I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.
What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 ”” mine included ”” has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.
It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.
Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”
The most important thing our federal government must do is to protect us. Without that, all else is worthless.
The author seems to indicate that a cell phone call is of equal, or greater, priority than my grand-daughter’s preservation and freedoms.
“9/11 has made us stupid” Mr. Friedman should speak for himself. This is the same Tom Friedman who (on the PBS news show) dismissed the idea of North Korean nuclear weapons as absurd. We should try not to overestimate the threat, but to dismiss it in Mr. Friedman’s arch manner would be stupid.
‘But we also need our old habits and sense of openness.”
An extremely naive and dangerous nostalgia IMHO. “Where anything is possible for anybody†is only part of the reality and glory of the American dream. “Where anything is possible for anybody†is the mantra of today’s entitlement America.
In related news, Friedman’s new book, titled “My Head is Flat,” is schedule for release soon.
Mr. Friedman does not have a spouse who commutes into NYC on public transport Monday-Friday.
BTW, we think LaGuardia is just fine as an airport and if he doesn’t like it, he can reroute.
The inability to see and name evil seems to be one of the great tragedies of our times … And, BTW, we are living in a 9/12 world. Thank God there are those who understand the real challenges before us. Unlike Friedman.
Maryland Brian
All of the above are correct. Friedman is another example of the far left who is totally out of touch with reality, big time. Having just finished Brigette Garbiel’s book “Because They Hate”, it is a shame that the NYT doesn’t publish her true-life experiences with “peaceful” Islam rather than Friedman’s.
If we don’t remember 9/11, and I say that many have already forgotten it and have their heads in the sand, we are in big trouble, if not already. I am continually amazed at the number of Americans who think there is no problem with Islam, are vehemently anti-military, and basially anti-American. What a travesty!
#6, “we are living in a 9/12 world”
Thank you for pointing that out. What Friedman is guilty of is not quite understanding what “living in a 9/12 world” really means. But then again, this is the man who thinks a “flat” world means it is more connected and enlightened, when in reality, the “flat” world analogy is usually associated with a LESS connected, LESS enlightened world.
While I share Mr. Friedman’s desire to have openness and freedom, the very fact that 9/11 occurred should tell us that we had a vulnerable security system. And even though no system is perfect, returning to pre-9/11 security makes it possible for the next 9/11 to occur that much more readily.
The fact that Canada got some MicroSoft work or Switzerland has a nice airport is a bogus analogy. Neither are targets of Al Qiada, and the US has many new high tech expansions and shiny new airports. Our infrastructure, good or bad, is not what makes us a target to the terrorists.
Dr. Thomas P. M. Barnett has done a series of studies connecting terrorism, financial statuses, global resourcing and military action. One of the more telling statistics that he found related local economy to security/stability. He found that in countries/areas where the economy has risen to above $3000 annual per capita income, almost all security problems – drugs, gangs, violent religious fanaticism, and so on – disappears. It becomes in the locals best interest to have security/safety. We see that in our own inner city neighborhoods.
Friedman’s article offers no solution and is just one more screed of how bad we are.
You can’t fly from Zurich to La Guardia. You have to go to Kennedy.
Friedman needs a “stupid slap”. The fact is that 9-11.2001 caught us absolutely off guard. Another fact is that while Al Quiada has been damaged by US and Allied efforts over the past several years, they and plenty other nut-jobs are quite intent upon killing Americans and causing destruction.
#1,
The federal government did not protect us on 9/11. It will not protect us from the next 9/11. It will instead use the next attack to extort even more tax dollars and bully and grope law-abiding American citizens while telling us diversity is our strength.
Conservative loyalty to the federal government is grossly misplaced.
#12 Matt Thompson
Matt, you stated:
[blockquote] What happened to the country I grew up in, the one that wasn’t afraid of a challenge, that was willing to defend its principles at all costs, and that didn’t let an attack by our enemies change who we are? [/blockquote]
I don’t see that the first and second part of your statement are connected to the third. I cannot speak for others, but it is precisely because we were attacked that we are defending our principles and facing that challenge. As to not being changed by an attack – the very nature of the attack, like Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, and Fort Sumter, is that it cannot help but change us.
You, like Friedman, can argue that we are being ‘stupid,’ but just what exactly would you have us go back to?
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make in your last paragraph and would like for you to unpack that if you would. Just what are the ‘terrible deeds’ that we have committed (I hope you are not drawing moral equivalence between Abu Grab and the Twin Towers or Daniel Pearl)?
9/11 changed everything. Before that day we believed our founders when they said: “give me liberty or give me death.”
Now we believe George Bush’s: “Give up your liberty or you will die.”
9/11 changed everything. It was the day we decided we had to become fascists to survive.
After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a “war footing”; we were in a “global war” against a “global caliphate” intending to “wipe out civilisation”. There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space – the globe itself is the battlefield. “This time,” Fein says, “there will be no defined end.”
Creating a terrifying threat – hydra-like, secretive, evil – is an old trick. It can, like Hitler’s invocation of a communist threat to the nation’s security, be based on actual events . Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the “global conspiracy of world Jewry”, on myth.
It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. But what happened on 9/11 is that it finally became a local issue – violence happened here as a result of global policies, rather than over there. Our shifting objectives, the transparent manipulations of the press by the government, the corrupt use of our taxes dollars to fund Blackwater and the Bush Regime’s cronies – all pale in contrast to the incompetencies that this Regime has shown in pursuing this global threat. We are moving backwards in Afghanistan, Bin Laden still roams free, the Saudis continue to fund 10x the weapons & terror that Ian & North Korea do combined. And the only sacrifice this pathetic excuse for a functional wing of government can muster up for most Americans is:
please shop.
So please, spare us all the mock indignation and craven embrace of the flag in one hand & the Bible in the other – our call as a Jesus followers trumps all national & political affiliations. That was true before the planes hit the towers & the Pentagon – it is true now.
Justin,
Alas, attempting to rationally debate with people who pen the sorts of responses you have created, simply makes the point: the inability to see and properly name evil is a troubling aspect of our times.
I’m not sure to what liberties you refer, but maybe I’m too far gone because I certainly don’t feel threatened knowing any calls I might make to overseas terrorists could be tapped. Given I don’t make those kinds of calls, I guess maybe I don’t understand how I’ve become a fascist.
BTW, fascists of the previous century were universally left leaning socialists. Perhaps because I’m not one of those either I don’t understand your point.
Maryland Brian
Re #15
Fascists, justinmartyr? If this is a fascist country, then why are you still free to write what you just did?
Give up your liberty? Please, tell us, what liberty have you given up? In what way beyond tighter security at airports have you even been inconvenienced? I hope you aren’t holding your breath waiting for the knock on the door to come in the middle of the night, the way people do in countries where liberty really has disappeared or was never found.
LOL. I would vote for a 9/12 candidate as well. One who would take their queue from 9/12/1683. That’s when King Sobieski of Poland-Lithuania, consecrating his army under the Virgin’s patronage, drove the Turks back from the gates of Vienna and haulted the military advancement of Islam into Europe. In honor and thanksgiving for this favor from God, Pope Innocent XI extended the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary to the Universal Calendar. In a world that is increasingly “flat”, I hope our memory is correspondingly “long”.
9/11 is over. Hey don’t tell us tell those ROP guys who keep coming up with more plots to kill other ROP guys and non ROP guys. I guess news travels slowly to caves.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Of course you’ve not lost your liberties, Brian and David. The erosion of habeas corpus, the Kafkaesque kidnapping and indefinite detention of suspects without trial, and the handing over of prisoners to other countries for torture by the government for which we voted. These don’t affect you, but they should. Shame on you for turning a blind eye to the evil you know is being propagated.
#12 writes, in relevant part,
[blockquote] If there was ever any doubt that the readers and commenters to this blog are of a piece politically conservative, if not very right wing … these comments to Friedman’s op-ed have utterly erased it. [/blockquote]
You can judge thousands of readers based on 11 comments? Not very, um, moderate or liberal Matt.
The fact is Friedman’s column does aim to be confrontational (“9/11 has made us stupid”) – so it’s not surprising that it draws a reaction from conservatives.
If ever I thought you were a person who didn’t piddle over conservatives (and there were times when there was such doubt, at least to my mind), this dispels those doubts.
This response isn’t about politics, ideology or even you, Matt. It’s about a crummy way of thinking. That’s the thing that really irritates me.
One of many reasons that a candidate like Obama animates so many of the hopes of young people & those on the amrgins all across this country is statments like this:
“One of the things the next president has to do is to stop fanning people’s fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division then they become fearful and conflicted and divided. If we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful.â€
Imagine Hillary or Rudy or Cheney even thinking of making that statement. Then think of Mother Teresa or Benedict 16 or Tom Wright or Eugene Peterson or Henri Nouwen – they’d be more likely to make that statement.
9/11 was the most spectacularly successful criminal event in US history, but if we applied the same metric to young black males that we do to Muslims, we’d be shelling the inner cities. It provided the impetus for one of the government’s Great Leaps Forward that it periodically takes, and now that national security apparatus is going to be in the hands of a Democratic president.
There is also a deafening silence about the anthrax attacks that followed on the heels of 9/11; attacks that utilized a strain of anthrax that could only have come from a US government source. Again, I fail to see what loyalty the same federal government that issues visas to Muslim militants should command of me.
Uh … Justin … In all previous wars enemy combatants were detained – until the war was over. At least in this case they are in prison. In previous wars saboteurs (out-of-uniform individuals engaged in bombing activities, etc) were simply shot when caught.
I really don’t understand your reasoning. Surely you are not equating terrorists with persons mentioned by Martin Niemöller in the quote you’ve posted – do you? The one’s seeking to take away liberty are those wishing to create a pan-middle eastern Islamic state. Paying attention to what happens to women in those societies? How about gays and lesbians? Or reporters for that matter?
I guess it’s still true the left won’t be happy until we’re all dead…
Md Brian
Re #22
The erosion of habeas corpus,
The Supreme Court dealt with that one in the Jose Padilla case. You know the court system, I’m sure. It’s something that is generally powerless in fascist regimes.
the Kafkaesque kidnapping and indefinite detention of suspects without trial,
I don’t know what you’re talking about regarding kidnapping. As for the second, that was dealt with, again, in the Padilla case as regarding American citizens. As far as the denizens of Guantanamo are concerned, they are either POWs or enemy combatants in violation of the Geneva Conventions. In either case, they are not entitled to trial, but will have to remain where they are until their compatriots cease attempting to attack the US or its allies.
and the handing over of prisoners to other countries for torture by the government for which we voted.
You mean Bill Clinton’s administration? They’re the ones who started rendition. I don’t remember hearing a peep out of anyone on the left about that until after 9/11, when it suddenly became an impeachable offense. Do I like it? No, but there’s a lot that happens in war that I don’t like. BTW, I will support any effort to stop it.
And we will deal with a global non-state jihadist organization seeking to expel Western influence from the Dar al Islam, remove Israel, then reverse the Reconquista and march onward from there by being more tolerant, reasonable, and hopeful? AQ was only formed because we weren’t tolerant, reasonable and hopeful enough?
[i]es ist noch nicht einmal falsch.[/i]
Wolfgang Pauli.
MD Brian,
A couple of points:
First, the Middle East is already pan-Islamic, and Israel is demographically doomed. That is the problem of the Israelis. It is no problem of mine. Second, we have done our part in contributing to this eventual result by overthrowing a largely secular Sunni dictator in favor of a fundamentalist Shi’ite regime.
Like the befuddled leaders of Europe thrashing about and engendering conflicts that would culminate in the mass fratricide of World War One, we lash out and attack in the Middle East, completely ignorant of the social and economic forces we are unleashing.
My concerns regarding possible misuse of the Patriot Act by an incumbent President backed by a Congress of the same party lies not with possible Republican “misuse,”
but rather with the strong potential that a Democrat President and Congress will mis-use the tools of government to advance a radical progressive agenda.
While I believe that the Democrat ‘rank-and-file’ are mostly mainstream Americans, they seem to have a very high level of tolerance for their radical-progressive leaders. They tolerate being manipulated by people on the extreme political fringe of their party, such as George Soros and Michael Moore.
The Patriot Act can be illegally used by unscrupulous politicians to damage and silence political opposition. The Repulicans haven’t done this, but watch out for the progressive-radical Democrat leadership.
Other possible and serious infractions by a party led by radical-progressive Democrats include the egregious use of Presidential Executive Orders and/or the rubber-stamping by Congress of presidential requests to limit First and Second Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
This could mean curtailling talk radio shows that oppose the progressive-radicals and confiscatgory government actions to take firearms away from the average citizen. It could spread to limitations on free speech and public assembly, especially when such speech or assembly is seen by the progressive-radicals as threatening or hurtful to protected groups such GLBTs and illegal immigrants.
New York, at this very moment, is facing a radical executive action being taken by its Democrat governor who, without the involvement of the NYS legislature, is going to permit illegal aliens to obtain NYS drivers’ liscenses. Among other problems, his action can permit illegal aliens to vote in NYS and national elections.
I’m curious as to why everyone insists on seeing politics through a left-right wing paradigm? I criticized Bush, so I must be a left winger. Clinton eroded our liberties, but I wouldn’t care about that because I must be a liberal.
Actually I’m a conservative who is more concerned about the theft of his freedom than who is in power. Can’t you guys see that what you sow you will reap? Blindly support the theft of your freedom in a Bush regime, and you hand all those powers to President Hilary when she is elected?
In response to those who consider those imprisoned at Guantanamo and elsewhere enemy combatants, may I ask, when is the war going to end. Our leaders tell us that this fight will be continuing for decades. How is it moral to imprison for life those who have no chance to answer the charges leveled against them? What if those people were your brothers, your fathers, or your sons. Do you REALLY believe that we should be doing to others as we wish them to do to us?
God will hold us accountable.
[i]”King Sobieski of Poland-Lithuania, consecrating his army under the Virgin’s patronage…”[/i]
Marysdowry, does the Virgin know that the people under her supposed patronage were raping the virgins of the Jews and Muslims?
[/i]
justinmartyr,
Those are good points. I think the paradigm breaks down because there is very little recognizable as “conservative” or “right” about the federal government. I’d submit that it is per se an anti-conservative, anti-right institution. Centralization of power is a great evil. And, as has been noted with no attempt at rebuttal, wait ’til the Democrats get their hands on these new toys.
#20 Matt Thompson,
I’ll try to address you point by point.
1. I have not referred to Friedman as leftist and I am perfectly happy with Friedman’s right to decent – I simply reserve the same right to disagree with him.
2. I have neither supported or condemned the war in Iraq.
3. I am not Rush Limbaugh and will take no responsibility for anything that he may or may not have said.
4. The rest of your first paragraph and the next two are simply a moral equivalence argument – I cannot buy it. If Abu Grab had been official policy and the soldiers given medals, you would have a more cogent argument.
5. In your last paragraph you don’t answer the question I asked – what would/should we specifically do? We can’t go back to March 2003 and un-invade Iraq. What would/should we do if you were making the decisions?
Peace and grace to you.
Re #32
Actually I’m a conservative who is more concerned about the theft of his freedom than who is in power. Can’t you guys see that what you sow you will reap? Blindly support the theft of your freedom in a Bush regime, and you hand all those powers to President Hilary when she is elected?
Sorry, I still haven’t heard anything that resembles “theft of our freedom.” Especially since you didn’t answer my responses in 27.
In response to those who consider those imprisoned at Guantanamo and elsewhere enemy combatants, may I ask, when is the war going to end.
How about when the bad guys give up? Many of those who have been released from Guantanamo have gone right back to Iraq or Afghanistan and taken ups arms against us and our allies again. That’s what incarceration for the duration is meant ot prevent. We’ve had concrete evidence that it works, and that letting them go frequently doesn’t.
How is it moral to imprison for life those who have no chance to answer the charges leveled against them?
There have been no charges leveled against them. They were captured in battle–that’s all that’s needed. Ever wonder why we didn’t give trials to the hundreds of thousands of German prisoners we captured in WWII? Because they weren’t criminals–they were soldiers. Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are either soldiers or enemy combatants operating outside the Geneva Conventions. In either case, trial is not a right that they possess.
What if those people were your brothers, your fathers, or your sons.
If my relatives were behaving as terrorists, yes, I’d want them locked up for a good, long time.
Do you REALLY believe that we should be doing to others as we wish them to do to us?
I am called to do just that. The government of the United States, not being a Christian entity, isn’t called to that standard. Check Romans 13 for a closer description.
David,
Romans 13 would not seem applicable to a democracy.
You say many of those released from Guantanamo have returned as combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan. This may very well be true, but I don’t recall reading this anywhere. Do you have a link?
We are not officially at war with another state entity at this point, and the legal vacuum that has resulted has been filled with a dense statute that vests a great deal of discretion in the hands of bureaucrats. That should trouble people who purportedly believe in the rule of law.
Reactionary, the popular reading of Romans 13 would have Christians submitting to the evils of not only this regime, but that of Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer and other wartime theologians rejected this reading.
This is how I see it. Romans 13 tells us to submit to those in authority. The root word of “Authority” is “author”. A writer has authority over the direction of his story because he created it. God has authority over his creatures because he is their author. Authority over something you didn’t create is only valid inasmuch as you submit to the will of the author. Anything else is theft. Authority over a man without his Creator’s permission is theft of his liberty.
In Christ’s enlightening discussion with the Centurion, the soldier claims to be a man of authority only inasmuch as he is under the authority of a greater person. Similarly wives must submit to their husbands only inasmuch as their husbands submit to Christ. Where husbands’ dictates go beyond the dictates of Christ, their authority is invalid. Where the dictates of a ruler go beyond those given to them by the Creator, their authority is that of a usurper. In 1 Samuel 8 God make clear his view of popularly elected governments and the atrocities they will enact.
The imprisonment of an innocent person is slavery. People on this board refuse to acknowledge that many of those imprisoned at Guantanamo and around the world are perhaps innocent. In their view, not only are these prisoners guilty until proven innocent, they are not given the trial to contest the accusations or face their accusers. And still some here cannot see a loss of liberties. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Justinmartyr wrote:
[blockquote]Those are good points. I think the paradigm breaks down because there is very little recognizable as “conservative†or “right†about the federal government. [/blockquote]
To run parallel with this point, libertarian minded conservatives have never been o.k. with encroachment of power by the Federal government. Neo-cons, together with social traditionalists have united to overcome libertarian-republicans discomfort with the growth of government power. So…I think what we’re seeing nationally with the GOP (and with the participants of this blog) is that largely people are neo-con symp. oriented repubs. rather than libertarians. Ironically, the libertarian position on government involvement in personal lives has been trumpeted recently by Democrats. This is a significant phenomenon. One which the GOP should pay close attention to (if it considers the mountain west & new england politically important at all).
Re #38
Here are several links regarding those who have returned to carnage after leaving Guantanamo:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/18/7_ex_detainees_return_to_fighting/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html
http://thehague.usembassy.gov/guantanamo.html
RE #39
The imprisonment of an innocent person is slavery. People on this board refuse to acknowledge that many of those imprisoned at Guantanamo and around the world are perhaps innocent.
Those at Guantanamo were either captured on the battlefield or in the midst of terrorist operations. The facilities there (which are fully open to the Red Cross and operating in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, as even the UN has admitted) are not full of innocent people, and the handful who were put there mistakenly have been released (in fact, well more than half of those who have spent any time there have been released). You persist in seeing this as a matter of criminal justice. It is not. It is a matter of military operations, for which the standards are significantly different.
And we still have no idea why you are at liberty to take part in this debate here in fascist Amerikkka.
Justin, you speak of blindness. Do you honestly not see how hostile combatants are different than civil criminals? Or do you want domestic civil rights extened to them, therefore rpeventing to proper functioning of the US military and the deaths of Americans?
Andrew717, terrorism has been with us since time immemorial and will be with us just as long. If you’re asking whether it is wrong to imprison all suspects without trial for the rest of their lives, then my answer is unambiguously yes. Ask yourself, is it possible for evil bureaucrats or soldiers to make accusations that land people in prison for the rest of their lives? If the answer to that is yes, then you have the moral obligation to fight against this injustice.
Bringing criminals to a discrete trial does not irreparably endanger the government of this country. You know that and so do I. US judges have repeatedly shown that the government will prevent trials with a claim of “national security interests” when none exist.
My question to you: do you support the same being done to American soldiers?
Justin,
Terrorists thus far have not swept up US soldiers for the sole purpose of removing them from the battlefield. Until a number of their top leaders were finally killed off in Iraq, they had a habit of beheading those they caught.
Your ability to see moral equivalence between civil criminal matters and foreign terrorists is quite frightening.
Maryland Brian
Brian, how am I not making myself clear? I have no sympathy for real murderers (foreign or local). My sympathies lie with the innocents who are being imprisoned as terrorists. Despite hundreds (and I mean hundreds) of articles on these people, you seem to want to believe that they don’t exist.
As if he or anyone else at the NYT has any intent of voting for any other than the Democrat candidate…
I only need to quote this pice from Freidman to illustrate his vacation from reality:
Chinese automakers were boasting that their 2008 cars will meet “Euro 4†— European Union — emissions standards.
Right. So we of course take their boasts seriously because communists never lie about their productivity.
Wow. That makes all the blithering idocy put out on this thread about this war being the first to curtail civic freedoms seem like sweet rationality.
Lincoln was a fascist
Wilson was a fascist
FDR was a fascist (ironic, isn’t it? Or is it just moronic?)
talk about your fear mongering.
3,000 died in one day. I think the terrorists would love to do even better next time.
I forget, how many Americans have been thown into prison for protesting the war, for publishing secret operations regarding the war? How many “innocent muslims” who get on school busses for no reason have been arrested and sent to Guantanamo?
The school bus thing has happened. Bin Laden would love to do to us what was done in Belsen with the school kids there. But you clowns go on imagining we live in a fascist state. Stick your head in the sand. If we have an attack that makes 9/11 pale in comparison and the American people decide we hadn’t done enough to protect ourselves you will see curtailing of freedom then to make the detention of the Japeneese look like a sobriety check point on the highway. And don’t doubt for a moment that that scenario is just what Al Qaeda would want.
#47 Chris
Don’t hold back: Tell us what you really think.
I know that you too have traveled and lived outside of the U.S. It amazes me how some Americans have no concept of just how much freedom they really have. Friedman’s screed is a mixed message in that on the one hand he says that “we need new precautions, new barriers.” and in the next sentence says, “But we also need our old habits and sense of openness.” Truly oxymoronic. He wants freedom but also wants controls on freedom.
And too many people simply pick up the line and repeat it.
Oh, and Matt,
“Rush Limbaugh calls soldiers fighting in Iraq who stray from the Administration’s position “phony soldiers—
Uhhmm…..totally false. You should read the transcripts. He is refering to actual phonies who have been convicted of fraudulantly claiming veterans benefits, one of whom Jesse MacBeth, claimed to have served in Iraq, won a purple heart and witnessed attrocities there by U.S. soldiers. He was touted by the anti-war left and Al Jazera.
Fact: he never went to Iraq. He didn’t get out of boot camp. He is a liar and a phony.
Did you hear that on the news? Didn’t think so.
So the terrorists in Guantanamo should all be freed and, um, given scholarships to study at Columbia University? Maybe 9/11 really did make Mr Friedman stupid.
I also fervently hope, that the very name “George Bush”, has the same affect on Osama as it apparently does on #16 bob carlton, reducing him to incoherent spasms of rage every time he hears someone utter it.
There are three big problems with Libertarianism. The first is that it takes no notice of the fact of children.
The second is that it requires the prevalence of a level of virtue that simply doesn’t show up.
The third is that when push comes to shove, Libertarians do not believe in national self-defense, because there is nothing they abominate more than the State at war. As long as all the people who wanted to own machine guns were allowed to buy them and still have ammunition, they don’t mind [b]those[/b] people repelling invaders. But that is just [insert metaphor redolent of Onan].
My plan would be to screen every American and if they passed security screening, train each and every one……..and provide each and evryone with a side arm. Imagine, 180,000,000 armed citizens. Give the terrorists something to think about!
Christopher, I strongly recommend you start looking for media sources other than Rush’s radio program when fact-checking Rush’s radio program.
So Matt, it is your brilliant opinion that actually listening to Rush’s program, which I have regularly done since 1991, is not an adequate source of information concerning what he says on his program. No, I should instead consult others who make their business selecting out certain pieces and interpreting them out of context., organizations like Media Matters funded by Hilary Clinton.
How stupid is that?
Has it occured to you…? Skip that. Of course it hasn’t occured to you because you come with your mind made up before the facts are presented.
Charity requires that we look for a reasonable and explanation that does not assume his guilt before we convict him. He knoew of both the many phony soldiers, but one of them would stand out as exceptionally noteworthy and infuriating to him: the one who not only scammed the veterans’ benefits but also made a carreer defaming the soldiers in Afghanistan with his pretended carreer. This instance was the background subject of the caller he was talking to.
Oh, heaven forfend! 1 minute and 35 seconds are missing from the transcript! What do you think those misssing 95 seconds could contain that make what he says later, that he was thinking of macbeth specifically when he said “phony soldiers”?
OK, maybe you could convict Limbaugh of smearing all those other phony soldiers with the same brush as MacBeth. After all, they were only cheating the governement. They weren’t defaming the soldiers as well. Where does Limbaugh get off accusing them, mere liars and thieves, of slander? He owes them an apology! The Bastard!!!!!
Oh, and Matt, are you personally offended by Congressman like Murtha, who accused our soldiers, based upon no evidence, of murder?
He’s elected to represent the American people. He isn’t a private citizen. Does it matter to you that he didn’t wait to find what eveidence there was before he convicts them in a presss conference? Do you think the democrats should demand his apology?
Justin wrote in #43, “My question to you: do you support the same being done to American soldiers?”
This is a very, very good question! For the most part, whether truly legitimate or not, we Americans have been able to take the moral high-ground because we recognize that if we don’t want our troops captured and tortured, then we better not torture those we capture. We no longer have that moral high ground – at least that is the way most of the world now sees it and whether we want to acknowledge it or not.
Let’s think for a moment not as Americans but as followers of Jesus. Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present to Christ. Why in the world should we fear death? I don’t want to die, but my goal as a Christian is not to preserve my life and property. I will defend, but as a Christian am I really to be the aggressor? The way the Iraqi war has been conducted, we are not defenders but aggressors. Our defense against terrorism could have been accomplished in a different way and not resulting in most of the world turning against us.
Jesus said to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. There are no qualifications in that command. We are not to think that only if they are good and nice to us, then we should treat them as we want to be treated. We are told to love our enemies and pray for them. This is not ignoring the profound hatred and determination of others to destroy this country, but a willingness to follow Jesus’ Way, regardless of the cost. This is what makes the Gospel so difficult to live by. This is what makes us so different from the world. This is why we so often find the enemy within ourselves.
The question stands: Do we want our soldiers treated this way? Do we want our citizens captured or kidnapped by our enemies and held in detention possibly for their entire lives without recourse? Then if we are to do unto others as we want them to do to, Jesus’ command regardless of whether we are Americans or Iraqis, how can we continue the course our secular, political government pursues in the name of “freedom?”
Do we mistrust God so much that we feel we need to politically disobey His Ways just to preserve this wisp of life and all the material stuff we have on this planet? Oh we of little faith… to depend on the weapons of this world rather than the means of God.
BobG, thank you for your thoughtful, intelligent answer to my question. I was blessed by what you had to say.
[blockquote] Ed the Roman wrote:
There are three big problems with Libertarianism. The first is that it takes no notice of the fact of children.
The second is that it requires the prevalence of a level of virtue that simply doesn’t show up.
The third is that when push comes to shove, Libertarians do not believe in national self-defense [/blockquote]
Yeah, I agree with you Ed. Those characteristics of the Libertarians tend to be true–Problem is that politically the GOP needs the libertarians in their coalition–This becomes more of a stretch the more that the “law and order” type of republicans win out.
Matt, let me make this simple to You. Limbaugh altered nothing. I heard his words. He edited out material which was not relevant. Only 95 seconds lay between his “phony soldiers” and his comment that he was thinking about MacBeth. Do you know what he was talking about in those 95 seconds? have you even checked? Does it really matter to you. Those 95 seconds was the end of his conversation with the caller he was talking to. As soon as the caller was gone Rush brought up the MacBeth story to clue his listeners in to the context behind remarks made in the course of the conversation with the caller.
How hard is that to understand? I guess too hard for you when your mind is made up for you by your own prejudice or the talking points of Media Matters.
Why should I confuse you with facts? you know already the truth. You ask “should the brave, actively serving soldiers who dissent from the Administration’s position on the war” be declared “phony soldiers” and traitors. Of course not. I never have and would never do so. But of course my words mean nothing because you are sure I’m guilty before you check the facts: Many commenters to this blog, and I’m sure if I dug long enough on this version of T19 and the older version I could find your own affirmative comments on the matter, have answered in the affirmative to these questions. So why investigate the matter anyway, since you already are sure?
You didn’t answer me about Murtha and his false accusations of the marines, so let me ask you this: Was Benedict Arnold a great war hero? Was he also later a traitor? Am I out of line noting both historical facts together?
Do you know what a historical fact is?
I should have put your words in quotation marks instead of just italicizing them. Doh! Now everyone can accuse me of believing what you wrote. Unless of course they have followed the conversation and recognize them for what they are by the context.
Ed and Nate, respectfully, you are woefully ill-informed about libertarianism. Please do take some time and investigate the philosophy’s actual positions. Honest, open disagreements with libertarianism are to be respected. Unfortunately your comments are antithetical to the actual positions held by the adherents.
In response:
– Libertarians DO “take notice of children.”
They just believe that children are best cared for by their families, churches, and other private charitable organizations. I’m guessing 100% of the parents on this site would want to raise their own children without the intrusion of the State (excepting cases of child abuse).
– “The second is that it requires the prevalence of a level of virtue that simply doesn’t show up. ”
What a sad, unchristian thing to say. St. Paul tells us that virtue does not come through the Law of Moses–much less through the Law of Caesar. The Epistles tell us that more laws simply mean greater awareness of our sin and more predilection to vice. Virtue comes through Christ. Libertarians believe that families and the Church should impart virtue to kids. It shouldn’t come through some government mandated propaganda bureaucracy. Hardly a controversial viewpoint.
– “The third is that when push comes to shove, Libertarians do not believe in national self-defense”
It’s a good thing you made this statement on this forum rather than on a politics or philosophy one. You’d be howled off-stage. I’m guessing you’ve confused libertarian non-aggression with pacifism. Non-aggression states that it is wrong to attack a person or nation, but justified to defend against an aggressor. The Christian Just War Theory is based on this principle. Libertarians are strong believers in defense. They protect your right to bear arms to protect your family.
As a start, please check out: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/faq/
Again, I just love the timeliness of the internet. How long has this been up, and the editorial just TODAY appeared in our local paper. 😉
#62 justin:
I have to clarify and disagree in the following ways:
1. My reference about children (and I believe Ed’s as well) concerned abortion. Maybe you feel that the unborn are not children but fetuses-I do not. Most libertarians have gotten their priorities confused on this issue.
2. It is a VERY controverial view which you have stated. I (and many others) believe in the classical Western view of the law, namely that laws instruct people on how to live–The system is not perfect, but neither are humans. Libertarians disagree with the idea that the “law is a teacher.” This is why libertarians are often heckled for being unrealistic (e.g. in a world that is rapidly losing its traditional social moorings, they want to undercut the instruction that comes through society by the law). Please don’t accuse us of being unchristian.
3. Well Justin, I guess if you restrict national defense to just the idea of “protecting our soil” with a volunteer military, then I guess you’re right. I tend to think that sometimes it’s in the best interests of the nation to actually draft an army to fight battles that are not directly related to our national defense in order to further America’s corporate and foreign interests. Vietnam or Korea would be an example of this (watch for falling dominoes). Iraq is another example (albeit a more controversial one). Other examples would include our interventions in Guatemala, Libya, etc…The sticky points which you gloss over are the definitions of national defense (what is it) and an army (volunteer, conscripted, standing, etc.). Good thing you didn’t make those comments on a politics forum or YOU would be laughed off the stage.
Nate, thanks for the response.
I think you misunderstand me. You wouldn’t be laughed off stage for controversial views–everyone is entitled to their own views. It’s the clear mischaracterizations of others views that are so sad.
In your response you continued Ed’s unfortunate generalizations of libertarianism:
1. Libertarian as a philosophy is pro-choice. –> Tell that to libertarians for life (http://www.l4l.org/), Ron Paul, and thousands of his supporters.
2. The founding fathers believed that less laws resulted in better government. Maybe that’s controversial in our present time of nanny statism, I don’t know. Perhaps you are confusing libertarianism with anarchism?
3. I’m sure Ed the Roman wouldn’t laugh the Pope off stage. He shares libertarianism’s views on what constitutes a just war and condemned the US’s foreign policy. Again, perhaps we are in the minority these days, but it’s good to have such a wonderful remnant.
Thanks for your time.
Jon
Justin: To add clarity to your words:
1. Look at Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (probably the most forthright statement of libertarian ideals). Rand took the position that the fetus had no rights because it wasn’t born yet. I don’t doubt that there is a minority of libertarians who advocate rights for the unborn. However, pro-life about as mainstream in the politics of the party as it is in the Dem party…In other words–what is THE libertarian position on Roe v. Wade? If you want to find out, go to the party’s webpage and you’ll find a deafening silence. In toto, the LP is NOT pro-life as rule.
2. All of the founding fathers? John Q. Adams too? How about Thomas Jefferson? My questions of course are meant to illustrate that there were deep differences among the founders on the proper role of government (state and federal) in the lives of the individual which still persist.
3. I agree that the neo-con foreign policy does not cohere with the LP’s conception of proper use of force. This may well be the thing (together with the patriot act) that begins the movement of the remaining gop libertarians out of the party.
Matt, apology accepted. And please accept mine for my snarky comments. Yes you did get me riled up. You were paying the price for my anger at politicians who make cheap shots from the safety of their political office. I’m a bit of an anarchist at heart, and my contempt for politicians really heats up when I see them trying to silence a private citizen’s voice. If they can shut
Nate, I agree with you about Libertarianism. But I have a problem with this statement:
I tend to think that sometimes it’s in the best interests of the nation to actually draft an army to fight battles that are not directly related to our national defense in order to further America’s corporate and foreign interests. Vietnam or Korea would be an example of this (watch for falling dominoes). Iraq is another example (albeit a more controversial one). Other examples would include our interventions in Guatemala, Libya, etc
I guess this really depends upon what you mean by corporate interests. Maybe you mean what I would say justified those wars; that they were an extension of a war against forces that would, if left unchecked, threaten American safety and liberty. I hope you weren’t refering to economic interests.
I think any Libertarian idea that limits national defense to the American shores ignores the reality of what has always constituted national safety. All advanced, and most primitive, societis have understood the concept of “outer defenses”, a perimeter whose only function was to defend against incursion into the actual terrain being defended. The Romans built walls far from their cities, not right next to them.
America had such an outer defense. It was called the oceans. Our geographical isolation from other strong powers made engagements abroad unnecessary. But those seas do not restrict acces to our continent the way they did before. We thus must have outer defenses, either physically or strategically, which absorb and neutralize foreign threats before they reach here.
Some Libertarians speak like a man living in an inner city with a growing crime who says that he doesn’t bother with neighborhood watches because people should “mind their own businesses” and “a man’s home is his castle”. Waiting with a shotgun for the burglars to break in seems a poor substitue to trying to clean up the neighborhood.
#69-Chris–I generally agree with what you say here–“corporate and foreign interests” is my short hand for the neo-con foreign policy position. It is the idea that war or agression can be undertaken to protect things like free speech & the free press, but also to avert a larger menace (communism or radical Islam) and of course, from time to time economic interests would be a part of that. C’mon, who want’s to pay $10 per gallon for gas? 😉
“…and of course, from time to time economic interests would be a part of that. C’mon, who want’s to pay $10 per gallon for gas?” 😉
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Hundreds of 9/11s of innocent people are dying as a direct consequence of our actions in the mideast. But we have gas at under 10 buck a barrel. God have mercy on us.
Oh please, drop the frankly stupid “we’re in it for the oil” nonsense. If that were the case we’d have cut a deal with Saddam to get his oil as protection money. It’d be easier and cheaper. And we’d have invaded Saudi Arabia by now. You demean your own side by tossing about such sophomoric and ignorant nonsense.
I am always reminded of the “no blood for oil” signs I saw during the invasion of Afghanistan. Which has negligible oil. As that particular FSU student had negligible intelligence.
Elves, I lost my temper. It’s been a long day. Please delete my above comment as it is uncharitable.
Has anyone consider the example of Switzerland? A neutral country through the Cold War. A neutral country, still. A prosperous and free country. A trusted and respected country. They don’t belong to the EU or NATO. They spend a lot of money on “defense,” but none of their efforts are going around the world and starting wars in other places. They are surrounded by other countries, some of whom over the years have been hostile. They don’t feel themselves to be victims, vulnerable, or insecure, despite the fact that they are in fact far more vulnerable than we are.
I think the first and foremost aspect of “security” is in the mind. If we feel insecure, we are going to do stupid things and act irrationally. There are those people who will play on our insecurities for their own purposes – whether they may be our own politicians or terrorist groups. As a matter of fact, the power terrorists have over us, more than not, is their ability to instill irrational fear and cause us to be other than what we have traditionally been – that which made us strong and trusted and honorable.
The terrorists groups aided by our own politicians have caused us to be what we have traditionally not been – we have become something other than strong, trusted, and honorable in the eyes of a good part of the world. Whether we ever have another physical terrorist attack on our soil or not, the terrorists have already won a good part of the battle.
Andrew, I don’t think it’s compltely farfetched that one of our interests in securing stability in the Middle East is mantaining stability in the flow of oil. Not just our economy, the world economy runs on it. If gas were to go to $10 a gallon the modern economy of Western Civilization, which is so interconnected and consumer dependent, could well collapse. Few societies, if any, could cope with the transistion phase as air transportation business, ground shipping and all business that depend upon relatively easy travel shut down. What would happen to our ability to get food from farms to supermarkets if truckers could no longer afford to run? Chaos. Rioting? Very, very frightening. It would be New Orleans after Katrina times a hundred.
Our economy has become so complex and fragile and utterly dependent on the constant flow of a resource found in the Mideast. Of course we in the US don’t get most of our oil from there, but the rest of the world does. And their demand would drive up the world wide price as they competed for oil from Venezuaell, Mexico and Canada. Our only way the to keep our economy from collapsing would be to do what the liberals actually claim; sieze the oil fields. That would be a difficult venture, and the price of oil would still soar as military control of an economic commodity is highly inefficient. Plus, what about the rest of the world? Their economy goes into the toilet and we go with them, because we are all interconnected. This point beside the obvious likelyhood that other nations might decide that their economies might need to be secured by military action as well. We did, after all, force Japan into a box by squeezing their oil supply in 1940-1.
Fighting a world wide war on terror and a regional war to try to keep stable the oil fields in the Mideast might well be worth it if only to avert a larger World War over a resource whose flow we cannot afford to have suddenly interrupted. This would be a war not for profit but for survival, and not ours alone. Their are idots over here who don’t seem to care if our economy slows down, thinking we can go back to a simple agrarian lifestyle maybe. Well, only after the cities collpase and small town arm themselves to the teeth to protect themselves from the refugees. There are terrorists who know our economy would collapse and think that the best thing indeed. Maybe it will usher in their form of paradise, or at least rid the world of the Great Satan.
Bob, I just saw you post on Switzerland. Let me ask you this: how do they survive? I mean, on what is their economy based and how do they make themselves useful? And could we really do what they are doing?
It seems to me that the Swiss survive because they are everyone’s banker. But are there never runs on the bank? Do not even banks close down when no one has money to put in it? And are not some banks attacked by thieves or armed robbers?
Is Switzerland not, in effect, protected by the stability of the nations around her that see no profit in disturbing that aspect of our economy?
And what protects them? NATO maybe? The U.S. perhaps?
Well, what protects us, then? A possitive attitude. Thoughts of lollypops and bunny rabbits?
There are enemies out there who don’t like our modern capitalistic society. The Communists may have come around to the need for a stable world market for their goods. But they only had atheism to compete against western philosophy. Cold comfort. However, there are those who have a much deeper religious view that tells them there are 72 virgins waiting for them if they do their part to destroy the infidel West.
I don’t think you can defend against them with just a bar of Swiss chocalate.
The Swiss are a special case, largely based on the free rider principle (their outer defense is provided by NATO which surrounds them, in other words, the US) combined with their geography. They are tiny and mountainous, and not worth the trouble of conquering as they will cooperate. That’s how they defended themselves from Hitler. They controlled the vital rail links to Italy, and could blow the tunnels through the Alps if threatened, and they were fairly pliant as neighbors. It is a model for national defense which can be rarely used by other states.
As for oil, if one wants to ensure stability in resource extraction, friendly dictators are the way to go. Everyone knows that, it’s part of why the House of Saud is still on the throne and why we supported the Shah. It’s just much easier than what we did. Heck, we could have broken up Iraq and set up the southern region that has all the oil as an American protectorate and let the rest go hang. Instead, Iraqi oil production declined, though I think it may be recovering by now. It’s early and I don’t have time to find the figures before I head to work.
My point concerning the Swiss is that the path they have chosen to go down, IMHO, is a path that results in far more security for their citizens than the path we have chosen to go down. The Swiss have a full economy not much different from our own, but on a much smaller scale.
I don’t feel the need to be an isolationistic country, which we were for most of our history, but neither do I want to be an empire. We have let fear and feelings of insecurity get the best of us to the point were we are becoming our own worst enemy.
Some thoughts:
The Switz are truly a special case in that their economy is about brokering deals between others. They do not export significantly – a few watches and some chocolate – but they are net importers of goods.
Friedman does not seem to take Bin Laden’s own words to heart. UBL makes it clear that he would happily return the world to the seventh century if only a Muslim Caliph were in charge and that the technological toys of the West are fine, but expendable if they get in the way of Allah’s greater plan. Instead Friedman makes the oxymoronic comment about getting past 9/11 and returning to a more open society.
Paul Berman, a liberal philosopher, likens modern Caliphite Islam as the latest ‘death cult’ to challenge Western Liberalism. He builds a compelling argument that Soviet socialism/Stalinism, Nazism, Pol Potism and some others are totalitarian back-lash to the philosophic liberalism of the West (fraternity, equality, liberty) and that Fundamentalist Islam is merely the latest version. He also shows how each of those movements had/has a strong death component -both a willingness to give your life and to take the lives of any who stand in the way – and how they had to be ultimately crushed by military action. Ironically, both Berman and Salman Rushdie, also a noted liberal and Muslim, say that it is time to take the gloves off of our special operations forces and turn them loose on the ‘shadow forces’ of the Islamic terrorists. Defeating the terrorists is not difficult in theory, but it is difficult in action because we lack the national will and moral indifference that it would take.