=== On a close reading of The Good Fight, allowing nothing else Beinart’s written to enter my head, I think he’s got this one basically right now, ===

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

sPh

Probably it was not so clearly made in my post above. Beinart can stomach the civilian deaths, the inhuman and inhumane conditions at Guantanamo, AbuGhraib, holding family members hostage, punishing whole regions for the acts against occupation by insurgents,the use of torture and justify it all with the more "important" fight to stop Islamic jihadism, which trumps every moral concern. My point is that even if he called for a new secret police, maybe calling it the Gestapo, the right will go further; he can NEVER bring the Democratic Party to the point it is indistinguishable from the right. The Republican's own this issue (to the extent that Americans are willing to stomach all of these excesses in the name of security and anti-terrorism). This last is NOT a given; people in this country do see through Bush. But the fight to make more people understand just how counterproductive the Bush/neocon/Dem-warhawk approach is, is continually undercut and undermined by Beinart and company (in fact, they reinforce the radical right's argument, since they join the bloodthirsty chorus and make the antiwar left the primary enemy).

We aren't fighting totalitarians. We are fighting utopians. Unfortunately, the jihadis, the neo-cons and the Beinarts are ALL utopians. They all believe their fantastic end be it American "greatness" or a suped up Islamic caliphate justify any means. Because their vision is a fantasy and far beyond their resources, power or wisdom to achieve, they will never construct it. They can only fight and fight again and fight once more. Their fights are always "good" because they serve the idealized but unachievable end.  They can destroy, but not being Gods, they cannot make their perfect world.

I am not sure why you think Scoop Jackson was a mediocre politician. The real irony is that Carter often lionized by some Democrats and certainly a weight Republicans make Democrats carry, beat Jackson on the Democratic right. Remember, Ted Kennedy challeged Carter on the Left. It is true that many neo-Cons were supporters of Jackson and feeling Carter was weak opposing communism became Republicans.

The failure to equate Communism with Nazism is the failure of the American far left. Gulags, preventing of opposition, torture all makes the communists look much like the Nazis. The unwillingness to call evil evil is one reason why Republicans control American politic and ony seem to lose when the elevate a real incompetent like Bush.

The theory of the Cold War was both to avoid a nuclear war and to contain the Soviet Union. Unfortunately not enough thought went into the idea of what would happen when and if the Soviet Union fell. Only the Republican Right seemed to believe that was likely to happen.

It is largely the American Left who are phony. From the comfort of America a rich country with the military might to stop any serious threat the Left pretends to be morally superior while asking for ideal solutions. Solutions which don't exist, which threaten liberty and which condemn millions of people to live under totilarianism which they themselves do not have live.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Wanna know where the beef is? It is right there - save your 16 bucks plus shipping

I think you have it excatly right bluebell.

Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.

<>You make a good argument about why the if/then proposition can't stand for history, Flavius.  If Beinart's history is that, it falls on its face without an argument.

Uhm, what do we call this commentary on Beinart?

The "soft on Beinart" post?

That's two in a row. Anybody see a trend here? Is Josh responding to nasty calls from Beinart that the TPM people "weren't nice to me"?

"As opposed to those who were too spooked by Bush, too vulnerable to worries about Democrats seeming soft, too distracted by the stupid few – like Michael Moore or perhaps some sub-faction of MoveOn.org – who criticized even the use of force against the Taliban."

There happen to be good reasons to criticize the invasion of Afghanistan - similar reasons to the criticism of the war in Iraq. First, there was no "there there." There were no WMDs in Iraq, and when we got to Afghanistan, we didn't get bin Laden - and still haven't - because he probably wasn't there, but in Pakistan - our nominal "ally". Second, the after effects are totally negative in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both are excellent reasons why the invasion of Afghanistan was a seriously bad idea.

So Michael Moore is "stupid"? Ahah, another pundit irritated by the fact that everybody knows Michael Moore's name - but not his!

Nevermind waiting 50 years....words are not adeqaute to convey how I look at you, now, after this:

....But how will the readers of history 50 years from now look at us? Will they say, “I hope I would have been one of those who stood really firmly against the evils of Salafism, while others were kind of soft on terror and use of force?” Or will they say, “I hope I would have been one of those who understood from the start that the Iraq war was a crime and a mistake, that ‘War On Terror’ could not be invoked as an endless excuse for whatever the president wanted to do, and that American leadership in the world would be seriously weakened by irresponsible use of our power. ” As opposed to those who were too spooked by Bush, too vulnerable to worries about Democrats seeming soft, too distracted by the stupid few – like Michael Moore or perhaps some sub-faction of MoveOn.org – who criticized even the use of force against the Taliban.....

[1] A new president, in 2001, appointed by the SCOTUS in a hotly contested election, where his own brother, governor or the state with the most voting controversy and the closest vote, was accused of interfering with an orderly recount, and was later exposed for his part in the coverup of a "sham" partisan, felon's "purge" list of registered voters.

[2] Many of this president's key appointments came from the member's list of PNAC, a group of hawk conservatives who openly stated that it would probably require a "new Pearl Harbor" type of incident to achieve the timely, considerable increases in defense spending that was a core goal of PNAC.

[3] With approval ratings below 50 percent, just 6-1/2 months into his term, the president took a 5 week vacation. It was later learned that he covered up the fact that, early in his vacation, he was briefed about specifics of the terror attacks that took place a month later and when the facts were reported, he tried to stop public disclosure of the briefing content. Three months after the 9/11 attacks, the president enjoyed an 87 percent job approval rating.

[4] This president came back from vacation to preside, just days later, over the period on his watch that the 9/11 attacks took place. He declared, just 5 days later:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html
September 16, 2001

Remarks by the President Upon Arrival
The South Lawn

(located in Bush's last quote on the page...)
....."Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never."

It took 32 months to expose the fact that the president had lied...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A9449-2004Apr13&notFound=true
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.....

[5] Less than a month after 9/11, the president ordered U.S. military attacks, and then an invasion and occupation if Afghanistan.
Here is a sample of the history and sentiment that stood in the way of such an attack, before
9/11"

Bin Laden comes home to roost
His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
By Michael Moran
MSNBC
NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998

....HINDSIGHT OR TUNNEL VISION
It should be pointed out that the evidence of bin Laden’s connection to these activities is mostly classified, though its hard to imagine the CIA rushing to take credit for a Frankenstein’s monster like this.

It is also worth acknowledging that it is easier now to oppose the CIA’s Afghan adventures than it was when Hatch and company made them in the mid-1980s. After all, in 1998 we now know that far larger elements than Afghanistan were corroding the communist party’s grip on power in Moscow.....
Mr. Schmitt, if I tried to number all of the reasons that I found your "too distracted by the stupid few...who criticized even the use of force against the Taliban" statement appalling, I would run out of numbers and space. On what basis did you buy the Bush administration's immediate release of the "fairy tale" that a "cave dwelling kidney patient" was the "patsy", fingered by the PNAC cabal at 1600 Penn. Ave., just minutes after the 9/11 attacks?

How 'bout this "gem" from the 9/11 Commission:

(Text. Version) http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf.
Origin of the Funds (Page 14)

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used
for the 9/11 attacks .....this claim is almost certainly wrong, because Bin Ladin was not personally financing al Qaeda during this time frame..... Ultimately the question of the
origin of the funds is of little practical significance.

You sir, have bought into an unsubstantiated wad of very disturbing propaganda, and your writing displays your blind acceptance of enough of it to enable your "conclusions".

Doesn't the skeptic in you, wonder how all east coast air defense systems failed to intercept on 9/11, how it was that "Patriot Act I" was already compiled, and on the shelf, ready for nearly unanimous congressional passage, why Bush first opposed an independent 9/11 Commission investigation, and then failed to create anything resembling an independent commission, and even then, refused to cooperate with commission he did appoint?

Dosen't the Bush "track record" since, give you pause....the lies and misstatements to justify war with Iraq, Powell's phoney Feb. 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N., that his aid of 16 years, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson described as "The lowest point in my life." ?

Are you at all curious why the 9/11 Commission and the Robb-Silberman Commission were specifically not authorized to investigate the Bush administration's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence info, or why the promised release of the "phase II" report by Sen. Pat Robertson's Senate Select Intelligence Committee, has been postponed since July 2004, and divided again recently, to further postpone results of the Bush administration's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence info?

I just wanted to give you a brief recap, Mr. Schmitt, of some of the details that you had to be uncurious about, to keep your place in an "ivory tower", while I'm relegated to being "on the fringe", because I have been persuaded to think the worst, of an administration that could make my impression that they are war criminals, guilty of conducting "aggressive war", and traitors, strongly suspected of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and the intended discrediting and then disbursement of the former covert "talent" and it's management, at CIA....they could make my outraged and highly negative impression of them, go away, if they had a defense to disclose, that would clear them of wrongdoing.

You facilitate them, Mr. Schmitt, by giving them a "pass" that is "win win", for you, and especially for them. You seem like a sharp, articulate man, Mr. Schmitt...so why have you "bought in" to enough of their propaganda to allow yourself to make the statment that I've quoted in the beginning of this post? I think that the answer is that you decided, years ago, that your "cred" would be strengthened if you questioned as little of what they've fed you, as you could get away with.

Consider that, by doing this, you've relegated yourself to a judgment by more curious, more skeptical, and better informed folks who you once shared many principles and ideals with, that you are an irrelevant, "sell out".

How do these folks, less accepting than you; with their informed, legitimate, relevant, questions, deserve your condescending contempt?
You take at least as much away from them, as the precious "credibility" that you worry they may usurp from you. You are "credible" to do exactly what, Mr. Schmitt? Is it to "rubber stamp" the dubious, BS tale that the Bush administration tries to pass off for "what happened on 9/11"?
Where are your "facts", what do you stand for?

It is of great concern to me that your mindset is all too typical of the folks who have the information and justification to oppose and challenge the legitimacy of every "effing" word uttered by members of the Bush administration, but can't or won't follow through on what the "record" of these thugs is telling us is the appropriate response, each and every time.

The "Jay Rockefellerization" of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, has spread to a much larger venue...it is on display for all to see, here, as well.

Your way of thinking, Mr. Schmitt, as, like Mr. Beinart, you try to remain safely distant from
"the stupid few – like Michael Moore or perhaps some sub-faction of MoveOn.org", may even achieve your goal of making others who think like you, "more electable". I see it, though, as just replacing one group who don't put importance on truth and justice, with another who are too concerned with attaining power to acknowledge that the "devil, is in the details". I don't want to live in a"Remember the Maine, world. I don't think living that way, bothers you so much, Mr. Schmitt.

But how will the readers of history 50 years from now look at us? Will they say, “I hope I would have been one of those who stood really firmly against the evils of Salafism, while others were kind of soft on terror and use of force?” Or will they say, “I hope I would have been one of those who understood from the start that the Iraq war was a crime and a mistake, that ‘War On Terror’ could not be invoked as an endless excuse for whatever the president wanted to do, and that American leadership in the world would be seriously weakened by irresponsible use of our power. ” As opposed to those who were too spooked by Bush, too vulnerable to worries about Democrats seeming soft, too distracted by the stupid few – like Michael Moore or perhaps some sub-faction of MoveOn.org – who criticized even the use of force against the Taliban.

In the end, what does it matter how the readers of history look at us? History is not the profound memoir of a world-comprehending sage; it's a rambling, dimly remembered romance of youth spilled out by a sentimental drunkard to a bunch of slack-jawed listeners. Those listeners are likely to be little less stupid than we are. The important thing is to work for some good, and do the right thing to the limited extent we are given to see what is right. But the right course doesn't always win you a merit badge by your descendants in posterity. You may even suffer disdain for it.

Most of the decent, anonymous individuals who labored to prevent catastrophes and wars are not remembered vividly, or even fondly, by posterity. History tends not to fuss about the things that didn't happen. Posterity prefers striking romantic heros - bold titanic Champions of The Good or Dark Knights of Evil. I suspect that the Middle East will eventually move toward somewhat more liberal forms of government, and I personally hope it can happen without a major bloodbath. Yet I suspect that however it happens, large numbers of our descendants will look back on the hawks of today as bold progenitors of a new age, as visionaries and beacons of moral clarity. That's the way history and memory work - the carnage is forgiven. People prefer sharp contrasts. Also, the piles of dead bodies don't produce memoirs to register their dissenting viewpoints.

If we can prevent World War III in our time, but the price is that our more gullible descendants will erect statues of Bill Kristol or Peter Beinart, and pray to them as sainted anti-Salafist abolitionists, it's a price worth paying.

Wow, so even if History looks back on you, & with hindsight, decides that you were in the wrong, that doesen't even matter

Sounds right to me.

Though Bush's approval ratings continue to hover around the 30% range, that 30% ironically represents a very powerful bloc. The president still enjoys the confidence of Corporate Executives and other high profile business moguls. What's more, 50 years from now more will be made from Bill Clinton's sexual escapades than Bush's "trampling" of the Constitution, or lackthereof. Another point of emphasis is that Bush's reign will likely be remembered as a transitional period highlighted by 9/11. Much of the details of this presidency, like that of any presidency, will be lost to the dust of time.

I'm not sure the support of the average lickspittle American CEO is all that valuable. Ask Wilkie and Dewey -- or even, Mr. McCormick of the Chicago Trib.

"His heart too great, though fortune little,
To lick a rascal statesman's spittle." Swift.

The oldest road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Hmn . Clever but maybe a bit over the top.
I agree with the New Criticism's view that the artist's life is worse than irrelevant , it's distracting. The words say what the words say.

Makes me think of someone -maybe David McCullogh - describing Louis Aggasiz's (spelling ?) impact on teaching biology.
The student is given a fish , and LA says "look at your fish" .After an hour or so LA returns , the student has noticed quite a lot about the appearance of the fish and says "Now what do you want me to do " .And LA say's "Look at your fish". More time passes and when LA returns the exchange is repeated. Hope the connection is not too obscure.

And in politics a vote is a vote is a vote.They don't weigh them , they count them.

Yeah, it was really a great idea to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala, in 1954 and Mussadegh in Iran. We sure built up a lot of good will in those countries. Mission acomplished.

It was super to encourage the Hungarians to revolt and then to do nothing to help them. It was a stroke of genius to put in Mbutu and to assassinate Lumumba.

It was a wonderful idea to install and give poison gas to Saddam Hussein, and to train Bin Laden and to fund Suharto -- great guys.

It was a great idea to protect Eichmann and Klaus Barbie in the name of fighting communism.
It was great the way Cardinal Spellman encouraged us to invade Vietnam and then to assassinate our puppet Diem when he didn't do what we wanted. It was a fabulous idea to kill 5 million Vietnamese with napalm and agent orange to protect them from incorrect thinking and irreligion. It was really cool to destabilize Chile to prevent them from installing a welfare state. The bombing of Cambodia was really masterful and so was the blacklist at home.

Yeah, the "manly" cold war liberals had tons of great tricks up their sleeves.

Doesn't the skeptic in you, wonder how all east coast air defense systems failed to intercept on 9/11, how it was that "Patriot Act I" was already compiled, and on the shelf, ready for nearly unanimous congressional passage, why Bush first opposed an independent 9/11 Commission investigation, and then failed to create anything resembling an independent commission, and even then, refused to cooperate with commission he did appoint?

Unfortunately, for most readers this paragraph is going to be lost among everything else.

The Bush Administration's overall behavior regarding 9/11, far from indicating interest in finding out how 9/11 occured, indicated coverup of everything possible.

-- Insane George W. Bush comment #394: See, free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you for the link to the 9/11 Commission. Your reading of it or its main point seem rather mistaken. How Al Qaeda recived the funds that funded the highjackers is not clear. However, Al Qaeda was the source of the highjackers funds. Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership was based in Afghanistan.

The political question is why given Bush's ineptitude and failure to be alert to the possibility of an attack in the United States was Bush seen as a better protector of the United States than a Democrat?

Related to this question is can Democrats get elected, specially to presidency, other than when a Republican president is so incompetent as to be near criminal?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I have a bit of a problem with your using "equate." Though both Nazism and Communism were related fascisms, as you point out, there were important distinctions between them. Though both committed monstrous acts of evil, Nazism one the one hand sprang from a delusional nationalist mentality that embraced eugenics, Communism was a perverse experiment in socio-economic theory with nationalist features. Your use of equate, in context, to criticize the left, is rather vague and tendentious, though your point overall is valid.

Your point about evil, however, is right on the money. The left for far too long (and all the more so now, seems to me) has taken "equitable" and "just" to mean "fair" "balanced" and worst of all "non-judgmental."

I agree with you John. Just to be clear, when I spoke about avoiding WWIII, I wasn't thinking about a war that could occur as a result of the "jihadist threat". I am more concerned about the possible chain reactions from the spread of political destabilization and violence in the world's major oil-producing region.

Except for the baloney part, I agree with much that you say in your reply, with the qualification that not all "anticommunist" dictators we supported were in any way anticommunist, nor were they of any strategic importance. Some, including a number in Central and South America, were "anticommunist" to the extent they aligned with the commercial schema of the United Fruit Company.

Also, the right in those same days took great pleasure in applying the "communist" label generically to union members solely for the reason they supported Democrats. "Communist" was also a preferred label for individuals who weren't any more communist than supporting, for example, Adlai Stevenson, or campaigning against a certain Nixon fellow. Feelings ran high in the 50's, and there were excesses at both poles of the spectrum.

Ellen

You're right that the support of Corporate Executives is typically meaningless, with ONE large exception: election years. It is these "bigwigs" that can generate enormous amounts of cash for politicians. So much cash that elections are won.