So you’re unconcerned that folks like Rumsfeld support murderous regimes when they fall in line with US interests, and are only opposed to such regimes when they happen to oppose US interests? This question of principle doesn’t even register with you?
If you truly think that’s an appropriate analogy, there’s little point even debating with you. It’s even more ridiculous than your historical “analysis.”
It is heartening to observe that both New Iskander and Sam Stone commend the President for his resolve to liberate the Iraqi people by removing Saddam Hussein from power. Indeed they are correct to observe that as members of the hoi polloi they are not fit to be informed beforehand of the real reasons for the invasion and instead must be gently lead, as children, by terrible fearsome threats of monstrous instruments directed to their homes.
These cries of unworthiness by supporters of the leader are an example of modesty to us all. Indeed I must now protest that I am unfit to join their company and instead would prefer candour, upfront from the officeholders I elect and pay for.
You keep repeating yourself. What do you want? What outcome would make you satisfied? Or you simply enjoy repeating same thing ad nauseam?
Well, as a general principle, i would prefer that the United States not persist in propping up murderous dictators when they serve US ends, and hypocritically attacking (the same or other) murderous dictators when they don’t. Call me crazy, but i am, as a general principle, against cozying up to murderous dictators, whether or not they happen to be on “our” side.
From you i don’t really expect anything, particularly since you’ve shown no indication that this type of hypocrisy worries you at all. I guess a concession that Rumsfeld et al. were wrong for cozying up to Saddam, and that they are now hypocrites, would be nice; but in the final analysis, your take on the matter is of little concern to me.
“You did it first” is not a valid argument. If Sam Stone is correct, we on the left should really distance ourselves from Galloway.
Also, I wouldn’t call it an ad-hominem. He stated his belief that Galloway is despicable, but it wasn’t used as an argument. His long post about Galloway is simply giving the reasons for what he said earlier.
OMG–after a reasonably tolerable episode this week (thank God for PJ O’ Rourke and Hizzoner the Sweetness), Bill Maher is going to have Gorgeous George on his show next Friday.
I’m glad the show is taped 3000 miles away from me. Hope Ted Koppell has somebody good on.
Firstly, i made no comment either way about Galloway. I have not spent any time at all in this thread defending him.
Secondly, it’s not simply a matter of “you did it first.” It’s a matter of conservatives often conveniently forgetting that the very people that they are now praising for getting rid of the evil Saddam are the same folks who gave him so much aid and comfort back when he was consolidating his power.
In other words, for those who aren’t quite getting his point, when you’re the one who jostled the pitcher of Kool-Aid over and stained the nice white carpet, you don’t get extra credit for cleaning it up.
Anyway, Christopher Hitchens is a rare and remarkable man. He will be remembered as Orwell of our time.
Nice spin, but George Galloway isn’t just a small-time, press-happy Commie. He’s a major figure in the anti-war movement. He’s a co-founder of the Stop The War Coalition, which, along with their pals at ANSWER, are responsible for organizing many of the larger anti-war protests. He’s a British MP, and he’s in the headlines regularly. And you guys rally around him en-masse and cheer him on. He’s a worthy target.
What would you say to me if the pro-war side was heavily supported by neo-nazis? If they had hugely popular web sites, and held rallies where hundreds of thousands of war supporters showed up and freely marched alongside swastikas and banners with Adolph Hitler’s face on them? If one of the leaders of the neo-Nazis got rousing cheers from me every time he attacked an opponent of the war?
Galloway is every bit as evil as a Nazi. He’s the full meal deal - he wants all the Jews eliminated, he’s a totalitarian, he actively incites the insurgency in Iraq, etc.
This is a man who a few weeks ago stood on a podium in Syria and gave a speech praising the people who killed Casey Sheehan. And now he’s going to appear on another stage with Casey’s mother, offering her his crocodile tears and cynically using her to attain the goal of re-establishing a totalitarian state in Iraq. How can you possibly look the other way and ignore that kind of behaviour?
Sorry, you don’t get to play the “Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with him 20 years ago!” trump card. Unless you can show that -I- have ever supported Saddam, you don’t get to invalidate my points today because of something a Republican did 20 years ago.
And you on the left have made great hay out of that handshake for a long time, and now you’re in bed with a man who didn’t just shake Saddam’s hand 20 years ago, but who has been an active supporter of Saddam’s for the entire time, and who is inciting war against your own country. The hypocrisy of that is so thick you would have to cut it with a scimitar.
Nice try at deflection. Think about the way you’re twisting this. Rumsfeld and the U.S. were evil for even talking to Saddam twenty years ago. George Galloway is cool, even though he’s been a Saddam apologist forever. And if you disagree with me, well, I’ll ignore everything you have to say and point out that the U.S. is evil for once having talked to Saddam.
Your position fundamentally makes no sense.
Well, as i’ve already pointed out in this thread, i’ve made not a single assertion about George Galloway, let alone a defence of him. So that straw man won’t hunt, i’m afraid, despite your disingenuous attempt to portray me as some sort of Galloway defender.
Secondly, i don’t have to demonstrate that you supported Saddam. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of applauding Rumsfeld et al. for their current stance against Saddam, and completely ignoring the fact that it was Rumsfeld et al. whose support for Saddam back in the 1980s played a large part in helping him ascend to and maintain power in Iraq.
And, as i said earlier, it’s also about the contemptible practice among US administrations of supporting brutal dictators when they serve our interests, and claiming to be aginst brutal dictators when their interests conflict with our own. That, unfortunately, had been a bipartisan practice among American politicians. In the case of Iraq, it just happens to be Republicans like Rumsfeld who were in power and at the front of the cheerleading squad in Saddam’s early days.
Where? What rally, and what “masse”? And who, for that matter, are “you guys” anyway? Or is your statement that he’s a “major figure” in the anti-war movement only to be found in your cherished blogs?
Ground Control to Major Stone …
It’s very easy to ignore him entirely, as in fact most of “us guys” (for short) do.
Errrr…dare I ask for a cite?
For what it’s worth, I had never even heard of Galloway until I opened this thread.
It’s true that Galloway is a ‘new big name’ in America. However he certainly isn’t in Britain - in the run-up to the war he was a major presence, and had a long-running dispute with the Labour party with the party elite trying to muscle him out of his Glasgow seat.
That makes two of us. I might have been able to guess the right answer for who he was if it were a multiple choice question…assuming the other choices weren’t too similar. But, apparently we are all in bed with him because he opposes the same war that we do.
In fact, now that I think about it, I realize how perverse it is that the person who opened this thread is the one of accusing us of being in bed with this guy. I think you, Sam, are the only person who has even expressed the idea that this debate was very worthwhile … Pretty much everyone else seems to think it was a worthless debate between two blowhards. And, based on what I have read here, I am libel to believe I would come down on the side of pretty much everyone else if I decided it was even worth my time to look at it.
I guess if I desperately wanted to feel good about the war, I’d listen to someone I found despicable deploring it … Hell, I think I used to listen to Jimmy Swaggart sometimes for the analogous reason that you seemed to enjoy listening to Galloway. However, it is fallacious logic to assume that just because someone like this exists arguing the position that you oppose then your position is more correct.
Good point. By the same token, not everyone who champions Iraq liberation and destruction of insurgency, is in bed with Bush.
Bullshit. Neoliberals are internationalists. Neocons are American (or, in some versions, Anglo-American) nationalists/imperialists. (See ongoing discussion in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=335250) You can tell one from the other by examining their views on organizations of international governance such as the UN, World Court, etc.
:dubious: Oh, there’s plenty of dishonesty and profiteering going on in connection with Iraq and with the whole GWAT! No, the ideological neocons are not the ones doing it, but they are defending it.
Actually, it’s more like blaming Johnson for the activities of the Viet Cong – and he was to blame, to some extent, for all that the VC existed before he took office. American intervention gave the VC a renewed mission of anti-imperialism, and that made them more popular with the people.