In 1994, I was a young volunteer and activist working on a Congressional Campaign for Walter Capps. By the time the polls had closed on the West Coast at 8 pm, there was a new Speaker of the House–Newt Gingrich and the Republicans had won the Senate as well. Small consolation in California was that Senator Feinstein was spared in a very close victory over Michael Huffington who spent tens of millions.
A funny thing happened that night though, as the results came in for the 22nd Congressional Race, Capps–a religious studies professor and political neophyte who was taking on then Assemblywoman Andrea Seastrand a long time political figure who was the widow of Eric Seastrand a long-time Republican office holder. Seastrand a firebrand Conservative who fit in well with the “revolutionary” class of 1994. On the worst Democratic night at least since 1980 and perhaps since well before, Capps was holding his own, going toe-to-toe with Seastrand. In the end, he literally fell a few hundred votes short of a victory. Two years later he would claim that victory, but he passed away in 1997 as he finished the first year of his first term. His wife, Lois Capps has been in Congress ever since.
That night, I went to bed somewhere after 3 am, exhausted, the reality of the day hadn’t really hit me quite yet. In the morning, the alarm goes off and there is Paul Harvey on the radio, gloating. A herd of dancing elephants rampaged through Washington last night, he said. It turned my stomach. It was the dagger that made everything real.
I’ll never forget that moment. When history writes of November 7, 2006, they will note that the Democrats took 28 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. That former number might creep up to 30. If you compare those raw numbers of seats chaniging hand, it will be fairly unremarkable in the annals of history. And yet, those numbers will belie just how improbable what happened would occur. You see, we might have projected this for the past month or so, but go back in time and this was exceedingly unlikely.
The environment at the beginning of 2006 looked poisonous for the president, but the number of marginal house seats was exceedingly low. Most pundits could point to 12, maybe 18, at the very most. They just didn’t see the Democrats winning all of those. Democrats held 18 of the 31 Senate seats. Remember this is the same batch of Senate seats that the Democrats took in 2000 to even up the Senate at 50-50. This is the only class where Democrats had the majority of Senate Seats. There were at most 8 Republican seats in play and Democrats needed to take six of them. But it was even harder than that–Democrats had won in Redstates like Nebraska and Florida last time. They had to hold off tough challengers in Minnesota, Michigan, Washington, New Jersey and Maryland. Even on Tuesday afternoon, NO ONE, honestly believed the Democrats could take the Senate.
I say all of this to show how improbable what happened was. Scandals, Iraq, and general discontentment put as many as 50 seats in play. Democrats have won 28 so far, I think by the time it’s done, may 30 will go to the Democrats, far more than anyone ever thought possible six months ago. In the Senate, the Democrats got fortunate as there were weak challengers in Nebraska and Florida. Katherine Harris was an embarrassment to the Republican party (at little payback for 2000 no doubt to see her clocked cleaned). Democrats won big in Minnesota and Michigan where there could have been tough races. Even Maryland and New Jersey went by almost double digits. The Democrats did not lose a single incumbent in the House, Senate, or Governor, and they did not lose a single-seat previously held. That’s amazing.
But what happened in the Senate was nothing short of miraculous. First, Pennsylvannia–everyone knew that Santorum was dead and he stayed dead. In Ohio, it was a massacre of DeWine and Strickland beat the nemesis of 2004, Blackburn. So nice payback there. Those were the two givens. Rhode Island, honestly I like Lincoln Chafee, I worked with his father in the Senate on some legislation back in the day, he was good man and really a liberal. But Democrats needed that state and won it. Missouri was a battle to bone and McCaskill beat back a very conservative Jim Talent to win that. Montana is one of the most conservative states in the country, Tester is no one’s idea of Democrat, but he’s a populist and was able to beat Burns–a thoroughly corrupt man.
And finally in Virginia–George Allen was the darling of the conservatives and apsirant for the 2008 Presidential Nomination and possibly the Conservative frontrunner. He was poised to win and win big until he slipped up with the now infamous “Mackaka” reference. Anyone who doubts the power of new technology look no further than Montana and Virginia. Both incumbents slipped up and got caught on home video. The difference between now and 2006 is Youtube. They put it on Youtube and the gaffe’s spread immensley. Burns attacked firefighters and Allen made some unforgiveable statements about a native Virginian because of the color of his skin. Power to the bloggers! They ultimately did not win in Connecticut, but I think they’ll trade Connecticut for Montana and Virginia. Now the Democrats need to govern.
We have a lot of work left to do in Yolo County, but despite the disappointing local results, I went to bed last night finally after being up for nearly two days with a big smile on my face knowing that the Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi and that the Democrats control congress.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“A funny thing happened that night though, as the results came in for the 22nd Congressional Race, Capps–a religious studies professor and political neophyte who was taking on then Assemblywoman Andrea Seastrand a long time political figure who was the widow of Eric Seastrand a long-time Republican office holder.”
I took Professor Capps’s class on the Vietnam War. I don’t know if he was still teaching it in the ’90s, when he decided to run for Congress. But back in the mid-1980s, that was about the most popular course at UCSB. In fact, the year after I took it, it was featured on CBS’s 60 Minutes.
Perhaps because of that class, I always had a soft spot for Walter Capps. Thus, I was especially saddened when he died, so shortly after he finally won his seat in Congress.
One other small note on Santa Barbara politics. That Congressional seat that Capps vied for and ultimately won was traditionally a moderate Republican seat. The long-time Congressman who held it was a guy named Bob Lagomarsino. (There is a local CHP spokesman named Lagomarsino, who is probably related.)
Congressman Lagomarsino was probably not a great politician, but he adequately represented the fiscally conservative, socially liberal views of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Unfortunately for him, a fraudulent gazillionaire and his evil wife, the Huffingtons, moved into the district and targetted Lagomarsino for defeat. I don’t recall any of the details, but the campaign, run by the evil Arianna Huffington, was especially dirty. From what I recall, they did everything they could to make it look like Lagomarsino was a dirty, no good, drunken immoral bastard. And the primary voters in the Republican Party, after years of sending Lagomarsino to Washington, were fooled into believing Arianna’s b.s. So Michael Huffington, on something of a “family values” campaign, ousted Lagomarsino in the primary, and then won one term in the House, before his failed run for the Senate.
The irony in all of this is that Michael Huffington was a total fraud. He was — a la Haggard, Foley, etc. — a homosexual who preached “family values.” And his evil wife, who now goes around calling for “clean government” and other reforms, was the dirtiest, most amoral political manager in recent California history. Once her sham marriage fell apart, and she didn’t have a weak husband to prop up, she decided to reinvent herself as some sort of crusader for the little guy. Alas, some are still fooled by her shallow act.
“A funny thing happened that night though, as the results came in for the 22nd Congressional Race, Capps–a religious studies professor and political neophyte who was taking on then Assemblywoman Andrea Seastrand a long time political figure who was the widow of Eric Seastrand a long-time Republican office holder.”
I took Professor Capps’s class on the Vietnam War. I don’t know if he was still teaching it in the ’90s, when he decided to run for Congress. But back in the mid-1980s, that was about the most popular course at UCSB. In fact, the year after I took it, it was featured on CBS’s 60 Minutes.
Perhaps because of that class, I always had a soft spot for Walter Capps. Thus, I was especially saddened when he died, so shortly after he finally won his seat in Congress.
One other small note on Santa Barbara politics. That Congressional seat that Capps vied for and ultimately won was traditionally a moderate Republican seat. The long-time Congressman who held it was a guy named Bob Lagomarsino. (There is a local CHP spokesman named Lagomarsino, who is probably related.)
Congressman Lagomarsino was probably not a great politician, but he adequately represented the fiscally conservative, socially liberal views of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Unfortunately for him, a fraudulent gazillionaire and his evil wife, the Huffingtons, moved into the district and targetted Lagomarsino for defeat. I don’t recall any of the details, but the campaign, run by the evil Arianna Huffington, was especially dirty. From what I recall, they did everything they could to make it look like Lagomarsino was a dirty, no good, drunken immoral bastard. And the primary voters in the Republican Party, after years of sending Lagomarsino to Washington, were fooled into believing Arianna’s b.s. So Michael Huffington, on something of a “family values” campaign, ousted Lagomarsino in the primary, and then won one term in the House, before his failed run for the Senate.
The irony in all of this is that Michael Huffington was a total fraud. He was — a la Haggard, Foley, etc. — a homosexual who preached “family values.” And his evil wife, who now goes around calling for “clean government” and other reforms, was the dirtiest, most amoral political manager in recent California history. Once her sham marriage fell apart, and she didn’t have a weak husband to prop up, she decided to reinvent herself as some sort of crusader for the little guy. Alas, some are still fooled by her shallow act.
“A funny thing happened that night though, as the results came in for the 22nd Congressional Race, Capps–a religious studies professor and political neophyte who was taking on then Assemblywoman Andrea Seastrand a long time political figure who was the widow of Eric Seastrand a long-time Republican office holder.”
I took Professor Capps’s class on the Vietnam War. I don’t know if he was still teaching it in the ’90s, when he decided to run for Congress. But back in the mid-1980s, that was about the most popular course at UCSB. In fact, the year after I took it, it was featured on CBS’s 60 Minutes.
Perhaps because of that class, I always had a soft spot for Walter Capps. Thus, I was especially saddened when he died, so shortly after he finally won his seat in Congress.
One other small note on Santa Barbara politics. That Congressional seat that Capps vied for and ultimately won was traditionally a moderate Republican seat. The long-time Congressman who held it was a guy named Bob Lagomarsino. (There is a local CHP spokesman named Lagomarsino, who is probably related.)
Congressman Lagomarsino was probably not a great politician, but he adequately represented the fiscally conservative, socially liberal views of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Unfortunately for him, a fraudulent gazillionaire and his evil wife, the Huffingtons, moved into the district and targetted Lagomarsino for defeat. I don’t recall any of the details, but the campaign, run by the evil Arianna Huffington, was especially dirty. From what I recall, they did everything they could to make it look like Lagomarsino was a dirty, no good, drunken immoral bastard. And the primary voters in the Republican Party, after years of sending Lagomarsino to Washington, were fooled into believing Arianna’s b.s. So Michael Huffington, on something of a “family values” campaign, ousted Lagomarsino in the primary, and then won one term in the House, before his failed run for the Senate.
The irony in all of this is that Michael Huffington was a total fraud. He was — a la Haggard, Foley, etc. — a homosexual who preached “family values.” And his evil wife, who now goes around calling for “clean government” and other reforms, was the dirtiest, most amoral political manager in recent California history. Once her sham marriage fell apart, and she didn’t have a weak husband to prop up, she decided to reinvent herself as some sort of crusader for the little guy. Alas, some are still fooled by her shallow act.
“A funny thing happened that night though, as the results came in for the 22nd Congressional Race, Capps–a religious studies professor and political neophyte who was taking on then Assemblywoman Andrea Seastrand a long time political figure who was the widow of Eric Seastrand a long-time Republican office holder.”
I took Professor Capps’s class on the Vietnam War. I don’t know if he was still teaching it in the ’90s, when he decided to run for Congress. But back in the mid-1980s, that was about the most popular course at UCSB. In fact, the year after I took it, it was featured on CBS’s 60 Minutes.
Perhaps because of that class, I always had a soft spot for Walter Capps. Thus, I was especially saddened when he died, so shortly after he finally won his seat in Congress.
One other small note on Santa Barbara politics. That Congressional seat that Capps vied for and ultimately won was traditionally a moderate Republican seat. The long-time Congressman who held it was a guy named Bob Lagomarsino. (There is a local CHP spokesman named Lagomarsino, who is probably related.)
Congressman Lagomarsino was probably not a great politician, but he adequately represented the fiscally conservative, socially liberal views of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Unfortunately for him, a fraudulent gazillionaire and his evil wife, the Huffingtons, moved into the district and targetted Lagomarsino for defeat. I don’t recall any of the details, but the campaign, run by the evil Arianna Huffington, was especially dirty. From what I recall, they did everything they could to make it look like Lagomarsino was a dirty, no good, drunken immoral bastard. And the primary voters in the Republican Party, after years of sending Lagomarsino to Washington, were fooled into believing Arianna’s b.s. So Michael Huffington, on something of a “family values” campaign, ousted Lagomarsino in the primary, and then won one term in the House, before his failed run for the Senate.
The irony in all of this is that Michael Huffington was a total fraud. He was — a la Haggard, Foley, etc. — a homosexual who preached “family values.” And his evil wife, who now goes around calling for “clean government” and other reforms, was the dirtiest, most amoral political manager in recent California history. Once her sham marriage fell apart, and she didn’t have a weak husband to prop up, she decided to reinvent herself as some sort of crusader for the little guy. Alas, some are still fooled by her shallow act.
Although I appreciate the fact that Mr. Rifkin signs his own name to his posts, his message is frequently nasty and unpleasant to read. Although I am not a fan of Arianna Huffington, I don’t think she deserves the vicious attack that Mr. Rifkin dishes out in his post. Really, it says more about his character and misplaced anger than about her. Since Mr. Rifkin set the tone in his post, let me remind him that thanks to syncophants such as himself, we now have our own killing fields in Iraq. The latest casualty study tells us, somewhere between 400,000 and 900,000-plus “excess Iraqi deaths” have occurred since the 2003 invasion. And do you remember Saddam’s “torture chambers”? Now, we are the possessors of our own global prison system, our own torture chambers, our own leased airline to transport kidnapped prisoners around the planet, and a vice president who has openly lobbied Congress for a torture exemption for the CIA and spoke glibly on the radio about “dunking” people in water. Mr Rifkin proclaimed in his column that it was, in all, the “right thing to do” to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Now I ask the reader, who is really evil?
Although I appreciate the fact that Mr. Rifkin signs his own name to his posts, his message is frequently nasty and unpleasant to read. Although I am not a fan of Arianna Huffington, I don’t think she deserves the vicious attack that Mr. Rifkin dishes out in his post. Really, it says more about his character and misplaced anger than about her. Since Mr. Rifkin set the tone in his post, let me remind him that thanks to syncophants such as himself, we now have our own killing fields in Iraq. The latest casualty study tells us, somewhere between 400,000 and 900,000-plus “excess Iraqi deaths” have occurred since the 2003 invasion. And do you remember Saddam’s “torture chambers”? Now, we are the possessors of our own global prison system, our own torture chambers, our own leased airline to transport kidnapped prisoners around the planet, and a vice president who has openly lobbied Congress for a torture exemption for the CIA and spoke glibly on the radio about “dunking” people in water. Mr Rifkin proclaimed in his column that it was, in all, the “right thing to do” to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Now I ask the reader, who is really evil?
Although I appreciate the fact that Mr. Rifkin signs his own name to his posts, his message is frequently nasty and unpleasant to read. Although I am not a fan of Arianna Huffington, I don’t think she deserves the vicious attack that Mr. Rifkin dishes out in his post. Really, it says more about his character and misplaced anger than about her. Since Mr. Rifkin set the tone in his post, let me remind him that thanks to syncophants such as himself, we now have our own killing fields in Iraq. The latest casualty study tells us, somewhere between 400,000 and 900,000-plus “excess Iraqi deaths” have occurred since the 2003 invasion. And do you remember Saddam’s “torture chambers”? Now, we are the possessors of our own global prison system, our own torture chambers, our own leased airline to transport kidnapped prisoners around the planet, and a vice president who has openly lobbied Congress for a torture exemption for the CIA and spoke glibly on the radio about “dunking” people in water. Mr Rifkin proclaimed in his column that it was, in all, the “right thing to do” to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Now I ask the reader, who is really evil?
Although I appreciate the fact that Mr. Rifkin signs his own name to his posts, his message is frequently nasty and unpleasant to read. Although I am not a fan of Arianna Huffington, I don’t think she deserves the vicious attack that Mr. Rifkin dishes out in his post. Really, it says more about his character and misplaced anger than about her. Since Mr. Rifkin set the tone in his post, let me remind him that thanks to syncophants such as himself, we now have our own killing fields in Iraq. The latest casualty study tells us, somewhere between 400,000 and 900,000-plus “excess Iraqi deaths” have occurred since the 2003 invasion. And do you remember Saddam’s “torture chambers”? Now, we are the possessors of our own global prison system, our own torture chambers, our own leased airline to transport kidnapped prisoners around the planet, and a vice president who has openly lobbied Congress for a torture exemption for the CIA and spoke glibly on the radio about “dunking” people in water. Mr Rifkin proclaimed in his column that it was, in all, the “right thing to do” to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Now I ask the reader, who is really evil?
“Mr Rifkin proclaimed in his column that it was, in all, the “right thing to do” to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Now I ask the reader, who is really evil?”
Anonymous,
I’m glad you posted what you did. I have for so long thought that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, your post made me go back and read every column that I wrote in which Iraq was mentioned, just to see if I really said what you claim here that I said. As it happens, your charge is false.
Here are my mentions of Iraq in The LexiCon Artist:
July 14, 2004 — “(Bush) led us into a costly and deadly war in Iraq that has all the looks of a quagmire.”
December 15, 2004 — “There is no question that the decision to invade Iraq was a colossal error.”
September 7, 2005 — No comments on Iraq by me. However, I note (based on an interview I did with him) that Congressman Mike Thompson believed at that time (and possibly still believes today) that leaving Iraq would be a mistake.
June 14, 2006 — I wrote that we need to build up a strong Iraqi Army that can replace our troops.*
July 26, 2006 — “The Iraq War was a colossal mistake. Just because it was justified, doesn’t mean it was wise.”
* FWIW, I’ve changed my mind on what I wrote on June 14 of this year. It may be a sound idea for us to forge a strong Iraqi Army, but I think at this point that it is impossible. The army is made up of Shia’s and Sunnis and Kurds (and a few other minorities) and each group cares more about killing the other groups than building a nation. We can’t wish away that reality.
I heard a guy from the Council on Foreign Relations on “Hardball” today say something that sounded rather smart to me: he said that we need to accept the fact that there is absolutely no chance for a good outcome in Iraq; that we should (fairly soon) pull out of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq in which the civil war/ethnic strife is going on, because our presence is not helping anything; that we ought to stay in the few places in Iraq (such as Kurdistan) where we are welcome and where we can help defend the people who want us to defend them.
The speaker from the CFR said we should also station troops along the Syria/Iraq border to try to stop the conflict from spreading. And he said we need to speak with each of the neighboring countries diplomatically, to make it clear that they should not interfere in Iraq’s civil war.
I’d need to think about this more to decide if this is the best policy. But I’ve definitely lost all of my optimism about our remaining engaged, there. I just don’t see the point of spending any more money or any more lives trying to keep the elected government alive. I can see no chance of any good outcome from that. We are essentially burning dollar bills and sacrificing our soldiers for no long-term good at all.
I am not any kind of military expert. But before I heard the guy on Hardball, today, I thought we should withdraw our troops to Kuwait, our navy to the Gulf, and our Air Force to one of the Gulf emirates. I don’t believe at this point that it is in anyone’s interest for us to completely leave the region. But maybe from further back we can try to prevent the Iraqi civil war from spreading. And if we can do that, we can do it with far fewer soldiers and Marines on the ground.
“Mr Rifkin proclaimed in his column that it was, in all, the “right thing to do” to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Now I ask the reader, who is really evil?”
Anonymous,
I’m glad you posted what you did. I have for so long thought that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, your post made me go back and read every column that I wrote in which Iraq was mentioned, just to see if I really said what you claim here that I said. As it happens, your charge is false.
Here are my mentions of Iraq in The LexiCon Artist:
July 14, 2004 — “(Bush) led us into a costly and deadly war in Iraq that has all the looks of a quagmire.”
December 15, 2004 — “There is no question that the decision to invade Iraq was a colossal error.”
September 7, 2005 — No comments on Iraq by me. However, I note (based on an interview I did with him) that Congressman Mike Thompson believed at that time (and possibly still believes today) that leaving Iraq would be a mistake.
June 14, 2006 — I wrote that we need to build up a strong Iraqi Army that can replace our troops.*
July 26, 2006 — “The Iraq War was a colossal mistake. Just because it was justified, doesn’t mean it was wise.”
* FWIW, I’ve changed my mind on what I wrote on June 14 of this year. It may be a sound idea for us to forge a strong Iraqi Army, but I think at this point that it is impossible. The army is made up of Shia’s and Sunnis and Kurds (and a few other minorities) and each group cares more about killing the other groups than building a nation. We can’t wish away that reality.
I heard a guy from the Council on Foreign Relations on “Hardball” today say something that sounded rather smart to me: he said that we need to accept the fact that there is absolutely no chance for a good outcome in Iraq; that we should (fairly soon) pull out of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq in which the civil war/ethnic strife is going on, because our presence is not helping anything; that we ought to stay in the few places in Iraq (such as Kurdistan) where we are welcome and where we can help defend the people who want us to defend them.
The speaker from the CFR said we should also station troops along the Syria/Iraq border to try to stop the conflict from spreading. And he said we need to speak with each of the neighboring countries diplomatically, to make it clear that they should not interfere in Iraq’s civil war.
I’d need to think about this more to decide if this is the best policy. But I’ve definitely lost all of my optimism about our remaining engaged, there. I just don’t see the point of spending any more money or any more lives trying to keep the elected government alive. I can see no chance of any good outcome from that. We are essentially burning dollar bills and sacrificing our soldiers for no long-term good at all.
I am not any kind of military expert. But before I heard the guy on Hardball, today, I thought we should withdraw our troops to Kuwait, our navy to the Gulf, and our Air Force to one of the Gulf emirates. I don’t believe at this point that it is in anyone’s interest for us to completely leave the region. But maybe from further back we can try to prevent the Iraqi civil war from spreading. And if we can do that, we can do it with far fewer soldiers and Marines on the ground.
“Mr Rifkin proclaimed in his column that it was, in all, the “right thing to do” to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Now I ask the reader, who is really evil?”
Anonymous,
I’m glad you posted what you did. I have for so long thought that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, your post made me go back and read every column that I wrote in which Iraq was mentioned, just to see if I really said what you claim here that I said. As it happens, your charge is false.
Here are my mentions of Iraq in The LexiCon Artist:
July 14, 2004 — “(Bush) led us into a costly and deadly war in Iraq that has all the looks of a quagmire.”
December 15, 2004 — “There is no question that the decision to invade Iraq was a colossal error.”
September 7, 2005 — No comments on Iraq by me. However, I note (based on an interview I did with him) that Congressman Mike Thompson believed at that time (and possibly still believes today) that leaving Iraq would be a mistake.
June 14, 2006 — I wrote that we need to build up a strong Iraqi Army that can replace our troops.*
July 26, 2006 — “The Iraq War was a colossal mistake. Just because it was justified, doesn’t mean it was wise.”
* FWIW, I’ve changed my mind on what I wrote on June 14 of this year. It may be a sound idea for us to forge a strong Iraqi Army, but I think at this point that it is impossible. The army is made up of Shia’s and Sunnis and Kurds (and a few other minorities) and each group cares more about killing the other groups than building a nation. We can’t wish away that reality.
I heard a guy from the Council on Foreign Relations on “Hardball” today say something that sounded rather smart to me: he said that we need to accept the fact that there is absolutely no chance for a good outcome in Iraq; that we should (fairly soon) pull out of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq in which the civil war/ethnic strife is going on, because our presence is not helping anything; that we ought to stay in the few places in Iraq (such as Kurdistan) where we are welcome and where we can help defend the people who want us to defend them.
The speaker from the CFR said we should also station troops along the Syria/Iraq border to try to stop the conflict from spreading. And he said we need to speak with each of the neighboring countries diplomatically, to make it clear that they should not interfere in Iraq’s civil war.
I’d need to think about this more to decide if this is the best policy. But I’ve definitely lost all of my optimism about our remaining engaged, there. I just don’t see the point of spending any more money or any more lives trying to keep the elected government alive. I can see no chance of any good outcome from that. We are essentially burning dollar bills and sacrificing our soldiers for no long-term good at all.
I am not any kind of military expert. But before I heard the guy on Hardball, today, I thought we should withdraw our troops to Kuwait, our navy to the Gulf, and our Air Force to one of the Gulf emirates. I don’t believe at this point that it is in anyone’s interest for us to completely leave the region. But maybe from further back we can try to prevent the Iraqi civil war from spreading. And if we can do that, we can do it with far fewer soldiers and Marines on the ground.
“Mr Rifkin proclaimed in his column that it was, in all, the “right thing to do” to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Now I ask the reader, who is really evil?”
Anonymous,
I’m glad you posted what you did. I have for so long thought that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, your post made me go back and read every column that I wrote in which Iraq was mentioned, just to see if I really said what you claim here that I said. As it happens, your charge is false.
Here are my mentions of Iraq in The LexiCon Artist:
July 14, 2004 — “(Bush) led us into a costly and deadly war in Iraq that has all the looks of a quagmire.”
December 15, 2004 — “There is no question that the decision to invade Iraq was a colossal error.”
September 7, 2005 — No comments on Iraq by me. However, I note (based on an interview I did with him) that Congressman Mike Thompson believed at that time (and possibly still believes today) that leaving Iraq would be a mistake.
June 14, 2006 — I wrote that we need to build up a strong Iraqi Army that can replace our troops.*
July 26, 2006 — “The Iraq War was a colossal mistake. Just because it was justified, doesn’t mean it was wise.”
* FWIW, I’ve changed my mind on what I wrote on June 14 of this year. It may be a sound idea for us to forge a strong Iraqi Army, but I think at this point that it is impossible. The army is made up of Shia’s and Sunnis and Kurds (and a few other minorities) and each group cares more about killing the other groups than building a nation. We can’t wish away that reality.
I heard a guy from the Council on Foreign Relations on “Hardball” today say something that sounded rather smart to me: he said that we need to accept the fact that there is absolutely no chance for a good outcome in Iraq; that we should (fairly soon) pull out of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq in which the civil war/ethnic strife is going on, because our presence is not helping anything; that we ought to stay in the few places in Iraq (such as Kurdistan) where we are welcome and where we can help defend the people who want us to defend them.
The speaker from the CFR said we should also station troops along the Syria/Iraq border to try to stop the conflict from spreading. And he said we need to speak with each of the neighboring countries diplomatically, to make it clear that they should not interfere in Iraq’s civil war.
I’d need to think about this more to decide if this is the best policy. But I’ve definitely lost all of my optimism about our remaining engaged, there. I just don’t see the point of spending any more money or any more lives trying to keep the elected government alive. I can see no chance of any good outcome from that. We are essentially burning dollar bills and sacrificing our soldiers for no long-term good at all.
I am not any kind of military expert. But before I heard the guy on Hardball, today, I thought we should withdraw our troops to Kuwait, our navy to the Gulf, and our Air Force to one of the Gulf emirates. I don’t believe at this point that it is in anyone’s interest for us to completely leave the region. But maybe from further back we can try to prevent the Iraqi civil war from spreading. And if we can do that, we can do it with far fewer soldiers and Marines on the ground.
I’ve long had a quandry on Iraq. I opposed us going into Iraq. Most of the problems we are seeing now, I foresaw. I often was perplexed as to how I could so clearly see the problems of ethnic conflict and the Bush administration be so oblivious to them. On the other hand, I believed we had a lot of responsibility for innocent Iraqis and did not want to leave behind a bloodbath. At that time it seemed that the US could at least keep it as a low grade civil war rather than an absolute blood bath. Now even that seems illusive.
Interesting article the other day on Bechtel pulling out of Iraq:
“When companies like Bechtel and Kroll begin to withdraw from Iraq, the situation has clearly reached a new level of instability. These firms are used to working in unstable environments, and security threats are simply a part of the business they are in. When they have to start calculating that the threat is greater than the potential profit, the situation is indeed serious.
There is a deeper aspect to this. The U.S. Army was designed, during the 1990s, to be a force that was dependent on the private sector to operate. Put another way, the standing Army was not designed to go into combat without integrating Reserve and National Guard components and without outsourcing support services to the private sector. It was not an Army that could undertake combat operations without this support.”
In the end, the Shia are going to move in, and get their revenge on the Sunnis for the Hussein massacres, I just don’t see at this point anyway to prevent that.
I think it will be interesting Rush Limbaugh (someone I don’t pay attention to often) said he would no longer be carrying the water for the administration, you have to wonder if all the people who were trying to spin the war to keep things in check will suddenly discover that Iraq is a disaster, something I think even most honest conservatives have long since known.
I’ve long had a quandry on Iraq. I opposed us going into Iraq. Most of the problems we are seeing now, I foresaw. I often was perplexed as to how I could so clearly see the problems of ethnic conflict and the Bush administration be so oblivious to them. On the other hand, I believed we had a lot of responsibility for innocent Iraqis and did not want to leave behind a bloodbath. At that time it seemed that the US could at least keep it as a low grade civil war rather than an absolute blood bath. Now even that seems illusive.
Interesting article the other day on Bechtel pulling out of Iraq:
“When companies like Bechtel and Kroll begin to withdraw from Iraq, the situation has clearly reached a new level of instability. These firms are used to working in unstable environments, and security threats are simply a part of the business they are in. When they have to start calculating that the threat is greater than the potential profit, the situation is indeed serious.
There is a deeper aspect to this. The U.S. Army was designed, during the 1990s, to be a force that was dependent on the private sector to operate. Put another way, the standing Army was not designed to go into combat without integrating Reserve and National Guard components and without outsourcing support services to the private sector. It was not an Army that could undertake combat operations without this support.”
In the end, the Shia are going to move in, and get their revenge on the Sunnis for the Hussein massacres, I just don’t see at this point anyway to prevent that.
I think it will be interesting Rush Limbaugh (someone I don’t pay attention to often) said he would no longer be carrying the water for the administration, you have to wonder if all the people who were trying to spin the war to keep things in check will suddenly discover that Iraq is a disaster, something I think even most honest conservatives have long since known.
I’ve long had a quandry on Iraq. I opposed us going into Iraq. Most of the problems we are seeing now, I foresaw. I often was perplexed as to how I could so clearly see the problems of ethnic conflict and the Bush administration be so oblivious to them. On the other hand, I believed we had a lot of responsibility for innocent Iraqis and did not want to leave behind a bloodbath. At that time it seemed that the US could at least keep it as a low grade civil war rather than an absolute blood bath. Now even that seems illusive.
Interesting article the other day on Bechtel pulling out of Iraq:
“When companies like Bechtel and Kroll begin to withdraw from Iraq, the situation has clearly reached a new level of instability. These firms are used to working in unstable environments, and security threats are simply a part of the business they are in. When they have to start calculating that the threat is greater than the potential profit, the situation is indeed serious.
There is a deeper aspect to this. The U.S. Army was designed, during the 1990s, to be a force that was dependent on the private sector to operate. Put another way, the standing Army was not designed to go into combat without integrating Reserve and National Guard components and without outsourcing support services to the private sector. It was not an Army that could undertake combat operations without this support.”
In the end, the Shia are going to move in, and get their revenge on the Sunnis for the Hussein massacres, I just don’t see at this point anyway to prevent that.
I think it will be interesting Rush Limbaugh (someone I don’t pay attention to often) said he would no longer be carrying the water for the administration, you have to wonder if all the people who were trying to spin the war to keep things in check will suddenly discover that Iraq is a disaster, something I think even most honest conservatives have long since known.
I’ve long had a quandry on Iraq. I opposed us going into Iraq. Most of the problems we are seeing now, I foresaw. I often was perplexed as to how I could so clearly see the problems of ethnic conflict and the Bush administration be so oblivious to them. On the other hand, I believed we had a lot of responsibility for innocent Iraqis and did not want to leave behind a bloodbath. At that time it seemed that the US could at least keep it as a low grade civil war rather than an absolute blood bath. Now even that seems illusive.
Interesting article the other day on Bechtel pulling out of Iraq:
“When companies like Bechtel and Kroll begin to withdraw from Iraq, the situation has clearly reached a new level of instability. These firms are used to working in unstable environments, and security threats are simply a part of the business they are in. When they have to start calculating that the threat is greater than the potential profit, the situation is indeed serious.
There is a deeper aspect to this. The U.S. Army was designed, during the 1990s, to be a force that was dependent on the private sector to operate. Put another way, the standing Army was not designed to go into combat without integrating Reserve and National Guard components and without outsourcing support services to the private sector. It was not an Army that could undertake combat operations without this support.”
In the end, the Shia are going to move in, and get their revenge on the Sunnis for the Hussein massacres, I just don’t see at this point anyway to prevent that.
I think it will be interesting Rush Limbaugh (someone I don’t pay attention to often) said he would no longer be carrying the water for the administration, you have to wonder if all the people who were trying to spin the war to keep things in check will suddenly discover that Iraq is a disaster, something I think even most honest conservatives have long since known.
“Although I am not a fan of Arianna Huffington, I don’t think she deserves the vicious attack that Mr. Rifkin dishes out in his post.”
Anonymous,
I think if you observed what went on in the Huffington/Lagomarsino primary, you would understand my point of view on Arianna Huffington. I’ve never seen any worse case of character assassination in my life. And Arianna was in charge of her erstwhile husband’s very dirty campaign.
I am not writing this as a person with any attachment to Bob Lagomarsino. I simply observed what was happening. The Huffingtons threw every nasty charge they could think of at Lagomarsino, and it destroyed the man. Almost everything they said was false or misleading, but none of that seemed to matter to Arianna Huffington. (I’ve never heard her apologize for that campaign, but I was told that Michael Huffington later apologized directly to the Lagomarsino family, saying he felt badly for what they did to the Congressman.)
DPD mentions the Feinstein/Huffington Senate race. Dianne Feinstein had enough money to respond to the attacks that Arianna was making against her, and ultimately won the contest. But that does not excuse the fact that Arianna ran a very dirty campaign against Feinstein, too.
Perhaps my characterization of her as “evil” is over the top. Okay — I’m willing to retract that. But it galls me that she tries to portray herself as a person who believes in clean politics. Her record is so terribly dirty. She should be shamed into an exile from commenting on politics.
“Although I am not a fan of Arianna Huffington, I don’t think she deserves the vicious attack that Mr. Rifkin dishes out in his post.”
Anonymous,
I think if you observed what went on in the Huffington/Lagomarsino primary, you would understand my point of view on Arianna Huffington. I’ve never seen any worse case of character assassination in my life. And Arianna was in charge of her erstwhile husband’s very dirty campaign.
I am not writing this as a person with any attachment to Bob Lagomarsino. I simply observed what was happening. The Huffingtons threw every nasty charge they could think of at Lagomarsino, and it destroyed the man. Almost everything they said was false or misleading, but none of that seemed to matter to Arianna Huffington. (I’ve never heard her apologize for that campaign, but I was told that Michael Huffington later apologized directly to the Lagomarsino family, saying he felt badly for what they did to the Congressman.)
DPD mentions the Feinstein/Huffington Senate race. Dianne Feinstein had enough money to respond to the attacks that Arianna was making against her, and ultimately won the contest. But that does not excuse the fact that Arianna ran a very dirty campaign against Feinstein, too.
Perhaps my characterization of her as “evil” is over the top. Okay — I’m willing to retract that. But it galls me that she tries to portray herself as a person who believes in clean politics. Her record is so terribly dirty. She should be shamed into an exile from commenting on politics.
“Although I am not a fan of Arianna Huffington, I don’t think she deserves the vicious attack that Mr. Rifkin dishes out in his post.”
Anonymous,
I think if you observed what went on in the Huffington/Lagomarsino primary, you would understand my point of view on Arianna Huffington. I’ve never seen any worse case of character assassination in my life. And Arianna was in charge of her erstwhile husband’s very dirty campaign.
I am not writing this as a person with any attachment to Bob Lagomarsino. I simply observed what was happening. The Huffingtons threw every nasty charge they could think of at Lagomarsino, and it destroyed the man. Almost everything they said was false or misleading, but none of that seemed to matter to Arianna Huffington. (I’ve never heard her apologize for that campaign, but I was told that Michael Huffington later apologized directly to the Lagomarsino family, saying he felt badly for what they did to the Congressman.)
DPD mentions the Feinstein/Huffington Senate race. Dianne Feinstein had enough money to respond to the attacks that Arianna was making against her, and ultimately won the contest. But that does not excuse the fact that Arianna ran a very dirty campaign against Feinstein, too.
Perhaps my characterization of her as “evil” is over the top. Okay — I’m willing to retract that. But it galls me that she tries to portray herself as a person who believes in clean politics. Her record is so terribly dirty. She should be shamed into an exile from commenting on politics.
“Although I am not a fan of Arianna Huffington, I don’t think she deserves the vicious attack that Mr. Rifkin dishes out in his post.”
Anonymous,
I think if you observed what went on in the Huffington/Lagomarsino primary, you would understand my point of view on Arianna Huffington. I’ve never seen any worse case of character assassination in my life. And Arianna was in charge of her erstwhile husband’s very dirty campaign.
I am not writing this as a person with any attachment to Bob Lagomarsino. I simply observed what was happening. The Huffingtons threw every nasty charge they could think of at Lagomarsino, and it destroyed the man. Almost everything they said was false or misleading, but none of that seemed to matter to Arianna Huffington. (I’ve never heard her apologize for that campaign, but I was told that Michael Huffington later apologized directly to the Lagomarsino family, saying he felt badly for what they did to the Congressman.)
DPD mentions the Feinstein/Huffington Senate race. Dianne Feinstein had enough money to respond to the attacks that Arianna was making against her, and ultimately won the contest. But that does not excuse the fact that Arianna ran a very dirty campaign against Feinstein, too.
Perhaps my characterization of her as “evil” is over the top. Okay — I’m willing to retract that. But it galls me that she tries to portray herself as a person who believes in clean politics. Her record is so terribly dirty. She should be shamed into an exile from commenting on politics.
I too was in the district during that race, and I would certainly say that was as nasty a race as you could imagine. Arianna was not one that we were very fond of. What I don’t know is whether she’s changed her stripes since then–I know she has done a 180 politically, but has she changed? I couldn’t tell you.
I too was in the district during that race, and I would certainly say that was as nasty a race as you could imagine. Arianna was not one that we were very fond of. What I don’t know is whether she’s changed her stripes since then–I know she has done a 180 politically, but has she changed? I couldn’t tell you.
I too was in the district during that race, and I would certainly say that was as nasty a race as you could imagine. Arianna was not one that we were very fond of. What I don’t know is whether she’s changed her stripes since then–I know she has done a 180 politically, but has she changed? I couldn’t tell you.
I too was in the district during that race, and I would certainly say that was as nasty a race as you could imagine. Arianna was not one that we were very fond of. What I don’t know is whether she’s changed her stripes since then–I know she has done a 180 politically, but has she changed? I couldn’t tell you.
I apologize for making two mistakes: I misquoted Mr. Rifkin. Instead of saying that the war was “the right thing to do” he actually stated that the war “was justified”. My mistake. Oh, and I misspelled syncophant, I really meant to use the word “toady”.
I apologize for making two mistakes: I misquoted Mr. Rifkin. Instead of saying that the war was “the right thing to do” he actually stated that the war “was justified”. My mistake. Oh, and I misspelled syncophant, I really meant to use the word “toady”.
I apologize for making two mistakes: I misquoted Mr. Rifkin. Instead of saying that the war was “the right thing to do” he actually stated that the war “was justified”. My mistake. Oh, and I misspelled syncophant, I really meant to use the word “toady”.
I apologize for making two mistakes: I misquoted Mr. Rifkin. Instead of saying that the war was “the right thing to do” he actually stated that the war “was justified”. My mistake. Oh, and I misspelled syncophant, I really meant to use the word “toady”.
Arianna is the left’s media answer to the army of right-wing cable TV and radio “news” commentators. Her “gigs” are presented to entertain not educate as she “preaches to the choir”…. much like some of our local Enterprise columnists but without the vile tone of anger(and hint of violence in the background) that an overabundance of testosterone
appears to promote.
Arianna is the left’s media answer to the army of right-wing cable TV and radio “news” commentators. Her “gigs” are presented to entertain not educate as she “preaches to the choir”…. much like some of our local Enterprise columnists but without the vile tone of anger(and hint of violence in the background) that an overabundance of testosterone
appears to promote.
Arianna is the left’s media answer to the army of right-wing cable TV and radio “news” commentators. Her “gigs” are presented to entertain not educate as she “preaches to the choir”…. much like some of our local Enterprise columnists but without the vile tone of anger(and hint of violence in the background) that an overabundance of testosterone
appears to promote.
Arianna is the left’s media answer to the army of right-wing cable TV and radio “news” commentators. Her “gigs” are presented to entertain not educate as she “preaches to the choir”…. much like some of our local Enterprise columnists but without the vile tone of anger(and hint of violence in the background) that an overabundance of testosterone
appears to promote.
“I apologize for making two mistakes: I misquoted Mr. Rifkin. Instead of saying that the war was “the right thing to do” he actually stated that the war “was justified”.
Anonymous,
Your apology is accepted. As you may recall, my point in that column was that, even if an action can be justified, it may still be wrong to do it.
I wrote that piece at the start of the recent Israel-Hezbollah War. Most of the column was spelled out to express my view that Israel should not have gone to war with Hezbollah, even though the Israelis were justified (in that Hezbollah unprovokedly started the war). My assumption — which has largely proved to be true since — was that Israel would end up suffering a lot of deaths and destruction, and after the fighting ceased, they would be no safer for it. Even worse, as things progressed, the larger Lebanese population (which lives in fear of Hezbollah) turned vehemently against the Jewish State, and the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were never returned. (As you must know, Hezbollah is run out of Tehran. And thus it is likely that the Iranians are still holding the Israeli soldiers captive.)
“Oh, and I misspelled syncophant, I really meant to use the word “toady”.
Whether you call me a “sycophant” or a “toady,” I’m thoroughly confused by the charge. Who is it exactly that I am subserviently flattering with my rhetoric? To whom do you believe I am allegiant?
If you had fair evidence to support your claims, then anonymously making such charges against me would be fine. (I don’t really understand why anyone fears putting his own name out there. It suggests to me, in this day and age, that he lacks confidence in his argument.) However, as far as I can see, your attacks are pure scurrility.
You have no fair evidence that I am subservient to anyone, that I am carrying the water for one side or another. Any fair reading of my work suggests that I am my own man, that I bow down to no one. Therefore, for you to anonymously charge me with being a “toady,” shows that you are a coward. You are the teenage hooligan who vandalizes cars at night. You are the punk who throws a punch at someone who was not aware of your presence and runs and hides. Your attacks against my character, made anonymously and without merit, reflect not badly on me. They show you to be a coward and a fool.
“I apologize for making two mistakes: I misquoted Mr. Rifkin. Instead of saying that the war was “the right thing to do” he actually stated that the war “was justified”.
Anonymous,
Your apology is accepted. As you may recall, my point in that column was that, even if an action can be justified, it may still be wrong to do it.
I wrote that piece at the start of the recent Israel-Hezbollah War. Most of the column was spelled out to express my view that Israel should not have gone to war with Hezbollah, even though the Israelis were justified (in that Hezbollah unprovokedly started the war). My assumption — which has largely proved to be true since — was that Israel would end up suffering a lot of deaths and destruction, and after the fighting ceased, they would be no safer for it. Even worse, as things progressed, the larger Lebanese population (which lives in fear of Hezbollah) turned vehemently against the Jewish State, and the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were never returned. (As you must know, Hezbollah is run out of Tehran. And thus it is likely that the Iranians are still holding the Israeli soldiers captive.)
“Oh, and I misspelled syncophant, I really meant to use the word “toady”.
Whether you call me a “sycophant” or a “toady,” I’m thoroughly confused by the charge. Who is it exactly that I am subserviently flattering with my rhetoric? To whom do you believe I am allegiant?
If you had fair evidence to support your claims, then anonymously making such charges against me would be fine. (I don’t really understand why anyone fears putting his own name out there. It suggests to me, in this day and age, that he lacks confidence in his argument.) However, as far as I can see, your attacks are pure scurrility.
You have no fair evidence that I am subservient to anyone, that I am carrying the water for one side or another. Any fair reading of my work suggests that I am my own man, that I bow down to no one. Therefore, for you to anonymously charge me with being a “toady,” shows that you are a coward. You are the teenage hooligan who vandalizes cars at night. You are the punk who throws a punch at someone who was not aware of your presence and runs and hides. Your attacks against my character, made anonymously and without merit, reflect not badly on me. They show you to be a coward and a fool.
“I apologize for making two mistakes: I misquoted Mr. Rifkin. Instead of saying that the war was “the right thing to do” he actually stated that the war “was justified”.
Anonymous,
Your apology is accepted. As you may recall, my point in that column was that, even if an action can be justified, it may still be wrong to do it.
I wrote that piece at the start of the recent Israel-Hezbollah War. Most of the column was spelled out to express my view that Israel should not have gone to war with Hezbollah, even though the Israelis were justified (in that Hezbollah unprovokedly started the war). My assumption — which has largely proved to be true since — was that Israel would end up suffering a lot of deaths and destruction, and after the fighting ceased, they would be no safer for it. Even worse, as things progressed, the larger Lebanese population (which lives in fear of Hezbollah) turned vehemently against the Jewish State, and the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were never returned. (As you must know, Hezbollah is run out of Tehran. And thus it is likely that the Iranians are still holding the Israeli soldiers captive.)
“Oh, and I misspelled syncophant, I really meant to use the word “toady”.
Whether you call me a “sycophant” or a “toady,” I’m thoroughly confused by the charge. Who is it exactly that I am subserviently flattering with my rhetoric? To whom do you believe I am allegiant?
If you had fair evidence to support your claims, then anonymously making such charges against me would be fine. (I don’t really understand why anyone fears putting his own name out there. It suggests to me, in this day and age, that he lacks confidence in his argument.) However, as far as I can see, your attacks are pure scurrility.
You have no fair evidence that I am subservient to anyone, that I am carrying the water for one side or another. Any fair reading of my work suggests that I am my own man, that I bow down to no one. Therefore, for you to anonymously charge me with being a “toady,” shows that you are a coward. You are the teenage hooligan who vandalizes cars at night. You are the punk who throws a punch at someone who was not aware of your presence and runs and hides. Your attacks against my character, made anonymously and without merit, reflect not badly on me. They show you to be a coward and a fool.
“I apologize for making two mistakes: I misquoted Mr. Rifkin. Instead of saying that the war was “the right thing to do” he actually stated that the war “was justified”.
Anonymous,
Your apology is accepted. As you may recall, my point in that column was that, even if an action can be justified, it may still be wrong to do it.
I wrote that piece at the start of the recent Israel-Hezbollah War. Most of the column was spelled out to express my view that Israel should not have gone to war with Hezbollah, even though the Israelis were justified (in that Hezbollah unprovokedly started the war). My assumption — which has largely proved to be true since — was that Israel would end up suffering a lot of deaths and destruction, and after the fighting ceased, they would be no safer for it. Even worse, as things progressed, the larger Lebanese population (which lives in fear of Hezbollah) turned vehemently against the Jewish State, and the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were never returned. (As you must know, Hezbollah is run out of Tehran. And thus it is likely that the Iranians are still holding the Israeli soldiers captive.)
“Oh, and I misspelled syncophant, I really meant to use the word “toady”.
Whether you call me a “sycophant” or a “toady,” I’m thoroughly confused by the charge. Who is it exactly that I am subserviently flattering with my rhetoric? To whom do you believe I am allegiant?
If you had fair evidence to support your claims, then anonymously making such charges against me would be fine. (I don’t really understand why anyone fears putting his own name out there. It suggests to me, in this day and age, that he lacks confidence in his argument.) However, as far as I can see, your attacks are pure scurrility.
You have no fair evidence that I am subservient to anyone, that I am carrying the water for one side or another. Any fair reading of my work suggests that I am my own man, that I bow down to no one. Therefore, for you to anonymously charge me with being a “toady,” shows that you are a coward. You are the teenage hooligan who vandalizes cars at night. You are the punk who throws a punch at someone who was not aware of your presence and runs and hides. Your attacks against my character, made anonymously and without merit, reflect not badly on me. They show you to be a coward and a fool.
Let’s try to keep this at least in the appearance of being civil. I like debate rather than name calling. JMO.
Let’s try to keep this at least in the appearance of being civil. I like debate rather than name calling. JMO.
Let’s try to keep this at least in the appearance of being civil. I like debate rather than name calling. JMO.
Let’s try to keep this at least in the appearance of being civil. I like debate rather than name calling. JMO.
Mr. Rifkin:
That’s the whole point of my post sent anonymously. You have a column in which you can pontificate and bloviate and attempt to destroy people for disagreeing with you. If you knew who I was, you would use your column to lash out at me just like you did here instead of addressing the topic at hand. I have no such column, and I have to resort to posting here to disagree with you. Instead of calling me names and changing the subject, why don’t you explain to all of us what the justification was for the Iraq war? If the justifications are the same presented as by Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush, and Limbaugh, then in my opinion, you are a toady to them.
Mr. Rifkin:
That’s the whole point of my post sent anonymously. You have a column in which you can pontificate and bloviate and attempt to destroy people for disagreeing with you. If you knew who I was, you would use your column to lash out at me just like you did here instead of addressing the topic at hand. I have no such column, and I have to resort to posting here to disagree with you. Instead of calling me names and changing the subject, why don’t you explain to all of us what the justification was for the Iraq war? If the justifications are the same presented as by Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush, and Limbaugh, then in my opinion, you are a toady to them.
Mr. Rifkin:
That’s the whole point of my post sent anonymously. You have a column in which you can pontificate and bloviate and attempt to destroy people for disagreeing with you. If you knew who I was, you would use your column to lash out at me just like you did here instead of addressing the topic at hand. I have no such column, and I have to resort to posting here to disagree with you. Instead of calling me names and changing the subject, why don’t you explain to all of us what the justification was for the Iraq war? If the justifications are the same presented as by Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush, and Limbaugh, then in my opinion, you are a toady to them.
Mr. Rifkin:
That’s the whole point of my post sent anonymously. You have a column in which you can pontificate and bloviate and attempt to destroy people for disagreeing with you. If you knew who I was, you would use your column to lash out at me just like you did here instead of addressing the topic at hand. I have no such column, and I have to resort to posting here to disagree with you. Instead of calling me names and changing the subject, why don’t you explain to all of us what the justification was for the Iraq war? If the justifications are the same presented as by Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush, and Limbaugh, then in my opinion, you are a toady to them.
“Instead of calling me names and changing the subject …”
Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black. You call me a toady and a synchopant (sic) and then accuse me of being a name caller? That’s pathetic, Anonymous.
“… why don’t you explain to all of us what the justification was for the Iraq war?”
I did exactly that in my column. In brief, I noted that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer of the Kurds, a man who had invaded two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened, a man who was holding tens of millions of Iraqis in terror, and a man whose continuation in power would continue to be the bane of that region. In other words, Saddam was an evil bastard who had harmed so many people that he deserved to be violently thrust out of power.
But, as I said in my column, hindsight has clearly shown that no matter how much Saddam and his regime deserved their fate, just about everyone is worse off now for our having acted as we did.
“If the justifications are the same presented as by Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush, and Limbaugh, then in my opinion, you are a toady to them.”
Again with the name calling, Anonymous. Even worse, you have your facts about me all wrong.
“You have a column in which you can pontificate and bloviate and attempt to destroy people for disagreeing with you.”
You are familiar with my column, and therefore you know that I have never tried to “destroy people” for disagreeing with me.
I have probably written things which have proved to be wrong or incomplete. However, I have always tried to have all of my facts right. My purpose is never to go after “someone who disagrees with me.” My purpose is to shed light, as I see things.
And because I am not a partisan or any kind of rigid ideologue, there are probably many things that I have written that you agree with.
“If you knew who I was, you would use your column to lash out at me just like you did here instead of addressing the topic at hand.”
Anonymous, time for you to look in the mirror. You attacked me. I don’t give a damn about you, or who you are.
You at least stood up to apologize that you got the first half of your calumny wrong. Maybe you will find the courage to admit that every charge you made above was false.
“Instead of calling me names and changing the subject …”
Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black. You call me a toady and a synchopant (sic) and then accuse me of being a name caller? That’s pathetic, Anonymous.
“… why don’t you explain to all of us what the justification was for the Iraq war?”
I did exactly that in my column. In brief, I noted that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer of the Kurds, a man who had invaded two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened, a man who was holding tens of millions of Iraqis in terror, and a man whose continuation in power would continue to be the bane of that region. In other words, Saddam was an evil bastard who had harmed so many people that he deserved to be violently thrust out of power.
But, as I said in my column, hindsight has clearly shown that no matter how much Saddam and his regime deserved their fate, just about everyone is worse off now for our having acted as we did.
“If the justifications are the same presented as by Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush, and Limbaugh, then in my opinion, you are a toady to them.”
Again with the name calling, Anonymous. Even worse, you have your facts about me all wrong.
“You have a column in which you can pontificate and bloviate and attempt to destroy people for disagreeing with you.”
You are familiar with my column, and therefore you know that I have never tried to “destroy people” for disagreeing with me.
I have probably written things which have proved to be wrong or incomplete. However, I have always tried to have all of my facts right. My purpose is never to go after “someone who disagrees with me.” My purpose is to shed light, as I see things.
And because I am not a partisan or any kind of rigid ideologue, there are probably many things that I have written that you agree with.
“If you knew who I was, you would use your column to lash out at me just like you did here instead of addressing the topic at hand.”
Anonymous, time for you to look in the mirror. You attacked me. I don’t give a damn about you, or who you are.
You at least stood up to apologize that you got the first half of your calumny wrong. Maybe you will find the courage to admit that every charge you made above was false.
“Instead of calling me names and changing the subject …”
Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black. You call me a toady and a synchopant (sic) and then accuse me of being a name caller? That’s pathetic, Anonymous.
“… why don’t you explain to all of us what the justification was for the Iraq war?”
I did exactly that in my column. In brief, I noted that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer of the Kurds, a man who had invaded two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened, a man who was holding tens of millions of Iraqis in terror, and a man whose continuation in power would continue to be the bane of that region. In other words, Saddam was an evil bastard who had harmed so many people that he deserved to be violently thrust out of power.
But, as I said in my column, hindsight has clearly shown that no matter how much Saddam and his regime deserved their fate, just about everyone is worse off now for our having acted as we did.
“If the justifications are the same presented as by Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush, and Limbaugh, then in my opinion, you are a toady to them.”
Again with the name calling, Anonymous. Even worse, you have your facts about me all wrong.
“You have a column in which you can pontificate and bloviate and attempt to destroy people for disagreeing with you.”
You are familiar with my column, and therefore you know that I have never tried to “destroy people” for disagreeing with me.
I have probably written things which have proved to be wrong or incomplete. However, I have always tried to have all of my facts right. My purpose is never to go after “someone who disagrees with me.” My purpose is to shed light, as I see things.
And because I am not a partisan or any kind of rigid ideologue, there are probably many things that I have written that you agree with.
“If you knew who I was, you would use your column to lash out at me just like you did here instead of addressing the topic at hand.”
Anonymous, time for you to look in the mirror. You attacked me. I don’t give a damn about you, or who you are.
You at least stood up to apologize that you got the first half of your calumny wrong. Maybe you will find the courage to admit that every charge you made above was false.
“Instead of calling me names and changing the subject …”
Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black. You call me a toady and a synchopant (sic) and then accuse me of being a name caller? That’s pathetic, Anonymous.
“… why don’t you explain to all of us what the justification was for the Iraq war?”
I did exactly that in my column. In brief, I noted that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer of the Kurds, a man who had invaded two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened, a man who was holding tens of millions of Iraqis in terror, and a man whose continuation in power would continue to be the bane of that region. In other words, Saddam was an evil bastard who had harmed so many people that he deserved to be violently thrust out of power.
But, as I said in my column, hindsight has clearly shown that no matter how much Saddam and his regime deserved their fate, just about everyone is worse off now for our having acted as we did.
“If the justifications are the same presented as by Powell, Cheney, Rice, and Bush, and Limbaugh, then in my opinion, you are a toady to them.”
Again with the name calling, Anonymous. Even worse, you have your facts about me all wrong.
“You have a column in which you can pontificate and bloviate and attempt to destroy people for disagreeing with you.”
You are familiar with my column, and therefore you know that I have never tried to “destroy people” for disagreeing with me.
I have probably written things which have proved to be wrong or incomplete. However, I have always tried to have all of my facts right. My purpose is never to go after “someone who disagrees with me.” My purpose is to shed light, as I see things.
And because I am not a partisan or any kind of rigid ideologue, there are probably many things that I have written that you agree with.
“If you knew who I was, you would use your column to lash out at me just like you did here instead of addressing the topic at hand.”
Anonymous, time for you to look in the mirror. You attacked me. I don’t give a damn about you, or who you are.
You at least stood up to apologize that you got the first half of your calumny wrong. Maybe you will find the courage to admit that every charge you made above was false.
Well, Mr. Rifkin, this will be my last post on the subject. You are deriving too much pleasure out of the attention. But, you know as well as I do that the “justifications” you offered were the “excuses” the White House offered when the real justifications (WMD, the Niger forgeries, the bioweapons labs) were discovered to be fake. Which proves my point, you are a toady of the current administration. Let me tell you one last thing. Prior to 1991, Iraq was a first world country with a state of the art medical system, a state of the art education system, state of the art water treatment systems, highways, and a lower infant mortality rate then the US. How do I know this? From listening to the journalists of this country, the radio talk show hosts, by reading the media? No, I lived and worked in the Middle East from 1999 until 1991. You, the armchair warrior and judge of all thing decent should do some research for a change. Your column would benefit from it, at least I may read it. But sadly, you choose ignorance and regurgitation of things you read in the corporate media. When I returned to this country in 1992 there seemed to be a proliferation of armchair warriors spewing to their readers what a bad guy Saddam was. There is no justification for what we did to Iraq and, no matter how you much you polish a turd, in the end it’s still just a turd. But good luck with the polishing.
Well, Mr. Rifkin, this will be my last post on the subject. You are deriving too much pleasure out of the attention. But, you know as well as I do that the “justifications” you offered were the “excuses” the White House offered when the real justifications (WMD, the Niger forgeries, the bioweapons labs) were discovered to be fake. Which proves my point, you are a toady of the current administration. Let me tell you one last thing. Prior to 1991, Iraq was a first world country with a state of the art medical system, a state of the art education system, state of the art water treatment systems, highways, and a lower infant mortality rate then the US. How do I know this? From listening to the journalists of this country, the radio talk show hosts, by reading the media? No, I lived and worked in the Middle East from 1999 until 1991. You, the armchair warrior and judge of all thing decent should do some research for a change. Your column would benefit from it, at least I may read it. But sadly, you choose ignorance and regurgitation of things you read in the corporate media. When I returned to this country in 1992 there seemed to be a proliferation of armchair warriors spewing to their readers what a bad guy Saddam was. There is no justification for what we did to Iraq and, no matter how you much you polish a turd, in the end it’s still just a turd. But good luck with the polishing.
Well, Mr. Rifkin, this will be my last post on the subject. You are deriving too much pleasure out of the attention. But, you know as well as I do that the “justifications” you offered were the “excuses” the White House offered when the real justifications (WMD, the Niger forgeries, the bioweapons labs) were discovered to be fake. Which proves my point, you are a toady of the current administration. Let me tell you one last thing. Prior to 1991, Iraq was a first world country with a state of the art medical system, a state of the art education system, state of the art water treatment systems, highways, and a lower infant mortality rate then the US. How do I know this? From listening to the journalists of this country, the radio talk show hosts, by reading the media? No, I lived and worked in the Middle East from 1999 until 1991. You, the armchair warrior and judge of all thing decent should do some research for a change. Your column would benefit from it, at least I may read it. But sadly, you choose ignorance and regurgitation of things you read in the corporate media. When I returned to this country in 1992 there seemed to be a proliferation of armchair warriors spewing to their readers what a bad guy Saddam was. There is no justification for what we did to Iraq and, no matter how you much you polish a turd, in the end it’s still just a turd. But good luck with the polishing.
Well, Mr. Rifkin, this will be my last post on the subject. You are deriving too much pleasure out of the attention. But, you know as well as I do that the “justifications” you offered were the “excuses” the White House offered when the real justifications (WMD, the Niger forgeries, the bioweapons labs) were discovered to be fake. Which proves my point, you are a toady of the current administration. Let me tell you one last thing. Prior to 1991, Iraq was a first world country with a state of the art medical system, a state of the art education system, state of the art water treatment systems, highways, and a lower infant mortality rate then the US. How do I know this? From listening to the journalists of this country, the radio talk show hosts, by reading the media? No, I lived and worked in the Middle East from 1999 until 1991. You, the armchair warrior and judge of all thing decent should do some research for a change. Your column would benefit from it, at least I may read it. But sadly, you choose ignorance and regurgitation of things you read in the corporate media. When I returned to this country in 1992 there seemed to be a proliferation of armchair warriors spewing to their readers what a bad guy Saddam was. There is no justification for what we did to Iraq and, no matter how you much you polish a turd, in the end it’s still just a turd. But good luck with the polishing.
“Prior to 1991, Iraq was a first world country with a state of the art medical system, a state of the art education system, state of the art water treatment systems, highways, and a lower infant mortality rate then the US.”
You sure have a strange perspective, Anonymous, as to what makes a “first world country.”
No freedom. No free speech. No elections. No rights. Widespread torture. Constant fear of repression. No media allowed outside of the control of one man, a mass murderer. Nice place.
On August 2, 1990, when Iraq swallowed Kuwait, Iraq had been at peace for exactly two years. It was in August, 1988 that the fighting between Iran and Iraq ceased. While it is true that most of the bombardment happened inside of Iran, there was a lot of damage to Iraq from that war. I’m sure that Saddam spent a lot of his treasure rebuilding his infrastructure after the war. But it is ridiculous to claim that “prior to 1991” Iraq had a first world architecture.
Nonetheless, Iraq does have more than 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Any country with that much money, in times of peace, would be wealthy, at least in terms of infrastructure. But I don’t equate having nice highways with being a first world country.
“Prior to 1991, Iraq was a first world country with a state of the art medical system, a state of the art education system, state of the art water treatment systems, highways, and a lower infant mortality rate then the US.”
You sure have a strange perspective, Anonymous, as to what makes a “first world country.”
No freedom. No free speech. No elections. No rights. Widespread torture. Constant fear of repression. No media allowed outside of the control of one man, a mass murderer. Nice place.
On August 2, 1990, when Iraq swallowed Kuwait, Iraq had been at peace for exactly two years. It was in August, 1988 that the fighting between Iran and Iraq ceased. While it is true that most of the bombardment happened inside of Iran, there was a lot of damage to Iraq from that war. I’m sure that Saddam spent a lot of his treasure rebuilding his infrastructure after the war. But it is ridiculous to claim that “prior to 1991” Iraq had a first world architecture.
Nonetheless, Iraq does have more than 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Any country with that much money, in times of peace, would be wealthy, at least in terms of infrastructure. But I don’t equate having nice highways with being a first world country.
“Prior to 1991, Iraq was a first world country with a state of the art medical system, a state of the art education system, state of the art water treatment systems, highways, and a lower infant mortality rate then the US.”
You sure have a strange perspective, Anonymous, as to what makes a “first world country.”
No freedom. No free speech. No elections. No rights. Widespread torture. Constant fear of repression. No media allowed outside of the control of one man, a mass murderer. Nice place.
On August 2, 1990, when Iraq swallowed Kuwait, Iraq had been at peace for exactly two years. It was in August, 1988 that the fighting between Iran and Iraq ceased. While it is true that most of the bombardment happened inside of Iran, there was a lot of damage to Iraq from that war. I’m sure that Saddam spent a lot of his treasure rebuilding his infrastructure after the war. But it is ridiculous to claim that “prior to 1991” Iraq had a first world architecture.
Nonetheless, Iraq does have more than 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Any country with that much money, in times of peace, would be wealthy, at least in terms of infrastructure. But I don’t equate having nice highways with being a first world country.
“Prior to 1991, Iraq was a first world country with a state of the art medical system, a state of the art education system, state of the art water treatment systems, highways, and a lower infant mortality rate then the US.”
You sure have a strange perspective, Anonymous, as to what makes a “first world country.”
No freedom. No free speech. No elections. No rights. Widespread torture. Constant fear of repression. No media allowed outside of the control of one man, a mass murderer. Nice place.
On August 2, 1990, when Iraq swallowed Kuwait, Iraq had been at peace for exactly two years. It was in August, 1988 that the fighting between Iran and Iraq ceased. While it is true that most of the bombardment happened inside of Iran, there was a lot of damage to Iraq from that war. I’m sure that Saddam spent a lot of his treasure rebuilding his infrastructure after the war. But it is ridiculous to claim that “prior to 1991” Iraq had a first world architecture.
Nonetheless, Iraq does have more than 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Any country with that much money, in times of peace, would be wealthy, at least in terms of infrastructure. But I don’t equate having nice highways with being a first world country.