Rusty Shackleford:
I know you 'love' America, but your 'love' of America is like that of an abusive husband who 'loves' his wife. You 'love' America so much that you will not let any opportunity pass to belittle and abuse her. You 'love' America only when America acts in exactly the way in which you believe it should act. When America gets out of line, you pull no punches.
Whether you 'love' America is beside the point just as whether an abusive husband 'loves' his wife is irrelevant. What I and the rest of America want is less of your proclamations of love, and more evidence of it.
From reading your blog I have come to the inevetable conclusion that you 'love' America so much that you are willing to kill it. I know you have the best of intentions for our great nation, but so does the abusive husband who really didn't mean to kill that bitch wife of his, but, you know, she just up and made him soooo angry that he couldn't help himself.
You have betrayed America with your perverse love in the exact way that an abusive husband betrays a wife. You are a traitor.
Specifically, Dr. Shackleford is displeased with Kos' recent depiction of American troops as war criminals:
Your latest screed on the use of white phosphorous by the U.S. military in Fallujah is really beyond the pale. Equivocating between the U.S. military and the Saddam Hussein regime is exactly what our terrorist enemies do in their propoganda. You say:
Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents
and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.
Jeff Goldstein responds to your the substance of your treasonous allegations here.
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but supporters of al Qaeda read blogs like yours and take them seriously. The reason they fight us in Iraq is that they believe, like you do, that the U.S. is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein. Each time you publish insane theories about the U.S. using chemical weapons, they eat it up.
If you actually believe that the U.S. is as bad as Saddam Hussein regime, then I suggest you grow a backbone and join the mujahidin in Iraq. The moral implications of your statements are that we are the bad guys. If such is the case, then the inevetable conclusion for you--or an Iraqi 'fence-sitter'--is that morality requires armed resistance to the U.S.
In fact, at a jihadi forum which I frequent, the terrorists and their supporters make the exact same argument that you are making. White phosphorous has become quite the hot topic lately 'proving' that the mujahidin are in the right and that the U.S. really is the Great Satan.
Thank you for legitimizing the jihadists and their belief system. They love Americans like you and use words like yours to benefit their recruitment efforts. See, they say, even the Americans now understand that their own government must be stopped.
Which is exactly the morally correct conclusion to reach if you actually believe the U.S. is guilty of systematic torture, mass murder, and the use of WMD against civilians.
If you believe this, though, than you have made yourself an enemy of the United States of America. No, not the Bush Administration, but the United States. The country which you love, but only insofar as she acts in the exact manner proscribed by you.
Read the whole thing -- every sentence is priceless. True patriotism is, in part, critical. But true patriotism is not critical in its entirety.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
This warrants a long comment; I only have time and energy for a short one. It strikes me that Shackleford "loves" his country the way an overly indulgent, blinded parent unwilling to establish boundaries or look at actions in a wider context "loves" their son. "Tommy raped his classmate? Well, why was that slut provoking him? Tommy got busted on a DWI? Those cops have been unfairly harassing him ever since that slut classmate accused him of bothering her." Quite a noble brand of love that is. Shackleford says that it's alright to challenge the president on court nominations, but not alright to challenge him on issues related to the war. Absurd nonsense. I understand the sentiment here, but it strikes me that a war should absolutely be looked at critically. Always. Never are the stakes higher. A bad court nomination, a bad tax bill... those things can have quite disastrous effects. But war is life and death, war is human suffering, what is done in war can not be repealed. Agree or disagree with the justifications, the way it is carried out, fine. But to say that it's the one area that should not be questioned is preposterous and, frankly, immoral. "I'll challnege you on taxes, but I'll never question you on who you decide to kill" is offensive. And Shackleford tells us that facts are morally neutral. Maybe. I disagree, sort of, but let's give it to him, let's let him have that. He goes on to act, however, as if facts are not at all morally neutral. Only the facts he wants to stay neutral are treated that way. He wants an objective, morally-has-nothing-to-do-with-it treatment of U.S. use of white phosphorous... but takes it as given that Saddam's use of chemical weapons was a hideous immoral thing (so much so that comparing the two is offensive in his eyes). Saddam's use of chemicals certainly WAS offensive and hideous and immoral... making Shackleford's morally neutral fact universe a joke. Just another Ann Coulteresque "disagree with the party line and you hate America" reactionary BS. You give him too much credit.
The key to discerning between the two extremes is a realistic understanding of 'Tommy'. If he raped his classmate, then yes, send the SOB to prison and don't coddle him. But if he didn't perhaps it would be a good idea not to accuse him of such. Over and over again.
Kos and his ilk, unfortunately, never have anything good to say about America. They see America as the Great Satan, the epitome of all that is evil.
We live in an age in which information streams across our land freely and in vast quantity. In this time, there is simply no excuse for living in the delusional, imaginary world in which America is an evil nation. Reality simply does not bear this conclusion.
Yet Kos insists on doing so. He rightfully deserves to be called a traitor.
It goes back to what I said previously about the bishops and their own indictment of the US: it is SAFE to criticize the US government. This is not to say that we should not exercise our duty to question those in power, but to do so comes with its own inherent responsibilities.
Greg, I'll agree that nuclear bunker-busters are probably a bad idea, as they would violate the "no first nuclear strike" rule. Or atleast tempt US military leaders to violate it.
I don't know anything about problems with depleted uranium shells, and I'd require a source more reliable than the BBC to accept that they are problematic.
World class traitor, Ramsey Clark, is another example of extreme leftwing histrionics. He's now on his way to Baghdad to help defend Saddam. Wonder what the Kos Kidz have to say about that.
I don't see that critique of Kos as priceless - I see it as nearly worthless. Claiming that Kos hates America is utter nonsense. He loves the car, but he hates the way it's being driven - and that is a legitimate complaint.
The point is not that we are the bad guys - the point is that if we (the U.S.) are going to posture as the good guys then we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves like the good guys. To criticize Hussein for using chemical weapons and then to turn around and use them ourselves is hypocricy. To criticize Hussein for torturing prisoners and then to allow Abu Ghraib to happen is hypocricy. That doesn't mean that the Iraqis are the good guys and we are the bad guys, but it does mean that we are not living up to our good guy posture.
If the US conducts itself in the same way as those we call war criminals, then the ends do not justify the means.
I don't see that critique of Kos as priceless - I see it as nearly worthless. Claiming that Kos hates America is utter nonsense. He loves the car, but he hates the way it's being driven - and that is a legitimate complaint.
The proof is in the pudding. He never has anything good to say about America and fabricates utter lies about our nation in order to hinder the war effort. He wants us to lose.
The point is not that we are the bad guys - the point is that if we (the U.S.) are going to posture as the good guys then we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves like the good guys.
Which we are.
To criticize Hussein for using chemical weapons and then to turn around and use them ourselves is hypocricy.
And we don't. Kos knows this, but spreads the lie that we do in order to embolden our enemies.
To criticize Hussein for torturing prisoners and then to allow Abu Ghraib to happen is hypocricy.
Which, you may have noticed, we punished -- unlike Hussein. Do you need other example of how unHussein-like our nation is?
That doesn't mean that the Iraqis are the good guys and we are the bad guys, but it does mean that we are not living up to our good guy posture.
It does mean that the terrorists are the bad guys. Period.
If the US conducts itself in the same way as those we call war criminals, then the ends do not justify the means.
Which we don't, and lying to that effect doesn't make it so.
The Pentagon has confirmed that the US used White Phosphorous as a weapon in Falloujah, and the US condemned Hussein for using White Phosphorous as a weapon in the 1990s. Those are simple facts, not "utter lies." Now it is legitimate to debate exactly how it was used and against whom, but in simple language it is a chemical weapon and using it as such is a far cry from taking the high road.
The question is not whether we are Hussein-like; we aren't and we all know that. The question is whether the US engages in behaviors that embolden the enemy (like torture and the use of chemical weapons) and rightly punish those who give the orders as well as those who uncritically follow them. It would be truly un-American to fail to investigate.
Our objection was that he was using white phosphorus against civilians. Any weapon intentionally used to target civilians is unacceptable.
But don't let me stop you! Please continue telling us that our soldiers are war criminals. Especially around election season. I'm sure that it will make voting choices easier for Americans.
Nice job putting words in my mouth. Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. If that is really our only complaint, why did the State Department lie about the use of WP last year? They issued statements saying that WP was used only for illumination and not as a weapon.
I don't believe our troops are war criminals. I do believe our civilian leadership, however, are hypocrites. If they were telling us the truth, the story wouldn't change so often.
John,
Regarding torture, you said...
"Which, you may have noticed, we punished -- unlike Hussein. Do you need other example of how unHussein-like our nation is?"
Are you taking a "we looked into it, we punished the abusers, problem solved" stance? To pretend that there's no larger, systemic problem here strikes me as willful ignorance, masked as patriotism. This is not to say that "our troops are just as bad as Saddam" (though, if they were, would it be an immortal sin to say so?). We don't have to be "as bad as" anybody to say "hey, this is a problem." I mean, let's be honest. Nobody I've ever met is "as bad as" Saddam was when he was in power. But that doesn't mean that I haven't known my fair share of rotten SOBs.
And you said...
"Kos and his ilk, unfortunately, never have anything good to say about America. They see America as the Great Satan, the epitome of all that is evil.
"We live in an age in which information streams across our land freely and in vast quantity. In this time, there is simply no excuse for living in the delusional, imaginary world in which America is an evil nation. Reality simply does not bear this conclusion."
Can I more or less repeat your words back to you here, and say there are many, who, unfortunately, can never bear a criticism of America? They see America as the Great City On The Hill, the epitome of all that is good. We live in an age in which information streams across our land freely and in vast quantity. In this time, there is simply no excuse for living in the delusional, imaginary world in which America is an omnibenevolent, sinless nation. Reality simply does not bear this conclusion.
Some charges that people make against "America" (the idea is really an illusion... charges are made against people, not abstractions) will not be true, will turn out to be, at best, overreactions, at worst, cynical lies. The hostility to which so many people react to any and all charges, however, is frightening. People react with violent close-mindedness when their fantasy of an altruistic, God-fearing, superhero nation state is called into question.
Jockey Street, I agree that the notion America is a City Upon a Hill, perfect in all ways, is a dangerous illusion. Ignoring our flaws prevents us from fixing them.
No "buts" added to this comment. I won't disagree with the principle that you are advancing.
My thanks to the famous Jeff Goldstein for his visit to my humble blog. I'm honored to have a blogger of such high standing to pay us a visit.
Willie, I'm not putting words into your mouth. You are suggesting that our troops are war criminals on par with Hussein's murderers:
The point is not that we are the bad guys - the point is that if we (the U.S.) are going to posture as the good guys then we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves like the good guys. To criticize Hussein for using chemical weapons and then to turn around and use them ourselves is hypocricy. To criticize Hussein for torturing prisoners and then to allow Abu Ghraib to happen is hypocricy. That doesn't mean that the Iraqis are the good guys and we are the bad guys, but it does mean that we are not living up to our good guy posture.
If the US conducts itself in the same way as those we call war criminals, then the ends do not justify the means.
As the Confederate Yankee link proves, the Pentagon never claimed that WP is a chemical weapon.
Now I have heard around and about that a US Ambassador said that we never used WP, which I really couldn't care less about. That some US bureaucrat said something incorrect about our military operations -- when he was NOT a military official -- is not a scandal of any substance. If he intentionally deceived, discipline him -- hell, even fire him. If was mistaken (more likely -- he was just some diplomat speaking on something that he knew nothing about) then correct the record.
There is no scandal here. We used legal weapons in legal ways.
But as I said, don't let me stop you. Please continue comparing our troops to the actions of Saddam Hussein. Don't hold back -- let us know where you stand. Let it be crystal clear.
Let's indeed be crystal clear. My critique is of the civilian leadership in charge of this war, not of the men and women on the ground making sacrifices and serving our country. I do not believe that "we" are as bad as Hussein, I believe that our leadership has to be very careful in the way they order this war to be conducted so that the rest of the world sees that we are not like Hussein. Our leadership has the duty to act responsibly in wartime and to investigate things like Abu Ghraib up through the ranks of the leadership to punish all who are responsible - not just L. England. In wartime our leadership has the responsibility and duty to not only be better but to act better as well. In wartime the whole world is watching, which is exactly why the government is accountable to the people especially during wartime. Yet anyone who asks tough critical questions is labeled a traitor or accused of "agitprop" (nice one.) I love this country, which is exactly why I can't sit idly by while our leadership taints America's reputation in the world court.
Let's indeed be crystal clear. My critique is of the civilian leadership in charge of this war, not of the men and women on the ground making sacrifices and serving our country.
Good. But then, you have no reason to defend Kos, who is critiquing the troops on the ground as war criminals.
I do not believe that "we" are as bad as Hussein, I believe that our leadership has to be very careful in the way they order this war to be conducted so that the rest of the world sees that we are not like Hussein. Our leadership has the duty to act responsibly in wartime and to investigate things like Abu Ghraib up through the ranks of the leadership to punish all who are responsible - not just L. England.
We did -- even the commanding general supervising Abu Ghraib was punished.
In wartime our leadership has the responsibility and duty to not only be better but to act better as well. In wartime the whole world is watching, which is exactly why the government is accountable to the people especially during wartime. Yet anyone who asks tough critical questions is labeled a traitor or accused of "agitprop" (nice one.) I love this country, which is exactly why I can't sit idly by while our leadership taints America's reputation in the world court.
That's good. But you stepped out to defend Kos, who is critical of America as a whole -- not merely of the present Administration -- but yearns for its defeat and actively seeks it. Be careful who your ideological friends are. You know a while back, I openly referred to Pat Robertson as a jackass for the latest drivel to emerge from his mouth. No one would call into question your loyalty if you decided to let us all know that you disagree with Kos and hope that America will win this war. Do the same for other America-haters (not merely Bush-haters, but America-haters) like Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore. Then you won't have this problem.
Joel, do you have links for the WP stuff? I'm not doubting your sincerity -- I just haven't seen confirmation.
You know, a very good case could be made that we shouldn't have supported Hussein's regime even if that decision resulted in the Iranian conquest of the Middle East and the collapse of that region into fundamentalist extremism. But I'll give credit to Carter and Reagan for trying to make the best decision possible between choosing bad and worse.
So we supported Saddam in the past. So what? Does that mean that we should continue to act foolishly or have an immoral foriegn policy?
It sounds like you would prefer that US policy was consistently wrong rather than inconsistently right.
I will admit that I'm not much of a reader of Kos - there are other sources of non-conservative information that I rely upon first, but in what little I've read I've never come across compelling evidence that he "hates America." Same for Moore. (As for Chomsky and Churchill, I know jack about them.) I'm not saying the evidence isn't out there, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.
I do know that O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh love to refer to anyone left of Karl Rove as "hate-America liberals," but they're as reliable sources of actual facts as that Jon Lovitz character from SNL. That sort of broad-stroke caricature of anyone failing to walk in lockstep with Bush is offensive, indefensible and unconscionable.
Most of the libs I know are very patriotic and embarrassed by the idea that our reason for going to war kept changing (terrorism, WMD's, imminent threat, Saddam's a bitch), that we lost focus on fighting the war with Bin Laden (the real enemy of 9/11), that this war which was originally portrayed as lasting "six days, six weeks; I doubt six months" (Rumsfeld) or "relatively quickly...weeks rather than months" (Cheney) is still going on, that we may be viewed as an occupying rather than liberating force in the world's eyes, that the administration would out a covert spy for political gain, and that the party who ran on the platform of "we will keep you safe, the other guys will let you die" failed so miserably in the wake of Katrina - and made pitiful excuses for it. In a liberal's eyes, this administration seems a lot like a guy who has a '65 Mustang and allows it to rust and never changes the oil - and won't listen to anyone who suggests a way to take better care of it. Love the car, think those in charge could be better stewards of it.
Are all of those criticisms true? I don't know, but there is certainly enough evidence to warrant discussion and demand answers better than "if you don't agree with me you're empowering the turrrrrists."
In spite of this war's start on seemingly false pretense and its lack of an endgame strategy, I do want us to "win." Heck, my brother-in-law whom I've known since he was five and I love like my own little brother, is a Guardsman in Baghdad. But we need a clearer operational definition of victory and a clearer strategy toward achieving that goal. Today's speech by Bush offered nothing new, just the same tired rhetoric we've been hearing from the beginning.
John--
Chomsky? Chomsky hates America?
His books are short. You should read one or two. If you already have, tell me which one inspired you to make that comment.
Often, Chomsky's books are highly critical. Often, they are not very flattering regarding U.S. policy. But, as they same, there are times when unflattering remarks may not just be due to unflattering PR, but to unflattering facts. Yes, Chomsky is extremely critical of U.S. policy. But the policies he's critical of are generally policies that deserve a lot of criticism. As Merton would say "is it a sin to call cancer cancer?"
Throughout Chomsky's work, however, is a pretty consistent theme. Yeah, he hammers away at apects of U.S. policy he finds fault with. But he makes it clear-- very clear, though you probably won't catch it on Limbaugh or Coulter soundbites-- that there are plenty of other countries out there doing stuff just as bad, and plenty of countries out there doing things a whole lot worse. His argument is not that the U.S. is the worst nation in the world (he would also not argue, I imagine, that it is the "best"), is not that his is the only nation doing bad things, but that his is the only nation that is... his. His is the only nation that he belongs to. Hence, seeing as how it happens to be a democracy and whatnot, his is the only nation that he is directly responsible for.
I agree with that line of thinking. Entirely. Yeah, lots of places do lots of bad things. I'm responsible, in a democracy, for what I allow MY country to do. And if it's behaving badly, I have to say so.
You've repeatedly said that you don't oppose people who are critical of their country and ask hard questions, you just can't stand those people that "hate America." You draw a distinction, in theory, between the two. It gives you that open-minded flavor... you're not opposed to healthy dissent, just those blame-America-first wackos. Okay. But I wonder what healthy dissent looks like to you. I agree that there is a distinction... but you continuously put people I would call "healthy dissenters" into that wacko, America hater category. Really, honestly, is this just a ploy to create the illusion that you're willing to listen to dissent... or is there anyone who can strongly oppose actions of the American military and/or government without getting your "America hater" designation?
Actually, I have read Chomsky. I don't recall the title, but it was a paperback with a green and grey cover and I read it on a lazy Sunday afternoon in a Barnes and Noble.
Now I could track down anti-American quotes and work and whatnot from Chomsky, but is that really necessary? Are you being serious or are you jerking my chain?
Does the Pope %$#@ in the woods? Of course Chomsky is anti-American! A casual glance alone at his work reveals that.
I jerk no chains. I think, however, that it's largely a matter of defining the terms. "America" is an ambiguous word, so "anti-American," used in an argument, becomes fairly meaningless. I could call Bush and his cronies anti-American while their supporters carry on about how they're true patriots. Bush represents, to me, all the worst things about this society and none of the best things. He is not, to me, what "America" is or should be. But would it be useful or even entirely accurate for me to attack him as being "anti-American?" Probably not. Point... I don't see Chomsky as being someone I would call anti-American because I see his criticism leveled at people, not some ambiguous concept of "America" (at least not my own preferred ambiguous concept). I think that he rightly attacks a lot of things that should be attacked. If his facts are wrong, if the implications he draws from them are outrageous, I think you could call him a crackpot or dupe; if his facts are not wrong, if the implications he draws are reasonable (if not always correct) attacking his intentions seems to be avoiding the real issue.
I think I will write a post of my own on this....
Post a Comment