Steve Beren, changer extraordinaire: Part II
[Part I of my interview with McDermott challenger Steve Beren can be found here. We take up the second half of the interview shortly after 9/11, when Beren had become convinced that the unity the country faced was temporary and was bound to be disrupted by an antiwar movement.]
[B]: Events early in 2002 justified my thought there would be a large antiwar movement. I’d said it on Oct 31, 2001””and it was brewing on campuses already. Far left groups were already doing their spadework.
[N]: Your background as an activist seems to have given you insight as to how this was going to go down on the left. I was curious–what do you think it was about your experience that gave you this ability?
[B]: I was not only an antiwar activist. I was a trained Socialist in the antiwar movement. We had to study not only Marxist thought, but the tactics and strategies of past antiwar movements. I took that to heart. It had previously not occurred to me that all wars had antiwar movements””there was a small one during World War II but a big one before it actually began, and I took a special interest in those who remained antiwar throughout World War II such as the Nation of Islam, Quakers, etc.
[N]: So you were a historian of antiwar movements–
[B]: And antiwar strategy and tactics. And I was a participant in the Vietnam antiwar movement. I’ve written and spoken about Kerry’s involvement. There’s a plan: always bring religious people in, plus some disgruntled soldiers, and racial minorities saying there is injustice (for instance, the Nation of Islam in World War II didn’t want to fight against what they referred to as another colored race, meaning Japan). That combination appealed to a broad spectrum.
In the beginning of the Afghanistan war, there were rumblings in the media: there were rocky mountains, the British had failed there, the weather would be bad, this could be trouble. And back when John Kennedy had sent troops at the beginning of Vietnam the antiwar movement did it this way (in Vietnam, the Socialists supported the Communist takeover””but you don’t put that on a flyer, do you?) During the Cuban missile crisis what you’d say is that Kennedy is all concerned about Cuba, but he’s ignoring what’s happening in Vietnam. Or in Berlin. Then when he’s in Vietnam, you talk about how he’s ignoring Cuba. Ted Kennedy now talks about North Korea.
[N]: So these are strategies for all situations.
[B]: Yes, it’s a rhetorical device. You go from one thing to another, to add negativity to the media and the academic world. Regular people don’t like war””who does?–we all hope a rumor of war is not true. And if we start hearing things to discourage us it feeds on that: “we can’t win anyway, and we should be doing something else that’s more important.”
[N]: So, what’s your strategy for your Congressional campaign?
[B]: I’m running in a very liberal area in general. There’s an 80% Democratic district, and a 75% Democratic district. McDermott has gotten between 71 and 86 percent of the vote when he’s run [7th District].
But we’re gonna get way more votes than usual. In recent years the Republican party hasn’t even run an active campaign here; we’d announce we’re not contesting it””the last time they did was 1980; we got 40 percent of the votes against McDermott’s predecessor.
We decided to do it differently this time. We met with various Washington Republicans–eastern Washington is Republican, and you need better than usual Republican turnout in Seattle to win the state. I applied the Bush re-election strategy to the local election””which is to increase Republican turnout. I said, “What if we run an aggressive campaign, not a token? Start early and hit McDermott hard, play to win. Probably McDermott won’t lose but–but what if we got 30, 35 percent of the vote? It will help the statewide Republican candidates and generate enthusiasm for the other Republican candidates.”
I’ve appealed to Republican activists and they are very excited about my campaign, the goal of which is to help Republican candidates statewide, and to grow the Republican Party in Seattle of all places. I want to take my expertise on war and foreign politcy, take on McDermott on his territory in Seattle, and have more people here change their minds on the war on terrorism, decrease the number of people in denial in Seattle, and realize it’s not a “so-called” war. I’ve gotten exceptional coverage in the major dailies here.
[N]: You’re bringing a lot of energy, motivation, and optimism to your campaign.
I want to go back to something–in my change process, reading was enormously influential””especially on the internet; reading a variety of sources. One thing I thought interesting in your story was the incredibly important role reading 1984 had when you were young””was reading a part of your later change experience?
[B]: To this day I deliberately look at Democrat and Socialist websites. I find it fascinating to see how people are thinking””you have to know what the other side says if you want to change minds.
I learned to read at age two. My father would deliberately bring me books on subjects I wasn’t interested in. If I was reading all about dinosaurs, he said I should stop reading about dinosaurs and he’d bring me books about airplanes, or baseball, and said, “You must expand your horizons.” He was not an educated man, but at a very young age””I might have been ten””we were talking about Mein Kampf. He thought it was important to read it because you should expose yourself to views you find distasteful and don’t agree with–there’s something important about that.
That was my father’s way–he taught me to read and encouraged me to deliberately look at opposing views.
[N]: An important part of keeping your mind open so change could occur.
[B]: And it was annoying to fellow Socialists. I wasn’t just reading the other side in order to plan strategy but wondering “is that true?” And “what did newspapers say about it at that time?”
[N]: I have an idea that people who are able to change have always been critical thinkers in some way. That’s probably true of you. Even when you were toeing the party line you were more of a critical thinker than many who were in there with you.
[B]: Nevertheless I remained a Socialist for 20 or so years, with a long slow evolution away from it.
That was the conclusion of the Beren interview. I found the last exchange especially telling and even moving–the description of Beren’s father, encouraging (practically ordering) the boy to look at all sides, even those with which he disagreed. It was a foundation that allowed Beren to be a maverick who embraced Socialism and made it his life’s work, but that same attitude kept his questioning mind open to other points of view.
Now Beren is throwing himself into his present campaign with the same vigor that marked his earlier dedication to the cause of Socialism. If the old saying (often attributed–perhaps erroneously–to Churchill) that anyone who’s not a liberal at twenty has no heart and who’s not a conservative at forty has no brain, then we can safely say that Steve Beren is a man with both heart and brain.
*Ahem*
North Korea is a “rhetorical device”?
So what does that make “The Axis of Evil”?
Now, if things were going great in Iraq, and NK was quiet, I can see how a chorus of “What about NK??” could be considered a mere political distraction.
But we find ourselves facing precisely the opposite conditions:
“The number of daily car bombs and roadside bombs in Iraq is at the highest level since the 2003 invasion, according to a US military spokesman.” — BBC, Oct. 05 2006
“North Korea may test its first nuclear bomb this weekend, Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi said in Washington, according to a government official in Japan.” — Bloomberg, 6 Oct. 2006
Beren talks about the Afghanistan war as if it we had won it already. Precisely the opposite is true:
“Afghanistan has been suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since the Taliban regime was toppled in late 2001.” — WSJ, Sept 20, 2006
And then Beren says he wants to “decrease the number of people in denial in Seattle…” Bah.
Sorry to add more negativity from the moonbat media, but honestly, it takes a bit more than optimism to win wars.
Yes, UB—it actually takes people with the courage, foresight and imagination to see that we’re in a long fight, a tough fight—and that people like you have absolutely NO desire to help. In fact, as Beren has stated in his interview above, you are practicing the tactics of those who actively support our defeat.
What’s YOUR solution to NK? Iraq? Darfur? Sudan?
UN task forces? Peacekeepers (like the Turks in Lebanon, who have stated that when called upon to disarm Hizb’allah, that they will refuse)?
Now, if things were going great in Iraq, and NK was quiet, I can see how a chorus of “What about NK??” could be considered a mere political distraction.
It doesn’t matter how things are going in either arena. The idea is to not talk about anything directly, because that might lead to a conclusion that the distractor doesn’t want to arrive at. So when the time comes to talk turkey about Iraq, regardless of the content of the talk, you blurt out “but what about NK?”
The beauty of your comment, unknown blogger, is that it itself is a rhetorical device. I would wager that you don’t for a moment actually believe that what Steve Beren meant was that the problem presented by North Korea is itself just a rhetorical device. He obviously meant the strategic way the problem is used by the Left, a matter on which he happens to be an expert.
unknown blogger – resources, time and committment wins wars. You mentioned Afghanistan and fail to note that NATO is assuming more and more command and control there. I would pit the 3 prime ingredients previously mentioned for a win, assuming you don’t suscribe to the notion that wars should be won in a matter of a few months, that NATO brings to the table v. the taliban any day. I think your real unstated point is that any war is futile.
Unknown Blogger – It’s called “Moving the Goalposts”. The Left has been doing it for years. Yes it’s despicable, but hey, what do you expect?
This I love: “Sorry to add more negativity from the moonbat media, but honestly, it takes a bit more than optimism to win wars.”
Agree, which is why I eagerly await the Democratic plan for doing so, or at least actually admitting that we ARE really at war. The Republicans have certainly made mistakes. I’m sure the Democrats have a better plan than just quitting and hoping the bad men leave us alone, but there’s been little evidence of that thus far. By the way, pessimism doesn’t win war either the last time I checked.
I have an idea that people who are able to change have always been critical thinkers in some way.
Simple question to Neo-Neo and her neophites, how do you square that statement with the president and the administration?
UB:
Critical thinking resulting in change would require that one have a REASON to change, other than “Gee, this seems a little harder than I thought at first, I guess I’ll give up.” It would also require an alternative to one’s present course that actually, you know, MADE SENSE, as opposed to one that got you into worse trouble than the current path.
“Simple question to Neo-Neo and her neophites, how do you square that statement with the president and the administration?”
They’ve made mistakes, some of them quite costly. AND they SHOULD own up to them. Why do they not? Because due to the poisonous political atmosphere in our country right now all they would gain is more criticism. Do you actually expect us to believe that liberals would say: “okay, well let’s forget about the past and figure out how to work together for a better future”? No, they’d pile on with great glee, I suspect you might even join them. You’re assuming that they AREN’T critical thinkers, I’m assuming that they are, but refuse to acknowledge mistakes. My personal feeling is they should anyway, but I can see why they don’t. Additionally, I think most of these mistakes have been in the area of tactical vice strategic. I STILL think the best strategy is one of Offense vice waiting for the bad men to leave us alone.
…Simple question to Neo-Neo and her neophites, how do you square that statement with the president and the administration?…
Drunken party/frat boy Gets God, Gets Sober and leads America successfully though a dangerous and tumultuous time suffering the unearned and spiteful slings and arrows from the Internationalist Left.
Quite a change: He could have been a Clinton, but he decided to be a Churchill….
Let me see if I understand this:
You guys are arguing that is it somehow wrong, or purely politically motivated, and even “despicable” for a Democratic Senator to bring up North Korea while we are at war with Iraq?
Hooboy. We are in worse shape than I thought.
Anyway…
First, Stumbley fumed:
“you are practicing the tactics of those who actively support our defeat.”
Stumbley, find one falsehood in what I wrote above or tell me when stating the truth became a tactic of “those who actively support our defeat.”
Dicentra opined:
“So when the time comes to talk turkey about Iraq, regardless of the content of the talk, you blurt out “but what about NK?””
Reading the assessment of our military spokesman above, and 5 weeks away from an election, it seems Bush is the one wishing for a distraction from “talking turkey” about Iraq. Immigration anyone?
Neo explained:
“He obviously meant the strategic way the problem is used by the Left, a matter on which he happens to be an expert.”
Neo, do you honestly believe this “strategy” is unique to the left? (I use quotes because in this case I believe NK to be a legitmate topic for discussion.)
Goesh wrote:
“You mentioned Afghanistan and fail to note that NATO is assuming more and more command and control there.”
…and? Whose fault is that? What’s your point?
Goesh, speaking of Afghanistan and “command and control,” I notice you didn’t mention Bush’s blessing of Musharaf’s deal with North Waziristan:
“PRESIDENT BUSH: …When [Musharraf] looks me in the eye and says, the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people, and that there won’t be a Taliban and won’t be al Qaeda, I believe him, you know?” — Press Conference, 22 Sept. 2006
“A U.S. military officer said on Wednesday that the cease-fire that began June 25, cemented by the signing of a peace accord Sept. 5, gave the Taliban a free rein to use the North Waziristan border area as a command-and-control hub for attacks into Afghanistan.”— IHT, Sept 30, 2006
Then Goesh fantasized:
“I think your real unstated point is that any war is futile.”
Do you read palms too, Goesh? Please try to keep focused on my stated points. (Wait, was that a moving goalpost I just saw go by?)
Finally Mike’s original contribution was:
“It’s called “Moving the Goalposts.” The Left has been doing it for years.”
Mike, again, I admit this practice exists, but that the Right is not above it. But in this case I think one could safely argue that Bush himself set up NK as one of the “goalposts” when he named it part of the “Axis of Evil.” Besides, can you really blame Ted Kennedy if NK has threatened a nuke test now? Are we supposed to wait till the Iraq war is over before we can deal with it?
‘K…. I’m convinced UB–let’s nuke North Korea. It’s the only way to be sure.
What do you think?
I STILL think the best strategy is one of Offense vice waiting for the bad men to leave us alone.
Which imaginary democrat is saying this?
Beyond conducting flacid bayonet charges at strawmen, do you have a course worth considering.
I thought we were dealing with NK the way that the Left wanted us to deal with Iraq originally- let the international community decide what to do and then we’ll go along with whatever decision is made. We are still waiting…
In any event, I think people who switch from Left to Right pose the biggest threat to the Left, and that is why people like Neo and Beren draw so much ire. The Left can look past a conservative person from a conservative family being conservative in the same way that you can’t blame an abused dog for being aggressive. It’s forgiveable and will just take some reeducation. But going from Left to Right- unforgiveable. You have fallen from grace and can never again attain the enlightened status you once held.
This guy sure as shit knows his enemy, because he knows himself.
The beauty of your comment, unknown blogger, is that it itself is a rhetorical device. I would wager that you don’t for a moment actually believe that what Steve Beren meant was that the problem presented by North Korea is itself just a rhetorical device. He obviously meant the strategic way the problem is used by the Left, a matter on which he happens to be an expert.
neo-neocon | Homepage | 10.06.06 – 2:01 pm | #
Not an expert, Neo, a professional.
Don’t people have something better to say than just whatever reactions they have to attacks on Neo’s position?
I suppose I should be encouraged by the saga of Beren’s transition. But it took this intelligent thinking man decades to see the light. What hope then, for our fellow citizens who were not so well nurtured or inclined to a discursive approach? What hope that they be made aware of the left’s strategies which are endlessly promulgated, aided and abetted by the MSM? Sigh.
I still find one of the really amusing things in many of these tactics is that they are not thought through as to what they strongly imply. They have a great short term viability but a horrid long term.
Say above – unknown blogger certainly understands what the argument about NK is. If he/she doesn’t then they are a moron – it has been stated clearly. That leaves intentional “stupidity” otherwise known as partisan hack. That is it – you are stupid or are a partisan hack. The *really* amusing things is that they will – pretty much everytime – get angry of being a partisan hack and choose stupid.
Essentially while “what about ?” is effective in that one particular instance when it is used over and over what I wrote above comes into play. This is especially true when our attention is turned to and the same argument is used again. The democrats have been reaping the fruits of that tactic for quite a few years. While there have been a few blips where they gain it has been a long steady decline since around the late 70’s. If they win control here again it will do more damage than if they didn’t – suddenly you need more than “Republicans screwed up” and “what about “.
not to mention that in both the case of Unknown blogger and our new DonkeyKong they did *exactly* what was described in what they were complaining about – it is like the Islamists that will behead you if you accuse them of violence. Yep, that’l work.
I also think the thing that really infuriates the left is that the president doesn’t really play the game they want. He realises that no matter what he does there will *always be a “What about ?” and simply does what he wants. There is no dialog – why have try and have a dialog when the other side only wants to pretend to do so while sabotaging anything you want to do?
The same with the media – he realises that as long as he communicates through them they will always twist his words so he just decided to not communicate with them.
In both cases he is pretty much the first President to do so. Unfortunatly – for reasons unknown to me – he quit doing that after the last election and has started trying to play the game. When he didn’t his approval rating were decent, people respect that and he is horrid at playing that type of game. Now he just comes off as another politician.
110/06/06 Reuters: Medic gets a year in prison in Iraqi’s death
10/06/06 telegraph: Soldier ‘saw US tank fire on ITN car’
10/06/06 NBC: Soldiers in Iraq asking: ‘Why are we here?’
10/06/06 AFP: Journalist ‘shot by US troops in Iraq’, inquest told
10/06/06 AFP: Death of a soldier: US losses mount in Battle of Baghdad
10/06/06 AP: Thousands of Iraqi police killed
10/06/06 Reuters: U.S. Navy medic admits part in killing of Iraqi man
10/06/06 Reuters: Kurdish lawmaker and driver killed
10/06/06 KUNA: Dane MNF soldier killed in Basra combat
10/06/06 news4jax: Hollywood Soldier Killed In Iraq
10/06/06 DoD Identifies Marine Casualties: Cpl. Benjamin S. Rosales, 20
10/06/06 DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
Lance Cpl. Edward M. Garvin, 19 Division
10/07/06 Pete tries to kill another thread.
“10/07/06 Pete tries to kill another thread.”
No, he isn’t.
He is preaching to us. As such he expect us to be wallowing idiots for the next few minutes as his dispensation of knowledge short circuits our inferior right wing brain. Of course, he is also documenting our reactions so he can show them to other leftists and they can find it “telling” (usually the word used, of course they never once stop to think how “telling” thier own posts are). All that for no real effort at all.
He has no intention of converting, discussing, stopping, or doing any other thing in this thread. If it does any of them it is a side effect, though not one he is adverse too.
Personally I find it rather entertaining, especially compared to the others on here that are in Preach mode.
The funny thing is the whole interview is rhetorical – and entirely predictable – all right-wing paranoia/hysteria over the ‘left’is either that or falsehoods, generally.
Your so-called expert is very careful to avoid offering a specific examples -again he misrepresents the anti-war argument.
In fact I don’t think he ever was an anti-war activist.
What say you ‘expert’??
So, for example, what did you say(or were trained to say) was the ‘problem’ with Cuba that was ignored by Kennedy while he was bombing S.Vietnam?
And what, as a ‘Socialist’, did you see as a governmental solution to Cuba’s ‘problem’?
I’m curious.
So, for example, what did you say(or were trained to say) was the ‘problem’ with Cuba that was ignored by Kennedy while he was bombing S.Vietnam?
And what, as a ‘Socialist’, did you see as a governmental solution to Cuba’s ‘problem’?
…is Beren in this thread and I’m just clueless about it, or are you talking to thin air and hoping he’ll magically be able to hear you? Or are you talking to somebody else completely, whose post I didn’t read at all?
Change of mind in individuals is psychologically interesting thing. But politically only massive changes of mass perception are meaningful. And such changes also sometimes occur. In Russia most of 19 century leftists and revolutionaries, even terrorists, were sons and daughters of clergy. And the first anti-leftists, profound critics of all this ideology, were former revolutionaries that became new-born Christians, theologicans, priests and monks. Now this group of philosophers are world-known celebrities, classics of Russian political and religious thought.
I have heard there is an English proverb “A former poacher makes the best forest warden”, or something like this. It certainly true in the case of Horovitz. I also note, that the first Russian anti-leftist ideological manifest, “Milestones”, was written by former social-democrats (party, to which Lenin belonged) in 1907 and was a bomb to Russian intelligentsia, accusing its authors in “apostasy”. They, in turn, described themselves as new-born Christians. History again repeats itself.
Beren isists that his change of mind was very gradual and slow. But almost instant conversions, like that of Saul to Paul, also occur and even have a special term to describe them in Greek (and Russian) theology: metanoia, literally “change of mind”. No wonder, that in these cases a person feels himself so deeply transformed that often adopts a new name as a simbol of his rebirth.
This talk of “left” and right” misses the point. show me people that are willing to tell the truth regardless if it may cause others to reassess specific polices. SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks. The 9/11 Commissioners more interested in playing politics than in fulfilling their mandate. “Commissioners … rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda’s opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy.”
It is outrageous to suppress the facts to keep the policies from being reassessed!
Well he bothered to be ‘interviewed’ by neo so who knows….
Maybe Neo can answer the question about why the Socialist party would have a mandate for U.S government action in Cuba – particularly Kennedy who certainly did have a Cuba policy even while he was, as I say, bombing S.Vietnam to ‘save’ it from falling to the North…
The whole thing sounds like somebody has a truly inspired imagination….
The secret about Pete’s headlines is that they don’t exist. He makes them up.
Change of mind in individuals is psychologically interesting thing. But politically only massive changes of mass perception are meaningful. And such changes also sometimes occur.
Shock and Awe in other words, to change or break the will of a great many people.
That is completely off-topic, Stephen, but,as everybody knows, Kennedy simply MUST to react on Cuba after Soviet nuclear rockets were placed there. So it was not about Cuba at all, it was about Cold War and world-wide communist expansion. And Vietnam war also was not about saving SV government, it was about stopping Chinese and Soviet expansion.
When you need to confront expansionist totalitarian ideology, be it Nazism, or communism, or Islamofascism, you have to confront it everywhere. It does not really matter where you get first: your enemies will follow you anyway, from Afganistan to Iraq, from Iraq to Syria or Iran. So it is your privilege to choose more convenient battle-field at any given moment, the war is global and will last for decades ahead, do you like it or no.
George Orwell in ’42, still valid today:
“Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.”
What is the allternative?
3:42 post, Betsy wrote the first line of the Hitchens’ excerpt (duh).
Sorry.
/ pimexf
Nitpick warning.
Even when you were towing the party line
That’s *toeing* the party line. The party isn’t a barge and the line isn’t a rope.
As to unknown blogger, I’ll pass. Life is too short.
Chuck, it was really just a simple question, but if it makes you uncomfortable, that’s fine too.
My point is simply this: Bringing up NK in Congress is not, as Beren the “expert on the Left” would have it, a “rhetorical device of the Left to add negativity to the media and the academic world.” It’s a legitmate topic for debate.
But I see now adding to the “No fair for Democrats to mention NK while Bush is busy whipping up support for the war in Iraq” line comes Cathy with her “Boo-hoo! The MSM brainwashes everyone into bleeding hearts” (she prefers they just run nice pictures of duckies, I guess?) and strcpy with the “Boo-hoo! Bush can’t just do whatever he wants anymore for some unknown reason.”
Is there any wonder there is such cynicism about the “spreading freedom” aspect of the neo-con project with such contempt for democracy and a free press on display?
Neo, what an outstanding interview. I had no idea that McDermented had an opponent, but boy, does he have a great one now!
Unknown Blogger: do you truly believe that is what we all mean by what we wrote and how we are thinking? I would like an honest answer here. And, for one moment, think about what such an answer means.
I’m not inclined to discuss if you are just being partisan – you are not here for discussion if that is the case (in fact, you are doing *exactly* what Mr. Beren describes, you are only adding strength to the charges). I have made my point and to do more makes one come across as a partisan hack. I do not think I can sway a person doing this in any way (they are not looking for dialog and discussion, only to throw insults and twist everything said into something evil) and the “undecided” are not going to be persuaded by a bunch of bickering.
If you truly can not follow what is written we can try and write in a form you can follow. Though, given that it takes intelligence to twist what everyone says, I doubt this to be the case.
Strcpy:
I don’t know how it can be any plainer. Beren said, “Ted Kennedy now talks about North Korea.”
Then he said,
“Yes, it’s a rhetorical device. You go from one thing to another, to add negativity to the media and the academic world.”
My claim is this: North Korea is a legitmate topic for debate to be brought up in the Congress by a member of any party, and not merely a “rhetorical device…to add negativity to the media…”
Strcpy, do you agree or disagree with my characterization of what he said?
Now, you made the point above that:
“[Bush] realises that no matter what he does there will *always be a “What about ?” [from the left] and simply does what he wants.”
And also that:
[Bush] realises that as long as he communicates through [the media] they will always twist his words so he just decided to not communicate with them.
To me that shows you admire the man for not taking into account the other side (because “they” are all “partisan hacks” no doubt?), and for not facing this country’s free press.
Please tell me again if I have mischaracterized your statements in any way.
One more thing, strcpy:
You wrote (maybe more than once):
“you are doing *exactly* what Mr. Beren describes, you are only adding strength to the charges”
Can you please explain to me as clearly as you can exactly how I am doing that?
My intention is to challenge the validity of one of his statements. I know that is something neocons aren’t fond of, but I really don’t see how I am “going from one thing to another, spreading negativism…?”
Thanks
But serously, folks, getting back to Mr. Beren, I have noticed the “peace” movement ready to roll forward true to form after 9/11. Same as during the 1980’s. The meme hasn’t changed much from the 1960’s, or apparently from the 1930’s.
UB, its not that N.Korea isnt a valid issue, the latest news from there illustrates that. Its just the issue it is used by Democrats merely as a political club to beat Bush over the head with, without ever coming up with a plan of their own to deal with it.(other than buying them off, as with the prior administration).
The current flap over Foley and the House Speaker the same. You can be a Democrat and run a prostitution ring out of your apartment and get re-elected. You can be a Kennedy and get away with manslaughter.
Democrats use these issues solely to wrest power away from their opponents. Once they’re in, they’re busy tackling the important issues, like regulating how many gallons of water your toilet should flush per minute. Substance becomes replaced by the photo-op.
Invading Iraq may end up being a bad idea in the end, but 30 Democrats voted into the idea when they thought it was politically prudent for them to so. Now they want you to forget that they did, and to do so they bring up N. Korea, Foley and anything else.
“Free press.” Funny how some people use that term to describe media empires that are not only obsequious slaves to dictatorial governments or unelected NGOs, but to ones that actually go out of their way to suppress freedom of speech by refusing to air legitimate news stories they consider “insensitive” to their beliefs.
How many news agencies, worldwide,showed the Mohammed cartoons again? Most are submissive slaves to their local imams, already. How can anyone describe that as free?
Harry wrote:
“Once [democrats are] in, they’re busy tackling the important issues, like regulating how many gallons of water your toilet should flush per minute.”
…you forgot to mention moving from record deficits to record surpluses, lowest unemployment in 30 years, and eliminating welfare as we know it. 🙂
Oh, that and creating the “Agreed Framework,” which, though imperfect, did “buy” us 8 years of time on N. Korea.
What have we gotten under Bush? The N. Koreans (and God knows who else) started getting help on their nukes from Pakistan’s “National Hero” – and Musharraf, the man who pardoned him, and refused to allow the US to question him, is an honored guest in the White House.
(BTW, how can you guys let Bush off the hook so easily with this Musharraf?)
“Democrats use these issues solely to wrest power away from their opponents.”
Please, at least NK *is* a relevant issue, and don’t try and pretend that this is solely a Democratic tactic. (Remember Newt Gingrich? “I will never again make a speech without commenting on this topic.”) If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. It’s POLITICS for crying out loud.
I know there is a lot of frustration and impatience nowadays with “diplomacy,” but trust me: sooner or later attacking, invading, occupying and fostering democracy among all your enemies becomes difficult to sustain.
Tatterdemalian, of course I know our press isn’t perfectly free, but thanks for the clarification, even though I have to admit I find the rest of your comment incomprehensible.
unknown blogger:
My claim is this: North Korea is a legitmate topic for debate to be brought up in the Congress by a member of any party…
True.
But why would you expect Ted Kennedy to have anything intelligent to say about it?
*sigh* you choose idiot – for reasons unknown to me that is always the choice. Ok, lets see:
His point was not that NK isn’t a valid topic – it’s that NK is only a ploy – anyplace would do. Lets say we had instead invaded NK we would be saying “What about Iraq”. It’s that simple.
so no I do not agree with your “take” on it. What he wrote was plain and has been explained to you before what I wrote above – I know of no simpler way to put it. Which, again, means you are either intentionally not understanding (telling a lie, partisan hack, whatever you want to call it) or are stupid.
“To me that shows you admire the man for not taking into account the other side (because “they” are all “partisan hacks” no doubt?), and for not facing this country’s free press.
Please tell me again if I have mischaracterized your statements in any way.”
You very much know you have. I admire him for realizing that, in the case of the MSM and many leftist, their only goal is to mis-characterise everything he says and does so he did a strategic end run around them. If the other side had any interest at all in a dialog then it would make me mad, but the only thing they want is a sound bite that they can twist into something bad.
Though I suppose you *could* say that I admire him because he doesn’t care what the other side thinks since the “other side” is only interested in opposing him and sound bites to “spin” to increase their power base.
That is the difference here. I *know* you were not agreeing that your side is simply being contrary and trying to destroy a presidency through lies and manipulations so I didn’t pretend that is what you wrote. It wouldn’t be hard to do with much of your writing. Thus I do not fall into the “partisan hack” (which is different from simply being a partisan) or “stupid”. I understood what you wrote and directly addressed it.
“Can you please explain to me as clearly as you can exactly how I am doing that? ”
I’ll leave that up to the reader. I suggest you read what I wrote above and what Mr Beren said. You are also using several other common tactics of the Left (though I do not know if you are a leftist since you offer nothing more than complaints I do not know what your solutions are). If you can not understand what Mr Beren means about NK then I you would not understand this either (for pretty much the same reason – either stupidity or intentionally not understanding).
What Steve Beren is saying about antiwar strategy can be put this way: If we had made a different choice in 2003 and invaded North Korea, the Bush Administration’s opponents would have spent the last three years bitching about why Bush wasn’t doing anything about the obvious problems in Iraq. …It doesn’t matter which battle one’s political adversary chooses to fight, as long as one consistently maintains the position that he picked the wrong battle. And if he decides to fight in more than one place, if he in fact chooses to fight ALL of the battles he is told to fight, one always has the fallback statement: “Look how this moron is overextending himself.”
“How many news agencies, worldwide,showed the Mohammed cartoons again? Most are submissive slaves to their local imams, already. How can anyone describe that as free?”
For God sakes, Tatterdemalian, use your head. Decent people don’t think it is OK to offend people. For the same reason that news agencies don’t show hard core porn and don’t show racist caricatures of blacks or Jews. The reason is offending people of any group or religion like that is understood to be wrong. You must have some sort of blind spot if you can’t extend the same level of decency to people of the Islamic faith as you do to people of other faiths and races.
I notice a disturbing pattern of antagonism towards Muslims. Propagandists share a large part of the blame for this. Propagandists who seek to protect their favorite policy: US support of Israel. I can list examples if anyone is interested. Recently we had one of the most dramatic examples, ABC ran “The path to 9/11” which contained a fabricated fatwa quote that purported to say that bin Laden was attacking us “until America converts to Islam”. This is a lie, there is no such demand and never has been. It is fabricated to hide the fact of what the real motives were for the 9/11 attacks. There has been a pattern of suppression and lies in order to hide the real motives for the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden has been explicate, “the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq.” He has not said “until American converts to Islam”, that is not what this is about. He has said until what: “We swore that America wouldn’t live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel’s interest above its own people’s interest. America won’t get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel.”
“How many news agencies, worldwide,showed the Mohammed cartoons again? Most are submissive slaves to their local imams, already. How can anyone describe that as free?”
For God sakes, Tatterdemalian, use your head. Decent people don’t think it is OK to offend people. For the same reason that news agencies don’t show hard core porn and don’t show racist charactures of blacks or Jews. The reason is offending people of any group or religion like that is understood to be wrong. You must have some sort of blind spot if you can’t extend the same level of decency to people of the Islamic faith as you do to people of other faiths and races.
It’s strange for me, why do atheist leftists always rush to defend the islamic faith? As if islamics were not vocal enough about their “grievances”.
I think I get it now:
Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al., are virtuous men with superior intellects, no political motivations, no interest in spin, sound bites or increasing their power base. They are only interested in saving America from terrorists and if everyone would just shut up and do what they say and let them do whatever they want, everything would be fine.
Democrats, on the other hand, are the evil “other,” waiting in the wings, sniping away at these modern-day saints, wating for the opportunity to take power, so they can regulate toilet flows, force Americans to become homosexuals, and practice witchcraft before allowing the islamofascist takeover.
Correct?
Look, to me Beren is clearly saying that when the President talks of war, the press and the congress have no business doing anything but supporting his decision. No fair talking about mountains, bad weather or past experiences in Afghanistan, no fair bringing up other foreign policy chllenges on the horizon, because that sort of talk would “discourage” the public.
I’m simply saying I find that point of view to be appalling. And here I am getting called a “stupid idiot” because of it.
In Beren’s comments I get a sense of frustration with how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are proceeding.
Bush has had a full term and a half with his party in control of both houses of congress and now the Supreme Court.
Beren should know that any problems or setbacks we are experiencing in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the GWOT are not due to a discouraged public, conniving Democrats, or a hostile press. Full responsibility for these wars lie ultimately with Donald Rumsfeld and his boss.
unknown blogger: you simply changed the goalpost. Good luck to you.
TMurphy: It seems you ignore that most forms of free speech are insulting to radical Islam. Remember the Pope?
Note that one Imam called insults aggression, to which violence is a proper response. Self-defense of course.
There are other jihadists, other than OBL, who have stated that the ultimate goal is the conversion of the West to Islam.
Pulling one quote from OBL proves nothing about the ultimate goal of radical Islam. Even “moderates”, by poll in Britain, and by statement here, Ibrihim Hooper for example, have acknowledged that they would like to see sharia as the system of law of the nation in which they live. I bet if Christians said something about biblical law as law of the land, you would be screaming bloody murder.
Ariel, my point has remained exactly the same throughout.
If that is not the case, please describe for me goalpost #1 and goalpost #2.
badluck for UBlogger, more like it.
It takes two to dance tango. Sound dialog is possible only when BOTH parties are seriously interested in it. And even medieval scholastics understood that there should be also a common platform of basic principles for dialog being meaningful. In deeply polarized society this is not possible, even if both parties honestly try to understand each other (which, it seems, not is the case now). And there is an important difference between scholastic dispute and modern politics: opponents are not equal in their status. President bears all responsibility for national security, he must implement workable strategy. Opposition lacks this responsibility and can propose utopian measures or only criticize without proposing any alternatives. Just this it does. So why bother communicate with it, if it simply do not want contribute something meaningful? Communication with general public is other story, it is mandatory, but MSM makes this task almost impossible. May be, direct stright speek with public via TV, as Reigan did, can help?
I think the mass exodus from hardcore communism to neoconservativism is a natural one, and can be easily explained: they loved the authoritarianism, but they hated the not-being-in-powerism.
So, they dropped any pretence pf caring about ‘the workers’ and just tried to get power by fighting for those who already had it. Not complicated. Not original.
I think the mass exodus from hardcore communism to neoconservativism is a natural one, and can be easily explained: they loved the authoritarianism, but they hated the not-being-in-powerism.
Are you suggesting communists are tyrannical? That’s not very multi-cultural 😛