« Pelosi makes the economy run! | Main | You know, LIFE is 'unfair' »

November 26, 2006

LATimes columnist 'Bring Back Saddam'

I read it. I read it more than once to see if I was missing the parody somehow.

Jonathan Chait (also a senior editor at The New Republic) is not kidding.

Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power. [...]

Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein — a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear — would do the trick.

I don't know why I should be surprised. Chait defended Kerry's "bungled joke", advocates dumping the electoral college, and continues to deal in the shibboleth of Republicans giving "tax cuts to the rich".

Chait is a "progressive", with a good job, nice home, money in the bank and a retirement account, who then can advocate for others the need to be ruled by a murderous dictator ...

... because war is messy and stability is the paramount virtue.

Obviously, post-election, Chait feels comfortable in advocating for Iraqi's what he would never advocate for himself.

Tea with Mussolini ... indeed.

Technorati: , ,

Posted by Darleen at November 26, 2006 12:32 PM

Comments

"Restoring the dictator to power may give Iraqis the jolt of authority they need"

Sounds like Walter Duranty to me...just crack a few eggs and Chait's Uday Omelets will be ready as ordered.

Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2006 05:26 PM

On the other hand maybe most Iraqis want to be ruled by a dictator.

In any case it's no business of the US how the Iraqis are ruled, or want to be ruled.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 28, 2006 07:53 AM

If you don't mind my playing a bit of devil's advocate here:

What if the likely scenarios come down to Iraq being ruled by a secular dictator vs. Iraq being ruled by a religious dictator?

--|PW|--

Posted by: pennywit at November 28, 2006 02:24 PM

Carl
"On the other hand maybe most Iraqis want to be ruled by a dictator.

In any case it's no business of the US how the Iraqis are ruled, or want to be ruled."

Setting aside for a moment the desire of all people who innately desire liberty, what was your position during the Cold War? Did the Sovs really desire a dictator? I think not. What differentiates them from Iraqis?

As to whether it is our business, that leads back to my first question. Do you really want a nuclear armed Iraq? Or Iran?

The question here is what is in our own interests. The Cold War paradigm is not obsolete. It is in our interests to be proactive in the shaping of Iraqi policies and goals. And ignoring Iran would make that point painfully clear.

Posted by: Hugh at November 28, 2006 04:49 PM

"What differentiates them from Iraqis?"

- Goss makes the usual comments that hide, albeit badly, the thinly desguised self imposed "arrogant superiority" of the typical SecProggs. Simply stated, they don't believe the "lessor others", the poorly educated brown people, have the necessary "equipment" to deal with a civil Democratic form of governance, and even more, lacking such intelligence, they don't deserve that choice. As such, they are only fit for a dictatorship.

- The Left is just not honest enough in any manner, (see the long career of one J.Kerry for details and examples of said arrogance, bigotry, and outright lies for political motives), to simply say that, so their feelings morph into endless combinations of hyperbole designed to convey what they see as the futility of trying to "save", or even bother with those primitive creatures.

- Of course, the mere mention of this condition in their thinking evokes a calamity of boisterous denials, and over the top polemic because, after all, they are so "tolarent", and "caring", and know so much better what's good for the poor underclass of the ME.

- They're so fucking superior, they fail to even notice that bigotry and arrogance reflected in almost everything they say.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at November 28, 2006 10:21 PM

Well, Big, you tell me, are the Iraqis showing much enthusiasm for democracy these days? Personally I don't see it. They seem more interested in killing each other, not to mention US troops when they get tired of killing other Iraqis.

The Iraqis will decide for themselves what they want; they don't need the US to tell them how to govern themselves.

***

'good for the underclass like me' What are you talking about?

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 28, 2006 11:30 PM

"...Of the middle East"... Goss.... try learning to read....

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at November 28, 2006 11:40 PM

Don't bother with Big Bang Hunter's incoherent screeching, Carl. he can't argue the merits so he just accuses people he disagrees with of racism, because recycling talking points he's read on every rightist hack blog is much easier than actually thinking. Such idiocy is hardly worth your time.

Posted by: Josh at November 29, 2006 11:24 AM

Josh - Well you have "projection" down pat, (I've seldom seen a better description of the average Lefties comments than the one you just wrote). No the problem is, everytime you run into someone who knows your tricks, you go right into projection mode. More of the childish rantings of the moonbats in the mold of "If thats what I am, what are you" whaaa waaaaa.

- Anyones POV that runs counter to yours is "hardly worth you time". You can't argue substance so you go ad hominem. You're all from the same mold as Pelosi. Ask one question deeper that todays talking points, and she brings the news comference to a halt. You want to pontificate, not debate.

- But lets say I'm wrong, and you really do have any ideas that amount to something. Why does your side want us out of Iraq so badly, and want us so badly into Dufar?

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at November 30, 2006 02:58 PM

I'll let you in on a little secret - the whole "projection" schtick is not only a tiresome blogosphere cliche, but is nothing more than a pseudo-sophisticated way to say "I know you are but what am I?"

Anyones POV that runs counter to yours is "hardly worth you time".

Nope. Here's a POV that runs counter to mine that is worth my time: "If we pull out of Iraq before it is stabilized it is likely to turn into a haven for terrorists just as Afghanistan was." Now here's a POV that is not worth my time: "Simply stated, they don't believe the 'lessor others', the poorly educated brown people, have the necessary 'equipment' to deal with a civil Democratic form of governance, and even more, lacking such intelligence, they don't deserve that choice. As such, they are only fit for a dictatorship."

See the difference? The first is a reasonable point grounded in reality. The second is an incredibly stupid and unsupportable attempt to smear one's political opponents as racist. Get it?

A further sign of your inability to muster a decent argument is your desire to conflate me with Nancy Pelosi. She is, of course, completely irrelevant to any of this, but since you are only able to parrot what you've read somewhere else, and Pelosi-bashing is popular in the rightist blogosphere, you invoke her anyway.

But lets say I'm wrong, and you really do have any ideas that amount to something. Why does your side want us out of Iraq so badly, and want us so badly into Dufar?

Again, unable to support your assertion that Carl exhibits the alleged leftist racism toward "brown people," you bring up "my side," and Darfur (note the correct spelling). These, of course,have nothing to do with purported leftist contempt for brown people, except, of course, that eagerness to intervene in Darfur is inconsistent with such contempt (you may want to think a bit harder before you reach for that one again).

This comment thus nicely demonstrates both your inability to support your ridiculous claims as well as your lack of any thought more original or interesting than the garden-variety cant available on every pissant righty blog on the internet.

So, it isn't because you're pro-War, but rather because your arguments are stupid and boring, that you aren't worth anyone's time.

Posted by: Josh at November 30, 2006 10:44 PM

-"This comment thus nicely demonstrates both your inability to support your ridiculous claims as well as your lack of any thought more original or interesting than the garden-variety cant available on every pissant righty blog on the internet."

- And thus speaketh the voice of authority, marginalizing all direct hits on his "feckless gaggle", and their idiotarian ideas.

- Nice try Josh, but no cigar. But you did cleverly avoid answering the question, I'll give you that. In the mean time, Bush's oh so evil criminal war in Iraq, the argument against basing mainly in the fact that you say it's a "civil war", somehow becomes "legal in "Dafur", even though it's a civil war. Nice line of logic that.

- But the ironies swirling around the memes of the Left are legion, and hardly surprising at this point. So by all means continue. An ass, after a large pile of nonsense rendered in answer to the simplest of questions, is still an ass.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at December 1, 2006 08:30 AM

In the mean time, Bush's oh so evil criminal war in Iraq, the argument against basing mainly in the fact that you say it's a "civil war", somehow becomes "legal in "Dafur", even though it's a civil war.

Please rewrite this sentence in English. Also, please point out where I made any mention of a civil war or called the invasion of Iraq criminal or illegal. Or, alternatively, shut up before you look even more foolish.

Posted by: Josh at December 1, 2006 12:31 PM

- You don't want to address the issue do you asshole, simply because you have no answer, so its just easier to attack the questioner. - 'Sok. Nuff said, and as usual with a freak Libturd, whats said is "nothing".

- As to rewriting anything, if you can't read that's your fucking problem junior.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at December 1, 2006 01:42 PM

Actually, the issue is whether you can substantiate your claim that Carl's opinion of our chances of success in Iraq stems from racism. I pointed out that your claim is stupid on its face and wholly unsupported. Rather than defend it, you've chosen instead to pursue an idiotic analogy between Iraq and Darfur. The best part is that you are oblivious, even when I kindly attempt to save you further embarrassment, that your analogy undermines the very claim you are trying to support.

But now I see you've abandoned even the pretense of adult conversation and have resorted to "asshole" and "libturd." Congratulations - I'd thought your behavior couldn't be any more childlike but you've managed to surprise me.

Posted by: Josh at December 1, 2006 04:49 PM

- A third evasion. Does playground tactics still work in your sand box. It seems it's impossible for you to focus. I won't try for a forth time, you've proven you not serious, unless it's seriously illequiped to discuss issues. Actua;lly I don't blame you your perfidy. I'd hate to try to defend some of your sides feckless idiocies. Back to your playpen child.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at December 1, 2006 04:54 PM

If anyone on this blog is "seriously illequiped to discuss issues" it's Big Bang Hunter -- who can only succeed in further lowering the level of discourse. Darleen must be embarrassed at this point, like the host who's younger brother shows up at the party and throws up on the buffet. There's no use getting this ignoramous to seriously debate any issue or acknowledge valid points: he can't even use spell check.

The Iraq debate should be beyond this anyway; conservatives who focus only on Leftist editorials, however flawed, without acknowleding the failures of this Administration's awful fiasco, are living in a dreamland impenetrable by any source of critique -- even from within their own ranks. For example, I honestly wonder if Darleen would comment on the following words of angry wisdom from no less a former war supporter than >Andrew Sullivan:

It's over, guys. Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable. You enabled them. You never fully took them on when it would have counted - and you trashed those of us who did. You knew this before the 2004 election and still cynically played the anti-Kerry card for all it was worth, telling yourselves you could sway Rummy after the election. Well, you couldn't and you didn't. Your policy was sabotaged by a defense secretary who never believed in it and by a president too weak and out-of-it to rein him in. Get over yourselves and recognize that this dream has died. And we have to fight the nightmare we now face rather than pretend your dream is still even on life-support. That's the patriotic responsibility at this point. And no, I'm not impugning your patriotism. I'm asking you to place it before your shattered dreams.

My guess is, they don't want to hear it. They will blame the loss of the Iraq war on the Left and the news media, just as they did Vietnam.
They will always blame someone other than themselves.

Posted by: Brad at December 3, 2006 09:02 AM

"They will always blame someone other than themselves."

- Sully jumped ship when Bush called for a Constitutional amendment, banning gay marraige. If you are unaware of that, you need to catch up.

- As for the above italized comment, that has to be the pen ultimate feckless projection of the Century, even for you Brad.

- But rant on, avoiding the issues, and covering every disscussion with "Bush bad". Whatever gets you through the night sport. Anyone reading in the blogosphere needs only a few minutes to discover whom is attacking, and avoiding. That you feel the need to rely on a single renegade, embittered Rino, for your substance says it all.

- It would be refreshing if the "gaggle of perpetually enraged", would simply stop the childish rhetoric, and actually debate something. You cannot, because your convictions are paper thin. That much is patently obvious to the most casual observer. Personally I love the attacks. The time is used, and you simpletons never do get around to supporting your paranoid "theories".

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at December 4, 2006 07:55 AM

A third evasion. Does playground tactics still work in your sand box. It seems it's impossible for you to focus. I won't try for a forth time, you've proven you not serious, unless it's seriously illequiped to discuss issues. Actua;lly I don't blame you your perfidy. I'd hate to try to defend some of your sides feckless idiocies. Back to your playpen child.

The only response any of your inanity deserves.

Posted by: Josh at December 4, 2006 09:52 AM

- Thats four evasions in a row Josh. Going for an even dozen?

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at December 4, 2006 10:12 AM

You have to ask a coherent question for me to evade it. I notice you haven't supported your assertion that Carl is a racist. You gonna retract that, little man?

Posted by: Josh at December 5, 2006 10:42 AM