush with Kerry.

Fact-free? So what? They don't care about facts. Incoherent? Who cares? If it convinces people to vote for Kerry, it's good. Contradictory? Whatever it takes, baby. The goal is to beat Bush, not to make sense.

Yes, it's visceral. Look at the way sports fans work themselves into a hysterical frenzy in support of their chosen team, and scream vicious insults at the other team. What you're seeing is politics as a sporting event. The Democrats want their team to win, and Bush is on the other team. Of course they hate him.

Posted by: Pat Berry on June 29, 2004 01:08 PM

Pat, you underestimate the blood-thirsty capacities of the average American, when millions of them have recently buried a murder victim they knew. Go back and read a little bit about how American attitudes, in terms of what constituted legitimate treatment of the Japanese population, were altered by accounts of the Bataan Death March. The attack of September 11th could easily be portrayed as an isolated event in which a few nuts got lucky in executing their tactics. When Katie, Matt, and Al, along with, just guessing, 500,000 to 1,000,000 others (the threshold may be much lower) go "poof" on national T.V., by the most advanced technological means, any voices preaching restraint, accomodation, or withdrawal, will be swept aside like sand pebbles in the path of a tsunamai of utter and total rage. Americans ain't any different than any other tribe, and given the right circumstances, and they will consign other tribes to the dust-bin, or abattoir, of history.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 29, 2004 01:09 PM

Will, I hope you are right. But I also hope we don't get the opportunity to find out whether you are.

Posted by: Pat Berry on June 29, 2004 01:14 PM

Grr. Just lost a lengthy post in the making. That'll teach me not to use a word processor and then copy the text into the comments section.

I'm not going to start over, but I will make this observation. 800 deaths in the military in Iraq is still less than the number of deaths in the military that those units would have experienced stateside (from training and auto accidents). So, a little perspective, please.

Posted by: Rex on June 29, 2004 01:14 PM

Brent The stock market really showed tanking at April 2000 and October 2000 (before Bush was in office). Also majore economic indicators showed in September and October of 2000 that the economy was not technically in a recession (because the technical definition of a recession means that more time has to pass) but the indicators were down. Bush didn't cause the recession and it is true that Tax cuts benefit the economy (funny argument last week had leftists all upset about that sentence). But it is true that tax cuts have positive effects on an economy (so do spending increases by the government).

Brent - I find your positions OK. I'm socially for common sense I believe. I differ with you a little but so what right? :) I just don't find it alarming that people who are religious are able to run for office. I am not for purging religious people or views from government. I believe that the courts will do their job of checks and balances and make sure that the executive or legislative branch doesn't overstep thier bounds with respect to "legislating morality".

Posted by: Patrick in CA on June 29, 2004 01:19 PM

Kimberly - your positions seem reasonable to me. :) Welcome to the conservative movement. :) Where no party Dem or Repub really fits you.

Posted by: Patrick in CA on June 29, 2004 01:33 PM

ABR, trying to move on the House Of Saud while Iraq's oil reserves were under Hussein's control would have been strategically unwise, given the chance of gigantic global economic disruption. If Iraq, with the second largest proven oil reserves can become even moderately successfully governed, and it's oil production fully ramped up, then there is much more freedom action in dealing with the House of Saud. There is a reason, after all, that the House of Saud opposed removing Hussein.

Not being a mind reader, I cannot tell what Bush's thoughts are regarding the House of Saud. Good strategy precludes announcing one's views on the matter, even if one does understand that the House of Saud in it's current form is dying, and the only questions are how many people will be killed in the process, and how disrupted the oil supply will become. I do know, however, that a functioning Iraq with an oil industry with the ability to fully exploit it's reserves makes managing the fall of the House of Saud easier.

Second, I think you don't fully appreciate the nature of the Islamic, and particularly the Arab view of the world. The Palestinian suicide bombers aren't simply driven by their hopelessly inferior military position to the Israelis. They are also driven, for a non-trivial segment of the population, by the notion that it is an affront to Allah himself that Jews should politically dominate any part of that region of the world, and it is an apostasy to accept that state of affairs. Similarly, Bin Laden has spoken of the apostasy of Muslims no longer ruling Andalusia, or failing to have ruled Vienna. As long as this non-trivial element has access to resources which allows them to pursue mass slaughter, they will do so, with some effectiveness.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 29, 2004 01:34 PM

Mindles, Jane : first of all, I'd like to compliment you both on your fine blog. Yep, it's a really nice blog y'all got here. Oh, and one more thing :

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! WE'RE DOOMED! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! DID YOU HEAR ME? WE! ARE! ALL! GONNA! DIE!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well then. I feel much better now.

Seriously : you and Jane do about as good a job as anybody does of managing the collective fight-or-flight reflex that is a comments section, and the reason is not your position on this or that issue but rather that you yourselves stay civilised. Were I you I wouldn't worry about anyone's surprise and discomfort. The people who come here (self proudly included) bring that with them.

Posted by: joe shropshire on June 29, 2004 01:38 PM

Rex, your request for perspective is based on a false premise, for it assumes that we are not losing troops to stateside accidents as well as losing them in Iraq. Military accidents don't stop happening here at home simply because we send troops overseas.

Posted by: Peter Flynn on June 29, 2004 01:47 PM

Thorley - Thank you for your post at 12:50 PM. I appreciate seeing others counter the misinformation by Kate. :)

Posted by: Patrick in CA on June 29, 2004 01:49 PM

ABR writes: "Sitting here in our armchairs we cannot know in depth or detail, but we can reasonably infer from the sources of information we have that terrorists are created by a combination of feelings of desperation, perceptions of injustice, senses of righteousness."

Sorry, but I don't buy that. European Jews during the 1930s were desperate, but they didn't become terrorists. The people of India under British rule experienced injustice, but they didn't respond with mass murder. Dark-skinned people in the United States and South Africa were cruelly oppressed, but they didn't resort to blowing up buses full of children or crashing planes into skyscrapers.

Do desperation, perceptions of injustice, and senses of righteousness lead inevitably to terrorism? Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King tell us that the answer is "no." Even Nelson Mandela, who eventually called for armed rebellion, did not advocate the deliberate murder of innocent, defenseless women and c