William Lind has suggested that all neoconservatives be rounded up and sent to Baghdad to clean up the mess they made, with instructions not to come back until we send the last plane. And then we should forget to send that last plane.

SEND A NEOCONSERVATIVE TO BAGHDAD. It'll make a nice bumper sticker. Order yours today.

Hmm. Your unsupported assertion: neocons were hoping for a chance to remove a brutal tyrant from power. Those bastards.

"somebody said it"

Relatively self-impeaching, I'm afraid.

The passages you cite also support inferences that long term planning was at work. For example, a tough go in Afghanistan might have required another action elsewhere because withdrawing at the first sign of adversity would project the kind of weakness that provoked 9/11 (as would have a non-response in Afghanistan as well).

Also, Islamo-fascism is not going to disappear overnight, and failing to plan beyond Afghanistan would have criminally irresponsible. the lackadaisacal approach is not an option.

If you pay my way and my hydration, incidentally, I'll happily go to Iraq and lend what help I can.

Send a neoconservative to Baghdad? So Mike must have supported the love it or leave it crowd.

It is surprising how many pro-warriors claimed to be motivated by humanitarian concern for Iraqis (and, retroactively, many have decided this was in fact their primary concern), yet so few are jumping on a plane for Baghdad to pitch in, or selling their houses to donate the money to relief organizations, or advocating for a tax hike to pay for the rebuilding. Or anything.

They sure were excited about that kick-ass military operation in March, though. I'm sure many pro-warriors bought new widescreen TVs so they could watch the war in all its glory, so I suppose we should give them credit for that sacrifice. Those things cost a lot of money.

A war led by chickenhawks, cheered by chickenhawks.

Max Cleland is right.

Chris,

I didn't see your comment (2) when I posted mine (3).

You say...

If you pay my way and my hydration, incidentally, I'll happily go to Iraq and lend what help I can.

Brian, true or false: anyone who disagrees with Brian Flemming on certain issues to be named by Brian Flemming is by definition a bad person and/or a stupid person and is deserving of personal attacks and name-calling.

True or false: failure to address an argument is indicative of a strong position if Brian Flemming is the one failing to address the argument.

True or false: opinion pieces can be cited as fact if Brian Flemming is doing the citing.

Stop the hate, Brian. And I don't mean by posting a shrill denial of hate or posting more personal and/or bigoted attacks. Such hostility to strangers is decidedly unbecoming.

Chris,

False.

False.

False.

There's 3 questions of yours directly answered. Now, how about the ones I asked? In case you missed it, here is my comment #4 in its entirety:


Chris,

I didn't see your comment (2) when I posted mine (3).

You say...

If you pay my way and my hydration, incidentally, I'll happily go to Iraq and lend what help I can.

Chris Arabia,

I'll chip in $500 to send you to Baghdad. Anyone else want to contribute to this noble cause ?

1) I'll have to do some research. It's not like going to Kalamazoo.

2) I will not spend my own $. The opportunity cost is a sufficient loss.

3) It would be quite a story--ANTIWAR PEOPLE EXPORT PROWAR PERSON TO HELP IN IRAQ.

more later...

I'm delighted to hear that Chris Arabia has volunteered to go to Iraq and help out if we pay for him. He can join my cousin Mark in Special Forces, though I'm not sure he has a 10-month-old son. Atrios at Eschaton has got to work raising the money, he has about 15,000 readers daily. I expect you'll want to start a funding drive too. Best of luck!

I'll chip in.

By the way: how long does it take to be shipped to Iraq after signing up at www.goarmy.com ? I'd rather Chris look like a soldier than a tourist.

I'll still chip in though.

This whole "you can't comment on something unless you are willing to do it yourself" is disingenuous, changing the subject, attention diverting, and among the least appealing of the anti-war ploys: you can't formulate policy for the good of the country, the people as a whole, the entire freaking world, unless you have either engaged in the activity required to carry out this policy yourself, or are willing to drop everything and carry out the duty yourself.

This has nothing to do with the merits of the policy, nothing to do with the integrity of the ppolicy formulator or advocate, and is petulant nonsense.

If everyone who supports the war were to go to Iraq, say about 200 million Americans, the Iraqis would have to come here.

Lest confusion reign:

"If you pay my way and my hydration, incidentally, I'll happily go to Iraq and lend what help I can."

That's what I wrote.

No substitutions, Daniel. By the way, is
no@spam.com
your real e-mail address?

By the way, your implication that anyone who is not a solider is a tourist is pretty insulting to humanitarian workers, etc.

Same question to jp--is

jp@jp.com

your real e-mail address?

Sorry, Chris, but I asserted what I asserted, not what you asserted I asserted.

As for Afghanistan, there's no need for inferences when the facts are plain. The Administration clearly stated they did not want to get bogged down there and looked for an out. Conveniently, some in the group had been trying to get the US to attack Iraq for at least a decade.

They took the out and abandoned Afghanistan, although few in this country seem to have noticed. The 8-10,000 troops and the "Afghan government" are almost exclusively restricted to Kabul, while Afghanistan itself now produces 75% of the world's opium.

> Also, Islamo-fascism is not going to disappear overnight...

The same could be said about neos, but that's called a "non-sequitur" argument and I'm not playing.

> Send a neoconservative to Baghdad?

Let me edit the bumper sticker:

SEND A NEO TO NAJAF!

Doesn't that sing?

Chris,

That's fine; I wasn't wondering if we could have the government pay instead. I'll check prices at Orbitz later.

As for the address, no, it is not my real e-mail address. I get enough spam as it is. Remove the '-removethis-' parts: dsilva-removethis-@ccs.-removethis-.neu.edu

Chris,

I didn't say they _are_ tourists. I said they _look_ more like tourists than like soldiers.

Thank you for the publicity, Brian.

Don't forget to tell people to visit my blog, mcfrank.blogspot.com

And thanks for the relentless personal insults. I know it's your best substitution for actual argument.

Why don't you worry about holding up your end of the bargain, or can't you refrain from spewing hatred long enough to do so?

Hal: Send a Neo to Najaf? It's not bad. But you did assert without support that the "neos" were bursting to hit Iraq for years. Reread your first sentence.

The issue here is that prowars gloat about how patriotic they are, how we must all come together, how antiwars are undermining the country, blah blah blah, but over and over again, THEY DON'T WALK THEIR TALK.

Several neoconservatives said before the war they were going to Baghdad to help out after the war and no doubt gloat again over their great victory. But now that the situation has become dire, and their help is really needed, they are nowhere to be seen. IF THINGS ARE SLOWLY GETTING BETTER LIKE THEY SAY, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, WHY AREN'T THEY OVER THERE LIKE THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE?!!!

I'm in for $25 bucks if you actually do it.

Monkey

Well, I'm at the Red Cross site as we speak on another screen.

I am discouraged by some of the phony e-mailers (not Dan) and by Brian's uncontrolled viciousness, but I am going to find out what it will cost, and then see if, um, people cough up.

(one of Brian's pals calls me an "um, person." Perish the thought that an actual human disagree with them)

I, for one, never said anything about going to Iraq, until now...

CA

> But you did assert without support that the
> "neos" were bursting to hit Iraq for years.

I had mentioned that I'd be posting supporting citations on my site but deleted the parenthetical comment for Blogcritics.

So while I haven't put that piece together yet, here's one background link for you to start with

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

That's a link to a 1996 paper that Richard Perle was the lead writer on (others included James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg and David Wurmser, well known in the neo community) for The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem.

The link takes you to a page with the speech and speaker's notes where you'll find "... This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq ... ".

The paper was a briefing for Netanyahu, who presented it as a speech to the US Congress a few days later.

They turned him down.

Fair enough.

I would only add to that that neos were not the only ones thinking of regime change in Iraq.

Regardless, thank you for answering my question.

> "If you pay my way and my hydration, incidentally,
> I'll happily go to Iraq and lend what help I can." - Chris Arabia.


Is this "Chris Arabia" guy honest or lying?
I think is is lying.

Can he live by his word, or is his word worthless?
I think his word is worthless.

I don't think he is able to live up to his own words.

I will donate $ to sending him to Iraq.

I dont think Chris should get a drop more water than a ground soldier.

Why don't you guys set up an account and then at the appropriate time you can send the bulk of the $ directly to whoever is transporting me and to whoever is responsible for the accompanying documents, the balance to the hydration fund. Otherwise, the entire exercise is pretty pointless.

And please stop adding conditions.

I'll check back tomorrow to see what has (not) been done.

I'll donate money to send Chris to Iraq. I am already donating money to fly a French, German and Canadian citizen to an event in the USA I am sponsoring in order to make amends for the poor behavior of our ignorant president. It only makes sense to send a chickenhawk to Iraq, too. I think Baghdad would welcome him with arms!

Now if we could only get Bushie, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the other chickenhawks over there to serve as cannon fodder instead of our soldiers. I bet the soldiers would be all for that!

Where do I send the $$?

[Chris]
> I would only add to that that neos were not
> the only ones thinking of regime change in Iraq.

Yeah, but who was listening to the Ayatollah?

Chris,

The Red Cross might be pulling out a bit, so check Caritas Internationalis too.

Hell, I'll chip in a few simoleans, but I do have one teensy little condition:

When you get there, could you look up the 461st PSB, 81st RSC out of Decatur, GA for me? I really would like it if my friends there knew that we were still thinking about them back home.

Oh, and as a favor, would you mind not making ad hominem attacks on people for making ad hominem attacks on you, especially when they've ben speaking rather cordially for the past few posts? We should encourage such civil discourse.

As further background, some of you may be interested in this link:

http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

This leads to a 1992 a story about a Wolfowitz/Cheney policy under the first President Bush:

"In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union."

At the time, the uproar was so huge that the policy was never officially issued.

Much of it _is_ now official US policy (and we have a Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz troika at the top again).

It's worth reading the whole story to get a perspective on where we stand today. And may even be an eye-opener for some of the younger right-wingers.

--Do any of you Dems recall that Clinton was the one to change Iraq policy to one of "regime change"?

--Yes, the Administration did make the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And there is ample evidence of such a link. (Go do some research.)

--No, the Administration did not make the Iraq/September 11 connection.

--Things are going much better in Iraq than the mainstream media is reporting. Start paying attention to the blogs

From the Wall Street Journal:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Iraq and al Qaeda
There's more evidence of a link than the critics admit.

Monday, September 22, 2003 12:01 a.m.

The Bush Administration was cautious, arguably too cautious, when making its case for the liberation of Iraq. Exhibit A is what it said about the links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Investigators, interrogators and even journalists are turning up evidence of a stronger relationship than the limited ties originally sketched by President Bush and Colin Powell.

That wasn't the big story last week of course. The big news was that Mr. Bush said he has "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Predictably, this is being spun as a concession from the Administration, which has been accused of exaggerating the al Qaeda link.

In truth, Mr. Bush has never gone further than what he reiterated last week: "There's no question Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." U.S. intelligence officials, meanwhile, have confirmed that fact once again. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was being harbored in Iraq; documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with monthly payments and a home. According to federal authorities, the Ramzi Yousef-led terror cell that carried out the 1993 bombing received funding from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 2001 attack.

Far from exaggeration, what struck us about the case the President and Colin Powell took to the U.N. last fall and winter was its restraint. It focused mainly on a then-obscure terrorist named Abu Mussab al Zarqawi with no alleged 9/11 link, and a small affiliated terror group called Ansar al Islam operating in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq. Left out entirely by Mr. Bush were the following stories:

• About a month after September 11, reports surfaced that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi embassy official and intelligence agent named Ahmed al-Ani. Al-Ani was a later expelled from the Czech Republic, in connection with a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Iraq. Despite repeated attempts to discredit the report of a meeting between the two, Czech officials at the cabinet level have stuck by the story. Al-Ani has been captured in Iraq, and the public deserves to know what he's telling U.S. officials about that meeting.

• Also in October 2001, two defectors alleged that a 707 fuselage at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad, was being used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking with simple weapons such as knives. Though no link to al Qaeda was alleged, some of the trainees were said to be non-Iraqi Arabs. The fuselage was clearly visible in satellite photos, and has since been found.

• Press reports, which had begun in 1998, resurfaced that former Iraqi intelligence chief and then-ambassador to Turkey Faruk Hijazi had met with bin Laden and associates on multiple occasions. Hijazi is in U.S. custody too, and has reportedly confirmed some of the alleged contacts.

That these stories never figured in the case for war was partly a function of caution on the part of the Administration. It was also partly a result of skepticism from the CIA, which had wrongly judged Saddam and Osama incapable of cooperation on the grounds that the former was secular, the latter fundamentalist.

Some CIA officials are still flogging this theory through leaks to the media. A June 9 article by James Risen in the New York Times claimed captured al Qaeda planner Abu Zubaydah had told CIA interrogators that al Qaeda had not "worked jointly" with Saddam. But what Mr. Risen's source, according to our own, neglected to mention was that the very next sentence of the Zubaydah debrief describes bin Laden's attitude toward Saddam as considering the enemy of his enemy to be his friend.

According to Insight magazine, the CIA's Paul Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, used a lecture at Johns Hopkins University earlier this year to criticize the President's war on terror. He said that there was no evidence of Iraqi terror sponsorship since 1993, and no evidence of its involvement in the World Trade Center bombing that year. Curiously, we hear the agency has so far declined to share the file found in Iraq on Yasin (the 1993 New York bombing suspect) with other branches of the government.

One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for the Toronto Star and London's Sunday Telegraph. The February 19, 1998, memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden's name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman Zawahiri $300,000.

As Saddam's very public financial support for Palestinian suicide bombing would suggest, the dictator had no problem working with other fundamentalist groups based on nothing more than their mutual hatred for the United States. Sources tell us the CIA has found 1993 memos from Saddam's government directing Iraqi intelligence to assist Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and to assist Afghan-based holy warriors against the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. These facts deserve more public disclosure.

Of course, none of this "proves" any Saddam-9/11 link, as Mr. Bush acknowledges. But neither can we be sure there wasn't one. Our point is that U.S. government and intelligence officials ought to be open to the evidence of any links between state sponsors and terrorists. But for many Administration critics, it seems, nothing less than smoking-gun proof that 9/11 was an Iraqi-al Qaeda joint operation will do.

This standard ignores the multiple ways in which states can aid and abet terror--harboring, training, funding, providing false travel documents. What the President's critics seem to want, instead, is to de-link Iraq from the war on terror, and to return to the pre-9/11 practice of targeting terror groups without going after their state sponsors. We think this is short-sighted and dangerous, and that Mr. Bush should begin to call them on it.

Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I'm willing to chip in for the Chris Arabia fund, too.
Chris, if I can get free time and you're not too far away, I'll come help pack your bags and drive you to the airport, too.
And, I don't see any "conditions." Some people have kindly volunteered to help you look Army-spiffy; what's wrong with that.

Note to Kel --
Yes, the Administration DID make the Hussein/al-Qaeda/9-11 connection. Here's your proof:
"Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 [congressional authorization for military force in Iraq] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
-- President Bush, March 18 letter to Congress.
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."
-- President Bush, Sept. 17.

Journalist Chris Albritton is an independent journalist who received donations from sponsors via PayPal to get to Iraq for a firsthand look at what was going on. I'm thrilled to hear that another Chris -- our very own Chris Arabia -- has taken up the torch. Where can I send my donation?

If this is really going to happen, make it happen and stop jabbering about it. Who is going to set up the account? A PayPal account set up by Chris for this purpose would be fine. There will have to be an accounting since if people donate and it doesn't happen, they need to know they will ge their money back. If if is set up in a legitimate manner, and Chris agrees to go if suffiecient funds are raised, then I will help publicize the campaign. I can see people on both sides of the debate wanting to contribute.

Is there a way to create multiple paypal accounts and merge them later? That way if it doesn't happen, everyone gets their money back automatically.

Actually, can everyone agree that we should setup a single PayPal account and if the trip doesn't happen, we send the money to the Red Cross, Caritas, or the UN? (or maybe the DNC, the EFF, or the ACLU?)

Note to Steve:

That is a cute point regarding Bush's letter to Congress of March 18, 2003 -- but not a persuasive point.

Go read the Congressional authorization for war in Iraq (Public Law 107-243). It requires in Section 3(b) that, within 48 hours of going to war, the President send a "determination" (i.e., the March 18 letter) to Congress. That determination is required by the war resolution to containing the language you cite (which is found in Section 3(b)(2) of the war resolution). In other words, the President was legally required by the war resolution to send that letter to Congress with that exact language. The letter was not a subtle attempt to connection 9/11 to Iraq. In fact, the language that you focus on doesn't even refer to Iraq -- it refers to terrorists.

The operative language in the war resolution that applies to Iraq is in Section 3(b)(1) of the war resolution -- which states in effect that the President must find that further diplomacy with not adequately protect U.S. security and will not enforce the U.N. resolutions. As you will notice, that language is also in the March 18 letter, and that is the language the applies directly to Iraq.

So you ask, what does the language that you quote to mean or refer to? Well . . . notice that it only requires that war in Iraq "be consistent with the U.S. and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against terrorist and terrorist organizations," including those responsible for 9/11. How is going to war with Iraq "consistent" with "continuing" actions against terrorists if, as you will surely ask, Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11?

Read the war resolution. It explictly finds, for example, that members of Al Qaeda (i.e., those responsible for 9/11) "are known to be in Iraq" and that "Iraq continues to aid other international terrorist organizations." Given those findings in the war resolution, going to war against Iraq is "consistent" with continuing actions against terrorists.

Do your homework.

If Chris Arabia goes, will he take David Horowitz with him? If so, I'll charter a jet immediately.

Nope, it's not my real email address. Neither is this one. I hate spam.

But anyway Chris, set up a paypal account and I'll chip in.. I'll even send you my real email address privately so you can keep me updated.. I want details, photos, the works.

I'll chip in a few sheckels, for this also. Volunteering for the Red Cross sounds like a viable alternative.

If your name is Joe Sacramento (from Seinfeld), are you an expert on California? If your name is Chris Arabia, are you an expert on the Middle East? What bet the name is a fake, just as his wild boast to "go to Iraq and lend what help I can."

Hydration a problem? When you are there, Chris, go out for a ride on the Basra-Badgad convoy route and then when the blasts occur, you'll get hydrated a plenty by the 4th armoured FD.

I've set up a PayPal account for Chris's trip and put $50 in it.

https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dsilva%40ccs.neu.edu&no_note=1&tax=0¤cy_code=USD&lc=US

If Chris really wants to go and help out, David Horowitz can easily put up the money.

If other people want to help, there are better groups which they can donate to.

Epsecially since Chris seems to favor the kind of treatment of prisoners that Saddam would have approved of ("Kathy Boudin deserves to lie on a wooden board and slurp Drano intravenously" - his permalinks aren't working - it on his blog under 9-17. And, Chris, all caps for titles while not as bad as drano, are hard on the eyes.).

Please refer to a new post regarding a PayPal account.

Considering that this is a comments section, a mature person wouldn't use it to smear someone who isn't involved. If you have a problem with David Horowitz, have the decency to contact him directly.

Kathy Boudin is a convicted cop killer. Lethal injection would be an appropriate punishment, in my view (although I have severe reservations about the death penalty in general, there is no dispute about Boudin). The Drano part was hyperbole (I don't know the precise composition of chemical injections).

Chris,
If you have a problem with Kathy Boudin , have the decency to contact her directly...

Hey, Lord of the Ethnic Slur, welcome back.

1. I did not introduce David Horowitz into this debate.
2. I did not introduce Kathy Boudin into this debate.
3. Both are irrelevant to this debate.

One of your fellow travelers dragged them in as part of a charateristic effort to change/obscure the subject.

One of your fellow travelers also asserted that David Horowitz should fund my trip. Another urged that I take Mr. Horowitz with me and promised to charter a jet immediately were I to arrange to do so.

Seeking Horowitz's personal involvement differs from expressing an opinion about Boudin. That is the distinction.

Don't keep us in suspense--are you shopping for a Sensitivity Training Course?

Please drop the fellow travelors bullshit. Just because Ann Coulter thinks thinks Joe is her kind of man, doesn't mean we have to start exhuming McCarthy (and no, I don't want to contact Ann directly).

Since David Horowitz had been brought up (I presume since you write for him), I was just pointing out he is well funded and could afford to send you to Iraq if you really wanted to help with hte rebuilding. You could even file reports for Frontpage.

I was just quoting what now turns out be bad writing from your blog on Boudin. When I read about injecting Drano, I think of torture, not lethal injection.

And I thought approving of torture was relevant since Saddam is rightly criticized for torture.

While, Boudin certainly deserved to spend time in jail for her crime, she didn't deserve torture or the death penalty. In fact, she is an argument against the death penalty. She has done good work in prison. Boudin won't be sipping martinis now that she is free, she'll be working with people with AIDS.

I reposted an expanded version of this in the other topic.

Hey Christopher-of-a-thousand-and-one-Arabian-nightmares,

Where did you get the 'Ethnic Slur' bit? Is it part of your sensitivity training from the Zionist League handbook, chapter 7:2, which states that if someone says an Israeli has killed thirty-two children, immediately accuse him of anti-semitism?

Sorry, I am not going to contribute to your hydration fund, because the Marine FD can take care of your burning rear end - as you run up the Bagdad-Basra highway at 75 mph - as part of the $87 billion expense account!

No. I got the ethnic slur bit from your ethnic slur, as I explained in the "Send Chris Arabia to Iraq" post.

Go read it.

Newsitem: CHICKENHAWK TURNS ROADRUNNER

Mousol (Reuterrs): A noted Chickenhawk, fresh from his training in Zionist 101, was last seen running at the speed of 75 mph, whizzing past the US convoy to Bagdad.

His rear end was on fire as a consequence of a firefight between the convoy and local resistance. As he ran down the highway, smoke billowing behind him, he was being 'hydrated' by the 4th Armored FD in larqe quantities.

Imran Saud, a local villager, observed that this wa a total waste of water as the US had failed provide his village with water since the ouster of Saddam 'WMD' Husain.

The whereabouts of the Chickenhawk are unknown. Some speculate that he is in the hospital occupied by war heroine Jessica Lynch, while others suspect that he has take a rear seat to the action, and will not be reporting for Frontpage in the near future.

Lord of the Slurs returns with a vapid bit of satire and even recycles a humor attempt that has already failed once.

I thought the road runner piece was funny!

Very picturesque. Everytime I read a piece by Chris, I will visualize him like the RR with the 'plume' of smoke!

(Yes, the email address is fake!)

Ooh, another malicious bigot enabler, too cowardly to identify herself. I'm stunned. I gotta sit down.

Chris, please go read up on spambots before requiring that people place their e-mail addresses in public view.

Thanks, A & A., and Kayful-Halek, Chris.

Please cease your childish abuse of folks who disagree with you. Grow up - try to read books like The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, El Chris of Arabia.

You must admit the piece was quite funny! Could you forward it to the editor of Frontpage for publication, just to show there's no hard feelings?

BTW, how do you know you are stunned? Do you still have feeling left in your body after your wild and smoky roar down the Mousul highway?

Joe Lord-
What's FD stand for?

We, at Audubon, take great exception to the comparison of a Chickenhawk to a Road Runner. Such comparisons must be avoided at all cost.

The Chickenhawk is a predatory bird, while the Road Runner is a peaceful bird of the species Geococcyx.

Such comparisons must be avoided at all times.

Thank you.

Road runner peaceful - hah! - peaceful unless he is luring poor unsupecting predators into a Kabuki dance of torture, humiliation and death.

I agree with Eric.

Road Runners have ruined my life, while I, poor and innocent victim like Israel, have been bombed, blasted and beaten.

Willie E.

Ah, but I see the Palestinians as Wile E. Coyote

Daniel, as you typed in your email address, I would hope that you noticed the explanation that reads, "(The email address will be displayed using special encoding for spam-protection, and is not displayed at all if an URL is supplied.)"

For clarification, the "special encoding" turns up email address that look like this: mailto:pwinn@blogcritics.org

Of course, as mentioned, the email address is not displayed anywhere at all, in any form, if an URL is supplied, so you can safely use your real email address and a fake URL. That way, if I ever get around to enabling update notifications to each commenter on a post or something, you'll still get emails.

"For clarification, the "special encoding" turns up email address that look like this: mailto:pwinn@blogcritics.org"

In that case, I'm going to start using a fake address, too.

Some spambots can decode what you use. On my site, I use FormMail to get around the problem.

Drat.

I'm really curious to know what browser you use, Hal. In both Opera and MSIE, your comment looks very strange in conjunction with mine.


Still, as is pointed out on every single page on this site and again in my comment above, your address doesn't appear if you use an URL, as you do. You'll note also that the links I've built to track all comments by a given author similarly eschews the use of email address information.

If you're browser is violating the use of & as you seem to be suggesting, I suggest you view the source for this page to see how the mail addresses are encoding by most browsers (and most spambots). ;-)

Got it on the no show. Finally :-)

I'm doing this on a Mac with Netscape 7. When I cut-and-paste like here:

mailto:pwinn@blogcritics.org

it shows up the way it did in your own post. I'll post this and see what happens to it (if anything).

Another mystery of life: submitting it turned it into text.

I have no idea why, but at least now know it happens :-)

UH-OH! WARNING WILL ROBINSON!

That means that the real address is now out there for spambots. Can you erase these two posts of mine? You have my full permission.

Ah, yes. The idea is that I provide one layer of protection. When you copy and paste it, the one layer disappears. No worries, though, the address is my own, which is already well-plastered in alternate form all over the internet in sources (like Google's Usenet Archive) I cannot easily expunge.

Besides, since it isn't a link, that throws off a surprising percentage of harvester spambots. Not all, but many.

Joe - FD stands for Fire Department - they provide hydration gratis in this saga.

Chris, on a more serious note I notice that you objected to my 'ethnic slur' (for assuming your name was a nom-de-plume), but did not object to the Zionism 101 reference.

Come out and say it, man: Are you a Zionist?

Got it! Like wit, right?

I am a Zionist - isn't everyone?

Nope, lots of us Jews aren't.

"Chris, on a more serious note"

You have proven yourself a gleeful and unrepentant bigot. Why would I take you seriously?

I discussed your ethnic slur because it appeared to stem partly from your appalling ignorance, which also led you to some of your other conclusions. You have since demonstrated that it is intentional. Good for you.

Steve, are you saying you don't think Israel has he right to exist?

Chris,

Your rude comment fails to obfuscate the issue at hand.

Please demonstrate an iota of moral courage by answering the question, repeated below in simple english:

Are you a Zionist?

Misters Lords and Rhodes, you question the right of existence for the state of Israel?

From Dictionary.com:
Zionism- A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

What decent human being could possibly NOT be a Zionist? What's your alternative, march the the Jews into the sea?

Why would the basic idea of Zionism even be controversial?

"Why would the basic idea of Zionism even be controversial?"

For the same reason the idea of the United States of America might be controversial among some inhabitants of the Reservations.

But in both cases the issue is now pretty much settled (no pun intended), so I will concede that the elimination of Isreal would be more controversial than its existance.

BTW, I think the original alternatives were Rhodesia and Argentinia(?).

Al, I don't recall questioning anyone's rights (please re-read post), and Iwonder why you raise the issue.

The only question on the table is to Chris, and it is this:

Are you a Zionist?

Since I have already said I am a Zionist - cheerfully, happily, gleefully do I state that Israel has the right to exist, has the right to defend itself, and as a democracy has vastly more moral authority than the "Palestinian Authority," which is nothing more than an autocracy and a police state run by terrorists and thugs.

Now please explain the relevance of the question.

It's a fair question, Eric. As a reader of CA's articles, I would to know where he is coming from.

Re. post 84, (It' a fair question), note that I am not the 'JR' who posted comment 81. Sorry, JR-the-original!

-The 'other' JR (Now JR2)!

Joe Lord,

You have yet to cease, disavow, or apologize for your ethnic slurs. Your accusations of rudeness have no credibility.

Had you displayed the integrity to apologize in lieu of continuing your cutesy slurs, I might be more amenable to a discussion here.

If there's an iota of a moral to this story, it comes in two parts: 1) avoid ethnic slurs, and 2) if you run afoul of 1), avoid repetition and consider apologizing.

Sadly, your sustained incivility has fatally poisoned this thread.

What's the big deal with the evasive tactics, Chris?

Pearl, Woflowitz, and Eric Olsen (!) are all self-proclaimed Zionists. Just answer Joe's question. It's as simple as 'yes' or 'no.'

Be a man, Chris! Your readers want to know.

I'm opposed to all states based on religious foundations. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran--each of these countries should be transformed into secular states with strict separation of church and state, a U.S. style Bill of Rights, and all that other good stuff.

And I certainly don't want to pay for such religious states. Improper use of my tax money.

In a single sentance, Chris Arabia demonizes 'left-leaning media' and Palestinian groups, while raising Israel on a pedestal. In Frontpage, he writes:

:"By uniformly contorting their analysis to demonize Israel, therefore, left-leaning media outlets and other apologists render indispensable assistance to Al-Aqsa and other terrorist groups. "

And this man is too cowardly to publicly admit he is a Zionist!!!

Basically what Mike said. I don't think there should be theocracies particularly where a small ultra-religious group has enormous power over a largely secular society.

Obviously, Israel has a right to exist and we have a right to criticize it without being accussed of aiding terrorists. Talk about demonizing.

CHRIS: ARE YOU A CLOSET ZIONIST? WHY ARE YOU ASHAMED OF IT?

Stop with this "Are you a Zionist?" baiting. It's creepy and it's like McCarthyism. Plenty of Zionists were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. They argued that a binational secular state in Palestine would be the best way for Jews to both reclaim their homeland and to live in peace with their neighbors. If the world, and other Zionists, had listened to them, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Anne and Abu, JLevy, et al:

1) Persuade Joe Lord to cease, disavow, and apologize for his slurs against my name and heritage.

2) Prevail upon Joe Lord to concede that his original question was a snide continuation of his campaign of slurs.

3) AFTER completing 1) and 2), explain the relevancy of the question.

Then resubmit the question.

Chris,

I have re-read all the posts on this page.

No one has made any attacks on your heritage.

You alone stand out as a rude ignoramous (including your response to me) and a man of no convictions.

MIKE: I RESENT YOUR 'MCCARTHYISM' AND 'BAITING' REFERENCES & YOUR INFERENCE THAT ZIONISM IS A BLIGHT LIKE COMMUNISM?

IT IS VEILED STATEMENTS LIKE THIS & CLOSET ZIONISTS LIKE CHRIS THAT ARE GIVING THE MOVEMENT A BAD NAME.

THERE IS NO FISH BAITING OR BITING HERE. ONE MUST BE PROUD OF HIS/HER BELIEFS OR FADE INTO IGNOMINIY & SHAME.

Anne, you either didn't read or didn't comprehend posts 45 and 53, or didn't bother to investigate the highly relevant "Send Chris Arabia to Iraq" post. As a result, your comment misses the mark.

JL,

Agreed. And a man should also be proud of his name and heritage, and discourage Joe's brand of cheap ethnic slur.

CHRIS: YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT YOU ARE A CLOSET ZIONIST, BUT AM ASHAMED YOU LACK THE COURAGE TO COME OUT AND DECLARE WITH PRIDE SO THAT "the  Gentiles  shall  see  thy  righteousness, and all kings thy  glory  and  thou  shalt  be  called  by  a  new  name,  which  the  mouth  of  the L-rd  shall  name."

Perhaps I am naive, but in what ways does Israel not have separation of church and state, other than through special interest political pressure? It seems to me that Israel is the most secular society in the Middle East, other than the former Iraq, which made a religion of Baathism and a saint of Sadam, and under which Islam lurked just below the surface.

JL, No. I was agreeing merely that a man should be proud of his beliefs. I inadvertently allowed the distortion and deliberate baiting of your question to infect the clarity of my answer. That is the risk I run conversing with people whoe primary aims seems to be to belittle me.

Given Joe's gleeful slur offensive, I am disinclined to discuss my beliefs with him in this forum.

Because your main goal here is pretty clearly to spring traps, why don't you ask me whether I have stopped beating my wife?

If any of you had addressed Joe's behavior, perhaps these semantics would have been unnecessary.

Chris,

I said I re-read the posts, didn't I?

Yet you insist I didn't read them? I 'don't comprehend posts'! I 'didn't bother to investigate' ! My 'comment misses the mark' ! And then your asinine 'wife beating' remark!

Do you have a low esteem of women, just like you run down Palestinians, Iraqis, the New York Times and 'vicious' German freedom fighters in one breath?

Who's next on your hate list, Chris: Blacks or Gays?

Sometimes it is best to just ignore people.

Yes, Israel is the most secular society in the Middle East. Most of the Jews who live there aren't religious.

But a small minority have a huge influence on the laws. It is partly because these parties are needed by the right and left to form a government.

So they have control over everything from who is considered a Jew, who can get married, when shops can be open and public transport runs. Yeshiva students don't serve in the military.

A new party, Shinui, went from 6 to 15 seats on a platform of seperation of synagogue and state.

The influence of religious groups also is one of the main reasons the settlements have not been dismantled (with strong support from the religious right in the US) even though polls show most people realize this has to happen if there ever is to be peace.

Anne: Could this also explain El Sheik's Kathy Boudin (Draino) comments?

(PS: Thanks sending the link to the sorority.)

Anne,

1. You and your accomplices are the ones using the ethnic slurs. You claim you re-read the relevant materials. If you did, please tell me why I broached the ethnic slur subject. Your lobbing of irresponsible and trite accusations based on semi-literate interpretations would be a more effective tactic if you didn't simultaneously condone Joe Lord's slurs.

2. Re: Boudin. It's called hyperbole. It's a literary device. If you cannot grasp the concept, you should criticize your English teachers, not me. These desperate efforts to introduce outside topics and materials reveal the dearth of ideas that plague some of you in this forum.

It'd would also be nice if you could stick to one topic at a time. I'm still waiting for you to address the slurs that you have tacitly adopted as your own.

3. Please feel free to ignore me. Because much of this comment thread has been an effort to smear and intimidate me (with varying degrees of literacy and civility), however, be aware that this thread is probably not the best place for ignoring me.

Chris: I notice you can' t count beyond (3). In fact, after (2), you usually go back and use (3) to recount (1) & (2).

With this limited intellectual capacity, you criticize my English teachers!

Talk about arrogance!

So this is the guy! What a misogynist!
And who is this Joe Lord character? He seems to have a real mental stranglehold on him!

Hey Joe, If you're ever in Cambridge Mass, let me know...

Lissa:

I will continue limiting myself to three items or less per set of instructions until your you and your pals demonstrate a basic ability to follow directions, but I realize that no matter how much I dumb things down, you and they will probably still never be able to follow.

I'd thank you for your sustained interest and attention, but I never asked for it.

-- Now all women are idiots who "demonstrate a basic inability to follow directions"!!!

--"Dumb things down..." for girls!!!

--And he even insults our English teacher Ms. Bradshaw without knowing her!!!

--This man is a purveyor of hate!!!

--Poor Joe Lord! How he is maligned by this horrid knave. We love you, Joe!!!

--Let's start a campaign to all the lib orgs we know to bring down this hater of the "weaker" sex a peg.

Hey Woman-hater,
You say: "I will continue limiting myself to three items or less per set of instructions.."
Then you admit: "It'd would also be nice if you could stick to one topic at a time."
It's obvious you are the one with the attention disorder and we need to "dumb things down" for you.
(Love ya, Joe!)

Ladies:
I apologise for Chris's boarish behavior.

Lissa:
It's called single axis triangulation logic. You view a,b and c as three sides of an isosceles triangle. By proving arguments a and b, c automatically follows to be true.

Except in Chris's logic, it's death by strangulation!

"You view a,b and c as three sides of an isosceles triangle." (110)

The fallacy to watch out for is that C may not actually belong there.

Boarish behavior? That would be clever but is more likely a simple spelling error.

Newsflash: one topic can contain multiple elements.

The sustained interest of ladies is always flattering. Thank you.

Anonymous threats to denounce me to the thought police? Gosh, I am really cowering now...

#110 - My point exactly - as relates to the case study under consideration!
#111 - Pun intended.

Doubtful.

Thanks, JR2! Finally, the Real men step in!

That was so punny! I should have said "bring down this hater of the "weaker" sex a pig"! (99)

Get it, Chris? Maybe you think --or rather doubt, because you have proven you can't think! -- 'punny' is a spelling error as well!

"#111 - Pun intended." (113)

None taken :-)

Susan wrote: "Maybe you think --or rather doubt, because you have proven you can't think! -- 'punny' is a spelling error as well!"

You're unintelligible. It seems that you have written that I think or that I cannot think, and that I think that "punny" is a spelling error or I do not think that "punny" is a spelling error.

Do you even know what you mean?

Regards,
The "Fake" Man who has Captivated You

Chris,

Thank you for admiting you are a fake. We knew all along.

Re. your request to check out Lord Joe's alleged 'ethnic slur,' there was no such thing: saying being named Arabia doesn't make you an Middle East expert (which it sure does'nt!) is not an ethnic slur. You're just paranoid.

And you seem terribly confused about anything that involves the word 'think'!

You never did answer the 'Z' question though. Are you chicken or just plain duck?

(Duck, Chris, get it? It's a pun!)

(117) Jeez! This guy's a moron - can't even figure out a simple sentence!

"Lord Joe!" I loved the slip, Anne! As in: Lord Joe, destroy this 'fake' monster!

Susan,

If you could consistently write clearly, I'd have an easier time understanding you. My analysis of your sentence was correct. Your failed attempt to write a "simple sentence" is as revealing as your unending interest in me.

Regards,
The Man You Love to Hate

Chris :: Now you believe Germans are 'vicious'?

Anne, you wrote:
"saying being named Arabia doesn't make you an Middle East expert (which it sure does'nt!) is not an ethnic slur."

You omit any mention of his actual transgressions, either out of malice or ignorance (probably the latter). If the person who taught you how to punctuate also taught you how to read, your error is unsurprising.

Your steadfast devotion to me would be flattering, but the affections of idiots signify nothing.

Franz, you are a tedious moron. You're desperate and unoriginal.

Regards,
The Man You Hate to Love but Love Anyway.

Chris,
As an antidote to your victim complex, here's a club you might want to join --- you'll never cry 'foul' here!
http://www.cluck.com/

Chris-the-spellchecker,
Punctuate this:
"I * AM * A * ZIONIST"

As soon as you and your accomplices find an antidote for your stupidity, I'll be more receptive to your suggestions.

We'll find the antidote to you all right, dumb cluck!
Girls, MSN - same time?

(We love you, Lord Joe!!!)

I don't think you could find a hamburger at McDonald's, but good luck with your search.

Hallo Chris : : Sie sind ein dummes huhn! Arroganter narr aber dümmer, unhöflicher, absurd! Frau verabscheuer! Wandschrank Zionist!

Du hast sehr kleine schlange!

What's going on with this?

It's been more than two months.

Clearly, people who are motivated to get to Iraq are managing to get there.

I was under the impression the well had been poisoned and that the whole thing was off. Once it was acknowledged that the primary purpose of funding this from the anti-war perspective was humiliation at best and physical harm at worst, that kind of took the fun out of it.

I should not speak for Chris, however.

Eric, you've got the history wrong.

You write:

Once it was acknowledged that the primary purpose of funding this from the anti-war perspective was humiliation at best and physical harm at worst, that kind of took the fun out of it.

William Lind has suggested that all neoconservatives be rounded up and sent to Baghdad to clean up the mess they made, with instructions not to come back until we send the last plane. And then we should forget to send that last plane.

SEND A NEOCONSERVATIVE TO BAGHDAD. It'll make a nice bumper sticker. Order yours today.

Since that kind of confirms the atmosphere I was referring to, I guess that is that. I was under the impression that the tone had evolved into something a bit more civil and that the focus had shifted to humanitarianism.

I am not aware that any funds have been collected so I believe it's all pretty moot. But again, I do not pretend to speak for Chris.

If you are still interested in moving this forward, I would speak directly to him. I am only peripheral to the process.