A Healthy Challenge

Link: The Washington Monthly.

A FEW WEE QUESTIONS..(from Kevin Drum) ..I'm sure that conservative bloggers are feeling pretty smug about the Beinart-Drum-Atrios-Yglesias tiff regarding liberals and national security, but if I could have a moment of your time before you bust a collective gut over this, I'd like to suggest that you could all stand to have a brutally honest conversation about a few things yourselves. Just to get you started, here are a few questions — numbered for easy reference:

1. Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?

Before I begin, why bait an audience so - if your true purpose is to promote discussion of some kind? Tonight before logging on we watched the Fed-Ex-ed copy of a DVD showing the recent graduation of our eighteen year old from basic military training (one of the largest classes in that service's history BTW - all volunteer, you understand.) As he and his companions may one day, even soon, find themselves in harm's way, I hope that what they've learned through life and training leaves them a bit more mature and genuine. But then, I suppose one always hopes for the best, especially for the young. But I digress.

After years of often self trumpeted summits and unproductive Camp David meetings during which the violence and killing in the middle-east has only festered and grown until, ultimately, it led to the killing of "us" right here at home, yes, I absolutely still believe that, not only is American military power a "good" way to do it - it is likely the "only" way. If my feelings have changed any in the past two years it is only in the sense that perhaps we could have "killed" (that word choice and sentence structure is for your benefit, not mine) more and sooner. I say that because wars simply do not end before enough of the enemy is, in fact, vanquished. As I long for an end to war every bit as much as anyone, that longing supports my logic. And, no, I never tortured small animals in my childhood, in case you're wondering. Shall we move on?

Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?

Well, as a staunch conservative and supporter of our President and most Republicans all I can really say is that I pay about as much attention to the rambling rants of a Falwell or Robertson as I do a Jesse Jackson or a Michael Moore. If I worry that some see them as the "face" of the Republican Party, then it is simply an acknowledgment of the efforts of many like you who seem so intent on making it so. As a grand fiction, I suppose it amuses. But as reality, it falls well short of true, so why worry? And the challenge is not for the President, or the party for that matter, to distance self from them; the true challenge is to parry the thrusts of left fencing pundits striking so often as they do at that false target.

Hopefully here you will indulge me a friendly suggestion for your side as to the likes of Misters Jackson and Moore re the Democrat Party. Having the Reverend Jackson currently craving silly headlines over an election long lost and the distinguishable but less than distinguished Mr. Moore sitting so prominently at your convention, well, distance? You tell me.

Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush's policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.

Is being prepared to sacrifice one so young and so loved as our own far enough? Or would you ask more of me? Or does that very fact somehow make me not "credible" on the subject? Please don't betray logic with false comparisons of apples and oranges, or figs and pears, should you prefer. How many years of sanctions and no-fly zones have we endured as regards Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Are there mass graves in either country of which I am unaware? Have either attacked and overwhelmed a neighboring peaceful state? I don't read the New York Times, so forgive me if I missed it.

More to the point, freedom and democracy are the only forces with enough raw power to transform the middle-east from a cesspool of violence, poverty and suffering into however many good nations of productive and open global states it finally becomes. And as I am currently unaware of any architectural or engineering progress so as to render our buildings capable of dodging airliners - and that concern will not truly abide until said violence, poverty and suffering end - I truly believe that seeding democracy in the middle-east is our only prudent alternative. And military force as the flint strike of its catching on and growing is an acceptable means and cost to me.

Yes, it is profoundly sad - but losing 1,000 plus and even more brave and noble volunteers in over a year of fighting versus losing another 3,000 plus innocent and unaware civilians in seconds is a trade and consequence I believe we must undertake and accept.

On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

Well, let's look at the facts. The Iraq War has not stabilized oil prices and if you wish to paint Bush, Cheney, et al as the oil industry-philes you apparently do, then at least give them credit for understanding the dynamics of that industry prior to launching the war. I realize its hard for you to credit them anything, but do try, won't you; I have it on reasonably good authority one actually graduated from Yale. As to the records issue, allow me a moment of candor, I have no more interest in the details of Dick Cheney's records than I do the detailed medical records of Clinton's dick. There is such a thing as "the public trust." To date, Vice President Cheney has given me no lip smacking reason to question his managing of any trust assigned him.

A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

The second coming? This isn't another trick Clinton question, is it? I mean, it does all depend upon what the definition of "substantial" is, right? And, forgive me, but I prefer leaving the language of "purge, purged and purging" to the left, where, as history and contemporary events seem to show it has an all too happy home. I'd challenge and question anyone who held that conviction so deep as to wish to steer a war, let alone a nation by it. But I am much less fond of purging as at least one Olsen twin and you, apparently.

Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

Yes. And yes, as a hypothetical worthy of vigorous debate should the possibility arise. And my mind would be fully open for said debate though I doubt it will become necessary. Can you say the same?

If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

Yes. He was elected to lead and if he were to determine that act to be the prudent measure of his leadership I would support it unless or until facts proved otherwise. And, if I ever felt President Bush's leadership or behavior became imprudent, I'd support his impeachment. Just FYI - getting head in the Oval Office is "imprudent," IMO. Perhaps you disagreed, perhaps not.

Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie's crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?

You seem confused. One cannot rationalize taking the threat of terrorism "too" seriously in the face of the attack on 9-11. Hopefully it never gets more serious than that. As I never heard President Bush or any other reasonable person on my side of the argument suggest Saddam was behind 9-11, I fail to see the relevance of the question to the particular discourse. As to what should be "done with them?" Hmmm ... listening, talking, maybe even just tolerating them, same as I do you, I suppose. Heavens,  you're not thinking "purge" again, are you? Sometimes I wonder if there would be anyone left if the liberals ever really got control.

In closing, thank you for the "wee" interesting questions. I do believe I navigated all the numbers correctly, but then they didn't number more than ten. And I don't believe I, what was it you said, "bust(ed) a gut." So if you ever want to ask more questions, please feel free. However if you start the dialog by baiting me and I'm in a bit of a less generous mood I might dismiss you as just another liberal ass hat who wouldn't know an objective conversation from his elbow and "purge" all over your flop snot.

That said, sleep well tonight, Kevin - our kid has your back.

Comments

[Chuck]

Well said. But you have to understand that when you're dealing with hard-core Liberals and New Left you're dealing with brain-dead monsters. I have yet to see a reasonable New Left discussion of the Stalinist massacre of 10 million Ukrainian peasants in the early 1930's and the brutal murder of another million or so Ukrainians in the Polish province of Galicia as a result of that well known Stalino-Fascist Pact of 1939. Obviously, leftist idiots like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Tom Hayden, Eric Foner and a host of others are unable to come up with meaningful dialogue on this matter. Doesn't matter, they're all war criminals!

[Daisy]

Dan,

Good stuff. You need not establish your credibility with me, my man. Congratulations on that boy of yours. You must be and should be proud.

[Terry Gain]

Dan,
As usual you have hit the nail on the head. Your answers are authoritative and conclusive. The questions are, unfortunately, revealing of an immature mind. Here are my answers to Mr. Drum's sophomoric questions.

Q.Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?

Dear Kevin do you have some rational suggestion as to how democracy could have been promoted without removing this insane, homicidal, genocidal maniac. The difficulty in pacifying Iraq proves that the democratization could not possibly have been achieved except by force. If you thought it would be easier than this why were you not totally agog in favour of the liberation of 25 million people from this tyranny? Are you anti- freedom or just anti-freedom delivered by conservatives. I expect it is the latter.
-------------------------------------------------
Q. Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush's policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.

Dear Kevin, Those who support the democratization of Iraq have offered blood and treasure. What are you offering? Or do you have anything to offer except sophist opposition? As to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan your comment is surely disingenuous. You do what you can. Have you ever heard of Realpolitik? Perhaps when America has "dealt with" traiterous assholes such as yourself- i. e. confined you to irrelevancy- it can "deal with" Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And no, jerk face, this does not necessarily mean the use of force.
-------------------------------------------------
Q. On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

Dear Kevin, You wouldn't recognize honesty if you tripped over it. Obviously the easiest and cheapest way to secure oil prices was to make a deal with the dictator. Since you didn't know that (and even France knew that)you should show some class and humility and politely withdraw from the scene. Given your obvious lack of knowledge and seriousness your questions are impertinent.
--------------------------------------------------
Q. A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

Dear Kevin , what is your authority for your assertion about the Christian right? You don't know what you are talking about. If you knew any of these people you wouldn't make such ridiculous accusations.
--------------------------------------------------
Q. Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

Dear Kevin, Obviously whatever steps are necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb must be taken. A draft will not be necessary. Unfortunately the American left continues to send a message of weakness. You are a case in point. Perhaps if the know nothing left would just shut the fuck up the mullahs would get the message and the use of force would not be necessary. (that is the not so respectful view of this Canadian lawyer)
--------------------------------------------------
Q. If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

Dearest Kevin, Get serious. President Bush (The Great Liberator) will draw down the troops when it is appropriate to do so. As an intelligent man President Bush knows it is counter-productive to announce troop reductions in advance.
-------------------------------------------------
Q. Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie's crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?

Dearest sweet Kevin, Laurie's theories are neither proved or unproved. They are not at all crackpot. In fact they are quite logical. They are nevertheless unproved (to some extent). Your question as to what we "should do" with Laurie is toublingly Stalinistic. A better question is what do we do with people like you. Relax. The Republican ( conservative) answer is to tolerate you while offering help, prayers and guidance.

[slickdpdx]

Really nice. Well written and well done. Thanks.

[DaveK]

Lots of good material for discussion there... You almost need separate discussion threads for each one!

My comments will come later after some thought.

DRK

[Ron Deaton]

Didn't I see Drum holding a sign up on that we're sorry site? It's one thing to ask a question; it's another to have the answer, then ask the question.