Blogcritics: Comments on It's Time To Answer John (BRING IT ON!) Kerry's Challenge

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:51:43 EST

Sorry, David, typo: should have been "Jonah Goldberg". And if you really weren't familiar with those names, you'll probably find the following links interesting. I know that a flinch reaction from some readers to some of the material is going to be Ann-Coulter-like, but there's more to be gained if the material is approached with an attitude that "it's true until shown false" or at very least with a critical attitude rather than with a mind made up. Disagree with the opinion pieces, but it's useful to try to separate them from the facts. Many of the players are in government now. Okay, with an open mind, here are the links: The 1992 Wolfowitz-Libby-Cheney precursor policy of preemptive dominance (this one is an eye-opener, worth reading completely). This was a secret document that leaked and caused a big stink at the time. Here's a later interview with Barton Gellman, who broke the story. You should visit the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). That links you to a page with a number of letters they have issued. Starting at the bottom of the list you see their principles then a January 26, 1998 letter to Clinton advocating "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power." That didn't work, so they followed it up with a May 29, 1998 letter to Newt Gingrich (Republican House leader) and Trent Lott (Republican Senate leader). This one was longer and included the "weapons of mass destruction" pitch. Since Republicans controlled Congress, this resulted in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which is now being laid at the door of Clinton. There are numerous other organizations and media such as the American Enterprise Institute, and The Weekly Standard you might want to explore. As a final flavoring, here's a link to a site that lists signatories and contributing writers to a variety of PNAC documents. A number of these people are in high places in this administration (Wolfowitz, Bolton, Abrams, etc.) while others are water-carriers with influence (Perle, Woolsey, Boot, Podhoritz, etc.) Before Coulterites get their knickers in twist, let me say that advocacy is fine. I don't like the results, but they certainly had the right to do what they did. I do believe you ought to think about whether the resulting societal changes are what you would have wanted back in 1992 (preemptive invasions of countries, Patriot Act, etc.) and whether that's the world you want today. It helps to know the players and their game plan when deciding. These links should help answer that age-old question: "What's a neo?"

Comment by Dirtgrain

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:30:30 EST

Dumb politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouths? Impossible! I encourage you not to get caught up in the character issue. Our potential big party candidates are stupid, contradictory mouthpieces, as always. That is their nature; let's accept it. And as we have clearly not had character as a benchmark for presidential behavior in the recent past--I know it's a cliche to ask people to focus on the issues, but. . .

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:05:13 EST

When I did play the game once, I came up with: A neoconservative isn't "A liberal mugged by reality," it's "A liberal in leathers. With a whip."

Comment by Shark

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:25:24 EST

Aside (to borrow from Hal): When I read that macho title, "Time to answer John 'bring it on' Kerry!" --I picture Dave yelling "en garde" and whipping a banana out of a sheath.

Comment by Shark

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:20:32 EST

"...assume Kerry was proud of his service while he was serving in Viet Nam. Then Kerry comes back and becomes active against the war, ...THEN, years later, suddenly becomes proud of his service again." Dave, did you bump your head gettin' out of the shower or somethin'? Seriously, this is insane. Some advice: You're not going to get ANY mileage out of this one. I was there, pal. EVERYONE in my generation IS and WAS AMBIVALENT about Viet Nam. Kerry's stance is about as common as they come. Generals, politicians, veterans, hippies, conservatives: you name it; if they were around at the time, they're going to UNDERSTAND and SYMPATHIZE with AMBIVALENCE. Give it up and move on to something we can tangle over. This one's a joke.

Comment by Shark

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:14:41 EST

I'll play the: "What's a neo" game! noun - a political theorist who makes Pat Buchanan sound like a liberal.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:29:06 EST

If you haven't read them, just Google Max Boot, Johna Goldberg, David Brooks, and Irving Kristol and you'll learn more than enough. Thanks. I'll do that. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:20:45 EST

If you haven't read them, just Google Max Boot, Johna Goldberg, David Brooks, and Irving Kristol and you'll learn more than enough.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:07:01 EST

And don't start that silly "What's a neo" game. Its not a game. I've seen the term used liberally (no pun intended) and I want to know what meaning is poured into that term. Its a simple question, no games, no ridiculous hidden meanings. So, I'd appreciate if you would give me an answer. Thanks. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:26:36 EST

"You are discounting Muravchik because he's honest?! " People really need to learn how to debate without putting words in someone else's mouth. Of course I don't think he's honest. And don't start that silly "What's a neo" game. I've seen enough of that from Boot, Goldberg, Brooks, and even grand-daddy Kristol (Irving, not Billy). I wouldn't play it even if it weren't a red herring.

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:14:05 EST

Muravchik is the neoconservative who said... You are discounting Muravchik because he's honest?! And you call ME ridiculous! And could someone please give me the definition of "neo-conservative?" Thanks. David

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:06:03 EST

One can't be proud of a job they did in war and later oppose that war--- with pride? Exactly right. Buts its more than that Shark. Lets assume that Kerry was proud of his service while he was serving in Viet Nam. Then Kerry comes back and becomes active against the war, accusing his fellow soldiers and officers of war crimes, and even admitting to anti-Geneva activities himself. THEN, years later, suddenly becomes proud of his service again. I'm sorry, but those are mutually exclusive stances. You can't ADMIT to war crimes at the same time you are saying that you are PROUD of your own service while helping to commit those crimes. How could you even say that all in a single sentence? "Well, yes, I committed atrocities and so did all my fellow soldiers and officers and I'm proud of my service." Really, for Kerry to even TRY and say that would make him a laughing stock. Thanks. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:39:13 EST

Aside (to borrow from Shark): As to Muravchik, his pedigree doesn't inspire confidence in his facts nor his opinions unless your belief system is similar to his. For those who missed it, Muravchik is the neoconservative who said, speaking of the neos and the elective invasion of Iraq: "...some of us may have been too glib about an 'easy liberation'." [WSJ 9/19/03]. Indeed.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:12:34 EST

"So, which is it? Is he proud of his service IN the military or proud of his service AGAINST the military." I find it difficult to believe you don't see how ridiculous even asking that is. Shark's right.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:51:19 EST

aside: I wonder if they checked the letter for anthrax?! Somebody, QUICK!! e-mail Drudge immediately!

Comment by Shark

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:49:20 EST

I'm with everybody; the letter was dumb and ill-advised. End of that argument. BUT THIS: "...Should Kerry be proud of his service in Viet Nam or should he be proud of his anti-war activities? Can't have it both ways." ---Is so insane, I don't even know where to begin. And I don't even think I'll try. A friggin' 8 year old can see through this effed up exercise in 'logic'. Dave, I used to have a smidgen of respect for your intelligence, but--- and no offense--- I think the further Bush slides down the polls, the whackier you get. One can't be proud of a job they did in war and later oppose that war--- with pride? You're joking, right? Really, if this is the argument the RNC is trotting out to the flock, they're in deep doo-doo. I think yall should stick to: "Cuts Taxes No Matter What!" or "What's Good For Halliburton is Good for America"---

Comment by David Flanagan

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:07:52 EST

Hal, Thanks very much for the comment. Here's my question: Should Kerry be proud of his service in Viet Nam or should he be proud of his anti-war activities? Right now, he's trying to have it both ways with the "honorable service" shtick, saying things like: "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did..." At the same time, during his anti-war efforts, he's attacked everything about Viet Nam in the past; including the soldiers who served there and the officers and non-coms who commandended them. He even admitted to committing war crimes himself: "I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare." So, which is it? Is he proud of his service IN the military or proud of his service AGAINST the military. Its yet another example of Flip-Flop Kerry in action. Thanks again. :-) David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:54:47 EST

Kerry's actions against the Vietnam War after fighting in it were admirable - he had certainly earned the right to voice his opinion, and Americans got an inside view. But that letter was just dumb. To tell the truth, I've thought that a lot of Democrats I see on TV are dumber than Republicans. A while back, it was Senator Evan Bayh of the Democratic Leadership Council kicking the party's presidential candidates. In TV punditry, you see it nearly every day, with a weasely Tucker Carlson getting Democrat James Carville to froth at the mouth, or laying in his slurs while Paul Bagala lets them sit because he doesn't know what to do, or maybe can't even recognize that they were slurs. The presidential candidates are better than the pundits, though, and the bottom line is still: "Anybody but Bush." What a country.