July 30, 2004

• Define "waffling". If waffling entails agreeing on the spirit of a bill and then voting against it due to the fine print and riders that have been attached making it far less palatable; then yeah, He's a full-sized Belgian with whipped cream and strawberries.
• If you repeat it often enough, it becomes true.
• They are fixated because they are mindless automatons lazily regurgitating GOP talking points instead of thinking for themselves. Just my opinion, of course. But I happen to be correct.
• He sure can give a great speech. I didn't think he had it in him.
• Iraq. Iraq. Iraq. He has taken every side of the issue from day one. I'm a dem who turned from Kerry (to a further left dem) during the primaries because I see him as a waffler. And this was long before bush was saying anything about any of the dems.
• Everything I know about his political career suggests that he's an arch pragmatist, and more specifically a short-term pragmatist - hence his rapid and occasionally quite embarassing changes of opinion. Clinton was also pragmatic to an astonishing degree, but he had several advantages - his pragmatism was more long-term in outlook, it was founded on a fairly solid core of certain key principles, and he had the flair and knowledge to carry it off. I'm not yet convinced that Kerry has any of these (but then, I haven't properly read about his speech yet). The accusation of "waffling" doesn't sound like the best way of attacking this trend, though. It suggests vagueness of purpose as opposed to a lack of values - and as such can be knocked down by a few strong speeches and soundbites. Quite possibly the reason for this slightly lame approach is the delicate balance in the Republican party itself - the slightly uneasy combination of, on the one hand, religious right and neocon ideologues, and on the other, ultra-pragmatic businessmen. They're united by a fondness for strong leadership, but not actually by a shared core of values. So they have to weakly attack Kerry for a lack of the former quality, because a strong attack over the latter would expose problems at home. That's what my Bumper Book of Underinformed Opinions for the Distant, Casual Pundit says, anyway.
• This is why America, historically, does not elect Senators to the highest office in the land. After spending a little time in the United States Senate, you've commented on just about every issue of importance, and those comments are a part of the National Archives, and chances are you've contradicted yourself (or apparently so) more than once. So most of the Kerry "waffling" thing can be discounted, in my opinion. What remains, for me, is damning. On the one hand, we have the trivial stuff, like he insistence in front of environmentalists that he didn't own an SUV and then his disclosure in front of Detroit auto workers that he includes several, including a Chevy Suburban. That's deeply embarrassing. But the real deal-breaker for me is his refusal to take a position on unilateral war. He'd have my vote if he'd get up in front of a podium and say, "I believe that we should only go to war when we have the support of our allies. However, if the time ever comes when we must wage war to protect ourselves or our interests and our allies fail us, I will go it alone." Instead, he's all, "We've destroyed our alliances." When asked about our ever-tightening alliances with the UK, Australia, and Poland and the other former-Warsaw-pact nations, he just repeats his assertion about our alliances. When asked whether we've let down our allies or our allies have let us down, he... well, yeah. He waffles. He hems and haws. He doesn't take a position. So while I think most of the "he waffles" thing can be dismissed as election-year posturing, I think there's a grain of truth to it, and that's enough to sway my vote. Quite possibly the reason for this slightly lame approach is the delicate balance in the Republican party itself - the slightly uneasy combination of, on the one hand, religious right and neocon ideologues, and on the other, ultra-pragmatic businessmen. Nothing personal here, but you do know that the Republic party lets regular Americans join now, too, right? They lifted the old-white-Christian-businessman-warmonger requirement months ago. They even let 9/11 Democrats like me in. They're surprisingly accommodating. They'd even welcome you. That's right, join us. Joooiiinnn uuusss... let us eat your braaaains...
• Well, you know, if you think about issues and react to changing events, you may change your position from time to time. If you're a brainless ideologue surrounded by fanatics and idelogues, you never change your opinion, because you only think hard enough to try to twist external evidence and events to suit your own worldview. I guess if you were among the latter class of people you might consider the former class of people "wafflers". Personally I am suspicious of sustained certainty. It smacks of the stuff of which crusades and inquisitions are made.
• They lifted the old-white-Christian-businessman-warmonger requirement months ago. To be sure. But there's not too many people forming policy or leading the party right now who don't tick at least a couple of those boxes, you'll agree? Anyway, my point was that the old-white-Christian-businessman-warmonger thing is an inaccurate stereotype - there's at least two seperate factions even within that bluntly described group, and they're not anywhere near as closly linked as the stereotype suggests. In other news: there's a demographic called "9/11 Democrats"? Coo. You learn something every day. They'd even welcome you. They let foreign nationals in?
• I have nothing to contribute, only this phrase that jumped into my head on reading the thread's title: Taste my Kerry waffles, beeyotch!
• Mmmm..... waffles.....
• Waffles with japanese mayo...
• I think it really comes down to the republicans asking themselves; how do we create a criticism out of nothing that is very easy for uniformed people to repeat and too complicated to deny in less than one sentence?
• The difference between Kerry and Bush: KERRY: "Help is on the way." BUSH: "Help Enron/Ken Lay."

• They lifted the old-white-Christian-businessman-warmonger requirement months ago.

  But, not, apparently, homosexuals. Or people who don't feel they fall into the "Children of Abraham" group hug.
• If waffling = being intelligent and open minded enough of a human being to admit when you're wrong, then bring me maple syrup and a napkin.
• I just looked up 9/11 democrats. Interesting. Explains volumes. (No snark intended. No opinions changed either, but definitely no snark intended.)
• It's a Republican talking point. Some Bushies will drink the kool-aid, while most Dems and Independents and quite a few Republicans will see right through it. All politicians compromise - it's part of the game. 20 years in the Senate, yeah he's going to change positions on some issues. Show me any (successful)politician who hasn't. Bush pledged in 2000 "not to try and be the world's policeman." Ooops. Of course they will say "everything changed after 9-11." Yet they had the Iraqi invasion plan in place *before* 9-11. So I guess it's OK to "waffle" if circumstances change? And 9-11 was the only time circumstances of anything have ever changed? How about volunteering to fight in Viet Nam and then becoming an anti-war leader? Is this "waffling?" Or is it using what you have learned to make a new and informed decision? To most people, gaining knowledge is a positive thing. To the current administration it's useless, because they are "never wrong" about anything in the first place. Infallible. Practically Demi-Gods.If you think otherwise, you hate America. Dubya & Co. are merely preaching to the converted. It looks like they are going to have a real hard time winning any new votes come November.
• .
• Two counter-considerations for this ridiculous waffle smear, as argued by dKosopedia:

  - The Bush people call it "flip flopping". We call it "withdrawing our support". If we're flip-floppers, it's clear that the American people are also flip-flopping. - Flexibility is a good thing. Reckless stubbornness is not.

  Taken as another point of view, rolypolyman, it might be worth reading. Now, the 'meta-issue'... When the Bush/Cheney campaign spends its millions and millions and millions of dollars to get messages out, they purchase all kinds of shit, including: signs, printed ads, bumper stickers, spinmeisters, phony analysts, baloney think-tank "studies", Television airtime, and... Monkeyfilter airtime. What you say!! The "John Kerry likes to flip & flop" meme (I hate that fucking word, but...) serves several sinister purposes, including the loaded introduction of a rigged character debate, i.e... in lieu of any substantive discussion about policy differences; or why George W Bush and his administration are constantly fucking shit up -- are they dishonest/incompetent/or both? -- why way too many of our citizens are sitting in jail & prison right now; why Afghan and Iraqi boys are being fucked, in their asses, against their wills; why Bush never talks about Osama bin Laden anymore; etc; we (or rolypoly's reclusive forum, or jackasses on TV, whatever) are sitting here, engaged in an "off-topic" discussion over the dubious claim that candidate Kerry is a wishy-washy poopy head. It's tantamount to Coca Cola, enjoying exponential returns on all the marketing money they've spent whenever people would stop and contemplate the refreshing, invigorating taste of New Coke versus the delicious, tried-n-true, proven formula of Coca Cola Classic.
• 'Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself (I am large; I contain multitudes)' - Walt Whitman
• Jeff, frankly I believe that Kerry doesn't give an answer to those sorts of questions (about whether we've let our allies down) because there's no good answer to it. And, frankly, no war should be prosecuted alone in this century. Kerry has said that he approved of the action in Kosovo, and would have been willing to send troops to Rwanda, both of which would constitute "going it alone." But both of those operations, the actual Kosovo and the fanciful Rwanda, could be carried out with both more support from our allies and the world community than the Iraq attack. So where you see waffling, I see a guy who's going to consider each situation carefully, instead of trying the one-size-fits-all approach of this administration. You're entitled to your opinion, I just think that it's not as much of an issue in the overall scheme of things (which would most likely be where we differ).
• Did those wars have Uzbekistan and Micronesia on their side? I think not.
• Y'all: a general comment first, from the point of view of somebody from the other side of the aisle. When we say that the Senator waffles or that he flip-flops, we're not talking about his changing his position on something over time. We're not talking about going from stridently supporting Issue X to being stridently opposed to Issue X. We're talking about being either unwilling or unable to make a clear statement of policy on an issue at a given point in time. Another example in addition to the ones I gave before: The Senator believes that life begins at conception, but he opposes things like the partial-birth abortion ban, and he says he'll use abortion as a litmus-test issue for judicial appointments. He says that his values tell him one thing, but his policy statements say another. It doesn't add up. It's talking out of both sides of his face. It's waffling. Pick your metaphor. Put another way, he's trying to be representative when he should be trying to lead. They're entirely different jobs. The American people do not need a President who will do what the polls tell him to do. We need a President who will do the right thing even when it's unpopular. So far, the Senator is not making me confident that he's that guy. But there's not too many people forming policy or leading the party right now who don't tick at least a couple of those boxes, you'll agree? Said the guy whose party just nominated two rich white East-coast Christian men last night. ;-) But, not, apparently, homosexuals. According to the Log Cabin Republicans, a Republican PAC, one out of three gay voters is Republican. (Polling data, doncha know.) It's been a long time since 1992, when Pat Buchannan criticized the Democratic ticket at the GOP convention for being pro-gay. (Incidentally, "children of Abraham" refers to all the world's Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Is that what you meant when you talked about the "group hug?" 'Cause I didn't understand.) Jeff, frankly I believe that Kerry doesn't give an answer to those sorts of questions (about whether we've let our allies down) because there's no good answer to it. Honestly: tough. Being President is a hard job and if elected the Senator is going to have to make difficult decisions in no-win situations. "There's no good answer" isn't an acceptable response when dealing with a crisis of national security. The American people want to know that their President will make good decisions. The message the Senator is sending out is that he's reluctant to make any decisions. But both of those operations, the actual Kosovo and the fanciful Rwanda, could be carried out with both more support from our allies and the world community than the Iraq attack. Like many others, I think you grossly underestimate the size and strength of our Iraq coalition. It's 33 nations, and that's even after Spain and the Philippines sent their "Terrorism works, keep it up" memos.
• Cabin Fever *cough* Rick Santorum, John Cornyn, Box turtles *cough* And honestly, how is a series of bad decisions better than none at all?
• Jeff- Three things, one there isn't a contradiction in his values vs. policy re: late-term abortion ban (don't use the "partial birth" as it shows you to be taken with propoganda). He's not legislating on his narrow personal value, but on the broader issue of whether that's a legitimate area for governmental interference. You may have noticed that Kennedy didn't legislate on his faith either. That is, in my estimation, a good thing for all of those who do not share that faith. Two, Jeff, I'd rather have a president who does nothing rather than doing the wrong thing blithely. While Bush's rhetoric may ring true, his actions have not lived up to it. I know that you have the zeal of the converted, but you're running in the wrong direction. Three, Jeff, I think you're over-estimating the strength of those 33 nation's commitments. Aside from Great Britain, we have very little actual support in terms of troops and materiel. I mean, Poland's on the list of allies for what, like 350 troops? Those are token commitments, and you know it. Kosovo at least had NATO behind it. Like you, I hope for success in Iraq, but this president has done just about everything he can to ensure that this will be another 1950s Iran, save putting in a Shah.
• You mean these Jeff? Tell me how many of those are sending troops. Then tell me how many of those are providing more than a few squads or a platoon. Then tell me how many of those sent combat troops. Now tell me how many are left? That coalition dwindles down to the US, UK, Italy, Poland, and the Ukraine. When you add up all of the allies, you have 26,000 troops. By comparison, we have 170,000 troops in the theater. Yep, what a gross underestimation that we have 85% of the troops in Iraq.
• Like many others, I think you grossly underestimate the size and strength of our Iraq coalition. It's 33 nations... Pop quiz Jeff, 33 out of how many?
• At least 260. But don't worry, I'm sure he'll say that the US doesn't care what most of them thing. Well, unless they're Palau.
• MonkeyFilter: We don't care about you unless you're Palau.
• It's been a long time since 1992, when Pat Buchannan criticized the Democratic ticket at the GOP convention for being pro-gay. Yes, the GOP has been very good to its gay constituency lately. Really spreading the values of tolerance and equal rights on that issue. By this waffling rationale, btw, Bush doesn't hold up any better. Like, for instance, loving No Child Left Behind so much that he doesn't want to fully fund it like he promised he would. Ditto with DHS. Ditto with not wanting the 9-11 commission, then wanting it but not wanting to testify, then wanting to testify but only with Cheney. Ditto with saying he wants to fight pollution and then inviting polluters (but not the US public) to his energy policy meetings. Ditto, by the way, with campaigning using distrust of government as one of his platforms ("Some politicians trust the federal government, I trust the American people") in 2000, then running a closed government and asking us to trust him. Ditto with saying that America should not be in the business of nation-building, and then...you know.
• Said the guy whose party just nominated two rich white East-coast Christian men last night. ;-) British, dude. Not my party. :-) I don't even have a party any more... *weeps, gnashes teeth, remembers he's going to a party tonight, cheers up*
• and that's even after Spain [...] sent their "Terrorism works, keep it up" memos. Spain has been fighting terrorists (who kill politicians before almost every single election) for the last 30 years, and before that they lived under a fairly unpleasant dictator. Writing them off as feeble capitulators who get scared as soon as something bad happens is more than a little insulting.
• Oh, and I don't mean to hound you, Jeff, but this is quite an international website. Only about half the members here are American, maybe less. So if we disagree, don't assume we're democrats (its because we're filthy foreign anti american communists, more likely...) And that ends my whingeing for the afternoon. Sorry everyone. (My excuse - I'm applying for jobs and getting depressed)
• The Phillipines has been fighting Abu Sayyaf and it's own communist rebel since long before 9/11 and our subsequent "war on terror". Writing them off as capitulators who get scared as soon as someting bad happens is equally insulting.
• "Terrorism works, keep it up" memos. While we're piling on Jeff (sorry dude), if what Spain and the Phillipines did was a signal that terrorism works, then what was this? As we agreed on (over in the Annie Jacobsen thread, and you demonstrated in your link to the bin Laden statement), withdrawl of foreign (and specifically American troops) from the Holy Land was al Qa'ida's primary objective. I'm not saying it was a bad move on the part of the Americans, but like dng, I don't like to see people casually attacking the Spanish over this. If we can never do anything because it might happen to please a terrorist, then surely our freedom is every bit as limited as if we had to slavishly give into their every demand?
• That was acknowledging the soveirnty and respecting the space of one of our strongest allies. Silly, flashboy.
• Just to clarify a point that was brought up: Spain did not elect the socialists because the train bombing scared them into it (Terrorism works. Keep it up). They elected the socialists because the incumbent government tried to make political hay out of the bombing by blaming the Basque separatists, and the electorate resented that.
• "They sang the red flag They wore the black one." /Spanish Bombs
• You're both right and wrong. The opposition party was slightly behind in the polls before the bombings, even though polls indicated that 80-90% of Spaniards opposed the war. When the terrorist strike took place, it brought heightened emphasis on why Spain was in Iraq and what it would bring to them. It energized the people who were against Aznar to begin with to go out to vote. And when Aznar tried to play politics with it, it backfired on him big time. Still, I'll repeat the sentiment that dng provided. To say that this is appeasement is both an insult to the Spanish voters and a clear indication of ignorance.
• But back on topic, the reason people go for the waffle thing is the 13 words I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it. Now, if you search for that in Google, you'll see bloggers up and down jumping about how stupid it is and how he's trying to play both sides of the issue. Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that the statement is true.
• Er, actual quote was: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it"
• "Inside the Mind of John Kerry: The Democratic candidate deals in shades of gray, which means reaching a decision can be a long and winding road" -- from most recent Time magazine. i think kerry himself explained it best in his speech, that issues are complicated and shouldn't be seen in black-and-white. i think bush takes a very simplistic view of a great many things, and then holds onto those opinions come hell or high water.
• Sadly, his adherants do the same.
• (you can read the entire time story at the time canada website without having a subscription)
• But there's not too many people forming policy or leading the party right now who don't tick at least a couple of those boxes, you'll agree? Sorry for going back to this point, but a thought just hit me. I didn't stop to think about it before, but it just kinda popped into my head. There are 19 senior advisors to the President, including the Cabinet, the Chief of Staff, the director of the OMB, the NSA, and the chair of the NEC. Of those 19 people, four are women, four are black, and two are Asian. Not a rainbow of diversity, to be sure, but hardly lilly-white either. (One of the women is black and one Asian, so both of them were counted twice. To put it another way, eight out of 19 senior advisors are not white men.) don't use the "partial birth" as it shows you to be taken with propoganda Pfeh. I'm sorry you don't like the name, but that's what it's called. I am pro-choice-with-restrictions, but I refuse to be squeamish about it. Those are token commitments, and you know it. Kosovo at least had NATO behind it. Quit moving the goal-posts, please. You wanted multi-lateral, you got multi-lateral. Now you're critical because you don't think it's multi-lateral enough or something. Set a criteria and stick with it. You won't be satisfied until France sends troops? Then say so. Or whatever. Also, you might be fascinated to learn that we have a NATO commitment in Iraq now, too. this president has done just about everything he can to ensure that this will be another 1950s Iran Wow. I guess denial really ain't just a river in Egypt. Why are you discounting the self-selected Iraqi Interim Government, the literally thousands of local and municipal elections that have already been completed, and the plan for electing a national assembly in January and ratifying a constitution next fall? There's not even implying authoritarian or autocratic rule in Iraq, not even now in the middle of the transition period. Ditto, by the way, with campaigning using distrust of government as one of his platforms Your other points are valid, but you missed this one. You misunderstood the President's point. He was saying that Democrats traditionally want the government to provide all social services, while he wanted to see greater involvement from non-governmental organizations like communities and charities. He was saying that he trusts the American people to help each other and doesn't think the government has to shoulder all of the responsibility. Writing them off as feeble capitulators who get scared as soon as something bad happens is more than a little insulting. Tough cheese. If the Spaniards and the Filipinos don't like being thought of as feeble capitulators, then they damn well shouldn't have feebly capitulated. The only thing you accomplish when you give in to terrorist demands is to guarantee that there will be more terrorism in the future. Because you've shown them that it can work. My excuse - I'm applying for jobs and getting depressed I feel you. I'm unemployed myself, which is part of why I've got so much time on my hands to post here. Good luck in your search. (cont'd)
• if what Spain and the Phillipines did was a signal that terrorism works, then what was this? There's no cause-and-effect there. In Spain, a bombing led directly to a change of policy. In the Philippines the same thing happened, only it was a kidnapping. The US disengaged from Saudi Arabia because we no longer needed to patrol southern Iraq. There was no need for our guys to be there. There was no act of terrorism that led directly to our withdrawing from the Kingdom. withdrawl of foreign (and specifically American troops) from the Holy Land was al Qa'ida's primary objective No, no. Don't lose sight of the big picture. Al-Qaida's objective is the unification of the Ummah: the establishment of a worldwide totalitarian Islamist state. Toppling the Saudi government is just the first step on that road for them, and getting the US to disengage from the Kingdom is just a part of that. And getting the US to pull out troops is just the first part of that. It's all there in bin Laden's fatwah. If we can never do anything because it might happen to please a terrorist That's not what I'm saying, any more than I'm saying we should never do anything because it might piss off a terrorist. What I'm saying is that Spain and the Philippines capitulated. The terrorists attacked, made demands, and then the Spanish and Filipino governments acquiesced. Cause and effect. That's what we have to avoid. They elected the socialists because the incumbent government tried to make political hay out of the bombing It basically doesn't matter. What matters is that there was an act of terrorism coupled with demands from the terrorists, and then the Spanish voters elected a government that promised to capitulate to those demands. What thoughts went through the head of each individual Spanish voter aren't important to the terrorists. All they care about is the net effect of their attack. To say that this is appeasement is both an insult to the Spanish voters and a clear indication of ignorance. And I'll repeat myself: I do not give a damn why they did what they did. I only care that they did it. They capitulated, they surrendered, they caved. They made it that much harder for us to defeat the terrorists, and they made it that much more likely that the terrorists would try such a tactic again. They made the world a more dangerous place. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, Shawn. The Spanish voters blew it.
• (One last thing, then I promise I'll quit hogging the microphone. Sometimes, y'all, things really are black and white. Sometimes things really are simple. The fact that people sometimes see things in simple terms doesn't mean that those people are less sophisticated than you are. If the Democrats want to pick up votes from the center in November, they'd do well to remember that.)
• I do not give a damn why they did what they did. Of course you don't. Silly me.
• Sometimes, y'all, things really are black and white. examples? i'm not baiting you, i just honestly cannot think of an issue that is truly, hard and fast, right and wrong, good and bad, black and white.

• The fact that people sometimes see things in simple terms doesn't mean that those people are less sophisticated than you are. If the Democrats want to pick up votes from the center in November, they'd do well to remember that.

  No one here ever said that seeing things in simple terms made one less sophisticated. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that that's how "we democrats" feel?
• (BTW, jeff, welcome!)
• Allow me to play Mickey Klaus and be a liberal being critical of a Democrat. Courtesy of the Republican National Commitee. Extreme Makeover: Kerry Iraq Video (wmv file) Kerry also doesn't know what he's talking about. According to a CIA report, Saddam Hussein never gassed the Kurds.
• personally, i'm still waiting for jeff to give us just one example of an issue that is, indeed, simple, black and white
• The Amazing Spiderman #47: for artistic reasons, that issue was all done in black & white
• Terrorism, obviously is black and white. You're either against them or you're for them. Didn't 9/11 teach you anything?
• Oh! I have one. What color is Lokai?
• Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow
• Power Man and Iron First
• Damn shawnj, I was thinking about that Star Trek episode and couldn't find an image.
• examples? i'm not baiting you, i just honestly cannot think of an issue that is truly, hard and fast, right and wrong, good and bad, black and white. Terrorism is the most topical one. Terrorism is always wrong, never okay, always bad without exception. Another one, for me, is the death penalty. There are lots of good arguments for it—really good arguments, in my opinion—but they're all trumped by two facts: the death penalty cannot be reversed, and its exercise diminishes the value of life in our culture. So for me the death penalty is a black-and-white issue. personally, i'm still waiting for jeff to give us just one example of an issue that is, indeed, simple, black and white God, you're impatient. I posted something that was like ten times longer than it had any right to be hours ago, and I tried to be respectful and give it a rest for a while, and here y'all are clamoring for more. ;-)
• Damn, I'm like, psychic or something...
• so terrorism is ALWAYS wrong? how about, say, a rebel group forced to terroristic actions in an attempt to win back basic human rights because they've been totally politically shut out of a dictatorial regime? and, NO, i'm not saying i support terrorism. that's absurd. i'm just saying, it's not that simple. nothing is "always" right or wrong. nothing is "always" anything. well, kittens are always cute, i guess. (maybe this is just a matter of getting older... i used to be very idealistic when i was younger and i saw everything as either right or wrong. but now, in my mid 40s, i've just learned over the years that everything in life is far more complicated, on both personal and societal levels.)
• Exactly what I was thinking, SideDish. A good example is the US colonists. From the standpoint of our British overlords, our revolution could have looked like a terrorist uprising. Yet we call those men and women patriots, not terrorists.
• Like many others, I think you grossly underestimate the size and strength of our Iraq coalition. It's 33 nations, and that's even after Spain and the Philippines sent their "Terrorism works, keep it up" memos. Whoa Jeff! Spoke to soon. Looks like Ukraine is talking about pulling troops out. What will America do without all 1,600 of those troops that never leave their base.
• Great example Sidedish. I wonder how Washington crossing the Deleware and attacking quartered British soldiers would go over nowadays.
• so terrorism is ALWAYS wrong? Yup. how about, say, a rebel group forced to terroristic actions in an attempt to win back basic human rights because they've been totally politically shut out of a dictatorial regime? There's never a situation where terrorism is the only remaining option. Nobody's ever "forced into" terrorism. Let me say that again, because I wanna make sure everybody reads it: Nobody is ever forced into terrorism. In the scenario you made up, there would be other options all over the place. Like, for example, a guerilla warfare campaign. Sneak attacks against military and regime targets, legitimate targets under the traditions of war. Not civilians. There's no situation, no matter how contrived, that can justify terrorism. i'm just saying, it's not that simple. nothing is "always" right or wrong. Sorry, but that simply isn't true. Sometimes there are absolutes. Not to spin off on a tangent here, but the blanket rejection by the most radical liberals of the idea of absolute moral values is the biggest reason why the word "liberal" has become a pejorative term. nothing is "always" anything. That was unintentionally hilarious. ;-) Relax, I'm laughing with you, not at you. Surely you see the humor in rejecting absolutes in absolute terms? A good example is the US colonists. From the standpoint of our British overlords, our revolution could have looked like a terrorist uprising. That's a terrible example. The soldiers of the Revolutionary War did not commit acts of terrorism! The closet they ever came to terrorism was the Boston Tea Party, and dumping tea into the harbor is not equivalent to blowing up innocent civilians! Or are you maybe thinking of Francis Marion? Yes, he and his troops conducted sneak hit-and-run attacks at night... against British military emplacements. We're all clear on the essential difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare, yes? Terrorists deliberately attack civilian targets. Guerillas don't. The Revolutionary War soldiers fought, in many cases, using guerilla tactics, but they did not practice terrorism. (The same can't be said for the French, incidentally, who during the same period used Indian war parties to conduct rape-pillage-and-burn raids on settlements on the northern and western frontier.) I wonder how Washington crossing the Deleware and attacking quartered British soldiers would go over nowadays. Think about it: attacking quartered British soldiers. If you're attacking soldiers to achieve a military objective, it's not terrorism, is it?
• So the colonists never attacked civilians? Not even a little tar and feather for the loyalists? The point is that what one side calls "guerilla warfare", the other calls "terrorism". Terrorism is guerilla warfare we don't like. The French resistence were called terrorists by the Germans.
• Oh, really, Jeff. So the minutemen, fighting without uniforms, and attacks on British-sympathising colonists were not terrorism? Or is this one of those "redefine reality until I'm right" answers.
• Flippity Flop
• Excellent post, RXR.
• Geez. No wonder you guys don't support the war on terrorism. You don't even know what it means. 22 USC 2656f(d): the term ''terrorism'' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents So let's clear this up once and for all, shall we? Minutemen without uniforms fighting British troops? Not terrorism: troops are not noncombatants. Tar-and-feathering loyalists? Not terrorism: those events were instances of mob violence, not premeditated attacks. The Boston Tea Party? Not terrorism: no noncombatants were engaged at all, only tea. The "swamp fox?" Not terrorism: his band didn't attack noncombatants, but rather British forces. Are there any other historical events that you want to try to somehow shoehorn into the definition of terrorism? 'Cause now's the time, man. This is so incredibly frustrating. When a world-changing event like the war on terrorism comes along, you just sort of assume that people who express opinions on the subject will have the first clue about what the basic definitions are. Come on, guys. Would it kill ya to crack a book, or at least Google-search these things before you go spouting off stuff that's just patently untrue?
• (off topic ad hominem) So, Jeff, what's the deal? Are you bored with your blog, so you're gonna hang around here and piss on all the political threads? Speaking of a guy who goes "spouting off stuff that's just patently untrue", take a look in the mirror. If you really believe what you've written, then you don't know squat about American history. Crack open a book yourself. Logorrheic dunderheads such as yourself are distracting others from intelligent, and potentially interesting, conversation. (/off topic ad hominem)
• Crack a book, eh? I'll do you one better. You see, I live in New York City. I was here on 9/11/2001. I ran around like a madman that day yelling at a cellphone that wouldn't work, wondering for three of the longest hours of my life whether my mother was dead or alive, as she was in a conference at the World Financial Center that morning. I had to take care of a girlfriend who had a front row seat of the whole thing from her apartment a few blocks from the WTC and was afraid to sleep in the place for almost a month afterward. She still has nightmares about it all to this day. I was there on September 12th. Volunteering and doing what I could and holding on to the vain hope that we'd find more than a handful of survivors in the wreckage. I saw four high school friends and two co-workers buried in the weeks and months that followed, three of them husbands to expectant mothers. All of them needed to be identified by DNA or dental records because there wasn't enough of their remains to identify them any other way. Every time I smell burning plastic, I'm reminded of those days and weeks afterward, and the signs and pictures posted all over the city of missing loved ones that would never be seen again. Everytime I come out of the subway in lower Manhattan, I reflexively find myself looking to the south for those two old friends that are no longer there because a bunch of people were crazy enough and hateful enough to fly two planes into them. I then look at a botched foreign policy that has done nothing more than given more people reason to hate us in the wake of our dropping the ball in Afghanistan after such a good start so we could go smear crap all over Iraq. I've seen worldwide solidarity turn into worldwide disdain because our president's single-mindedness has forgone any real attempts at coalition building. Here in the US, I see people who live hundreds and thousands of miles away from Ground Zero or the Pentagon, whose only loss on 9/11 was their sense of complacency. People who didn't give a shit about New York or DC before then who now wax poetic about how "we" were attacked and how "we" have to fight back. All the while, they continue to drive their Hummers to the Mall. I've seen and heard from non-American friends here and abroad, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist and all sorts of other religions, that the America they all were joined together with in spirit in those days and weeks after 9/11 isn't the same America that I live in now. So no, I don't think I need to crack a book to learn about the War on Terror, I've lived it. And in my not-so-humble opinion, you don't know shit about it. It's not in the books, it's not on the web. It's in the haunted eyes of the people that survived that day whenever they hear a plane that sounds like it's flying a little too low. It's in the hearts and minds of the people that lost friends, family and loved ones on that day. If any of them wants to disagree with me and tell me about the War on Terror, then hey, they're welcome to it. But you, unless you lost someone on that day, Unless someone you know was in the WTC, the Pentagon or on one of the planes that went down, you can't tell me a goddamn thing about the War on Terror. I'm done with political threads for a while after this, I think. I'm tired of arguing. Rebut this if you want, call me a capitulator or a coward or whatever you want to call me for thinking the War on Terror is a crock and has been since we set boots on the ground in Iraq. or don't. It doesn't matter. I know the truth. I've seen the truth up close and personal.
• QED for Jeff! I had no idea that everything fits so nicely into US jursdiction, is valid under current US law; ex post facto, at that. Don't start getting all pretentious and condescending just because you assume everyone should have pre-agreed to use the same terms of debate as you, and that we should all be framing issues with your self-serving, one-sided slant. This can be problematic. For example: you, and the US State Dept, define terrorists as members of subnational groups, not govt leaders or states... which thereby places even such dedicated abusers of human rights as Slobodan Milosevic
• If you'd like to be less frustrated, I suggest you start supporting your arguments with more and/or better support. Then remove all your pragmatic fallacies, jingoistic confabulations, and tautalogical nonsense. Once your supports are valid, your arguments are cogent, and your claims are at least valid... and everything follows a somewhat logical chain of reasoning, will anyone here actually take your conclusions seriously. This is not a right-wing echo chamber. You might be able to get away with all that GOP infallability bullshit elsewhere on the web, but most of us here like to exercise a little more critical thinking than the average simpleton or dittohead. We don't believe everything we hear, or everything we like hearing.

• only care that they did it. They capitulated, they surrendered, they caved. [...] The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, Shawn. The Spanish voters blew it.

  Pay very close attention: next time a bunch of Americans get murdered, beofre you wail "why do they hate us so much", take a good, hard look at yourself. You're the answer. I note you've conveniently failed to discuss attacks by anti-British Americans on pro-British Americans - dishonest as well as arrogant and obnoxious. Going for the trifecta! And what Wedge said, you poisonous little bigot.
• jeff, remember, you're not the only one directly affected by 9/11. i'm a reporter in d.c., i was sent out into the streets as the pentagon was burning and fighter jets were overhead. i was sent into terrified mobs fleeing from chaos into more chaos. my office is a few blocks from the white house, we had no idea if we were next. those of us counting on the bush administration to strike back against those who struck us are *incredibly* frustrated and shocked that we made a cursory jab at afghantistan then turned our attention to iraq. IRAQ??? meanwhile, the taliban is still alive and well in afghanistan, doctors without borders just pulled out after *14 years* there because workers are being killed. the taliban has regrouped and is just as strong, they say. iraq has very little if anything to do with 9/11, and yet that is what our president is focusing on. he's betraying us. he's betraying you. you were there on 9/11. you should be pressuring bush to extinguish those who attacked us, who are STILL active in AFGHANISTAN, *not* IRAQ.
• disregard my last comment. my brain is fried today, i'm juxtaposing jeff and surly and lord knows what else. i'm just really upset about politics right now. my brother, whom i've mentioned several times before, has announced that we are no longer speaking. he's the angry right-winger. i had really hoped to understand him but, well, i guess he's decided otherwise. it's like the civil war here in the U.S... you overseas monkeys, i envy you. jeff, please continue this dialogue. i'm really trying to understand your point of view. i don't think you're a poisonous little bigot, i think you have a different point of view than many of us, and i'd like to try to see why. in re: 22 USC 2656f(d) -- exactly my point. if terrorism was indeed a simple, black-and-white problem, why would you need something called "22 USC 2656f(d)" to even define it? and, yes, i do see the irony in saying that nothing is always anything. as journalist we're coached to not use the word "always" because, inevitably, each time you do someone, somewhere writes in and proves otherwise. there are exceptions to *everything*, life is far more complex than right and wrong. applying simple solutions to complicated problems is dangerous, IMHO. the U.S. has been doing that for a long time, and making a lot of situations worse. the taliban hit us on 9/11? simple. we go into afghanistan, bomb the shit out of the place and that's that. wrong, wrong, wrong. we've simply made the taliban stronger there. i need some coffee.
• Okay, guys, seriously not trying to be flip here, but take a breath and look at this for a minute. To surly, SideDish, and all who were in the thick and lost big that day (not to mention in Madrid, et al.), I'm sure all our good thoughts, sympathies, and much respect go out to you. I know mine do. And I want to add extra props for underlining a point that so many people in this country just can't wrap their heads around, namely that refusing to support the way we're going about fighting terror means that you don't care about fighting terror. I think you both illustrated what a horrible fallacy that is very well. Now let's all go get some breakfast, okay? I know this great diner down the street. On preview: SideDish, I'm buyin'.
• P.S.: Sorry to hear about your brother. I was hoping you guys could find some common ground. My sis-in-law's father is threatening to disown her over some bullshit, so I'm sure she'd empathize.
• And to the rest of you, I watched the World Trade Towers fall on the television in my North Hollywood home and went into work a half-hour late. My personal experience with terrorism was ten years earlier when I was interrupted at work by the LA Police and taken from my desk overlooking a window a few stories above where an anti-IRS terrorist had parked and failed to detonate a truck bomb larger than MacVeigh's. It was the closest to a near-death experience I have ever experienced, and was the foundation for my opinion of big-T Terrorism. I don't like it. I don't care who does it. I don't believe any amount of military response, whether toward jihadists in Iraq or militias in Montana, is going to be the answer. And I beleive that more honest and principal-based foreign policy by the United States would be the absolute best thing for the entire world. I could not disagree more with Jeff in his contention that the short-lived foreign policy of President Carter was the origin of most of our international woes today. I strongly believe that Iran in 1980 was an ally of Reagan and the Republicans and demonstrated it quite clearly by releasing the hostages minutes after his inauguration, and the subsequent actions of the Reagan Administration were quite consistant with that. Reagan's pullout from Lebanon following the bombing of the American barracks in Beirut (constantly mis-characterized as a 'terrorist' attack; by Jeff's own definition, a Military attack) was the most obvious example of an American President caving in to foreign attackers in our history. Oh, and Reagan's decision to lift Carter's agricultural boycott of the Soviet Union probably delayed by years the final economic collapse of that "evil empire". In contrast, Reagan's military buildup had little consequence because the U.S.S.R. was unable to add to its already-bloated military-industrial complex (even Reagan argued that previous Arms Limitation treaties had hardly limited them at all), and an significent share of its military resources were redirected to its war in Afghanistan. Fortunately, Reagan allowed the U.S.S.R. to survive until Gorbachev, a more moderate realist, took control there; if things had been harder on the Soviets during the short reigns of Chernenko or Andropov, Nuclear War would have been much more likely. Now, I don't have all the absolute non-controvertable facts to prove the opinions above (which would require giving truth serums to many relevent persons who are already dead). And neither does Jeff. I wish I had more time to write here, but a major news website is paying me to review new sitcoms, not opine on foreign policy. Later.
• ...and all this time, I thought it was Rocky Balboa's defeat of the USSR's Ivan Drago that singlehandedly ended the cold war. ;)
• "There's never a situation where terrorism is the only remaining option. Nobody's ever 'forced into' terrorism."
  Errr, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...
• Hiroshima, Nagasaki All right, here's something I'd like to know about, because I've heard two different things. Did they try inviting Japanese leaders to a demonstration of the bomb on some uninhabited atoll first? Would it have been possible to bomb a military target far enough away from civilians? Because I imagine that would have made me think twice, at least, and would have been, um, nicer.
• Well, that's a large enough topic for its very own CG thread, but my point is that sometimes terrorism *is* justified -- well, either that, or the US is the worst-offending terrorist nation in the history of the world.
  Can't have it both ways, Bushies...
• the term ''terrorism'' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents Just a small point here - isn't the above definition really about terrorist acts? The dictionary.com definition reads: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Which I think is more correct. I mean it's an -ism, a philosophy as it were. Although the second definition does raise the ugly smallpox-on-a-blanket issues we beneficiaries of conquering peoples want to avoid. And which were probably well considered by the authors of the former definition.
• I strongly believe that Iran in 1980 was an ally of Reagan and the Republicans And it was John Kerry who uncovered their relationship. I wonder how many partisan Republicans are still bitter over that.
• Democrats on the Warpath
• Kerry is more qualified. Kerry is smarter. Nader has good points but we have to get Bush out. I grow more convinced that the Rah-Rah'ing the Bush camp does will bring in the lunkhead and Dittohead votes and Dems will be SOL because liberal idiots won't fucking VOTE. Goddamn that has to be the saddest political thing in the world. We'd win if we'd vote . . . At least in Florida the media will be ready for more underhanded tricks. What about Ohio and N. Dakota tho?
• Waffle keyboard *sigh*
• WANT! WANT!