Rudy's Appeal

I think The New York Times' writeup of the big GOP debate sort of misses the real lead. On the recommendation of my roommates who caught it live, I checked out the relevant section. Ron Paul made a kind of "blowback" argument that America's aggressive global military posture is part of the problem of global terrorism, rather than part of the solution. Then:

“May I comment on that?” Mr. Giuliani said, looking grim. “That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.”

Mr. Giuliani was interrupted by cheers and applause. “And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that,” he said.

Giuliani didn't just look "grim," he looked genuinely outraged. And it was more like he was interrupted by wild cheers and thunderous applause. I still think I'm right and the cultural issues and so forth will doom Giuliani, but if you want the best case that I'm wrong you need to watch this clip. Sort of like Zell Miller's 2004 Convention speech it tapped directly in to the irrationalist brand of nationalism that increasingly motivates the contemporary GOP base.

Comments

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

Posted by Horatio Parker | May 16, 2007 9:08 AM

I wonder if conservatives will ever understand the difference between the word "cause" and the word "justify".

Our involvement in the Middle East was surely one of the causes of the 9/11 attacks. That doesn't mean it justifies the attacks. Do they really need this explained to them?

Posted by Jim W | May 16, 2007 9:11 AM

I really don't understand why the leaders of our society are so deeply irrational. It's not just Guilianni or the GOP - it's the media and many Democrats too. Why are people unable to calmly think things through? Is it genetic? Is it something in our culture?

Posted by MDtoMN | May 16, 2007 9:12 AM

With luck (and Ron Paul), this race will become a referendum on the Empire vs. the Republic..... like Star Wars. Or Rome.

Of course, it's pretty foolhardy to underestimate the extent to which what Matt aptly labeled "irrationalist nationalism" has invaded the American soul. If there were a national referendum tomorrow on whether America should be a global empire or a continental republic, I fear people would choose the former. Maybe not, though.

Posted by Ben Cronin | May 16, 2007 9:13 AM

"...that we invited the [Sept. 11] attack because we were attacking Iraq."

Did he *really* say that, or is it a typo or a misquote? Because as I recall, we didn't attack Iraq until *after* 9/11.

Or is the base of Giuliani supporters so rabidly Pavlovian that they'll applaud *any* mention of 9/11, even if it makes no sense?

Posted by James Gary | May 16, 2007 9:17 AM

Ron Paul takes seriously the supposed principles of the Republican Party. Naturally, that makes him an easy figure for demonization by the ultra-chauvinists, and means he has no chance.

Posted by Pithlord | May 16, 2007 9:19 AM

Er, Rudy is aware that the war in Iraq started after 9/11, right?

Posted by raff | May 16, 2007 9:20 AM

No, Ron Paul made the point that one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our previous involvement in the Middle East, which included us bombing Iraq many times during the 1990s.

Posted by Jim W | May 16, 2007 9:25 AM

1) It would be easy to cut a deceitful whore like Giulani off at the knees at the right moment. To point out how his concern and outrage for New Yorkers is FAKE!

2) Giulani's most fundamental duty was to tell the families of the Sept 11 victims WHY the attack occurred, who did it and to punish the attackers . He has done NONE of those things.

Instead, this faux tough guy has become a docile whore for the Israel Lobby who went along with Bush's Big Lie: That the Sept 11 occurred because "they hate our freedom". Giulani not only supports Bush's Big Lie, he lies to his constitutents himself. That alone disqualifies him from being President.

3) As a result of these lies, Bin Laden has not been captured and another attack on New York is likely to occur in the future -- in spite of the $TRillions Bush has stolen from the Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds to fund DOD and Homeland Security. By any measure , Rudi Giulani has betrayed the victims of Sept 11 and for that reason, he does not deserve to be President.

4) In 1998 interviews with US TV Networks, Bin Laden clearly explained what was motivating him and Al Qaeda. The three reasons why he thought the Islamic world should go to war with the USA.

When a Saudi Prince offered $10 Million to the people of New York after the attack -- along with an explanation for why the attack occurred -- Giulani dropped the check like it was a rattlesnake.

5) The Three reasons for Sept 11 were:
a) That the US government, after bombing the water plants of Iraq in 1990, shut off the import of water purification chemicals into Iraq -- thereby causing the deaths of 600,000 children from waterborne diseases.
b) That the US government has long propped up lethal tyrannies in the Islamic world -- in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and elsewhere -- so that Houston could take the oil while giving the people of those countries nothing.
c)That the US government has supported the death and destruction of the Palestinian people for decades by its military support of Israel --including large annual loans and sales of advanced weapons --like the F16s jets that Sharon used to bomb civilian apartment buildings in Gaza.

6) To find and destroy Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, we need to find them. To find them, we need to have people in the Islamic world tell us where they are.

But that won't happen so long as the US government and people refuse to address the real grievances that are NEEDLESSLY inflaming the Islamic world, gaining Al Qaeda support and sanctuary, and allowing Bin Laden/Al Qaeda to recruit new terrorist.

7) The agendas and interests of Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby are NOT the same as the US national interest. But Giulani has joined with Bush in frantically lying to the American people to cover up the past acts that provoked Sept 11.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 9:44 AM

Y'all libtards gotta be realizing that whatever one thinks about post-World War II American interventionism, it has not in fact been particularly harsh on Muslims. OK fine, Saddam Hussein the first time (although that had significant Muslim support in addition to significant Muslim opposition), Mossadiqh, Palestine (which doesn't actually have that much to do with us), the House of Saud (whom we just support, we didn't put them up there in the first place). Please contrast this with pre-9/11 pro-Muslim international positions in Kosovo, Suez Crisis, Cyprus, Timor, Pakistan, Afghanistan (NOw there's the real blowback!). If diplomatic history were actually so important as opposed to civilizational contempt, then the FBI should be bugging onion-domed Orthodox churches and store-front ministries run by Congolese and Salvadorans. The fact is there's something else going on with the Islamic world. I'm not saying guns will resolve the issue, but there is more to it than this PC blowback fluff (and bin Laden hasn't done anything for the Palestinians anyway!!! It's just a popular cause, so he uses it as a pretext!)
But good post on the whole. Militant nationalism is very important to Republicans, Giuliani has an edge there, and Zell Miller is a horse's rear-end.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | May 16, 2007 9:48 AM

Why can I always tell, when I start reading a comment, when it's going to say "Don Williams" at the end?

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 10:01 AM

Strange post. Rudy expressed outrage over a statement that, in Rudy's words, "we invited the [9/11] attack because we were attacking Iraq." The crowd cheers wildly. So what?

Torture, the war, surveillance, perversions of justice, fine, whack 'em. But the statement you quoted is well within the bounds of decency.

Posted by ostap | May 16, 2007 10:01 AM

Also, if the NYT were to have used those particular adjectives and adverb to describe the reactions of Giuliani and Paul, then Media Matters Sausagefest would have thrown a nit-picking hissy fit, there would have been a supercirclejerk among lefty bloggers about how the NYT is so soft on Giuliani, and Bob Somerby would go off about how its author may have written something snarky about Gore in 1999 or even was involved in spreading those vile lies about Bill Clinton's sex-life in 1998. You know, about Lewinsky, the ones that the dailyhowler combatted around the time of its birth on account of their glaring falseness.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | May 16, 2007 10:10 AM

No one said it was outside the bounds of decency.

Posted by Jim W | May 16, 2007 10:11 AM

"Why can I always tell, when I start reading a comment, when it's going to say "Don Williams" at the end?"

1) It starts out with a reasonable assertion.

2) The second point is some kind of total wingnut contention and CAPITALIZATION starts to occur.

3) The third point is an often a unrelated-but-not-relevant fact, such as "Baum continued theatrical work with Harry Marston Haldeman's men's social group, The Uplifters, for which he wrote several plays for various celebrations. He also wrote the group's parodic by-laws. The group, which also included Will Rogers, was proud to have had Baum as a member and posthumously revived many of his works despite their ephemeral intent."

4) and so on. You can tell this isn't a real Don Williams post because it's too short.

Posted by James Gary | May 16, 2007 10:11 AM

What this debate moment underlined was that "Rudy's appeal" is overwhelmingly based on 9/11 and the country's memory of him just after it. It's literally the only reason he's a viable candidate. Of course he's going to hammer the hell out of any opportunity to push that emotional button yet again.

Posted by live | May 16, 2007 10:20 AM

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams continues his concert of lies on this thread. Apparently, like the late and unlamented Joseph Goebbels, he thinks that if he just repeats his lies often enough and loud enough, people will come to believe them. For the information of interested perusers of this thread, Mr. Bin Laden made it quite clear, prior to the incidents of 9/11, why he hates the US. It's because there were US (read Christian) troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the two mos sacred cities in the Islamic world, Medina and Mecca, which he considers to be sacrilege. His hatred of the US had nothing whatever to do with bombing Iraq, Israel and the Palestinians, or Lebanon. In fact, up until 9/11, one never heard boo from Mr. Bin Laden relative to Israel and the Palestinians. In fact, it appears that he has yet to launch an attack against Israel, although there is evidence that Al Queda is attempting to infiltrate the Gaza strip with intent of setting up a terrorist base there. Apparently, their presence is unwelcome by both Hamas and Fatah, who have rightly concluded that Al Queda is far more interested in attacking targets in Europe and America then in attacking targets in Israel.

Posted by SLC | May 16, 2007 10:39 AM

Don Williams doesn't have an awful lot of credibility with me for some reason, yet SLC consistently manages to lose the arguments by comparing him to Goebbels. Amazing how people think they can win a debate by discrediting themselves.

Posted by Steve | May 16, 2007 10:44 AM

In fact, up until 9/11, one never heard boo from Mr. Bin Laden relative to Israel and the Palestinians.

Bin Ladin's first political activity was trying to organize a boycott of Israeli and American made goods in response to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. All of Bin Ladin's speechs are a matter of public record, but SLC won't be bothered to read them because it's way easier to find out from the usual suspects what you want to hear.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 16, 2007 11:29 AM

Re SLC's comment "His [Bin Laden] hatred of the US had nothing whatever to do with bombing Iraq, Israel and the Palestinians, or Lebanon. In fact, up until 9/11, one never heard boo from Mr. Bin Laden relative to Israel and the Palestinians"
---------

1) This, of course , if false. In his 1998 fatwa, Bin Laden explicitly cited US support for Israeli killing of Muslim Palestinians and US killing of the Iraqi people as two of the three reasons for war. See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html .

2) The CIA officer in charge of hunting Bin Laden, Michael Scheuer, acknowledged in his book "Imperial Hubris" that the above were strong motivations for Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. He noted the ways in which US political and media elites have misled the American people.

3)If my posts are sometimes long, it is because I have to refute so much made-up bullshit with facts and citations to references.

That's because I think a political discussion should be based upon objective truth -- as opposed to a group therapy session in which inmates of a mental asylum describe the rich,false inner worlds they've constructed with the help of Sunday morning talk shows , the New York Times, and other AIPAC propagandists.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 11:44 AM

Ron Paul made a kind of "blowback" argument that America's aggressive global military posture is part of the problem of global terrorism, rather than part of the solution.

This is very generous to Ron Paul, who actually suggested that the coalitions enforcement of the no-fly zone in Iraq was a cause of the 9-11 attacks. It wasn't; it's ridiculuous to assert it was; and Rudy made good with the softball. Paul's other example of blowback (we supported the Shah in the 50s, resulting in the hostage crisis in the late 70s) was also bizarre. There's not the kind of causal links to these events that Paul appears to believe in.

It is worth debating blowback, in the sense of making a cost-benefit analysis regarding whether given action X is worth the possibility of foreseeable cost Y. But Paul wasn't doing that; he was making causal claims that were ridiculous -- to Rudy's enormous benefit.

Posted by von | May 16, 2007 11:47 AM

Its worth debating blowback.

Its also worth stating that most Republicans either don't understand the concept or refuse to acknowledge the validity of the concept. They think doing so amounts to appeasement.

They are idiots.

Posted by Jim W | May 16, 2007 11:54 AM

I'll repeat my comment from an earlier post:

Why don't SLC and Don Williams sign up for TNR Online, start posting their rants at The Spine, and leave the rest of us out of this?

Posted by Ben | May 16, 2007 11:55 AM

This is very generous to Ron Paul, who actually suggested that the coalitions enforcement of the no-fly zone in Iraq was a cause of the 9-11 attacks. It wasn't; it's ridiculuous to assert it was; and Rudy made good with the softball.

Von, unless you were one of the planners of the 9-11 attacks, I'm not sure you get to speak with such certainty as to the causes of 9-11. While I believe in paying attention to what al-Qaeda says, I don't think we're under any obligation to take them at their word. And I think it's fair to contend that our overall entanglement in the Middle East (including historical events in Iran and Iraq) is a root cause of al-Qaeda's hostility, as opposed to just the fact that we put troops in Saudi Arabia.

I don't think we can afford isolationism with respect to the Middle East, but we at least need to try and be honest about the costs and benefits of our policy. The incontestable fact is, we treat the countries and players in this region like a bunch of pawns, because we can, and some people are inevitably going to resent that. The question is whether the result is a net positive.

Posted by Steve | May 16, 2007 12:16 PM

What a weird thread. Don Williams offers a perfectly rational post supported by, as far as I can see, what the informed observer knows. This is followed by a series of literally ad hominem attacks that are perfectly free of any content other than a personal attack on Don Williams.

Of course this kind of thing happens in many parts of life, but who is this "rest of us" Ben refers to? From which vantage point does it seem like TNR is the logical home for the Don Williams comment I read?

Or perhaps more to the point, if there's something Williams said in his comment you consider to be wrong, why not explain what that is? I'll be interested to see if anyone does.

Posted by serial catowner | May 16, 2007 12:21 PM

Re von's comment "Paul's other example of blowback (we supported the Shah in the 50s, resulting in the hostage crisis in the late 70s) was also bizarre. There's not the kind of causal links to these events that Paul appears to believe in."

--------
We didn't "support the Shah" in the 1950s -- we OVERTHREW the lawfully elected government of Iran and installed the Shah on the throne via a CIA led coup.

The CIA officer who led the coup, Kermit Roosevelt, described it in his 1979 book "Countercoup". Kermit's book was pulled off the shelves on the day of publication for revision because he noted that the coup was suggested by the British Anglo-Iranian oil company (now BP) due to Iraq PM Mossadagh's threat to nationalize the Iranian oil wells. (I have a copy of the initial edition of the book)

The US government supported the Shah for the next 25 years as Houston extracted Iraqi oil and the Shah's Savak police tortured and killed any opposition.

Arguably, the hostage-taking in 1979 was to deter the US government from mounting CIA ops to install another Shah.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 12:22 PM

Don Williams offers a perfectly rational post supported by, as far as I can see, what the informed observer knows

Are you refering to his three causes of 9/11 (US bombing of Iraqi water plants, US support of Muslim tyranies, US support for Israel) or his constant references to the AIPAC and The Big Lie?

Of course this kind of thing happens in many parts of life, but who is this "rest of us" Ben refers to?

Those who can manage to make comments that don't seem spittle-flecked. There's a place for such comments, and it's called The Spine.

Posted by Ben | May 16, 2007 12:28 PM

Re Ben's comments about my "constant references to the AIPAC and The Big Lie?"
-------
President Bush told us that Sept 11 occurred "because they hate our freedom".

What do you call that -- the truth?

President Bush and Dick Cheney told us that Saddam had WMDs, was developing nukes, and was
in league with Al Qaeda.

What do you call that -- the truth?

Harvard historian Ernest May admitted in a TNR that the 911 Commission refused to address the causes of the Sept 11 attack because it was too politically explosive.

So what do you call the 911 Commission Report -- the truth?

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 12:47 PM

I'll also repeat a comment I made on an earlier thread that the commenters here seem to have gotten a little nuttier since the Atlantic move.

Posted by Ben | May 16, 2007 12:51 PM

Re von's comment "This is very generous to Ron Paul, who actually suggested that the coalitions enforcement of the no-fly zone in Iraq was a cause of the 9-11 attacks. It wasn't; it's ridiculuous to assert it was; and Rudy made good with the softball "
---------
1) I don't know about the no-fly zone, but US sanctions on Iraq -- and the hundreds of thousands of children that died as a result -- were cited by Bin Laden in 1997 as a cause for war.

Look, for example, at Bin Laden's interview with Peter Arnett at http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_cnn.htm .

An excerpt:
"[Bin Laden] Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims.

A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them.

So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians.

This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars "

2) Madeleine Albright was asked about the terrible deaths levied on the Iraqi people by the US sanctions.

An excerpt from the interview with Leslie Stahl:
-----------
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

3) Ron Paul had a valid question --and Rudi Giulani, the other Republican candidates, and the news media present KNEW that.

But they all colluded in deceiving the American people by making it look as if Ron Paul was deranged -- was suggesting that the Sept 2001 attack was caused by the US 2003 invasion of of Iraq.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 1:09 PM

Well, Ben seems to be spitting out his comments here, which can hardly be regarded as an answer when they're ended with a question mark, so I'll have to ask Ben- do you think our support of mideastern dictatorships was not an important element, or 'cause', if you will, of the events including 9/11?

Posted by serial catowner | May 16, 2007 1:46 PM

"Did he *really* say that, or is it a typo or a misquote? Because as I recall, we didn't attack Iraq until *after* 9/11."

We had been bombing Iraq periodically over decade between the first Gulf War and 9/11 -- Ron Paul had referred specifically to this in a previous comment. That was the context for Rudy's response.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2007 1:59 PM

Matt's right that this was the big story. TV news did much better here than the NYT.

By "better" I meant reporting on the poitics of it, of course... not the substance.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 16, 2007 3:06 PM

Did Matt mention elsewhere Mike Huckabee's shot at John Edwards last night? That got a hearty laugh.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2007 3:18 PM

Funny thing is that if Huckabee had made that shot against Giuliani, not Edwards, it would have been more accurate.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2007 3:46 PM

Don Williams is the only one who's introducing new facts into the debate, the others are content with vilifying Don Williams.

It is no doubt true that there is something messed up about the Muslim world such that they would be violent even without the various motivations we have given them. But those motivations don't, like, help the situation. And the violence might not be directed at us, in fact probably would not be, without that motivation.

It's also useful to recall that over the past century the West has directed much more violence toward the Middle East than the Middle East has directed back.

Posted by mq | May 16, 2007 3:55 PM

"I'll also repeat a comment I made on an earlier thread that the commenters here seem to have gotten a little nuttier since the Atlantic move."

Meh.

There have always been cranks like Don Williams around. It's just part of life in the blogosphere.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 3:59 PM

There have always been cranks like Don Williams around. It's just part of life in the blogosphere.

Yes, but they never seemed to swing by this part of the blogosphere quite so often. I used to have to go to Atrios for my normal dose of nutty comments.

Posted by Ben | May 16, 2007 4:04 PM

That got a hearty laugh.

Not a surprising reaction from that moronic crowd.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | May 16, 2007 4:07 PM

"Yes, but they never seemed to swing by this part of the blogosphere quite so often. I used to have to go to Atrios for my normal dose of nutty comments."

Again, there have always been nutty commenters here.

Interestingly, I've found you only need a minority of commenters with a brain to maintain good threads.

While a single commenter who is inflammatory or verbose enough can certainly derail a thread, in general, you only need about 25% sane commenters to generate a good discussion.

The Yglesias threads are good because there tends to be a core of sane folks hanging around.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 4:09 PM

There have always been cranks like Don Williams around. It's just part of life in the blogosphere .

Who is Don Williams why might someone consider him a crank? Seriously never heard of him.

Posted by Chris B | May 16, 2007 4:18 PM

Yeah, I really don't get this piling on Don Williams. Just deal with the content of his comments. The obsessive ad hominem just makes you guys look neurotic. If he's as nutty and out-to-lunch as claimed by some on this thread, it should be easy to dismantle his arguments, but I don't see anyone seriously contesting the content of his comments.

Posted by Warren | May 16, 2007 5:03 PM

"Just deal with the content of his comments."

If someone responds to a post on education policy by repeatedly detailing how the Queen of England is behind the international cocaine trade, it becomes difficult to just deal with the content of the comments without mentioning the essential crankiness of the commenter.

Williams is verbose and has extreme difficultly remaining on topic. It's worth noting when someone thinks a post on Giuliani merits long harangues on their personal hobby horses.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 5:12 PM

Re Petey's comments:
1) We have lost 6000 citizens, Several $Trillions in wealth (much of it taken from the Trust Funds for Social Security/Medicare), and several civil rights -- all due to a needless conflict based on lie after lie from the Bush Administration.

I don't see that as my "personal hobby horse" -- I see it as a concern for all of us.

2) Last night, Ron Paul tried to break this bleeding cycle -- tried to introduce some truth -- and Rudi Giuliani cut him off in a deceitful and underhanded fashion. Giuliani is the current front runner in the Republican campaign -- and he showed last night that he intends to maintain the endless war of Bush /Cheney in the decade to come.

I don't see that as my "personal hobby horse" -- I see it as a concern for all of us. And I think I have "remained on topic" in presenting the facts showing Giuliani's deceit.

3) But I can certainly understand Petey's tactics. If you are ignorant, then you certainly don't want to argue on the basis of facts -- you don't know any. So you want to issue vague, patronizing slurs.

If you are not very bright, then you don't want to engage in reasoned discourse -- so you evade it by posing as being above such grubby matters. You want to be a poseur. Maybe throw in a few irrelevent metaphors about the Queen of England as a distraction.

If you are small person, then you don't want to discuss national issues. You want to make soft bon mots re trival matters.

And If ,perchance, you are a very small part of the Washington web of corruption , then you certainly don't want that corruption discussed publicly.

4) Fortunately, not even FOX NEWS viewers are so low. Fox's poll of its viewers show that 29% think Ron Paul won last night's debate -- whereas only 19% favor Rudi Giuliani. See
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 5:53 PM

"We have lost 6000 citizens, Several $Trillions in wealth (much of it taken from the Trust Funds for Social Security/Medicare), and several civil rights -- all due to a needless conflict based on lie after lie from the Bush Administration.

I don't see that as my "personal hobby horse" -- I see it as a concern for all of us."

Sure. And you see your personal take on this concern for all of us as so paramount that you think a thousand words on it is relevant to discussions of farm subsidies.

That's what makes you a crank.

Cheers.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 6:05 PM

Or to put it another way:

I think almost every question about the future of the Democratic Party has the answer of John Edwards. That makes me a bit of a crank on the topic.

But at least I try to keep my cranky comments pithy.

When commenters with no axe to grind start saying...

Why can I always tell, when I start reading a comment, when it's going to say "Don Williams" at the end?

...then as Jeff Foxworthy never said, you might be a crank.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 6:19 PM

And you make many posts here every day. And the value-added of your "personal takes" is?????

Just out of curiosity, could you look over the 100 or so posts you've made in the past week and point to the one of most substance?

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 6:23 PM

"Just out of curiosity, could you look over the 100 or so posts you've made in the past week and point to the one of most substance?"

I'll go with this one.

Original analysis along with trenchant commentary.

Posted by Petey | May 16, 2007 6:29 PM

"Original analysis along with trenchant commentary"

You left out "earth-shaking significance".

Although come to think of it, Richard Perle does sound like a rural basketball coach who has 1 minute on the clock and is 2 points behind:

"This is total war….If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war…our children will sing songs about us years from now."

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 6:50 PM

So, to sum up what I'm seeing, Matt posted on Giuliano's reaction to a "sort of blowback" type of comment, and Don Williams made a comment about the basis for the 'blowback' idea.

Following, a number of ad hominem comments were made about Don Williams, but nobody offered any serious disputation of the facts and ideas he put forth.

Well, to tell the truth, Petey, I find it more boring to read a long series of 'pithy' ad hominem comments than I do to read one long comment that offers some facts and ideas.

But maybe that's just me.

Posted by serial catowner | May 16, 2007 7:02 PM

Actually, Petey has given me a very good idea on how to deal with Neocons like Richard Perle: We make all of them into K12 PhysEd coaches.

In Muslim school districts.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 7:16 PM

In the spirit of blog commenter self-centeredness I announce my sort-of acknoweledgment of the importance of blowback.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | May 16, 2007 8:28 PM

In the spirit of blog commenter self-centeredness, I announce my sort-of acknoweledgment of the importance of blowback.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | May 16, 2007 8:28 PM

Re: If there were a national referendum tomorrow on whether America should be a global empire or a continental republic, I fear people would choose the former.

I rather disagree there. Most of these nationalists, irrational or otherwise, don't want America to have an empire at all. They're actually neo-isolationists who think America should've have kicked some serious butt after 9-11, but then retired to the homeland again without the entangling foreign involvements. That's why support has fallen for the Iraq War. Wasting Saddam was fine with these folks, they don't think we should have stuck around aftrewards though. (For a very good and very blunt exponent of the view see NRO's John Derbyshire). Also, I do wonder to what extent thw economic nationalism that is wrapped up with this sort of nationalism may finally start demanding action too. So far the GOP has resisted, indeed, silenced that sort of sentiment. But the dam has started to break on the immigration issue, and it may well break on free trade as well. It would not surprise me at all to see the GOP evolve into a thoroughly nationalist party, one that even Lou Dobbs could agree with.

Re: The Three reasons for Sept 11 were:

America's action in Iraq and nothing to do with 9-11: Bin Laden could not have cared less about Saddam Hussein's travails. Please don't risk reinflating that fetid old flop about Saddam leaguing with Al Qaida! Bin Laden told us exactly why he would attack us. Our support for Israel has something to do with it, but the big, big reason, the sine qua non in fact, was our infidel presence on the holy soil (er, sand) of Saudi Arabia.

Posted by JonF | May 16, 2007 8:46 PM

Catowner, I'll field your comment, since you had a problem with some of my comments upstream.

Look at Don William's first comment on the thread, the one that unleashed so many ad hominems, as you put it. Quite simply, it is the rant of a man convinced of his conclusions, someone with whom it would be extremely hard to have a conversation because of his excitability and self-rightousness. It features facts and ideas in the same way that dog crap features dog food. Many commenters here find it easier to ignore such people, or perhaps dismiss them with a pithy comment, because the prospect of a back-and-forth seems utterly exhausting.

Don Williams may have inadvertantly raised some sailient points, perhaps even about the original topic of the thread. It's just not worth the time to sift through his feverish comments to engage with what he's saying.

Posted by Ben | May 16, 2007 8:48 PM

Bin Laden could not have cared less about Saddam Hussein's travails.

Missing the point. The suffering of the Iraqi people, from bombings and sanctions, was an item on OBL's grievance list.

Posted by David Tomlin | May 16, 2007 9:15 PM

Re "The suffering of the Iraqi people, from bombings and sanctions, was an item on OBL's grievance list"
------
Even more importantly -- was a major justifiable grievance of the Islamic world. Something Bin Laden could exploit for support and recruitment.

Hence, one reason why Bin Laden is still walking around free almost 6 years after Sept 11 -- whereas someone dropped a dime on Saddam Hussein within weeks.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 9:31 PM

Re JonF's comment "Bin Laden told us exactly why he would attack us. Our support for Israel has something to do with it, but the big, big reason, the sine qua non in fact, was our infidel presence on the holy soil (er, sand) of Saudi Arabia. "
----------
1) Not quite -- that was PART of one reason. A deliberate distortion of the grievance by the Neocons.

Look again at the Peter Arnett interview of Bin Laden in 1997. Bin Laden said that a withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia would not be enough to prevent jihad -- rather, the US government must halt aggression throughout the Islamic world -- as well as support for Israeli attacks in Lebanon and Palestine. See http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_cnn.htm

2) And the complaint against US forces within Saudi Arabia was not just a religious complaint against the presence of infidels in a holy land.

Rather, Bin Laden rails against the US using the House of Saud as a puppet that allows them to pump out huge quantities of oil at low prices by flooding the market. Bin Laden is not adverse to selling oil to the US --but he thinks it would be at a fair market price and the extraction of oil should be less rapid and spread out over a longer time.

3) Note , however, that Bin Laden also rails against the Saudi royal family because it does not allow enforcement of what Bin Laden considers Islamic law. In my opinion, Bin Laden's religious fundamentalism and desire for theocracy would alienate him from at least some Muslims if the Islamic world was not so enraged by the aggression of the US government.

4) What the US government does not mention is the secret, covert operations by which it props up the Saudi kleptocracy. The Saudi people are kept under control by the Saudi National Guard -- which perhaps should be called the Saudi Gestapo.

The Saudi "National Guard" has long been trained by a US defense contractor called Vinell Inc. Vinell --currently a subsidary of defense giant Northrup Grumman -- has been in Saudi Arabia since the 1970s and is basically a pack of mercanaries with ties to US intelligence and the Pentagon who help prop up the House of Saud.

Vinell has been bombed several times by Al Qaeda and other Saudi Insurgents. A look at Amnesty International's report on the horrible state of human rights in Saudi Arabia might suggest why.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 10:24 PM

For more info on Vinnell, see
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0513-06.htm
and http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0514-06.htm

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 10:28 PM

PS Anyone know why the US Commerce Department approves so many shipments of electroshock batons to Saudi Arabia. I didn't think there were that many cows in that country. See
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm#political

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 10:32 PM

For 500 years Baghdad was the seat of the Islamic Caliphate, so that also plays a role in why the sanctions and periodic bombings of Iraq were on Osama's list of grievances. Though that does beg a question: Why isn't Al Queda concerned about the tens of thousands of Iraqis it has murdered over the last few years?

I think the Al Queda innovation of Muslim-on-Muslim suicide bombings is going to leave a lasting impact on the region.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2007 11:10 PM

Re "Why isn't Al Queda concerned about the tens of thousands of Iraqis it has murdered over the last few years?"
-----
Valid point.

My understanding is that Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization -- and hence considers Shites to be heretics.

There are even religious factions within Sunnis, although I'm not expert.

Which partially explains why the Islamic world has been greatly fractured for the past few centuries -- until the US government gave it strong incentives to unite.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2007 11:46 PM

Don Williams

My understanding is that Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization -- and hence considers Shites to be heretics.

I think most Sunnis regard Shiites as theologically wrong but nonetheless Muslims. Historically Muslims haven't been as fussy as Christians about minor points of doctrine. Thus the key concept is not 'heretic' but 'apostate' (takfir).

I don't know that Al Qaeda has any official position on Shiites. I've read a few of Bin Ladens' messages, and in them he never mentions Shiites one way or another. Some lower-level Al Qaeda leaders have pushed the 'Shiites are apostates' line, especially in Iraq.

Posted by David Tomlin | May 17, 2007 12:26 AM

Don Williams would have to say something very crazy indeed to approach Petey's deluded monomania about the greatness of John Edwards. Of course, that's just mildly amusing nuttiness, like thinking you are Napoleon. What is more concerning is the moral insanity of American supremacism, which Petey represents so nicely along with the absurd view that the American middle class is oppressed.

Posted by Pithlord | May 17, 2007 12:06 PM

raiozmq tcsnbkhu hklgawcbf vghyu recmav rfgepd fbmuq

Posted by qfrcvxgln vshrdm | June 11, 2007 4:09 PM

iburol ehtnjr youq tumkyar jnzphwudg dlticqueb gefr http://www.rldqiae.vxclgw.com

Posted by clsphj vhuj | June 11, 2007 4:10 PM