« Savor It | Main | Charisma »

On Bed-Wetting

27 Sep 2007 03:03 pm

Watch as Richard Just expends a staggering number of words on not getting the difference between liberal opposition to criticizing Iran's record on human rights (fine by me) and liberal opposition to freaking out at the idea of Mahmoud Ahmadenijad being physically present in the United States (not at all fine) or liberal opposition to persistent efforts by the hawkish right in the United States to wildly overstate Ahmadenijad's role in the Iranian government (also not fine).

The bed-wetters aren't people who criticize the Iranian government. The bed-wetters are the hysterics who seem to think that the basic acts of diplomacy are a clear and present danger to the United States. Meanwhile, despite Just's best efforts to portray the recent outburst of Ahmedenijad-related hysteria as driven by human rights concerns, the freak-out movement wasn't driven by human rights groups, it was driven by the warmongering elements of the press -- The New York Sun and The New York Post plus the magazines and radio and television shows. The Human Rights Watch Iran page is dominated by actual human rights issues in Iran, not by random screechings about Ahmadenijad's sightseeing schedule.

Meanwhile, one of the things you need to do in journalism is come up with novel terms for phenomena and groups of people. For example, there's a set of people, including Just, who say they don't think we should start a war with Iran but who only seem to comment on Iran-related issues when they want to criticize opponents of going to war with Iran. They're against starting a war, but never raise a peep against the warmonger chorus, but do speak up to police the bounds of acceptable opposition to the warmongers. Call them the Something Somethings. But I need a better word.

Share This

Comments (53)

The Oxymorons, or just drop the first 3 letters.

"Assholes"?

The Oxymorons, or just drop the first 3 letters.

Closet jingos?

Well the obvious word is "Enablers".

However, I think what's really going along with all this is that the harsh words of the anti-warmonger critics are hurting their delicate precious feelings, and these people in the middle don't like that their honorable, pure-hearted, friends are being called..well..warmongers.

The whole Iraqi war policy is lost in the mire of making sure that the warmongers don't get their feelings hurt. And that says it all I think.


warry hole (war + glory hole) ..

They don't actually push the the war through the hole. But they sit there tap-tap-tapping on the bathroom floor in solicitation, which they can then deny.

They're the Very Serious People and have been since 2002

Peace Feinters

hawk whisperers.

anti-anti-war

Krauthammer's Dingleberries?

Bed-Wetter's Mommies. They aren't bed-wetters themselves but have to protect their poor little bed-wetters from getting called nasty names.

Useful Idiots?

No, that's not quite right. Useful Assholes is closer, but not descriptive enough.

How about Useful Douchebags?

hawk hens.
wingnut pacifiers.
quislings.

Yeah, the people so interested in 'human rights' were really concerned when Bush walked among the flowers holding hands with the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

I think we need to incorporate the world 'hawk' in some way. But it can't be something like Kevin Drum's coinage of "Chaos Hawk", which sounds mildly badass in a comic-book / magic card sort of way.

I read that Just piece this morning and couldn't believe my eyes, the pure obtuseness of it.

Then again, just another TNR staffer falling on his sword and looking like a shitheel to cover for Peretz's ravings, which have been, like, The Corner-level stupid and primitive.

It's possible Atrios has trademarked the term, but really, you should just call them the wanker chorus or some such.

Too bad the acronym's already taken because you could also call them Doves In Name Only.

How about baby killing monsters?

If it were up to me, people like Just would be put in a small cell and forced to watch images of dead, maimed and dying Iraqi children 24/7. And be forced to (literally) bathe int heir blood, as they already do figuratively.

They are, morally, even lower than the people they enable.

Along the same lines as anti-choice and pro-abortion:

The Anti-Peace Movement.

Well, if a Chickenhawk Hawk is somebody who is tough on the chickenhawks, then people like Just are Chickenhawk Hawk Hawks.

As usual, we all, myself included, are being WAY too easy on these people. I'm not sure that the English language contains words to fully describe the justified contempt that I feel for these people. May they burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

1 vote for Vermicious Kinids. Though I kinda like the "hawk whisperers". Or how about sparrowhawks.


dangling cowloogies?

the jury seems to still be out on if Just is a bedwetter, but his employment status makes clear he has already earned an accurate moniker:

Minion to A Raving Bigot. and as a MARB I was always amused by Just's jumping on the "Michael Moore is dishonest" bandwagon. Do intellectuals get any more dishonest than when they work for Marty the Raving Bigot?

The term 'Decent Left' has taken hold in Britain for a particular subspecies of liberals-turned-neocons who develop an interest in countries' human rights abuses when it provides the opportunity to bash opponents of bombing said countries.

Perhaps 'Moral Opportunists'? The Moral Expedience Brigade? Though I think 'Bullshit Merchants' is good too.

We need a term that points to people who:
- are supposedly on our side, but
- won't actually participate and in fact
- bring members of our side down.

How about "Designated Deriders"?

Or "Debate Club Moralists"?

I agree the Warmongers act as if Ahmedenijad is a Saddam Hussein-like dictator of Iran. (Saddam committed genocide, started a war with Iran, annexed a member of the UN, Kuwait. Ahmedenijad has done none of those things. Plus his strange views on homosexuality and Israel aren't unusual in the Middle East, even amongst our "allies.") Obviously the right-wing hard guys are wrong.

But he was hand-picked by Iran's Supreme Leader and the unelected mullahs. Anti-war folk act as if this isn't the case, as if he's, like the head of dept of Transportation or something.

Back in the 50s wasn't there the John Birch society? Wasn't there right-wing looneyness off the scale? Just not in officialdom, like Duncan Hunter?

I'm thinking something the along the lines of "One House Poxers".

Because it's not really just an Iran or a war issue. I've seen the same thing happen in other contexts. They've clearly picked a side, they're just denying it.

"Enablers" suggests "Iranablers", which is clunky but specific.

Just and his ilk are taking a cowardly position, so I'd nominate "Coward Caucus".

The Peace Police.
Policing the boundaries of what anti war groups can say. Founded by 76 senators in 2007.

It's about people who took too much to heart the maxim, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." Even when it's no longer a game -- when lives are at stake -- and when it matters very much whether we win the argument, these people focus on manners and decorum, and thereby risk losing everything they claim to care about.

They don't care about human rights, they just want a reason for war, any reason. The fancy term for a reason for war is "causus belli." And you need a noun at the end. Therefore:

"Any causus belligerents"

Okay, this doesn't really answer the question, but it is a good term, and accurately describes permahawks (that's not bad either) like McCain and Kristol. How about "unconscientious projectors?"

Back when Joe McCarthy was Mr. "anti-communist" that term really meant insane demagogue. So being a sane person made you anti-anti-communist, not pro-communist.

I think what Matt wants is just "the anti-anti-war crowd" or more specifically "anti-anti-war-with-Iran."

Well, I was gonna suggest some, but everybody else already did.

So: ditto.

However, STILL haven't heard you come right out and say you're against ever doing anything militarily against Iran over these issues, Matt.

A little explicit opinion - isn't that what you pundits are supposed to do?

Or just skirt around it so nobody can pin you down later as having been wrong?

Think, Matt - what would Natalie Portman say? (Leaving aside her Dershowitz brainwashing.)

Kausphiles?

Honestly "Krauthammer's Dingleberries" sounds right to me, however we could also go with

"Podhoretz Pustules"

or

"Shithead Babyfuckers."

New Republicrats.

"Jonah Luciannas"


But I really like "shithead babyfuckers".

Anti-hippites?

This really gets to one of the things that bother me about the wannabe Orwellians like Hitchens and Paul Berman. They don't care about things like civil wars in Sri Lanka and Colombia. They only talk about democracies in Africa to denounce them as insufficiently democratic, expecting that to happen overnight and yet expect the US military to be able to impose it in Iraq. They're too socially compromised to be honest about what role they play in the world.

Atrios and Kos have been calling them Liebercrats.

Silent Doves.

Re Amadinejad

Since Mr. Amadinejad brought up the subject of homosexuals, the attached link details the rampant homosexuality amongst his pals in the Palestinian Authority, including Mr. Arafat who apparently died of AIDS.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411500215&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Selective enablers? Good description, but could be more catchy.

Backstabbers? Catchy, but less descriptive.

Purposely dense? Descriptive but not specific.

How about Gizmoppers? In the sense that they are supposed to clean up some of the mess the bed-wetters make, right before the bed-wetters go ahead and make it again.

Dove Hunters

The bed-wetters are the hysterics who seem to think that the basic acts of diplomacy are a clear and present danger to the United States.

Lefties are fond of saying that if you believe you have a fine (military) hammer capable of of solving many problems, then every problem begins to look like a nail.

The converse is true, with those Lefties, Euroweenie lawyers, and liberal Jews that love process, lawyering, and endless talk - and see any problem as soluable by more process, lawyering, and more endless talk.

12 years and 17 UN Resolutions, in their eyes, were inadequate "dialogue". And we didn't have France, Russia, China or Gaboon' witch doctor, for that matter. So the Left said we had to do more dialogue to get the absolute moral authority of the US, what we had and only 12 years of "meaningful dialogue" was not enough.
Congress needed more time to debate. And all reservations dealt with before any military use of force was "needed in the absolute last case with no remaining options to talk left".

Which is fine, as long as the Left will stick with that. Like when we didn't talk enough, get full UN consensus on Rwanda, get the perfect intelligence, get the complete leisurely Congressional debate - to justify going in.

Then events in Rwanda took care of themselves! No need to intervene anymore.

Now we have Darfur with only 4 years of meaningful dialogue conducted, and clearly more years are needed to slowly build consensus and get the moral force of the UN. Obtain buy-in, because the alternative is what Lefties call "Lawless intervention". Maybe another 12 years are needed.

Then maybe events wilol take care of themselves and a decade from now, the wisdom of just talking will be proven as no need to intervene in Darfur will be required. No Darfurans left....

SLC doesn't like gays. I guess he prefers Israeli politicians who rape their secretaries...

Typical.

And some people think I'm a troll...

As for Darfur, who do you know there, Chris?

I personally don't care, as a Transhumanist, whether any of them are left in X years. As far as I know, Darfur is not producing any critical technology I need.

Genocides have occurred for thousands of years, many of them in the last century. The US doesn't have to intervene in all of them - or even any of them unless US assets are directly threatened - which is almost never almost by definition - since the places where genocides occur are so benighted even the US doesn't want to rob them of their natural resources.

Nobody has ANY "moral obligation" to intervene in anything. If they choose to do so, they'd best have a reason - even if the reason is just "I felt like it." As long as you're willing to accept the consequences, that's fine - on an individual level. But on a national level, when you're talking about plowing somebody else into harm's way, and spending US taxpayer money, you'd best have a clear end game in mind which actually has a chance in hell of succeeding. Otherwise it's just bullshit moralizing - or a cover for ulterior motives having nothing to do with "morality", i.e. resource theft.

"Moralists" who think morality has to control everybody's actions at all times are simply people who think THEIR morality should control OTHER people's actions all the time.

Darfur is not relevant to anything as far as I can see. The world isn't noticing because there isn't anything to notice except a bunch of monkeys killing each other - which is not news. It happens every few years on the African continent - and when it's over, nobody but the victims noticed or cared.

Email me when anything that happens in sub-Saharan Africa actually matters to the rest of the world.

Oh, yeah, there's oil there now, apparently. So it's a big deal when some group kills some other group.

Please... If you intend to steal the oil, just say so and do it. Don't cover it up with "humanitarian missions."

Concern Doves

Hack, the point I was making is that if Lefties, Euroweenie lawyers seek their higher standard of thorough, near-endless dialogue and debate, waiting until intelligence is perfect, and getting complete UN consensus - great for them.

Just as long as they recognize that strategy of legalistic pacifism and talking with no deadlines or end point dooms their pet causes like Darfur.

Want something done? They are stuck in a game of "Mother, may I?" with China, Russia, NGOs lawyers, and the UN bureaucrats. Where they prove again and again, they are not serious about helping the US's security interests, only handicapping them.

Nice post, Matt.

Others have alluded to this, but progressive media and all of us really need to call out this faux-liberal chorus who (sort of) pretend to be anti-war yet spend all their time attacking those of us who might express a concilitary or diplomatic note toward Iran. I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket is a buffoon, but the sort of hysteria and intellectual insecurity that spews out of our Kommentariat with every move or utterance this guy makes is just pathetic. Bottom line: Iran presents no substantive threat to us. So, what's all the hub-bub about if not to lay the justificatory groundwork for another war. The sort of intellectual buffoonery that passes for serious discourse in our country--it's just sad.

Ford is upset that people want diplomacy. They want "justification" to go to war.

Whereas Ford wants to just go in there and bomb 'em NOW! No waiting! No planning! No discussion! And certainly NO justification!

Can't have anybody demanding "justification" for America to go to war! That's an affront to the American Empire! NOBODY asks an EMPIRE for "justification"! An EMPIRE has the right to attack anybody, anytime, anywhere, for any reason! It's the basic RIGHT of Empire! Might makes right!

And then nitwits like this think anarchists believe in "chaos"...

SLC thinks I want Israel to be nuked. No, I just think Israel WILL be nuked - not the same thing.

However, I DO think Washington, D.C. SHOULD be nuked - by somebody. Today, please.

Anything to get rid of the sort of clowns who represent Ford in Washington...

Sorry, Matt, move out of town if you don't like it.

But he was hand-picked by Iran's Supreme Leader and the unelected mullahs

Is that actually true? He was obviously accepted by them as a legitimate candidate (as they also accepted some reformists, iirc), but it was my impression that Rafsanjani was the establishment candidate for president, and that Ahmadinejad largely one by virtue of his wacky populism.

I don't see why we should see him as any more of a hand-picked tool of the mullahs than Khatami (who, obviously, the crazies are still trying to convince us was a hand-picked tool of the mullahs)

passive aggressors


Comments closed October 11, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.