It's me and Ross Douthat, talking about Heads in the Sand:
There will be a sequel about Grand New Party as that book's release date grows near.
« Dear Washington, DC | Main | The Battle Continues »
HITS Web Video
05 May 2008 05:22 pm
Comments (23)
no one cares about your silly book
I too loved the Beam bottle. Good stuff, but try to interrupt each other a wee bit less...
I love the part where Douthat basically says "but if all the stuff the Bush Adminstration claimed about Iraq before the war had turned out to be true then everything would be fine, so Liberal Internationalsim doesn't work." Um, Ross, the reason we didn't have international backing for this adventure was precisely because EVERYBODY ELSE KNEW WE WERE WRONG FROM THE GETGO. This is a case where the Liberal Internationalist perspective was demonstrably correct. Positing an alternate world where the basic facts of the case were fundamentally different but where the international players were conveniently too stupid to realize it even though back in the real world they WERE smart enough to accurately assess the facts is pretty insulting.
Besides, the whole point of going to war with Iraq and the manner in which we did it was to deliberately undermine international institutions and establish a precedent for hegemony by, to use Jonah Goldberg's favorite description, throwining some little country against the wall to show the world we mean business. Pretending that there was a Liberal Internationalist version of this scenario that also would have failed is absurd--Liberal internationalism doesn't undertake imperial wars.
"try to interrupt each other a wee bit less.."
That's what Matt DOES in debates - watch any of "The Table" videos. Megan and Ross can't get a word in edgewise.
"Liberal internationalism doesn't undertake imperial wars."
Maybe your version doesn't. Ask Matt about Iran.
Oh, wait, Matt can't talk about Iran. Never mind.
I am a cresting wave at Ka'anapali
I am the cliffs of Nanga Parbat
I am Cumulonimbus
I am Thunder.
I am Ross Douthat's Hair
"Maybe your version doesn't. Ask Matt about Iran.
Oh, wait, Matt can't talk about Iran. Never mind."
If you have an actual point here I'd be curious to hear it. Are you suggesting that Matt wants to wage imperial war with Iran? I don't think anything that can reasonably be called "Liberal Internationalism" can include imperialistic war, and I really don't follow what you're trying to say.
Glad to see it's Jim Beam and not some damn elitist bourbon like Woodford Reserve or Booker's or Blanton's or Black Maple Hill or Van Winkle or ...
hm, I'm getting thirsty.
Matthew looks a bit red and shiney. Did you bike to work the day of filming?
Not to be insulting, but to be so...Is this under-the-jawline beard the new "look" for our up-and-coming intellectuals?
God, it's unattractive.
I assume Matt got to choose the theme music?
You wrote a book?
I love the shots of Ross not saying anything, just blinking, as Matt goes on and on. He's surely thinking "This Yglesias guy is off his fucking rocker, but since we both work for the same joint I'll try to be nice."
Matt, I'm loving the book, but completely off topic: you could look much better. Shave the beard, buzz your hair, and get smaller, metal glasses and you'll be on the Colbert report in no time.
Sangfroid, that was beautiful.
Shoulda gone with Dead Sound.
Galen, sorry to be late responding, I had to go to a client site.
Here's the deal.
I have asked Matt two simple questions (Dan Kervick asked the equivalent in three):
1) Do you believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program - NOT a nuclear energy program, but a nuclear weapons program to develop and deploy nuclear weapons?
2) If Iran does IN FACT have such a program, do you believe that military action either unilaterally or under UN auspices is a feasible and reasonable approach to resolving the problem if "diplomacy" fails?
He has refused to answer these questions.
The reasons are obvious. He believes the answers are "yes" and "yes". For the record, I believe the proper answers are "no" to both.
You see, he used to support the Iraq war, allegedly because he threw over his own comprehension of the subject and relied on the "Big Dog Democrats" who he (allegedly) thought had seen the intelligence and that they thought it was true and correct.
That of course made him look like a fool later.
But he hasn't changed his spots. He STILL thinks that "non-proliferation" justifies war. But he can't actually come out and say that because he might end up looking stupid again.
So he talks AROUND the issues of "non-proliferation" and Iran in the vaguest of terms while refusing to answer two simple questions.
This makes him look ball less. I mean, if he wants to compete with Bill Kristol, who doesn't mind being wrong over and over again publicly and who is willing to make ever more wrong prognostications with a grin, you'd think Matt would grow some and take a public stand on Iran.
Obama has taken a (wrong) stand, saying "Iran is a threat" and demanding harsh sanctions as his "diplomacy" and saying just the other day that the US will defend Israel from any attack, nuclear or otherwise. Hillary has threatened to "obliterate" Iran after an (imaginary) nuclear attack on Israel - which can't happen because Iran has no nukes and no evident intention to acquire them.
But Matt, wannabe pundit, can't bring himself to make any commitment on the subject whatsoever. And this is obviously because he feels it would threaten his cover as a "liberal internationalist" and possibly hurt sales of his book.
It's hard to be a "liberal internationalist" when you still basically agree with Bush and the neocons and Israel about pre-emptive military attack on a country which is allegedly developing nukes based on nothing but flimsy accusations.
In other words, when it comes to Iran, Matt is a hypocrite.
Richard--
I just got in a little while ago myself. Don't know if you're still out there.
Two points. First, my memory is that Matt has been pretty consistent in arguing that the best way to deal with the Iran nuclear issue is through diplpmacy and that even if Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons traditional deterrance is probably the best course of action. As I recall Matt thinks (as I do) that rapproachment with Iran is both possible and desirable.
Second, my own point about Liberal Internationalsim not permitting imperial war holds regardless of whether my assessment of Matt's position is accurate and regardless of whether he's being a hypocrite or not. There are scenarios under which war with Iran would be permissible under the kind of Liberal Internationalist model that I support, ideally with true international backing, and even if unilateral the war would need to be based on clear and present danger (to be clear, even if Iran had a nuclear arsenal that alone wouldn't qualify) in which case war is justified under current internationalist doctrine. Iraq was _not_ about addressing a clear and present danger or even a long term threat, it was about imperialistically establishing hegemony in the Middle East. An acceptable war with Iran would be true self defence, not imperialism.
For the record, I'm not sure whether I think the Iranian nuclear program is for weapons or only for power, but I do believe that Ahmedinejad is eager to engage with us diplomatically and work toward rapproachment. I also think that it's concievable that at some point in the future war could be justified, but that we're a long way from that point and that if it becomes necessary it will be because we totally screwed up our handling of the situation. My impression has always been that Matt and I are of like mind on this, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Thanks for clarifying.
Liberal Media exposed! Yglesias advocates New World Order!
The problem about Matt, Galen, is that he talks "around" these issues. You get "the memory" that Matt has been consistent about this, but I don't see it. What I see is a deliberate refusal to engage the issue directly in any substantive way.
Matt refers to using diplomacy to deal with "non-proliferation" - never mentioning Iran. He has never said whether he thinks Iran has a weapons program, he merely hints at it by lumping Iran in with "proliferation" issues. He's never said anything that I know of about whether any military action against Iran would be prudent at any point - he merely criticizes McCain, for example, about being a war monger because of his "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" bit - but he never mentions that explicitly or references Iran explicitly in that criticism - it's usually about "100 years in Iraq", not Iran.
This can't be happenstance. I think Matt believes that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and that eventually it will be necessary to attack Iran militarily to get rid of it. He just can't admit this because it flies in the face of the "new, better, anti-Iraq war Matt" and would offend a lot of his readers.
It's like Josh Marshall at TPM can't admit he's a "crypto-Zionist" and supports Israel more than his readers do. It wouldn't go over well and maybe cut into Marshall's ad revenue if his readership went down. So instead, he snarks and bans people who criticize Israel.
Given that the upcoming war on Iran is probably the most dangerous mis-adventure Bush, Cheney and the neocons could do to this country short of attacking Russia or China, you'd think Matt would be motivated to take an anti-Iran-war stance publicly.
As John Connor said in an episode of "Terminator": "Yeah, you'd think..."
The fact that he hasn't stands by itself.
I'll add that your own position is clearly more nuanced than anything Matt has said. You think you and Matt are on the same wavelength. I don't think so.
Matt could easily resolve that question by making a "substantive post" on Iran.
He hasn't. That speaks for itself.
Not to mention that his "substantive posts" on Pakistan and Afghanistan in the recent past demonstrate a massive case of ignorance on the realities of those situations. So I don't expect such a post on Iran would be better.
the whiskey bottle is awesome, but it would be more awesome if you two drank a shot during the interview. And I do mean shot, because Jim Beam is only good for shooting and mixing.
Tell you what, book boy. Next interview you wear that goofy sport coat over t-shirt and drink that Jim Beam, and I promise I will buy your book.
P.S., youtube reference gets you points, not redeemable for legal tender.
The whole issue and discussion is irrelevant. 911 was an inside job designed to legitimize the invasion by the US of the middle east in order to secure petroleum sources as well as establish a military presence. All this useless discussion to try and legitimize that White House decision and effort is fairly ridiculous.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm a third of the way through, please tell me you stop for a moment and both of you do a shot of the Jim Beam behind Douthat on the bookshelf.
Posted by Andruw | May 5, 2008 6:02 PM