I will be on the radio tomorrow »« Debate videos up

Return of the neoconservative zombies

As we have seen, the Iraq warmongers are like zombies, returning from the dead to once again fill the media landscape with their wrongness. Stephen M. Walt gives an excellent analysis of why the neoconservative leaders of the push for the disastrous war in Iraq continue to be welcomed into the debate. The list of reasons includes their enablers in the media and the liberal interventionists who are helping to try and rehabilitate the neoconservatives in order to distract from their own culpability in assisting them in the push for that criminal war.

Here are some excerpts from Walt’s analysis but you should read the whole thing.

From 2001 until sometime around 2006, the United States followed the core neoconservative foreign-policy program. The disastrous results of this vast social science experiment could not be clearer. The neoconservative program cost the United States several trillion dollars and thousands dead and wounded American soldiers, and it sowed carnage and chaos in Iraq and elsewhere.

One would think that these devastating results would have discredited the neoconservatives forever, just as isolationists like Charles Lindbergh or Robert McCormick were discredited by World War II, and men like former Secretary of State Dean Rusk were largely marginalized after Vietnam. Even if the neoconservative architects of folly are undaunted by failure and continue to stick to their guns, one might expect a reasonably rational society would pay them scant attention.

Yet to the dismay of many commentators — including Andrew Bacevich, Juan Cole, Paul Waldman, Andrew Sullivan, Simon Jenkins, and James Fallows — neoconservative punditry is alive and well today. Casual viewers of CNN and other news channels are being treated to the vacuous analysis of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol.

But given their past failures, what explains neoconservatism’s apparent immunity from any degree of accountability? How can a group of people be so wrong so often and at such high cost, yet still retain considerable respect and influence in high circles?

The zombie-like ability to maintain influence and status in the face of overwhelming evidence tells you that F. Scott Fitzgerald was wrong: There are in fact an infinite number of “second chances” in American life and little or no accountability in the U.S. political system. The neocons’ staying power also reminds us that the United States can get away with irresponsible public discourse because it is very, very secure [My italics-MS]. Iraq was a disaster, and it helped pave the way to defeat in Afghanistan, but at the end of the day the United States will come home and probably be just fine. True, thousands of our fellow citizens would be alive and well today had we never listened to the neoconservatives’ fantasies, and Americans would be more popular abroad and more prosperous at home if their prescriptions from 1993 forward had been ritually ignored. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be alive too, and the Middle East would probably be in somewhat better condition (it could hardly be worse).

What, if anything, might reduce the neoconservative influence to its proper dimension (that is to say, almost nil)? I wish I knew, for if the past ten years haven’t discredited them, it’s not obvious what would. No doubt leaders in Moscow and Beijing derive great comfort from that fact: For what better way to ensure that the United States continues to lurch from crisis to crisis, and from quagmire to quagmire? Until our society gets better at listening to those who are consistently right instead of those who are reliably wrong, we will repeat the same mistakes and achieve the same dismal results. Not that the neoconservatives will care.

I think the part I italicized is very true. For all these warhawks and their enablers, these wars are just intellectual games to be played since nothing really hinges on them. They know that the US is in no real danger even as they overhype the danger as a means of obtaining public compliance in the shredding of rights here and abroad. Their attitude is like those who play violent video games. They can make highly risky moves and act irresponsibly because even if they ‘die’, they just come back to life and continue playing.

In real life, we tend to be far more cautious and responsible because we know that we have just one life. In the US the only ones for whom these wars are real are the soldiers who die or are injured and their loved ones. All the rest of us are affected only indirectly, by the waste of trillions of dollars that could have been used for the public good instead going to enrich military contractors and all the other parasites who profit off wars. The deterioration of the US because of its militaristic approach is too gradual for people to get alarmed about.

If there was something that really threatened the US in some visible and tangible way, you can be damned sure that people would only pay attention to those who had a reputation for credibility.

Comments

  1. colnago80 says

    Gee, it appears that Prof. Walt is getting dingy in his old age. I haven’t read the whole article but, based on the excerpt here, he failed to blame 9/11, the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war on Israel. Of course, since the Prime Minister of Israel, Arial Sharon, advised Colin Powell and his deputy, Lawrence Wilkerson, that the proposed Iraq expedition was a bad idea, that might be a little difficult, even for a two fisted Israel basher like ole Stephen.

  2. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    If there was something that really threatened the US in some visible and tangible way,..

    Like say, flying jumbo airliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon?

    That sort of way?

    Or is that somehow not visible and tangible enough to count?

  3. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co certainly did make huge and catastrophic mistakes. They certainly got an awful lot horribly wrong.

    But then, so too did Saddam Hussein and the Islamists.

    The carnage and chaos in the South West & central Asian region – in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan, etc .. was caused by both sides – not just the Western one and let’s not forget that. Saddam Hussein was a monstrous dictator who oppressed and massacred his own people and posed a threta totheregion’speaceand stability -and, yes, Saddam did support terrorism by funding and encouraging Palestinian homicide-suicide bombings.

    Which isn’t to say we should listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney etc ..now. I don’t think they are good people or giving good advice nor is that true of anyone I know. Not sure how many really are taking them seriously. (& how is Cheney even still alive these days!)

    PS. ” ..if their prescriptions from 1993 forward had been ritually ignored. “ Ritually? Why that and what ritual?

  4. says

    “If there was something that really threatened the US in some visible and tangible way, you can be damned sure that people would only pay attention to those who had a reputation for credibility.”
    -
    EXACTLY! One could only behave the way we do if there is no discernable direct danger to ourselves.
    -
    On an up note however, the response I’VE seen on the nets to the reemergence of the ghoul patrol has been almost universally negative. That bit with Megan Kelly on FOX,( although I’m sure it’s been effectively ‘retracted’ in spirit), was a very pleasant surprise. Also ironically I’ve seen SOME reisitance (not as much as I’d like) put out by the tea partiers…Sometimes one can do the right thing for the wrong reasons…I’ll take it though considering the consequences if we don’t. IOW I don’t see the war mongers’ call for battle taking traction in the way they wish it would. Smart thing for them to do would be to STFU and go away. And thank cthulu they’re not being interviewed from within a solitary confinement cell waiting for their death sentence to be carried out for committing acts of treason…So shut up guys and go away! Someone might be tempted to do a little deeper digging into the ol’ skeleton closet if you get my drift!

  5. ShowMetheData says

    Like say, flying jumbo airliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon?

    We were looking at the Irag War disaster (as ISIS closes in on Baghdad).
    Found WMD yet? Al-Qaeda bases in Iraq??
    Or is this how the failed warhawks cover up their disasters – smear it all into one big cause that covers up their crimes and brutal failures

    Colnago80 – Israel who?
    Israel will never be of any use to the U.S. in the Middle East. The neo-con celebrities have their own failures to account for – which no one will hold them to. Just glad they have improved enough to NOT blame Israel.

  6. colnago80 says

    Re ShowMethe Data @ #5

    Israel will never be of any use to the U.S. in the Middle East.

    Well, the IAF took out Saddam’s nuclear bomb plant in 1981. Just imagine the Gulf War 10 years later if he had developed nuclear weapons.

  7. says

    The neoconservative program cost the United States several trillion dollars and thousands dead and wounded American soldiers, and it sowed carnage and chaos in Iraq and elsewhere.

    I fucking throw up in my fucking mouth a little bit whenever I fucking read some fucking shit like that.

    See what the writer did? American soldiers – thousands dead, oooooh, they count soooo much more than the hundreds of thousands of civilians in “Iraq and elsewhere.” He’s wringing the tear-soaked towel but he’s just wringing out the important corner, isn’t he?

    Let me fix that sentence for him:

    “The neoconservative program severely damaged the United State’s credibility in a welter of torture and war crimes that caused over a million civilian deaths worldwide and displaced millions more.
    PS – it cost the US trillions of dollars and all of its remaining moral high ground.”

  8. says

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co certainly did make huge and catastrophic mistakes. They certainly got an awful lot horribly wrong.

    But then, so too did Saddam Hussein and the Islamists.

    Maybe Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be treated the way Saddam was treated? I don’t favor capital punishment, but those guys could use a fall from privilege and a couple months of living in a sewer hiding from justice.

  9. hyphenman says

    @StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    The lower-48 states have not suffered a military attack by a foreign power on its soil since 1814. We kill 10 times the number of those who died in the attacks of 11 September 2001 each year with our cars and trucks.

    Here in the southwest corner of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, the threat of property loss, injury or death from an attack by one or more non-christian religious fanatics is so far over the horizon that not even Sarah Palin could see it. Forces in Iraq (and Syria) pose such a small threat to 99.99 percent of our population as to be laughable.

    The only inconvenience suffered by Americans in the past 14 years has come at the hands of our own government and the insane kabuki theatre security dances created to protect us.

    Jeff Hess
    Have Coffee Will Write

  10. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @ ShowMetheData :

    We were looking at the Irag War disaster (as ISIS closes in on Baghdad).

    Hmm.. which Iraq war disaster – there are quite a few to choose from!

    The disaster of the Iraq-Iran War where Saddam attacked the Iranians?

    The disaster of Saddam invading Kuwait?

    Or the disaster of Saddam deciding to fight the overwhelming military might of the Coalition of the Willing?

    All those are past. History and moot points now.

    The current crisis, the present disaster for the Iraqis is the war waged on them by the Sunni Jihadist extremist ISIS / ISIL group coming over from Syria which has been emmeshed in its own civil war since the “Arab spring” turned into such a stormy “Arab winter” again.

    ISIS /ISIL has nothing todo with the previous Iraq war really. Its an offshoot from another conflict entirely.

    Helped by an Iraqi army which lacked the courage and competence to do its job and choose to run away instead of putting up a fight.

    But I spose Sunni killing Shiites and Arabs killing Arabs must, just must be completely the fault of the USA and wider West and nothing to do with the Arabs own choices and actions and culture eh? Su-uure!

    Couldn’t possibly put the blame on the terrorists who’ve actually exploded out of one civil war across the border into another already historically riven and war torn land or a barbaric culture that worships homicide bombers and hates women, freedom and stuff could it?

    Found WMD yet?

    Well, we do know Saddam used them on the Kurds. But yeah, keep looking the other way on that one and ignoring that and the fact Iraq was trying to develop nukes before Israel stopped it.

    (Thankyou Israel, we all owe you, is what you and everyone else on the planet should be saying but clearly you lack the understanding of reality or basic decency to say it.)

    Al-Qaeda bases in Iraq??

    Yes. And no. ISIS / ISIL is so extreme that even AQ has said they go too far so its even worse than just AQ -and of course Al Zarqawi was no pleasant gentleman either before them when he terrorisied the region incl. the Iraqis themselves as leader of AQ in Iraq.

    Or is this how the failed warhawks cover up their disasters – smear it all into one big cause that covers up their crimes and brutal failures.

    Well I’m no warhawk. I hate war. Ithink its hellish and horrible and something to be avoided where it can be avoided.

    As for the neoconservatives by definition they weren’t criminal. They got a lot wrong but as a government, they were authorised and legitimate and the mistakes they made whilst dreadful and costly in so many ways weren’t actually crimes.

    Saddam’s Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions too y’know – for all that matters given the nature and dubious “virtue” of the UN dictators debating club.

  11. jimmyfromchicago says

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co certainly did make huge and catastrophic mistakes. They certainly got an awful lot horribly wrong.

    But then, so too did Saddam Hussein and the Islamists.

    The carnage and chaos in the South West & central Asian region – in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan, etc .. was caused by both sides – not just the Western one and let’s not forget that. Saddam Hussein was a monstrous dictator who oppressed and massacred his own people and posed a threta totheregion’speaceand stability -and, yes, Saddam did support terrorism by funding and encouraging Palestinian homicide-suicide bombings.

    A few things:

    –Saddam wasn’t an “Islamist”; he was a secular Baathist.

    –He only began to “pose a threat to the [Middle East's] peace and stability” in the view of Very Serious People when he invaded Kuwait. When he was useful to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as a counterweight to Iran, the fact that he massacred and oppressed his own people was viewed as a purely internal Iraqi matter.

    –Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity that can be supported. Saddam’s assistance to the Palestinians did not “threaten the US in some visible and tangible way.”

    Also, “Saddam and the Islamists” is hardly a standard that the officials of a democracy should be measured against.

  12. Nick Gotts says

    It’s no surprise at all that the two resident Israel-can-do-no-wrong bozos bring up the 1981 Israeli attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor, even though it’s connection with the OP is remote. They both love them some Israeli violence, whoever’s on the receiving end. But it’s far from clear that the bombing was a success. In fact, Saddam Hussein was nowhere near being able to build even one nuclear bomb in 1981, and his reaction to the bombing was not to halt his nuclear weapons programme, but to greatly increase the resources devoted to it, while hiding it. According to the Israeli commenter I link to, and many other sources, it was the 1991 Gulf War that prevented him getting nuclear weapons. Had he not been fool enough to invade Kuwait, he would likely have had them by the mid-1990s. Not, of course, that he would then have used them against Israel, because that would have been suicidal in the face of Israel’s much greater arsenal, backed by the even greater one of the USA. Saddam Hussein was a savage tyrant, and prone to over-reach himself, but he was neither suicidal nor completely irrational.

  13. colnago80 says

    Re Nick Gotts

    Larry Derfner, who is the author of the article linked to, is a totally unreliable source of information. I used to read his columns in the Jerusalem Post and he was totally full of shit. When it comes to lying, he can give Bibi a run for his money.

  14. Holms says

    @1
    Nothing says ‘single issue fanatic’ more than your ability to turn every post that even marginally touches on the middle east to be all about Israel.

    @2
    Terrorism is a threat, yes, but only in a relatively small sense. Civilians died and the economy was damaged, but bear in mind the odds of dying to terrorism are vastly lower than the odds of dying to a traffic accident, mugging, domestic violence etc. etc. ad nauseum. The reigning regime – and hence, American self determination – was entirely untouched.

    @3
    The carnage and chaos in the South West & central Asian region – in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan, etc .. was caused by both sides – not just the Western one and let’s not forget that…
    True, but the scope of that article is limited more to the American actions contributing to the middle east, rather than to the entire regional problem.

    Ritually? Why that and what ritual?
    yeah that bit was odd. I can only speculate that the author maybe meant a different word, perhaps ‘rigorously’?

    @14
    Argument by declaring the other side liars… convincing stuff!

  15. says

    What, if anything, might reduce the neoconservative influence to its proper dimension (that is to say, almost nil)? I wish I knew, for if the past ten years haven’t discredited them, it’s not obvious what would.

    The problem is actually a general one of group competition and risks, and while it might be more prevalent among conservatives, I see it among liberals as well.

    It’s a combined problem of:
    (1). an unwillingness to harm the chances of one’s political group by admitting the presence of error or terrible acts (consciously or unconsciously), or
    (2) an unwillingness to harm the chances of one’s political group by criticizing the presence of error or terrible acts that one is willing to admit the existence of.

    I’m willing to believe that it’s more common among conservatives because they tend to be more authoritarian and that would make them less likely to consider flaws in their authorities, or to question the ones that they see. But I encounters liberals willing to ignore or look the other way when it comes to things like investigating torture, abuse of whistle blowers, Obama’s justice department choosing not to prosecute powerful people that harm others such as those involved in the current economic situation, Obama’s role in the current problems with the NSA and/or companies that worked with the NSA, and more.

  16. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @15. Holms :

    Terrorism is a threat, yes, but only in a relatively small sense. Civilians died .. but bear in mind the odds of dying to terrorism are vastly lower than .. </block

  17. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    ..quote – What the ..? That ain’ t sposed to happen! Continuing :

    Anyhow as I was going to say, try telling that to those who died or lost family members or friends due to terrorism. Sure they’ll think that makes it all just fine then – not!

    True, but the scope of that article is limited more to the American actions contributing to the middle east, rather than to the entire regional problem.

    (Pause – don’you be going nowhere yet internet .. )

    Yeah. That would be the problem and my objection to that article there.

    @1Nothing says ‘single issue fanatic’ more than your ability to turn every post that even marginally touches on the middle east to be all about Israel.

    Maybe so.

    However, there are an awful lot of folks that seem to like to blame everything in the world that ever happens on Israel and it ain’t just Mel Gibson who gives that impression to me and others.

    @Nick Gotts : “It’s no surprise at all that the two resident Israel-can-do-no-wrong bozos .. “

    Oh Israel can do wrong, its not perfect.

    Thing is, I’m also someone who thinks that Israel can do right too.

    Something I think you and quite a few others on FTB and the Israel-bashing fringe of the left seem unable to grasp. Is it too much to ask y’all to be fair to Israel and think about how any nation in its position and circumstances faced with its threats would act?

    It is?

    Then what does that tell everyone else on the planet ’bout you? Please do chew on that food for thought awhile.

    .. bring up the 1981 Israeli attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor, even though it’s connection with the OP is remote. They both love them some Israeli violence, whoever’s on the receiving end. But it’s far from clear that the bombing was a success.

    Yeah, firstly, yes it is very clear indeed that Israel’s Operation Opera ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera ) was a success. That’s just historic reality.

    (Incidentally, interesting bit of trivia for y’all – Ilan Ramon Israel’s one and so far only astronaut who tragically perished aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia STS -107 was one of the pilots on that mission.)

    Secondly on loving Israeli violence, no, not really. Wish it wasn’t made necessary.

    But when (sadly, not *if*, when) Israel has to defend itself from Islamic enemies who are determined to wipe it off the map, then, hell yeah, I will cheer Israel on against its foes – and so should every other decent human being on the planet.

    Thirdly and finally (reverse sequence here) on the remote connection to the OP. Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.

    I’m just glad Israel acted to stop Saddam Hussein getting nukes and, in hindsight, the rest of the world really does owe the world’s one, tiny Jewish nation a massive debt of gratitude for that. Not that you’ll find all that many out there who will be so good as to admit that but still another historic reality.

    @12. jimmyfromchicago :

    A few things:

    –Saddam wasn’t an “Islamist”; he was a secular Baathist.

    Yes. Which would explain why I had the word “and” there denoting that they are / were two separate actors. Saddam was a Muslim and a awful nasty piece of work though.

    –He only began to “pose a threat to the [Middle East's] peace and stability” in the view of Very Serious People when he invaded Kuwait. When he was useful to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as a counterweight to Iran, the fact that he massacred and oppressed his own people was viewed as a purely internal Iraqi matter.

    Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity that can be supported. Saddam’s assistance to the Palestinians did not “threaten the US in some visible and tangible way.”

    Agreed. His threat to assassinate a US president and his support and aid to Palestinian terrorism was destabilising and a problem though.

  18. says

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co certainly did make huge and catastrophic mistakes. They certainly got an awful lot horribly wrong. But then, so too did Saddam Hussein and the Islamists.

    Yes, but so fucking what? None of that justifies the neocons’ ignorance, bigotry, or incompetent interventionism, nor does it justify the outright lies they used to nudge us into two pointless and unwinnable wars.

    Anyhow as I was going to say, try telling that to those who died or lost family members or friends due to terrorism. Sure they’ll think that makes it all just fine then – not!

    Who the FUCK is saying anything like that? Provide a quote, SteveOR, or admit you’re just as full of shit as the neocons.

  19. says

    Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity that can be supported.

    That’s a totally pointless, empty non-statement. Murder and rape can also be called “tactics.” The label doesn’t change anything.

  20. says

    His threat to assassinate a US president and his support and aid to Palestinian terrorism was destabilising and a problem though.

    First, his “threat” to kill a US President didn’t amount to shit; and second, his aid to Palestinian terrorism didn’t make much of a difference either — notice how his overthrow hasn’t done jack shit to diminish the terrorism?

  21. says

    Larry Derfner, who is the author of the article linked to, is a totally unreliable source of information.

    I’ll take that assertion seriously as soon as you: a) back it up; and b) offer a more reliable source on the same subject.

  22. says

    Just imagine the Gulf War 10 years later if he had developed nuclear weapons.

    That’s your whole fucking problem, Chickenhawk: your values and policies are based on nothing but imagined horrors.

  23. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @19.Raging Bee : I did provide a quote -right there at #17 from #15. Holms :

    “Terrorism is a threat, yes, but only in a relatively small sense. Civilians died .. but bear in mind the odds of dying to terrorism are vastly lower than ..

    That’s what I was responding to and who I was telling to tell that to the 9-11 and other victims.

    Thanks for demonstrating again the total lack of reading comprehension of some here, but you really needn’t have!

  24. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    PS. As for imagined horrors – yeah not so much for instance :

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2014/06/27/allah-is-one/

    Do you really live under a rock or something and have you missed pretty much most world news since befroe september 2001 or something.

    Imagined horrors? If only they were .. If only!

    I strongly suggest you – and everyone – reads more Taslima Nasreen, Maryam Namazie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (Among other sources, but those are three excellent ones who truly know what they are talking about.)

  25. says

    PS. As for imagined horrors – yeah not so much for instance…

    Uh, yeah, that’s not the horror your fellow chickenhawk was imagining. Your point…?

    I strongly suggest you – and everyone – reads more Taslima Nasreen, Maryam Namazie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    What makes you think I don’t — the mere fact that I’m not as relentlessly bigoted and testerical as you?

    And why should I take reading recommendations from someone who continues to advocate policies that have long been proven a failure?

  26. colnago80 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #22

    JiINO Derfner wrote on his personal blog that the Palestinians were justified in using terrorist tactics against Israeli civilians (a sentiment that I am sure that the Bee and other Israel bashers who comment here agree with) and was fired from his job at the Jerusalem Post because of it. Derfner is also a hypocrite as he has written over and over again that the settlers on the West Bank are the dregs of humanity. He conveniently overlooks the fact that he lives in such a settlement.

  27. colnago80 says

    Re StevoR

    It is really amusing how some, like many who comment here and elsewhere on Freethoughtblogs, like to slime Sam Harris an Islam hating bigot when the criticisms of ex Muslims like the three you mentioned and Kaveh who also blogs here are a lot more severe then anything Harris has to say.

  28. says

    Colnago, go fuck yourself. I wasn’t “celebrating” any such thing, and your made-up allegation just proves what a clueless bigoted asshole you are.

  29. says

    It is really amusing how some, like many who comment here and elsewhere on Freethoughtblogs, like to slime Sam Harris an Islam hating bigot when the criticisms of ex Muslims like the three you mentioned and Kaveh who also blogs here are a lot more severe then anything Harris has to say.

    Actually, some of the things the ex-Muslims have to say have also been credibly disputed. If you’re looking for some sort of hypocricy or double standard, you’ll have to look elsewhere.

  30. says

    Fuck you, colnago, you can’t win an argument any other way, so you knowingly make up malicious and false accusations with ZERO evidence, like the childish bigot you are. I did NOT deserve to be FALSELY accused of “celebrating” a senseless murder, just because I happen to disagree with you on a totally unrelated topic.

    YOU, on the other hand, deserve (IMHO) to be banned from this blog, for being a scurrilous babyish cowardly liar, and for being consistently unwilling to engage in grownup conversation.

  31. colnago80 says

    YOU, on the other hand, deserve (IMHO) to be banned from this blog, for being a scurrilous babyish cowardly liar, and for being consistently unwilling to engage in grownup conversation.

    Translation: Colnago80 has the temerity to defend the State of Israel against the Israel bashers who comment here and elsewhere on
    Freethoughtblogs. To quote Harry Truman, I tell the truth about Israel and Bee and the other Israel bashers think it’s hell.

  32. says

    You knowingly made a false and scurrilous accusation against me, and then you brag about telling the truth? Fuck off, little man, you don’t have the chops for this conversation.

  33. colnago80 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #35

    Based on the fact that I consider Bee to be mostly an honorable man (except when he discusses libertarians or Israel), I humbly withdraw the accusation.

  34. says

    Sorry, that’s not good enough. You should have withdrawn the accusation the grounds that it is FALSE. Instead, you just admitted that you make accusations based on your personal opinions, not on facts or evidence.

    So now all you have to do is show exactly where I’ve been “dishonorable” when discussing libertarians or Israel. If you can’t bring yourself to do that, then all you’ve done is replace one bogus accusation with another.

  35. colnago80 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #37

    Bee, you have to be kidding me. Your attitude towards libertarians on Ed Brayton’s blog over several years once earned you of rebuke from him. Anyone who has followed your comments knows that you have a hard on against libertarians, just as your pal Heddle has a hard on against no true Scotsman. Stop trying to bullshit a bullshitter.

    As for Israel, you admitted a few years ago, again at Ed Brayton’s blog that you were unsympathetic to their predicament because of, in your unfounded opinion, their beastly behavior towards the Palestinian terrorists.

  36. says

    You still haven’t shown where anything I’ve said is actually wrong, let alone “dishonorable.” Citations, please, or admit you’re still full of shit.

    Also, you still have not admitted that your recent accusation was a lie. You are in no position to lecture ANYONE about “dishonorable” behavior.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>