An Independence Day Open Letter To The "Blame America" Crowd - Comments Page 6

Can foaming-at-the-mouth, anti-American liberals be patriotic for one day?

To all members of the Angry Left:…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

  • 226 - Dave Nalle

    Jul 12, 2006 at 12:09 am

    I see 'rovian' as awfully similar to 'machiavellian' - frequently used as a negative, but if considered objectively often really more of a compliment.

    Dave

  • 227 - gonzo marx

    Jul 12, 2006 at 1:11 am

    for the Record: i consider Rove to be perhaps the ONLY competant, if not genius, amongst the Administration

    check out John Dean's new book... "Conservatives without a Conscience"

    i'm NOT advocating it's positions, per se, but it IS some interesting work by not only a notable Historian...but someone who has spent time in the WH as staff in controversial times

    Excelsior?

  • 228 - Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Jul 12, 2006 at 4:38 am

    Now the date is 12 July - Marching Day in Northern Ieland, and a day after murderous terror attacks in Bombay. Mark's article was about a day that passed eight days ago. It's a stale hotdog by now. Perhaps it's time to move on.

    Just a note. At least a few people here realize that Machiavelli was not evil and that for all that he wrote, he sought the unification of his country - even under his erstwhile enemies - and that he was willing to trim his political sails to accomplish the greater good for his country.

  • 229 - troll

    Jul 12, 2006 at 8:03 am

    fyi from the 1937 edition of the OED:

    Machiavellian, 1568 - of or pertaining to, or characteristic of Machiavelli, or his alleged principles; preferring expediency to morality; practicing duplicity, esp. in statecraft; astute, cunning, intriguing 1579

    now that's what I call a complement - !

    troll

  • 230 - Andy Marsh

    Jul 12, 2006 at 8:27 am

    Are we really trying to pretend that there's NOT a blame America crowd? and it's not full of liberals?

    'cause, if anything deserves to have the bullshit flag raised on it, that would be it...there most definately is a blame America crowd and I promise you, there are very very few conservatives or libertarians in it...

  • 231 - troll

    Jul 12, 2006 at 8:46 am

    *there most definately is a blame America crowd and I promise you, there are very very few conservatives or libertarians in it...*

    what are you saying here Andy - that conservatives and libertarians are better at double think or have more defective memories than other people - ?

    let me suggest that most of those whom you would consider members of the 'blame America' group are just in reaction against the positivist bullshit propaganda pouring out whining 'my leader right or wrong'

    troll

  • 232 - Andy Marsh

    Jul 12, 2006 at 8:55 am

    double think? defective memories? I'd put all that on the blame America crowd as well!

    I'm not talking about the my leader right or wrong crowd here...that's probably most of the conservatives...I'm talking about the crowd that says stupid shit like 9/11 was America's fault...

  • 233 - troll

    Jul 12, 2006 at 9:20 am

    you mean past US policy had nothing to do with it - ?

    sorry to snipe and run - gotta go to work...

    troll

  • 234 - Andy Marsh

    Jul 12, 2006 at 9:24 am

    I don't think anything a government does is a reason to destroy two 110 floor buildings filled with innocent civilians...but that's just me.

    As I said on September 11, 2001...I can understand the Pentagon as a target...it's military...but the Twin Towers were civilian, so no, I don't think it was the fault of our government that those buildings were taken down, it was the fault of a group of extremists that believe that purposely killing civilians is a good thing.

  • 235 - troll

    Jul 12, 2006 at 9:36 am

    *I don't think anything a government does is a reason to destroy*

    of course it is...unfortunately attacking civilians has plenty of precedent now - (see fire bombing in ww2 etc)

    troll

  • 236 - Andy Marsh

    Jul 12, 2006 at 9:42 am

    I thought you were going to work?

  • 237 - Clavos

    Jul 12, 2006 at 10:25 am

    Attacking civilians is the central element in the concept of "Total War," first developed during the nineteenth century, and which involves the mobilization of ALL of a nation's resources toward the goal of winning the war.

    Total war had its zenith with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW II.

    A complete treatise on total war is available in this Wikipedia article.

  • 238 - Christopher Rose

    Jul 12, 2006 at 10:47 am

    There's also a difference between a defensive war, which is what Britain and its allies were fighting in WW2, and an offensive war as waged by the Germans and Japanese.

    If one country is trying to conquer another, pretty much anything goes in defending oneself...

  • 239 - Clavos

    Jul 12, 2006 at 11:02 am

    If one country is trying to conquer another, pretty much anything goes in defending oneself...

    ...which is why the USA obliterated several hundred thousand Japanese. And it worked, well beyond the immediate goal of ending the war in the Pacific; the example has served as a deterrent against nuclear war ever since, though I don't think that was one of the goals at the time.

  • 240 - Dave Nalle

    Jul 12, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    check out John Dean's new book... "Conservatives without a Conscience"

    i'm NOT advocating it's positions, per se, but it IS some interesting work by not only a notable Historian...but someone who has spent time in the WH as staff in controversial times


    Not to mention a convicted felon and turncoat.

    Dave

  • 241 - Michael J. West

    Jul 12, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    Not to mention a convicted felon and turncoat.

    Too bad he isn't a convicted felon and a complete fucking lunatic, then he'd have the credibility and integrity of G. Gordon Liddy. Or, for that matter, a complete fucking lunatic whose felony conviction was overturned, so he'd have the credibility and integrity of Ollie North.

  • 242 - Nancy

    Jul 12, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    I would settle for a conviceted felon & turncoat who had the talent to go up against Rove 1-on-1 & give as good as he dishes out. Christ, I'd love to see someone go up & beat the crap out of Rove with his own tactics, and shred him for good.

  • 243 - Dave Nalle

    Jul 12, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    Why would you want that, Nancy? Aren't Rove's tactics just as evil when used by your side as they are when Rove uses them for the other side? Or is this a case of the ends justifying the means? That's certainly the rationale under which Rove is allowed to operate.

    And regarding Libby and North, at least they're both fun and entertaining to watch. Ever seen John Dean speak? He's the cure for insomnia. He makes Gore look like a wild and crazy guy.

    Dave

  • 244 - Nancy

    Jul 12, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    I said '1-on-1 with Rove', Dave. I'd like to see someone beat the shit out of ROVE, specifically, with his own tactics, and leave him bloody(literally or figuratively) on the floor, so he could then crawl off the stage of history for good & hopefully go die in a hole somewhere, as he deserves. IMO he's done more to trash what little good there's been in American politics, and brought us all to new lows, than anyone else in the past 200 years. Even Poppy Bush had the common sense to get rid of him, & had no use for a scumbag like him; it says it all to me that Junior is so low & lacking in any kind of ethics whatsoever that he'd employ the bastard, & count him as a good buddy.

  • 245 - MCH

    Jul 12, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    I think Karl Rove is Dave Nalle's kind-of-guy.

  • 246 - Nancy

    Jul 12, 2006 at 7:19 pm

    No, not so. There's no one on BC that's that low, that I know of. Some are just a little dense, perhaps, but no one here is that lacking in morals or ethics. Karl Rove is about as low as a human can go; I put him on a par morally with child molesters.

  • 247 - MCH

    Jul 12, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    At first I thought so too, Nancy...but why does he keep defending him?

  • 248 - Dave Nalle

    Jul 12, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    Um, I kind of like Karl Rove, actually. Think of it as a guilty pleasure. He's not a Neocon, he's not a Fundie. He has no ideology except victory and utterly crushing the opposition. That's sort of appealing. That's the kind of guy you want to have on your side. He also makes some damned fine speeches and is surprisingly charismatic in his George Costanza kind of way. I'd never, ever, ever vote for him for anything, but I have to admire how well he does what he does.

    Dave

  • 249 - troll

    Jul 12, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    whoever programmed him did a poor job inputting the three laws

  • 250 - troll

    Jul 13, 2006 at 8:52 am

    Christopher - *If one country is trying to conquer another, pretty much anything goes in defending oneself...*

    so...had Saddam deployed WMDs against American cities he would have been justified - ?

    does the same hold true for those who resist occupation - ?

    troll

  • 251 - Christopher Rose

    Jul 13, 2006 at 8:59 am

    troll: real life is complex enough so I'll leave hypotheticals to others. As far as I can understand it defending one's country and resisting occupation are the same thing if a country is actually under attack by another.

  • 252 - troll

    Jul 13, 2006 at 9:11 am

    *real life is complex enough so I'll leave hypotheticals to others.*

    and then perhaps you should avoid normative statements as well...like yours justifying attacks on civilian populations

    troll

  • 253 - Christopher Rose

    Jul 13, 2006 at 9:33 am

    troll: I've no idea what the expression "normative statements" means and I'm not aware of justifying attacks on civilian populations. If your country invaded mine, I'd do whatever it takes to get rid of you.

    I do believe it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, although I'd hope never to be put in a position of having to make such a dreadful choice.

  • 254 - Mark Edward Manning

    Jul 18, 2006 at 4:15 am

    I think everyone should read this. If a bunch of British editorialists can feel this way, it's really sad that a certain political class of Americans cannot.

    By the way, it's not that Maines doesn't have the right to free speech, but bashing Bush overseas is just stirring up the foreign anti-American crowd, and that's her crime.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 11, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs