Centerfield

Politics didn't matter. Parties didn't matter.

Nice while it lasted. Posted by: c3 at September 12, 2006 12:34 AM

Yeah, it was. We really do need to be one again. I think deep down, most of us are able to unite on the big issues, but I think a lot of us have lost sight of that unity. We need to be totally united.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 12, 2006 01:07 AM

While I am optimistic about the final outcome, the road ahead is far to bumpy for unanimity as to the course of action. The good news is we all want to reach the same end and that there is more than one way to get there.

Posted by: Dennis at September 12, 2006 01:46 AM

Right. Not necessarily agreement on the exact methods, but a unity of purpose.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 12, 2006 03:22 AM

Obviously, there are clear steps needed that we all should agree need to be taken. The thing is, we can disgaree on how best to implement those steps, and achieve our goal, but I'm convinced that most of us, deep down, are committed to the same goal, of defending America, standing up for freedom, and fighting terror.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 12, 2006 03:25 AM

Someone want to pass this on to Dick Cheney?

Posted by: Marcus at September 12, 2006 03:29 AM

Jihadist bloggers

Unity, perhaps after the election. Sometimes it takes a great leader or another tragic event.

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 12, 2006 08:16 AM

Nice while it lasted.

Yeah, that was ten minutes to remember with nostalgia...because that's about how long before the first "anti" group organized to start blaming the attacks on us and leading protests.

Posted by: Tully at September 12, 2006 09:03 AM

I don't see how you can expect in a diverse country of 300 million people that there will be no extremists or "anti" types. I think it's a mistake to cite some fringe groups as evidence that the country is not united. The vast majority of people--liberals and conservatives--think that terrorism is a threat and want to take action to stop it. But the disagreement comes as to means and ends.

When people say we need to be unified, what does that mean? Does that mean that we need to adopt a uniform attitude and not dissent from prevailing wisdom? I don't think that's the way we should live our lives. I fear that many people on this blog support the current policy on terrorism--which is fine--and think that those who don't are somehow undermining the struggle. In other words, we should all be unified, but on your terms, ie, support the war in Iraq.

I also find it troubling that people think politics should stop during crises. That has never been the case, even during WW II. If politics stops, that means democracy is not working. What I sense is a desire for some sort of presumed WW-II type unity where everyone puts aside their individual interests to pursue the common good. It's a nice idea, but it's a dream and I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing even if it existed.

Posted by: Marc at September 12, 2006 09:39 AM

Someone want to pass this on to Dick Cheney?

I stand by my original comment.

Marc;

When people say we need to be unified, what does that mean?

To not use an event like 9-11 to score political points. To be more precise, if one feels an official made a mistake in an event like that point out the mistake of that individual, not that individual as a representative of whats wrong with the opposition party.

Posted by: c3 at September 12, 2006 10:42 AM

It took the European press less than 48 hours to begin their own piling on in blaming the victim and justifying the attackers. My, what depths of Euro-support we squandered.

That "fringe group" was given enormous credibility over the next couple o' years, Marc, by the media, the anti-war Left, and even by the Democratic Party. As was this one. Nothin' like that old unity, eh?

Pardon my cynicism.

Posted by: Tully at September 12, 2006 11:10 AM

Someone want to pass this on to Dick Cheney?

Marcus,
Do you truly believe that the vice president is not commited to making the US safer from terrorism? I'm not argueing methods, just intent.

When people say we need to be unified, what does that mean? Does that mean that we need to adopt a uniform attitude and not dissent from prevailing wisdom? I don't think that's the way we should live our lives. I fear that many people on this blog support the current policy on terrorism--which is fine--and think that those who don't are somehow undermining the struggle. In other words, we should all be unified, but on your terms, ie, support the war in Iraq.

The heart of the matter. Singleness of purpose is much different from complete unity. Believing the Iraq war hurts the aims of the GWOT is much different than believing the leaders who put the policies in place are disengenious as to their aims. We can disagree on what the best methods are without denigrating the folks who have to choose between those methods. I personally have zero problem with anyone who argues (logically argues) that Iraq was a mistake, or we should change course. I have an immense problem with those that attribute motives to this administration that don't exist.

Posted by: Dennis at September 12, 2006 11:27 AM

That "fringe group" was given enormous credibility over the next couple o' years, Marc, by the media, the anti-war Left, and even by the Democratic Party. As was this one. Nothin' like that old unity, eh?

I'll have to challenge that last one, Tully. I know of no mainstream Democrats who embraced ANSWER, or United for Peace and Justice.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 12, 2006 12:42 PM

Define "mainstream Democrats," Rafique, and explain how that "mainstream" part got in there, it being a word not found in my original sentence.

UFPJ and ANSWER worked hand-in-hand until their 2005 falling-out. Both are deeply intertwined with the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean (you remember him, head of the DNC?) brought them into the fold for his run in 2004, though it was a short trip for most of the members, such as NOW and MoveOn. Democratic congresscritters have been featured speakers at UFPJ/ANSWER rallies. Dean's PAC Democracy For America (still chaired by his brother Jim) is practically joined at the hip with UFPJ, as is the Democratic get-out-the-vote 527, America Coming Together.

That's just the short list. Do they need joint checking accounts and wedding licenses before we can associate them with each other, even as they, well, associate with each other?

Posted by: Tully at September 12, 2006 01:55 PM

To the extent that some Democrats supported these groups, it was largely over the Iraq War, not the idea that we needed to fight terrorism. I'm not arguing that a lot of these groups weren't reprehensible. But, you aren't seriously arguing, I hope, that most Democrats were saying we deserved to be attacked are you? That is completely fallacious.

As for Dennis' point, I agree that attributing evil motives to the Administration was not justified in the sense, for example, of arguing that they wanted 9/11 to happen to foment a takeover of the oil fields. I don't see any evidence for that. But, I don't think it's beyond the pale to argue that the Administration manipulated the intelligence and misled the public to justify the war. You can argue whether it's true or not, but I don't see any reason why you can't raise the issue. Is that attributing ill motives to the Administration?

And it's not like we have never had "disunity" during past crises. Republicans accused FDR of trying to manipulate the country into war. This golden era of good feelings that people seem to envision in which the country was totally unified during crises--I don't think it ever existed.

Posted by: Marc at September 12, 2006 03:52 PM

But, you aren't seriously arguing, I hope, that most Democrats were saying we deserved to be attacked are you?

That's a prettty big stretch, Marc. I'm saying that some Democrats have unsavory allies, and in my opinion the party suffers by that close association. And those Democrats include the current head of the party, his personal PAC, pretty much the entire "progressive" left, and most of the major money-moving Democrat-supporting 527's and anti-war activist groups of the last few years.

To the extent that the Democratic Party embraces such groups as its friends and allies (as it most certainly has over the last several years, especially during the '04 campaigns, and as Dean continues to do) it emanates their smell. Just as the GOP still carries a goodly whiff of the Moral Majority, long years after the MM folded. The scent of the anti-American left is a bit fresher.

Yet I would not accuse most Democrats or most Republicans of having the same views as those groups. I wouldn't even accuse their leaders of it--but I will most assuredly accuse said leaders of keeping and encouraging and facilitating bad company.

Lie down with dogs...politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows, and the lust for power oft results in skanky companions.

Posted by: Tully at September 12, 2006 05:02 PM

But, I don't think it's beyond the pale to argue that the Administration manipulated the intelligence and misled the public to justify the war. -- Is that attributing ill motives to the Administration?

It always gets down to semantics. And this medium doesn't do anything to provide so many of the clues we work with to decipher language. Put the two of us in the same room and I doubt if we are as far apart as this forum makes us out to be. I assume our interests are pretty much the same. Enlightened and self-centered.

Did Bush put lipstick on the runnup to Iraq. OK (with lots of conditions). Is that attributing ill motives? To me no. To the Bush Lied crowd yes. Why did they feel the need to put the best face up the prewar argument? To me because they saw a threat that had to be dealt with post 9/11. To others because his motives weren't purely in the interest in the citenzry of the US. Is it so damn hard to believe that the man, and the intellegent career people around him actually believe this is the best way to handle a growing and critical problem that has plagued us for a very long time? One that obviously wasn't being solved by the methods being used at the time? I'll admit they may be wrong. (Evidence as I assimilate it to the contrary). What makes it impossible for so many to admit that they may be right?

Posted by: Dennis at September 12, 2006 06:06 PM

Tully:

Ok, you've set me straight. It has always been my view that while these far-Left gutter snipes do not represent the views of most Dems, any influence at all that they have (and it's far too much), hurts the Party (and the country as a whole).

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 12, 2006 08:56 PM

RF,

They have alot of influence in the Democratic party. While leadership is careful (but often makes mistakes in showing their hand), you should read the Democratic memos I get emailed to me. Listen to those wanting to oust incumbents because they don't tow the line on Iraq. Check out Tenn. Many Democrats say, "so what if Iran gets the bomb". Others say, "all immigrants deserve to be Americans". Some Democrats believe the anti-Israel line and that we steal the world's oil. Democrats complain about under funding homeland defense, but they want those tax rebates to fuel social programs. They cry about pre-emption, but have no stomach for sanctions that would raise the gas prices. It is foolish to think that Democratic leadership does not connect in some important way with a base of newly relabeled socialists that past leadership has excluded. I do not know of one tough plan to bring about a change in Chinese, Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Palestinian and Pakistani behavior from the Democrats (The DLC excluded). What Democrats had the balls to say Syria most likely staged the attack on the US embassy (see counterterrorism blog). Dems own behavior has made Giuliani look more moderate than he is. How is it that Clinton helped Afghanistan get rid of the Taliban? How is it that Clinton prevented Russia from giving dangerous technology and weapons to Iran?

I truly believe the Democrats professed tough line on terrorism is a charade. There are many bright Democrats. From what I've heard, they are upset about their party's direction. The idea of running on no message and championing no strong security plan is a losing proposition. Hell, even the Sunnis and Shiites stop their fighting long enough to promote a united front of Jihadism. This binary blindness clouds the message of 9/11 when spilled blood should have had the opposite effect. See how long the "We are all American" sentiment lasted in Europe? I fear this dynamic may roll into 2008. What a friggin decade of idiocy. Marvelous message it sends children, allies and adversaries alike. And should the Democrats take the White House, some conservative media giant will run a new series to replace the West Wing. He will call it Chicken Wing. Something has to change before we tear ourselves apart and our enemies strike again.

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 12, 2006 10:58 PM

The lunacy of the extremes notwithstanding, I don't think it's a charade at all.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 13, 2006 02:06 AM

Generally speaking, I don't think it's a charade either-- I think they're almost universally wrong with their prescriptions, mind you, but I don't necessarily question their motives.

Put another way, generally speaking, I think that most Marxists and Communists really do want to improve the lives of the common people-- that doesn't mean their policies are likely to achieve those objectives, and in most cases, their policy prescriptions are likely to lead to greater poverty on the part of the masses, but their motivation isn't to impoverish the workers.

Posted by: Bobby at September 13, 2006 03:26 AM

" But, I don't think it's beyond the pale to argue that the Administration manipulated the intelligence and misled the public to justify the war. "

Marc,
I think that arguement holds weight to about the same degree as the arguement that FDR manipulated the U.S. into WWII. There IS a real kernel of truth to both arguements. However that overlooks the greater arguement that both leaders
percieved a real threat to the interests of the country and of the Free World..... if not in the short term, then at least in the wrong. These men were leaders of a deomcratic nation...not a dictatorship ...they couldn't just declare a course of action by fiat...they had to convince the public to follow them. That's the art of politics which, quite frankly, DOES involve emphasizing the pro's of one's proposed position and de-emphasizing the cons.... and when the proposed course of action involves something as painfull and frightening to most people as war then there's going to be some pretty heavy spin involved. In the long run, I suspect, that the nation and most people who have a decent respect for human rights will be glad of it. In the short run, it's ugly, dirty and painfull...as the politics of most such events inevitably are when one takes a hard look back into history. At least GWB doesn't have an OFFICIAL Office of Censoroship.

Posted by: cengel at September 13, 2006 12:58 PM

OK, Bobby, but I really don't believe that the Dems are as xlueless on the issue of the GWOT, as Marxists and Communists are to politico-economic issues. Now if we're talking about the anti-war Left, then that's another story.

Or did I just kill your punchline?

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 13, 2006 02:00 PM

That depends on the particular Democrat. Sadly, some of them really are that clueless. But some of them aren't. And some of them are even way ahead of the Administration. Like any party, the Democrats are an assembly of individuals with their own independent positions, and each of those individuals have their own particular position on the issue. The same distinction applies to the Republicans, for that matter.

I will say however that, generally speaking, the Democratic leadership are far more clueless on the GWOT than either the Republican leadership or the Democratic foot soldiers. There are some exceptions there (Biden in particular), but the Democratic Congressional leadership is almost uniformly clueless about the GWOT.

Posted by: Bobby at September 13, 2006 03:20 PM

It has always been my view that while these far-Left gutter snipes do not represent the views of most Dems, any influence at all that they have (and it's far too much), hurts the Party (and the country as a whole).

Yep. And it works for the GOP, too. For example, Pat Robertson implying that 9/11 was visited on us for the sins of the nation didn't do the GOP any good (and shouldn't have).

Posted by: Tully at September 13, 2006 03:44 PM

What cengel said.

Posted by: Dennis at September 13, 2006 07:06 PM

How about we hold our elected leaders feet to the fire until they deliver a decent memorial to the victims of 9/11 and definitively win the two wars we started based upon their deaths?

Posted by: Dyre42 at September 14, 2006 01:07 AM

Cengel,

I agree with you. Even if you agree that the Administration did manipulate the data to support the war (which I think happened) does not mean that they didn't do it with the interests of the country at heart, in the same way that FDR probably manipulated us into war to some extent. And, you could argue that the ends justified the means. Or you can say it didn't. But what I don't think you can do is say it's irrelevant or beyond the pale for discussion. I agree heartily that the hard left is pacifistic and utterly unrealistic about the world, but I don't think that represents the views of most people that vote Democratic and it hardly represents the views of most Americans generally. Remember, there were many elements pre-WW II that opposed rearmament as war mongering until the Soviet Union was attacked. My original point, really, was that unity does not require uniformity and it does not require that we leave our politics at the door. In fact, I think it's dangerous to do so.

Posted by: Marc at September 14, 2006 11:26 AM

Just as an historical aside and to provide a wee bit of perspective, the original "He lied us into war!" speech was given by Clare Booth Luce at the 1944 Republican National Convention, in reference to FDR and WW2. Similar speeches were given a century earlier in Congress in reference to the Mexican-American War, the most notable by a pipsqueak one-term Whig from Illinois.

Saddam bluffed. It was a convincing bluff--he even fooled his own generals. He got called, and his hand proved a bust.

Posted by: Tully at September 14, 2006 12:53 PM