Anyway, I still have yet to see one quote by a 'lefty' defending Islamic Fundamentalism.
Monday, June 17, 2002
Digby sez:
This argument is utter nonsense.
1. The "Not in our Name" petition, if it is real, does not indicate any solidarity with fundamentalist Islam. It is a general disagreement with American foreign policy.
2.) None other than Super Lefty George W. Bush has waxed romantically on many occasions about being a "good and loyal friend of Islam."
3.) The underlying premise of his post is completely fallacious. As with the Right's conflation of liberalism with John Walker Lindh's conversion to fundamentalist Islam, Reynolds has made a serious error in logic.
If a Liberal is defined by his belief in equality for women and minorities, universal suffrage, civil rights, religious pluralism etc then it is entirely illogical that they would support fundamentalist Islam with it's contrary belief system.
This does not mean, of course, that because they oppose everything Islamic theocracy stands for that they must automatically support military action against it.
There are other options for dealing with the threat of terrorism, and whether or not you believe those options are efficacious does not negate their existence nor does it mean that those who support those options must then be assumed to love fundamentalist Islam. That one has a tolerance for the overall religion itself is merely All American religious pluralism.
Finally, and most importantly, the post in question posits that because the Christian fundamentalists have joined with Islamic fundamentalists in taking a position to halt the expansion of rights for women, children and gays, the the Lefties will have to make a choice between their good Islamic friends their great Christian enemies. This is the heart of the argument and it is sophistry.
The basis of Liberal philosophy is the expansion of human rights. To believe that Lefties would hesitate for a moment to condemn this propsed UN action, no matter who is sponsoring it but particularly because of a specious claim of love and affection for Islamic theocracy, is well..stupid.
Let's be clear. Liberals believe in human rights. They do not support repression of women, children or gays. Thinking people will not confuse them with others who do support those things no matter how hard someone tries to create a confluence of illogical conclusions.
I say - Glenn gets a *bit* of a pass on Digby's argument because he said "lefty" and not liberal, but nonetheless.
This argument is utter nonsense.
1. The "Not in our Name" petition, if it is real, does not indicate any solidarity with fundamentalist Islam. It is a general disagreement with American foreign policy.
2.) None other than Super Lefty George W. Bush has waxed romantically on many occasions about being a "good and loyal friend of Islam."
3.) The underlying premise of his post is completely fallacious. As with the Right's conflation of liberalism with John Walker Lindh's conversion to fundamentalist Islam, Reynolds has made a serious error in logic.
If a Liberal is defined by his belief in equality for women and minorities, universal suffrage, civil rights, religious pluralism etc then it is entirely illogical that they would support fundamentalist Islam with it's contrary belief system.
This does not mean, of course, that because they oppose everything Islamic theocracy stands for that they must automatically support military action against it.
There are other options for dealing with the threat of terrorism, and whether or not you believe those options are efficacious does not negate their existence nor does it mean that those who support those options must then be assumed to love fundamentalist Islam. That one has a tolerance for the overall religion itself is merely All American religious pluralism.
Finally, and most importantly, the post in question posits that because the Christian fundamentalists have joined with Islamic fundamentalists in taking a position to halt the expansion of rights for women, children and gays, the the Lefties will have to make a choice between their good Islamic friends their great Christian enemies. This is the heart of the argument and it is sophistry.
The basis of Liberal philosophy is the expansion of human rights. To believe that Lefties would hesitate for a moment to condemn this propsed UN action, no matter who is sponsoring it but particularly because of a specious claim of love and affection for Islamic theocracy, is well..stupid.
Let's be clear. Liberals believe in human rights. They do not support repression of women, children or gays. Thinking people will not confuse them with others who do support those things no matter how hard someone tries to create a confluence of illogical conclusions.
I say - Glenn gets a *bit* of a pass on Digby's argument because he said "lefty" and not liberal, but nonetheless.
“[marriage is] the deepest means for the liberation of homosexuals, providing them with the only avenue for sexual and emotional development that can integrate them as equal human beings and remove from them the hideous historic option of choosing between their joy and their dignity." - Andy Sullivan, Love Undetectable . [emphasis mine]
I guess Andy is admitting that he is not fully integrated as a human being.
Which has he chosen - joy or dignity?
Enquiring minds want to know..
I guess Andy is admitting that he is not fully integrated as a human being.
Which has he chosen - joy or dignity?
Enquiring minds want to know..
Apparently the media is committing treason. Okay, arrest them all! It would probably give me good chuckle while I had a brief "told you so" moment, but shouldn't they arrest Tom Clancy first?
(via Altercation) who notes this guy works for the State Department.
(via Altercation) who notes this guy works for the State Department.
Rittenhouse Review runs "What does your newspaper say about you?"
Yes, they are probably the last people to have seen it but it's always worth a re-read.
Yes, they are probably the last people to have seen it but it's always worth a re-read.
"Andrew" says that this article:
Artistes writers flay US war on terror
WASHINGTON-A group of leading American writers, actors and academics have signed a statement denouncing America's anti-terrorism war to advance a political agenda and an openly imperial policy towards the world.
"We call on all Americans to resist the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration," the statement said adding: "It is unjust, immoral and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world."
The statement called "Not In Our Name", says the government has "declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression". They also criticise the media for failing to challenge the direction the government has taken. They hoped the statement would be published by US media but the latter did not oblige.
They include the musicians Laurie Anderson and Mos Def, the actors Ossie Davis and Ed Asner, the writers Alice Walker, Russell Banks, Barbara Kingsolver and Grace Paley, and the playwrights Eve Ensler and Tony Kushner. Martin Luther King III, Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and Rabbi Michael Lerner have added their names, making this the widest ranging group of opponents of government policy since September 11.
It seeks to dispel impression in the world that there was no dissent in the US to the bombing of Afghanistan and the plans for a war against Iraq. The statement, said: "We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights."
Underscoring their own shock over horrific September 11 carnage which they mourned, they also recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City and, a generation ago, Vietnam. They said they join the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.
"But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of "good v evil" that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home. "
"In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq - a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the US government has a blank cheque to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants."
Pikser, a screenwriter who wrote Bulworth, a satire on American politics in which Warren Beatty played a politician who finally decided to speak his mind, said some people had been reluctant to add their names despite agreeing to it in principle, because they think it might jeopardise other things they're involved in." Mr Kissinger, one of the organisers of the first anti-Vietnam war marches on Washington in 1965, said he was receiving about 60 emails a day from people who wanted to add their name to the list.
"It's a shame that there's not a voice of opposition coming out of the United States," he said. The statement was viewed as an indication of a growing feeling that the administration is promoting its own agenda on the back of the attacks. Support for the president's policies remains high, however, and those who appear critical of them have been accused of lacking patriotism.
It was announced last week that Bill Maher, host of the television show Politically Incorrect, has not had his contract renewed by ABC. Maher was criticised for an exchange six days after September 11 in which he and a guest agreed that whatever else the hijackers were, they were not "cowardly."
Source: Pakistani Newspaper
demonstrates Lefty fondness for Fundamentalist Islam.
Glenn Reynolds agrees.
Okay.
This is the kind of 15 degrees of guilt by association separation that David Horowitz would be proud of, unless I'm really missing something...
Artistes writers flay US war on terror
WASHINGTON-A group of leading American writers, actors and academics have signed a statement denouncing America's anti-terrorism war to advance a political agenda and an openly imperial policy towards the world.
"We call on all Americans to resist the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration," the statement said adding: "It is unjust, immoral and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world."
The statement called "Not In Our Name", says the government has "declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression". They also criticise the media for failing to challenge the direction the government has taken. They hoped the statement would be published by US media but the latter did not oblige.
They include the musicians Laurie Anderson and Mos Def, the actors Ossie Davis and Ed Asner, the writers Alice Walker, Russell Banks, Barbara Kingsolver and Grace Paley, and the playwrights Eve Ensler and Tony Kushner. Martin Luther King III, Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and Rabbi Michael Lerner have added their names, making this the widest ranging group of opponents of government policy since September 11.
It seeks to dispel impression in the world that there was no dissent in the US to the bombing of Afghanistan and the plans for a war against Iraq. The statement, said: "We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights."
Underscoring their own shock over horrific September 11 carnage which they mourned, they also recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City and, a generation ago, Vietnam. They said they join the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.
"But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of "good v evil" that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home. "
"In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq - a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the US government has a blank cheque to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants."
Pikser, a screenwriter who wrote Bulworth, a satire on American politics in which Warren Beatty played a politician who finally decided to speak his mind, said some people had been reluctant to add their names despite agreeing to it in principle, because they think it might jeopardise other things they're involved in." Mr Kissinger, one of the organisers of the first anti-Vietnam war marches on Washington in 1965, said he was receiving about 60 emails a day from people who wanted to add their name to the list.
"It's a shame that there's not a voice of opposition coming out of the United States," he said. The statement was viewed as an indication of a growing feeling that the administration is promoting its own agenda on the back of the attacks. Support for the president's policies remains high, however, and those who appear critical of them have been accused of lacking patriotism.
It was announced last week that Bill Maher, host of the television show Politically Incorrect, has not had his contract renewed by ABC. Maher was criticised for an exchange six days after September 11 in which he and a guest agreed that whatever else the hijackers were, they were not "cowardly."
Source: Pakistani Newspaper
demonstrates Lefty fondness for Fundamentalist Islam.
Glenn Reynolds agrees.
Okay.
This is the kind of 15 degrees of guilt by association separation that David Horowitz would be proud of, unless I'm really missing something...
Why is the Home Depot refusing to do business with the federal government?
Once upon a time I'm sure the residents of the internet's premier forum for compassionate conservatives would have considered this to be a patriotic act of the highest order. But, now that the Tubesteak Messiah is out of office and the Black Helicopters have all gone away, I'm sure it is a much more complicated question for them- what is Home Depot's motive?
Are they objecting to some element of the government's foreign and domestic policy? Or, are they simply trying to avoid some pesky federal anti-discrimination regulations....
Once upon a time I'm sure the residents of the internet's premier forum for compassionate conservatives would have considered this to be a patriotic act of the highest order. But, now that the Tubesteak Messiah is out of office and the Black Helicopters have all gone away, I'm sure it is a much more complicated question for them- what is Home Depot's motive?
Are they objecting to some element of the government's foreign and domestic policy? Or, are they simply trying to avoid some pesky federal anti-discrimination regulations....
Whenever I get accused of making unjustified cheap shots, I just click over to my good friend Instapundit's site to reaffirm the notion that such accusations are motivated by ideology, and not content.
For example, check out this post by him, which begins:
PERHAPS ALL THE LEFTIES WHO HAVE SHOWN AN UNACCOUNTABLE AFFECTION FOR FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM
I wonder if Glenn could tell me who these lefties are.
For example, check out this post by him, which begins:
PERHAPS ALL THE LEFTIES WHO HAVE SHOWN AN UNACCOUNTABLE AFFECTION FOR FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM
I wonder if Glenn could tell me who these lefties are.
Is Tom Clancy a liberal?
Don Feder thinks so, and Tapped agrees.
Both should read this post by Charles Murtaugh who debunks, somewhat, the idea that Hollywood "whitewashed" The Sum of All Fears .
It is true that Hollywood changed them from Mideasterners to European neo-fascists, but in the book the terrorists were atheists and communists (you know, godless commie bastards), and not Muslim Fundamentalists.
I thought us liberals liked godless commie bastards?
Don Feder thinks so, and Tapped agrees.
Both should read this post by Charles Murtaugh who debunks, somewhat, the idea that Hollywood "whitewashed" The Sum of All Fears .
It is true that Hollywood changed them from Mideasterners to European neo-fascists, but in the book the terrorists were atheists and communists (you know, godless commie bastards), and not Muslim Fundamentalists.
I thought us liberals liked godless commie bastards?
Sunday, June 16, 2002
All this talk about Islamists, or whatever we're calling them this week, is quite interesting. It is only important to label and identify this groups if we are trying to understand just why it is they hate us.
What an idea.
Demosthenes has some more on this.
What an idea.
Demosthenes has some more on this.
Flashback to 1993.
(No link, it's from the March 13, 1993 Washington Post).
WASHINGTON -- When President Clinton's top aides moved into the White House in January, many of them had trouble getting their computers to work.
That's because during the night of Jan. 19 and into the next morning -- President Bush's last hours in office -- officials wiped out the computerized memory of the White House machines.
The hurried operation was made possible only by an agreement signed close to midnight by the archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson. The ensuing controversy has added to allegations that the archives, beset for years bypolitical pressures and slim resources, is prone to mismanagement and ineptitude in its mission of preserving for the public the nation's documentary history.
It also has raised strong doubts about the efficacy of a15-year-old law that says a former president's records belong to the people.
Just what information was purged remains unknown, but it probably ranged from reports on the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina to details about Bush's Iran-Contra pardons to evidence concerning the pre-election search of Clinton's passport files. In the warrens of the secretive National Security Council, only a month's worth of foreign cable traffic was retained to help enlighten the incoming administration.
(No link, it's from the March 13, 1993 Washington Post).
WASHINGTON -- When President Clinton's top aides moved into the White House in January, many of them had trouble getting their computers to work.
That's because during the night of Jan. 19 and into the next morning -- President Bush's last hours in office -- officials wiped out the computerized memory of the White House machines.
The hurried operation was made possible only by an agreement signed close to midnight by the archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson. The ensuing controversy has added to allegations that the archives, beset for years bypolitical pressures and slim resources, is prone to mismanagement and ineptitude in its mission of preserving for the public the nation's documentary history.
It also has raised strong doubts about the efficacy of a15-year-old law that says a former president's records belong to the people.
Just what information was purged remains unknown, but it probably ranged from reports on the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina to details about Bush's Iran-Contra pardons to evidence concerning the pre-election search of Clinton's passport files. In the warrens of the secretive National Security Council, only a month's worth of foreign cable traffic was retained to help enlighten the incoming administration.
One for the Ken Starr defenders.
In January 1998, Weiner was subpoenaed and testified before Ken Starr's Whitewater-Lewinsky Grand Jury about private home phone calls which he and his wife, Patricia Berg, made to friends expressing their opinion about the Linda Tripp tapes. Weiner and Berg called Starr's investigation of their private lives "Big Brother at its worst" and were interviewed or quoted on "Today", "Good Morning America", Montel Williams, even Jay Leno, as well as all three network news programs, and most papers across America.
And Julie Hyatt Steele was indicted for obstruction of justice for going on Larry King.
In January 1998, Weiner was subpoenaed and testified before Ken Starr's Whitewater-Lewinsky Grand Jury about private home phone calls which he and his wife, Patricia Berg, made to friends expressing their opinion about the Linda Tripp tapes. Weiner and Berg called Starr's investigation of their private lives "Big Brother at its worst" and were interviewed or quoted on "Today", "Good Morning America", Montel Williams, even Jay Leno, as well as all three network news programs, and most papers across America.
And Julie Hyatt Steele was indicted for obstruction of justice for going on Larry King.
This non-lawyer thinks Lawrence Tribe is spot on with this one:
The debate over the treatment of these suspects has centered on whether they must be tried promptly or can be detained indefinitely on the president's mere say-so. This is a false choice. While the Bush administration certainly has the right to argue that these citizens are enemy combatants and thus may be imprisoned for the duration of the war, it also has the obligation to defend its position in federal court.
The case of Mr. Padilla, who is a suspect in a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in the United States, rightly concerns many civil libertarians. All citizens have the right to know the reasons they are being held, and if no adequate reasons are forthcoming, to be promptly released. If they are charged with a crime, they have the constitutional right to a speedy trial. But demanding a trial in these circumstances, where someone like Mr. Padilla would almost surely be found guilty, carries a high cost for civil liberties: it would stretch the meaning of already elastic concepts like criminal conspiracy to the point of creating what would amount to thought crimes.
<....>
But the Bush administration is wrong when it claims that anyone, alien or citizen, may be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatant based on the president's unilateral judgment that the detainee was a participant in the enemy force that attacked the country Sept. 11.
<...>
In habeas corpus hearings in these cases, the need for confidentiality may prevent parts of the proceedings from being open to the press and public. And even in closed hearings, judges will sometimes have to make do with imperfect information. Still, the task seems manageable if we remember that the issue is neither the detainee's guilt nor the degree of danger the detainee poses. It is simply whether the detainee's status as an active member of an enemy force is supportable.
The debate over the treatment of these suspects has centered on whether they must be tried promptly or can be detained indefinitely on the president's mere say-so. This is a false choice. While the Bush administration certainly has the right to argue that these citizens are enemy combatants and thus may be imprisoned for the duration of the war, it also has the obligation to defend its position in federal court.
The case of Mr. Padilla, who is a suspect in a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in the United States, rightly concerns many civil libertarians. All citizens have the right to know the reasons they are being held, and if no adequate reasons are forthcoming, to be promptly released. If they are charged with a crime, they have the constitutional right to a speedy trial. But demanding a trial in these circumstances, where someone like Mr. Padilla would almost surely be found guilty, carries a high cost for civil liberties: it would stretch the meaning of already elastic concepts like criminal conspiracy to the point of creating what would amount to thought crimes.
<....>
But the Bush administration is wrong when it claims that anyone, alien or citizen, may be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatant based on the president's unilateral judgment that the detainee was a participant in the enemy force that attacked the country Sept. 11.
<...>
In habeas corpus hearings in these cases, the need for confidentiality may prevent parts of the proceedings from being open to the press and public. And even in closed hearings, judges will sometimes have to make do with imperfect information. Still, the task seems manageable if we remember that the issue is neither the detainee's guilt nor the degree of danger the detainee poses. It is simply whether the detainee's status as an active member of an enemy force is supportable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)