perfidy

I have been very busy. I am, even now, composing a reply to your fascism thingie. However, while I'm doing that, your one sentence comment on Empire didn't answer the one question I asked for which I was most curious to hear your reply: "If we have an informal empire, a halfway state between empire and not empire, how does it work?" How are we creating, maintaining and administering this empire.? I truly don't see evidence of anything that I would describe as empire - even an informal one. Exerting influence, yes; playing politics, yes; even military action, yes - but I don't see that we are actively trying to control other countries, or peoples, on any kind of systematic basis.

Also, in regard to the expectations for the war 

No official of this government, or in the military has ever said that the war would be over in days, or that the Iraqis would surrender en masse right at the beginning. Granted, they want the war over as quickly as possible - but Bush regularly said that we should be prepared for a long, difficult fight. And for that, he was accused by the media of putting on the spin, to lower expectations. But consider, there are still only a handful of combat casualties after nearly a week of fighting. And, we are less than fifty miles from Baghdad - it took six weeks to get this far in '91. This is the fastest armored assault in military history. The only army that ever moved faster (toward the enemy) is the Mongol Hordes. And given the logistical hurdles that we have and 'Ol Genghis didn't, that's pretty remarkable. We were hoping for a coup, not counting on it. Likewise with the Turks. The plan that Gen. Franks and his staff has come up with is audacious, but not ill considered. And it is going very, very well by any historical standard. 

Do I have to bring out my republic stick again? 

Gore lost the election because we have a republic and not a direct democracy. It was decided by constitutional procedures. Rule of law is more important than democracy, and that would be the greatest gift we could give the Iraqis. Rule of law leads to civil insititutions that can support democracy, it doesn't work the other way around, as many third world nations have found to their sorrow. (And remember, Bush got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton did both times he was elected.)

From the website Democratic Underground:

HappyLibLady (1155 posts): The "coalition" POWs
"It was interesting to see the interviews being held with a few of the POWs captured by the Iraqis.

I noticed that the interviewers spoke in calm, comforting voices, and I saw how one of them put a gentle hand on the shoulder of the young African-American female. Her eyes seemed to express a terrible fear, and that is likely because she was trained/brainwashed by the US miltary to believe all Iraqis are blood-thirsty murderers.

I have faith that the experience of these POWs will leave them non-plussed and very confused. I expect that they will be given good treatment, decent food and clean quarters during their confinement, and that they will be released, unharmed when the time comes.

Maybe I'm just dreaming, but it is my hope that the POWs will discover that they were treated better by the Iraqis than they have ever been treated by the very people who are supposed to be protecting them on the battlefield. And, in the case of the African-American woman, she may find that people in the Middle East, unlike too many of the folks back home, do not consider her a second-class human being because of her dark brown skin!"

I am shocked, shocked that someone could be this completely naive. Although I shouldn't be, because everytime I visit that website, I see something equally stupid. (And she uses scare quotes, too.)

Mike, I believe that John McCain, screwball that he is, is also one of the most forthright people in national politics. In the words of John Shaft (in the 2001 remake), "Do you think that makes me less dangerous... or more dangerous?" He has been against the war [correction] for the liberation of Iraq from the start, and unlike my illustrious Senators Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry has remained steadfast and articulate in his convictions. I know that at least Buckethead is going to try to beat me like a drum for sayin' this, but Democratic candidate Howard Dean (Gov. Vt.) reminds me favorably of a liberal McCain in that regard. I tend to respond well to straight shooters, even the crazy ones.

As for the President's legitimacy, of course Bush lost the popular vote. That tends to happen all the time-- you know as well as I do that the Electoral College is really what elects the President (and it's also why we're in no way a direct Democracy). Besides, if you want to get technical about it, every President since whenever has really lost the popular vote in the sense that only about 30-35% of voters vote-- meaning that a mandate of the people is really concretely a mandate of 17.5% of the people. As with you, my real issue is that the Supreme Court decided the election given all the irregularities that kept being unearthed in Florida, and I'm not just talking about chads.

If you want a really fake election though, just look at 1876, or for that matter, 1824.

I agree with you-- the volte-face attempted by the big dogs as they try to claim that a long war was always the plan is pretty funny, and deeply sad. On that, you're right. Aside from the political issues though, I think I'm rather less pessimistic than you about how the war is going. As Outkast said, "you can plan a pretty picnic, but you can't predict the weather." Forget Turkey-we are on the outs with them on a monthly basis, and at this point, with Turkish troops attempting incursions into Northern Iraq, their help would be more hindrance in the long term. Now that it's on, I just want it all over fast.

McCain has an interesting perspective truly. It occurs to me that politicians might not be so confident of their decision for war if they are still trying to sell the war to the people. If that's not it, then just what is McCain up to? 

It also appears as though this war is not living up to the expectations of said politicians. My, my, but the Iraqis are not all surrendering in mass numbers. Did they really expect Hussein to just give up? The administration has made errors in judgment here. First, they should not have counted on a coup, because it's not going to happen. Two, they should not have counted on Turkey permitting passage to open a northern front. At the moment, most of the armor that would have gone through Turkey hasn't even made it ashore due to rerouting. Proper planning prevents poor performance, and so far the command structure might well have dropped this ball. For the sake of uniformed Americans, this should have at least waited until the armor arrived. Of course, the whole deal was a mistake in my opinion. 

Back to McCain, I say Americans have a lot of nerve thinking they can tell Iraqis how to run a democracy. The current president lost the popular vote and the election was decided in the courts. That doesn't sound democratic to me. Perhaps contest entries will consider a Constitutional amendment to rectify the situation, hmm? 

Steve, any thoughts on my explanation of Communism and the origins of Fascism and Nazism? I was expecting more discussion. 

Talking to hear my head rattle, WCM 
 

John McCain is just great. In this op-ed from last Friday's Washington Post, McCain touches on "empire." Well of course he does. Please read the whole thing-- it's a remarkable essay about why he believes America is great and doing the right thing. Here's the money quotes for us:

Critics who deem war against Saddam Hussein's regime to be an unprecedented departure from our proud tradition of American internationalism disregard our history of meeting threats to our security with both military force and a commitment to revolutionary democratic change. The union of our interests and values requires us to stay true to that commitment in Iraq. Liberating Iraqis from Hussein's tyranny is necessary but not sufficient. The true test of our power, and much of the moral basis for its use, lies not simply in ending dictatorship but in helping the Iraqi people construct a democratic future. . . . This is what sets us apart from empire builders: the use of our power for moral purpose. We seek to liberate, not subjugate.

Fair enough, and beautifully said. It's about the use of our power for moral purpose. 

But it's also about the oil (but not in the way many people think). 

Let the flames begin!! 
 

[updated] Limit one coupon per family per visit. May contain nuts or nut fragments. Close cover before striking. Offer void in Oceania. Long live Eurasia!

Design your own constitutional amendment, and win the undying admiration of the ruling troika of this webpage. The entry picked as winner will receive good karma in vast quantities, and a Chinese fortune cookie (only half eaten, fortune still included.) The rules:

1) It can't be an amendment that is already in the Constitution. 

2) Your amendment cannot change the laws of physics. 

3) Try to solve a real problem with your amendment, and not guarantee plentiful dogfood for every canine in America, or annex Norway or something. 

4) Write your amendment like you thought it might actually go in the Constitution with all the other clearly and beautifully written amendments.

After entries are recieved, we will post interesting ones, and declare a winner. Tell your friends! 

UPDATE: Submit entries to gustavus-at-juno-dot-com, and put "amendment" in the subject line. Any complaints can be sent to johnnyisasmartass-at-yahoo-dot-com. 
 

As a conservative, I often have difficulties with elected Republican officials. The Federalism issue is one of the most frequent. It would be nice to have an honest to god conservative president, but I don't think that is terribly likely, given the lip service that must be paid to big government by any candidate standing for election.

Listening to the radio on the way back from Ohio, I heard translations of a statement from the Iraqi Propaganda Minister. The thing that kept popping into my head was what the aliens said when they landed in Springfield on the Simpsons:

"Your superior weapons are no match for our feeble intellect!"

Actually, I have nothing agin the herring munching surrender monkeys of the north. It's really a cover for my racist feelings toward the powerful swedes, who are quick to anger and too dangerous to provoke openly.

Buckethead, can you please explain what exactly the hell is your problem with Norway? Starting to creep me out, man!