Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm stuck here with the question of, what is patriotism? I think the answer is, wishing for a good outcome for our country. I understand that winning wars is the easy answer to this - but I also understand that the eventual alignment of the rest of the world can also be good, or bad, for our country. So, I'm left with the idea that "patriotism" means, necessarily, agreeing with my views as to how to accomplish all of that.

I think you missed a couple of steps in between your next-to-last and last sentences. There are some respects in which left and right differ about how the world should be aligned, and fundamental disagreements about the best means.

Back when Kerry was being his antiwar self, I thought he was being a great patriot - fighting for the vision he - and I - had of how our country should fit in with the rest of the world. (I've since decided that he, like me, was wrong at that point.) I can accept divergent views of how we should progress as patriotic. I could accept a Leiberman's fight to limit the war, and bring in the world, as patriotic.

You weren't challenging Kerry's patriotism. You were challenging Democrats. If "changing the tone" means dumping on Kerry and not saying what you think about the rest of us, OK.

I can't accept Kerry's views that way. I've known Kerry since I was fifteen, and he's always stood for . . . Kerry. I think he's unprincipled. I can accept divergent principles easier than I can accept a lack of them. He's a pollster at heart. He will do whatever he thinks is needed to win. Why is he a "good closer"? Because, in many of his races, he finally comes to a position in the last days, or he even reverses positions in those day, to win. And then, he acts differently than he indicated he would act. He doesn't serve his country, as I think a patriot should. He serves himself. There's no patriotism in Kerry.

Look, I'm not going to defend Kerry, for a whole host of reasons. Suffice it for now to say that the same sort of things can be said against Bush. He makes principled noises, but his actions lack principles. Fallujah is only the most recent example. Just as I'm not going to defend Kerry, I don't expect you to bother to defend Bush. Reasonable people can agree to disagree. And there is no one involved in politics who is not in it, in part, for the wrong reasons. Surely a conservative needn't be told that. But it's a long way from there to questioning the other side's patriotism.

I disagree. The public outcry against the invasion followed about the same numbers we see today.

I don't know polling numbers, but I do know that a lot of the Dems whose views I value were in favor of the war and have come to see that as a mistake.

All I can say is, I think he's much less sophisticated about this stuff than you do. I think he just does what he thinks is right. If he was political, he would never have invaded Iraq. Think about it - if he had merely gone into Afg., and won there, he'd be on top of the world right now. Going into Iraq guaranteed that he'd be vilified by a big pile of people. But, he thought it was right. I think you can attack the correctness, but to accuse him of playing politics with the invasion is sort of dumb. He'd be at 80% had he not done that.

I don't think he invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq for political reasons, nor did I say so, but it's fairly transparent that he's done a bunch of things for political reasons, and he's certainly not shy about exploiting them that way, either. I note you don't address any of the examples I did give. But the specifics aren't the point. You are accusing Democrats of wishing ill upon the nation for political reasons, while we feel very strongly that this President has exploited policy that way. I don't really want to discuss the examples of it, because we have these conversations on the board and you guys just refuse to see it.

Did you read the blog? Do you read other in-Iraq blogs? I sincerely question your theme here.

Yes I did, but he's one man, and he's standing very close to a particular part of the elephant. I hope he's right, but I don't think so. In this, I believe I am being conservative in the traditional sense. It used to be that conservatives were skeptical about the government's ability to effect social change in a net-beneficial way. With Iraq, this sort of conservatism has gone out the window.

It's in line with other estimates, and NG isn't a real partisan hack group. Heck, Rather has said good things about it.

I don't think it is. I hardly think NG is a bunch of hacks, but that's out of line with what else I've seen. I hope I'm right, but I certainly may be wrong. The question, in any event, is one of degree, and -- like I said -- we agree that Hussein was a bad man.

I don't overlook that Hussein is a bad man. But I think Iraq -- politically, economically, culturally, religiously -- is disposed to produce bad men who do bad things. The country has strong forces pulling it apart, and I'm afraid that it takes some brutality to hold it together. So I'm probably more likely that Hussein is closer to what we're going to be left with at the end of the day than you are. Let's have that conversation instead of this snide crap about ignoring the holocaust.

Don't go there. We're keeping this civil.

Are you kidding me? If you want to talk about the war, you can't just say it's impolite or something to talk about the people we killed. For the love of God.

Yeah, those suicide bombers of ours are a real pain. C'mon, we're offering them a chance for democratic governance. The only people fighting this are the ones opposed to letting the people choose who leads them. If we fight too gently, you say we're losing badly. If we fight too hard, and the civilian cost goes up, you say we're murderers. Exactly how hard should we fight? We're eager to know this.

I don't think that you or I or many Americans have a very good handle on why so many Iraqs want to kill Americans, but the reasons almost certainly include nationalism, religious extremism, and jockeying for political control within the country. I would put moral opposition to democracy way down at the bottom of the list. I think less of the President for repeatedly suggesting that this is the insurgents' motivation, and every time he says it I worry that he actually believes it. I don't think there are actually very many people in the world who are willing to blow themselves up to stop democratic elections, and you need more than a few of them to get to where we are now in Iraq.

I didn't criticize the President for pulling back in Fallujah -- I said I thought the first decision was wrong and the second was right, more or less. So accusing me of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" is a load of crap. If you want to have a civil dialogue with someone on the other side about Iraq, you're going to have to listen to what they actually say about stuff, and not respond to straw men.

And why do you give a shit what I or anyone else says about how hard we fight? The real question is, how do we win? If we level Fallujah, we're not winning hearts and minds. If we surround the town and leave it to the Fallujah Brigade, well, that didn't seem to turn out well either. There may be no good answers. (But it's probably not a question of how "hard" we fight. Tactics matter. Strategy matters.)

It's hard, after months and months of "he LIED!!" following what I thought were good-faith moves by Bush, and your complete acceptance of the crowning of King Moore. There's not much good-faith belief left for the liberal wing at this point.

You know, you can kiss my ass for every time I've said here that I don't like Michael Moore and won't watch his movie. Get some Chapstick, because you're in for a lot of ass-kissing.

I respect Bush's motives. But I think he believes the end justifies the means, and his means abusing the truth more than a President should. I've said this before, but you would rather keep the conversation at the secondi-grade ("he LIED!!") level.

I've been called a lying asshole too many times to now merely bury the sword that quickly. You seem to expect me to live to a standard that you never felt the need of. My fear is that there is now so much bitterness and hatred - yeah, hatred - between the groups that things are never going to be amicable again. It's always going to be "those lying thieving assholes", when both sides truly have worthwhile things to say.

I agree with the latter concern. But let's be clear: I don't recall calling you a lying asshole tonight, and this conversation started with you questioning my patriotism. Not subtly, either. I don't think of you as a lying asshole; I think of you as someone who is sincerely conservative, more cynical than I am about other people's motives, and perhaps too glib in ascribing views or beliefs to the other side. Any one of these three things can piss me off, but none of them makes you a lying asshole.