Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yes. He's a bad, bad man. And should be punished. And was. Though not stringently enough in the eyes of some, even in the absence of dead bodies.

The purpose of security classification is to prevent the wrong people from learning secrets. In Berger's case, there is absolutely no reason to think that the wrong people learned government secrets, or that he intended that this happen. He was reckless, and stupid. In the case of Valerie Plame, someone --- maybe Rove -- intended that many people learn a government secret, and they did. That is not just reckless. Especially when the country is at war. Whoever outed her risked the national security to score political points.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Say Rove resigns. What does it matter? Do the dems get to put call-blocking on the WH phones to his number? Does he get to visit the WHonly if he gets the tour ticket?

Sure, there are some access disadvantages, but does it really matter?

It doesn't matter. In fact, as Slave said, it frees Rove to become the Evil Emporer.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Alexis de Toqueville visited the United States in the early 1800s and observed that Americans had a passion for liberty and equality -- two different principles sometimes in tension with each other. Liberty may lead you to democracy; equality may lead you to, for example, some sort of socialist dictatorship. A country's culture can be a complicated thing. Attempting to describe it is not necessarily racism or bigotry.

This is irrelevant. In our modern era either you think people are entitled to human rights or they are not.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Conservatives are usually intolerant of those who throw around these terms lightly.

I have heard Israeli conservatives argue that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is OK because Arabs don't want or need democracy. The might as well be governed by us as any other dictator. Under us their standard of living is better off than any other arabs. Do you agree with their argument or do you think they are being bigoted when they say Arabs don't want or need,or are not ready for democracy.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I don't think the author of that e-mail said Yemenis are "not capable of democracy." Maybe you should re-read it.

Don't go there. You know why you posted this email. We both know what point you were trying to make.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Mussolini made the trains run on time. Does this mean we should prefer that the trains are late?

If that means getting rid of Mussolini - yes. When I lived in Italy the trains never ran on time. But I don't think most Italians would want to return to Mussolini.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Perhaps it was correct about Spain and Portugal for a while longer than it was true about Germany, for example. Germany had a democracy in the 1920s, and turned away. Spain and Portugal were ruled by dictators long after the rest of Western Europe had turned to democracy. Do you deny that these things had anything to do with the culture, politics and history of these respective countries?

No. But if anyone had every argued that Spaniard, or Germans, as a people do not really want democracy or that they do not need a democracy, or that their race is not amenable to democracy then I would say they are being bigoted. The torturing of political prisoners lasted in some countrys longer than others, and that had culutural and other reasons behind it. But I would never argue that the torturing of political prisoners is the type of system that fits the Germans, or expecting them to change that policy is ridiculous because they don't want to change or they can't be expected to change.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Many Turks would be bothered by what you said here, but I, for one, do not think it makes you a racist or a bigot.?

You find me a Turk that would not agree that he lives in a muslim nation and I will apologize to him.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop What you seem to be ignoring here is that people care about other things in life besides their form of government. A chance for democracy seems to have been missed in Russia, in part because people cared about things like the economy and Russia's place in the world order..?

What you seem to be ignoring is that Democracy is an international human right that everyone deserves. And to say that a certain people can rightfully choose another system is saying they don't deserve human rights.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop This person is actually living in Yemen, and is reporting that Yemenis don't seem to want democracy much. I would find your rebuttal of that account more persuasive if I thought you knew something about Yemen.

How do you know that I know nothing about Yemen? Did you know that part of Yemen used to be Marxist? Did you know that Saudi Arabia has intervened in that country trying to insure a monarchy. A very large part of the population fought against the monarchical institution. There are clearly alot of people in Yemen that think about politics and have an interest what form of government they have. This is one idiot, with one non scientific idiot opinion of the people of Yemen and you post it to this board as if it has some meaning.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Please note that the e-mail came from Yemen, not Iraq. You're spending a lot of time responding to things the author did not say.

You and I know why this was posted. It was to bolster the argument that the U.S.'s attempt to spread democracy in Arabia (starting with Iraq) is naive, stupid and an exercise that will backfire on us. Trying to encourage democracy in the region is like trying to encourage human rights. And anyone that argues against encouraging human rights, in my opinion, is morally bankrupt. Thier opinion hold as much water is a bigot arguing in favor of bigotry.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What do you think is in Jeb's closet that kept him from running? They say he's got some filthy shit in his past. Oh, and the old Man, "Poppy," allegedly lived with his mistress in NYC for several months at one point in the 50s. Ya think Kitty Carlisle just made all that shit up out of thin air?

Kitty Carlisle: Actress, regular on a game show called "To Tell The Truth." (PLF irony?)

Kitty Kelley: Author, wrote acid-tongued biography of the Bush family, among others.

Carry on.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It this sort of smug self-superiority that causes many in the Arab world to turn away from Western democracy. They're not rejecting democracy so much as they're rejecting us.

So you think it is smug self superiority to believe that all human being on this planet deserve basic human rights. The southern slave owners always referred to the norther abolitionists as smug, self superior and self righteous. Of course they were avoiding the point.

Just answer the question:

Do you believe having a say in the government that governs you is a human right?

Do you believe Arabs deserve basic human rights?

If you answer yes to those:

Do you think it is bigoted to want to impose "human rights" on arab nations?

Do you think it is bigoted to say that arabs don't need or want "human rights?

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Your response - there and here -- is, far as I can tell, either (a) hey - no harm, no foul, or (b) c'mon, everyone knew that she was CIA! Shit, I bet she did the photo shoot before the Novak article!

My response is (i) no harm, no foul and (ii) again, this has nothing to do about Plame, and everything to do with that lying sack Joe Wilson.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
It doesn't matter. In fact, as Slave said, it frees Rove to become the Evil Emporer.

Wartime Consigliere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Kitty Carlisle: Actress, regular on a game show called "To Tell The Truth." (PLF irony?)

Kitty Kelley: Author, wrote acid-tongued biography of the Bush family, among others.

Carry on.

Writing talent's about the same... distinction with little difference.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
My response is (i) no harm, no foul and (ii) again, this has nothing to do about Plame, and everything to do with that lying sack Joe Wilson.

Keep dreaming. This has everything to do with (a) Bush being stuck with his early promise to fir the leak, (b) Admin/Rove lies about Rove not being the leak after the fact, and (c) public perception.

If Fitzgerald prosecutes for obstruction/perjury or issues a report ripping the admin, this is a big fucking problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is irrelevant. In our modern era either you think people are entitled to human rights or they are not.

You, me, Andrew Sullivan, and the author of that e-mail all think that people are entitled to human rights.

I have heard Israeli conservatives argue that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is OK because Arabs don't want or need democracy. The might as well be governed by us as any other dictator. Under us their standard of living is better off than any other arabs. Do you agree with their argument or do you think they are being bigoted when they say Arabs don't want or need,or are not ready for democracy.

An argument that some people are not ready for democracy might be based on bigotry -- it would depend on the reasons given. I do not believe that is what the e-mail to Sullivan is saying, though.

Don't go there. You know why you posted this email. We both know what point you were trying to make.

No, I believe that you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make in a significant way.

All else equal, most people would rather live in a democracy than a dictatorship. All else is rarely equal. As I tried to suggest in my last e-mail, there are all sorts of other things that people care about that may get in the way. For example, religious beliefs may lead people to place power in the hands of clerics, rather than elected leaders. Or, people may get aroused by nationalism, and may give power to leaders who are non-democratic. Both are happening to some degree in Arab countries. Both have also happened in non-Arab countries. Suggesting that this is happening is not racist or bigoted.

If that means getting rid of Mussolini - yes. When I lived in Italy the trains never ran on time. But I don't think most Italians would want to return to Mussolini.

My point was that if a dictator says something that's true, or exploits a sentiment that people have, that in itself does not may that thing or sentiment false.

No. But if anyone had every argued that Spaniard, or Germans, as a people do not really want democracy or that they do not need a democracy, or that their race is not amenable to democracy then I would say they are being bigoted.

Then you might (*might*) be throwing the term around too loosely. Because there was real support in Spain for Franco. And there was real support in Portugal for Salazar.

The torturing of political prisoners lasted in some countrys longer than others, and that had culutural and other reasons behind it. But I would never argue that the torturing of political prisoners is the type of system that fits the Germans, or expecting them to change that policy is ridiculous because they don't want to change or they can't be expected to change.

You seem to have some confusion about positive and normative statements. I infer that Sullivan's correspondent would be a fan of democracy in Yemen, and is disappointed that the Yemenis don't seem interested. Arguing that the facts on the ground are poor for democracy is not the same as arguing that democracy would be a bad thing.

You find me a Turk that would not agree that he lives in a muslim nation and I will apologize to him.

Since Ataturk, Turkey has tried very hard to be a secular nation, albeit one populated mostly by Muslims.

What you seem to be ignoring is that Democracy is an international human right that everyone deserves. And to say that a certain people can rightfully choose another system is saying they don't deserve human rights.

How am I ignoring that democracy is a human right, or suggesting that people can rightfully choose another system?

How do you know that I know nothing about Yemen? Did you know that part of Yemen used to be Marxist? Did you know that Saudi Arabia has intervened in that country trying to insure a monarchy. A very large part of the population fought against the monarchical institution. There are clearly alot of people in Yemen that think about politics and have an interest what form of government they have. This is one idiot, with one non scientific idiot opinion of the people of Yemen and you post it to this board as if it has some meaning.

I know those things about Yemen, and more. And yet I would not pass myself off as an expert on the country. And when I read something written by someone who is actually there, I naturally believe that they have access to a perspective and information that I do not.

Why do you think the author of that e-mail is an "idiot"? Because their view of the world doesn't jibe with your policy prescriptions? This is the same sharp thinking that got us into the present mess in Iraq.

You and I know why this was posted. It was to bolster the argument that the U.S.'s attempt to spread democracy in Arabia (starting with Iraq) is naive, stupid and an exercise that will backfire on us. Trying to encourage democracy in the region is like trying to encourage human rights. And anyone that argues against encouraging human rights, in my opinion, is morally bankrupt. Thier opinion hold as much water is a bigot arguing in favor of bigotry.

See, I read it and concluded that the author is in favor of spreading democracy, but believes that the U.S. has pursued specific policies that are counterproductive to that end. I feel that way, as does Sullivan.

The simple world view that President Bush articulates -- you're either with us or against us -- had its uses after 9/11, but it often gets in the way now. Policy matters. Policy is hard. But our president has everyone focused on which side they're on.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Keep dreaming. This has everything to do with (a) Bush being stuck with his early promise to fir the leak, (b) Admin/Rove lies about Rove not being the leak after the fact, and (c) public perception.

If Fitzgerald prosecutes for obstruction/perjury or issues a report ripping the admin, this is a big fucking problem.

Agreed.

OTOH, it's somewhat refreshing to hear GOP apologists come out and actually say "oh, it's no problem for someone to have leaked the identity of a CIA WMD specialist during wartime, because it was in pursuit of a nobler partisan goal to crush our political enemies whom we really really don't like, and as because far as the mainstream media has reported, I've not heard of anyone actually dying as a result."

This degree of candor is rare.

[Spanky]

They author is an idiot because he says that Yemenis don't want or don't need democracy. Who is he to say what they want. Until he conducts a poll that sort of statement makes him an idiot.

I believe that the United States should encourage human rights through out the world.

I believe democracy is a basic human right.

Do you agree with the above statements?

Do you not think that that article was arguing against both those points?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Bush . . . brilliant

Those are two words that will never be put together by historians in a sentence.

Iraq is a quagmire. I suspect that history will show eliminating hussein was the right thing, but it won't go down as a masterstroke, but as a good, but difficult, decision. But after that, what can Bush claim as an accomplishment in his 5 years thus far (and who does anything in the last 2-3 years, other than ride out scandals?)

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Agreed.

OTOH, it's somewhat refreshing to hear GOP apologists come out and actually say "oh, it's no problem for someone to have leaked the identity of a CIA WMD specialist during wartime, because it was in pursuit of a nobler partisan goal to crush our political enemies whom we really really don't like, and as because far as the mainstream media has reported, I've not heard of anyone actually dying as a result."

This degree of candor is rare.

Right, it had nothing to do with refuting Wilson's statements and revealing him to be a partisan hack.

Who's spinning?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
See, I read it and concluded that the author is in favor of spreading democracy, but believes that the U.S. has pursued specific policies that are counterproductive to that end. I feel that way, as does Sullivan.

" Democracy is something a nation has to want, something a nation has to want so much they will shed blood for it. And the Arab world wants democracy as much as they want a hole in the head. They don't get it, they don't care to get it and it seems to be making life particularly shitty for their Iraqi brothers."

After reading the above quote were standing by your above statement?

That statement strikes me as ignorant, absurd and bigoted.

Maybe if you substitute the word Human Rights with democracy you might finally see the obvious.

" Human Rights are something a nation has to want, something a nation has to want so much they will shed blood for it. And the Arab world wants Human Rights as much as they want a hole in the head. They don't get it, they don't care to get it and it seems to be making life particularly shitty for their Iraqi brothers."