Centerfield

I applaud Evan Bayh for voting no on Condi.

I have a feeling this Iraqi election is a disaster waiting to happen....

Thats because Bayh is running for Prez in 08......

Don't be such a pessimist Stacy. If the election starts a civil war, then the insurgency is over and we can leave :-}

Running or not, Bayh made a principled, solid decision when other Dems were running to avoid the 'obstructionist' title.

The New Democrat

Running or not, Bayh made a principled, solid decision when other Dems were running to avoid the 'obstructionist' title.

The New Democrat

Describing the armed opposition in Iraq as an "insurgency" is an excellent example of the Bush administration very adroitly framing the issue.

I think the armed Iraqi opposition would more accurately be described as a "resistance," though. At least until we know the results of the ongoing Iraqi elections.

Picking at nits? Perhaps. But, each word conjures up somewhat different impressions which can be prejudicial depending on how one wishes to spin the conflict.

Completely off topic... as I get more experienced with the blogs I notice a few things and wonder if those of you more experienced can clue me in:

1) Is there a name for the last post in a thread? Sometimes it seems like the discussion just stops (or moves on to the next related thread). I wonder if certain comments tend to "end the conversation" or does a thread have a "natural life span"?

2) Is it better when starting a thread to start a conversation or have your opinion heard?

3) Is there supposed to be "progress" overtime on a blog (i.e. folks become more enlightened) or is it like the news (i.e. every day is a new day?

4) On political blogs is it good to have a few "irregulars" (i.e. a right winger on a lefty blog) to keep everyone honest and the conversation lively?

As Linda Richman would say "Discuss."

I think you can be principaled and vote for Rice, or against her. Most Democratic senators, such as Biden, believe the president has a right to appoint his cabinet if the appointee is qualified. That didn't stop Biden from criticizing her. Other senators disagreed, but I think it was because they felt her actions over the last 4 years showed she wasn't qualified.

On another topic:

At Alternet, Molly Ivins has this to say about the argument over "private" or "personal" accounts:

"You won't catch me on the wrong side of this argument. I know they're making a list and checking it twice. If I'm not with them, I'm against them. Taking inspiration from Prince, I shall refer to them as "the accounts formerly known as private.""

Kevin -

I think that if more than 50% of Iraqis are going to try to vote (and that's lower than the lowest estimate I've seen), then you can't call the anti-democrats (using Zarqawi's phrase) the "resistance." Iraq may be a lot of things, but it isn't France.

Here's a wager: if the percentage of Iraqi voters is less than the percentage of U.S. voters in the 2004 election, I will research and write a piece of at least 1000 words praising the perspicacity of say, Carl Levin or Mark Dayton. Anyone who accepts this wager and loses will have to write a similar piece praising... hmm.., how 'bout Rumsfeld? If nobody takes the bet, I won't have to write the piece.

Any takers? How about it, Bob?

Literally Retarded: Sucker bet!

The Shia and Kurds comprise an overwhelming majority and they what to kick some Sunni ass. Also the majority of violence is in the Sunni areas.

And since when does the fact that you're a minority population preclude you from being a resistance? Lets face it, the Sunni want us gone so they can take over again. Sounds like a resistance to me.

Wow, Evan Bayh used to be a Democrat I could vote for... Such political pandering.

The Iraqi election will be viewed through the eye of the beholder, if 20% turnout and there is massive amounts of violence the pro-war croud will say it was a step in the right direction, if 80% turnout and there is no violence then the anti-war crowd will ask what about the other 20%. Personally, I think that they are having any election will be a positive as long as the blue print to elect a prime minister, create a Consitution, have it approved by the people, and countinued further elections in the future, stays on course.

Let's talk about more important things... Will T.O. play? Will Tom Brady ever get the hype he deserves before a big game?

Kevin,

I think "the insurgents" is a good, neutral label to use. The framing word the right would prefer to use is "the terrorists." I don't consider that proper, because only attacks on civilian targets is terrorism. Attacks on the US military is war, not terror. Calling them "the terrorists" also mixed them us with Al Qaeda, and only a small portion of them are Al Qaeda.

On the other hand, I don't think "the resistance" is appropriate. It has a positive connotation, and even the insurgents who are not Al Qaeda are basically neo-Baathist thugs who are trying to intimidate the majority of the population who want the violence to stop, and the country to rebuild.

Chris,

I would say that some comments can be conversation-stoppers. Sometimes, they are actually good comments, after which there is nothing more to be said.

Yes, I think it is a good to have a few wingers to keep us centrists from being complacent, but only if they make substantive comments (which has usually been the case) rather than mockery.

(putting up HELP WANTED sign)

As many of you may already know, I've been researching the various accusations and issues surrounding the Washington Gubernatorial Election. Most of the work I've done so far has involved military ballots (I'm still wrapping that one up, in fact). But I've begun to shift my research into the questions surrounding the credited voter/cast ballots discrepancies.

I'm hoping some of you nonWashingtonians will help me out with part of my research.

It would require a phone call or two on your part, and then emailing me with the answers.

If you'd be willing to help me out, please email me at Carla@PreemptiveKarma.com

And if one of the people with blog posting access would consider putting up my request on your main page, I'd be grateful as well.

Thanks very much.

Rick:

Of all the similiar words listed at Merriam Webster, "resistance" most accurately describes the known facts:

"5 often capitalized : an underground organization of a conquered or nearly conquered country engaging in sabotage and secret operations against occupation forces and collaborators"

None of the others say anything about a country under occupation or fighting against the occupying force. Insurgency specifically refers to a revolt against one's own government, and is one of several used to describe that state depending on the severity of the conflict among other factors.

As you noted, "resistance" has a somewhat more positive connotation. Which is precisely why using "insurgency" instead is a good example of framing the issue by the Bush administration.

Rick, Bob, Mathew, et al.:

By my reading, most of the attacks these days are on police stations, and polling places. Do these constitute civilian targets? Zarqawi is on record as saying that democracy is anti-Islam, not anti-Kurd or anti-Shia, but the only people fighting the US, the coalition, and the elections seem to be Baathists, who are understandably miffed at their current level of influence in the Middle East.

To characterize this as "resistance" seems to me, would allow one to characterize David Koresh, or the Montana Militia as "resistance." The Iraqis may consider themselves to be under occupation right now, but that's OK. I used to work with some Austrians who were taught as children that Austria was "occupied" from 1938-1954. Well, I guess it was, but there were two distinct periods there, and the Austrians reacted to each considerably differently.

My bet was to illustrate the point that the US has a reasonably successful democracy in which only about half the qualified participants actually participate. I believe that the Iraqis will do better than that. BTW, I understand that the most popular lists include some Sunnis, since the more sophisticated Iraqi politicians realize that they need Sunni cooperation to make this new government work. I think that they realize that this isn't the 'Gators vs. the 'Noles.

In any case, I'm kinda glad no one took my bet. I was worried that if I lost, I'd have to lick one of those toads that alters your reality in order to say nice things about Carl Levin.

Don't do this:

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/01/27/nicaraguan_dies_after_eating_live_fish/

Leapin' Lizards, there's a Darwin nominee!

Yeah, kinda disproves Intelligent Design, no? At least for one guy.

Here's what I was talking about:

http://www.ndsn.org/july94/toad.html

Apparently, you can smoke this stuff, too.

Evolution in action.

I still think the war was a mistake and installing a democracy at the point of a gun is wrong. But I think arguing over how to characterize these militants is a mistake. I think we have to recognize what this insurgency or resistence represents, not some nationalist rebellion (although there is certainly an element of that) but a struggle for power by many nasty people who are determined to get their way no matter how much misery they cause to the Iraqis. Blowing up police stations, sabotaging oil pipelines, etc. does nothing for Iraq except make life bad for the Iraqi people. I understand the reasoning that they want to turn the population against the US and, from their standpoint, that makes them a resistence, even if they end up resorting to killing and extorting civilians. It seems to me you can disagree with the Iraq policy, as I do, without trying to paint these "insurgents" or whatever as some kind of nationalist heroes. They are not; they are nothing but vicious killers or deranged ideologues.

I realize this begs the question of who is responsible for the insurgency. Obviously, it's the US since this would not be happening if we had not invaded. Of course, the question is whether the policy will be justified by the end result. I believe it will not; still, I can't have any sympathy for people that think it's an appropriate tactic to threaten to kill people who dare to vote. I see this as similar to the Viet Cong; wrong war for the US but no reason to romanticize VC terrorists.

Excellent points, MWS. My sole point was to explore briefly how much impact the words used have on us all.

Going just by the unemotional dictionary definition, "resistance" would seem to clearly be the most accurate term to apply to the Iraq situation. But... none of us, regardless of our views on Iraq, are unemotional about any of it. Just witness the disagreements in this thread citing whether a given term seems to make the Iraqi fighters seem more right or more wrong. None of the dictionary definitions factor in the rightness or wrongness of whomever is involved.

I just thought it'd be interesting to bring it up and see how folks react.

My feeling with Vietnam is that we were on the right side, but we screwed it up.

If South Vietnam had survived, it might well be exporting autos to the United States, like South Korea does, and be a free country too.

But it seems like the desire to be free is not as strong in many people as the desire to be ruled by people of one's own ethnic group. If the Shiites win, we need to let them rule, and keep from trying to make puppets out of them. Their independence from us is actually in our interest.

In a lot of ways the Iraq situation is like apartheid South Africa. A minority government that brutally suppressed the majority population.

If I were a Sunni, I would consider the current Iraqi government the equivalent of Vichy France. Any activities that the collaborator government was involved in (Like police stations, and polling places) would be a fair target.

In the end analysis it's always the winner who write the history books. If Germany would have won, I'm sure the French resistance would be called terrorists.

PS: I don't think David Koresh and the Montana Militia qualify as resistance, since according to Kevin's definition the the USA is not a conquered country (unless you count our secret alien overlords). The two groups mentioned would more likely be “freedom fighter” or revolutionaries.

Or as my son says: If a crimefighter fights crime, and a firefighter fights fires, what does a freedom fighter fight?

Didn't the “freedom fighter” phrase start in the romance languages? So the English translation would be “fighter for freedom”.

I flunked Latin so I'll have to get a ruling from the judges on this one.

Bob -

I can put you in touch with a nationally-ranked high school Latin scholar, which would be...ummm...my son.

Pass! Latin sucked, and the teacher kept hitting me on the head with the text book, because I wouldn't memorize my vocabulary list. I'll stick to science and technology.

Bob,

It's not my definition. I'm going with what seems a straight forward reading of Merrian Webster's definitions.

Didn't mean to imply you made it up, just that you supplied it from another source.