Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Just FYI

From Jonah Goldberg:
One of the interesting developments of appearing in the LA Times regularly is that I've activated a whole new constituency of people who don't like me. For example, I don't really know who Marc Cooper is. But a couple readers say he's normally a fairly open-minded liberal. Maybe. But not judging from this typical lefty yelling. Apparently Cooper thinks it's self-evident that I'm illiterate and historically ignorant -- and that I'm a "shout show clown."

Since Cooper's snideness is representative of a vast amount of blowback in recent weeks, let me just respond in brief. A) I haven't been on a "shout show" in years and I turn them down all the time. B) Illiterate? Try harder. C) Perhaps Cooper could try to explain why my argument was "ahistorical drivel"? Is he saying that the views of three of the 20th century's most esteemed liberal historians amounts to nothing? Does he believe it is so self-evident that I'm wrong it doesn't merit a thoughtful rebuttal? Was FDR completely honest in the run-up to World War II? About Lend-lease? Are his dittoing readers content with such substance free high-chair pounding?

I'm not exactly in a great position to throw stones about name-calling, but I do it less than I used to and I always try to do it in the context of an argument. Cooper should give that a try.

Posted at 10:13 AM

24 comments:

kwAwk said...

The difference between FDR and W is that FDR did what he needed to do to get us into a war that needed to be faught.

W, however, did what he needed to do to get us into a war that didn't need to be faught.

When WWII was over, had FDR still been alive, he would have been able to point at the concentration camps and all the dead jews and say "This is why we faught this war!"

All Bush can say is "Ooops, sorry about that. Musta been some bad intel man."

Had we found any WMD in Iraq we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Had Bush had made the right moves to stabilize Iraq before the insurgency set it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. OR if Bush had been man enought to apologize for his mistakes and vow to correct them, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But all good ole W could do was pretend that he didn't make mistakes.

Anonymous said...

You do realize that that whole post was just an excuse for him to make sure people know he's regularly in the LA Times. Not a very good cover.

Anonymous said...

Hey kwawk:
"faught"?
Thanks for the early signal to completely ignore your post.

Jay D. Homnick said...

I'm with the first "anonymous"; he mainly wants you to know his new neighborhood:

"So I'm like living in Beverly Hills in like the richest part and these people are like totally insufferable like their poop doesn't stink and I'm thinking like dude give it a rest you put your money in Microsoft by accident like thinking it was a soft drink company so like come back down to earth dude."

Anonymous said...

Anon. 1 and JDH are on to something, but note also that Jonah would like you to know that he turns down TV gigs "all the time." That's what happens when you're a LAT superstar, baby!

Best part, of course, is that all of this is in response to a freakin' blogger. Pretty thin reed on which to hang all this naked self-promotion.

Anonymous said...

Hey man, he's not just a blogger. He's a legend, with a really amazing dog. He's Lucianne's son, man. Show some RESPECT!

Anonymous said...

Hey kwawk, you wrote:

When WWII was over, had FDR still been alive, he would have been able to point at the concentration camps and all the dead jews and say "This is why we faught this war!"

All Bush can say is "Ooops, sorry about that. Musta been some bad intel man."


Using your logic, Bush should be able to point to all the Saddam's concentration camps where Kurds, Shittes and others were killed. Shouldn't he?

Anonymous said...

kwak wrote:


When WWII was over, had FDR still been alive, he would have been able to point at the concentration camps and all the dead jews and say "This is why we faught this war!"


So FDR knew that the Nazis were operating death camps back in 1940 and 1941?

Do you just make this stuff up on the fly or do you think about it for awhile?

So this was the justification for getting into WWII? That is an interesting interpretation.

Procrastinus said...

We got into WWII because the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, right?

Anonymous said...

We got into WWII because the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, right?

If kwawk's brain were still alive, he would have pointed to this and said, "This is why we faught this waurgh".

kwAwk said...

I find it humorous that you guys are attacking my spelling in order to defend a President who uses words like "misunderestimated". I have a head cold and my mind is a bit foggy and the word 'faught' didn't seem right at the time but I didn't feel the need to look it up. I apologize for my laziness.

Notice however that I gave W three outs. 1) was to find WMD, the reason we went into Iraq, 2)win the war and win the peace, 3) apologizing for the mistakes made and promising to make good.

We went into WWII because Germany was already fighting or had defeated France, England, Poland, Russia, and Czechelslovakia (sp?). Roosevelt believed Hitler was evil and needed to be stopped. After the war we were able to point at the concentration camps and say "See, they really were evil!".

That is the difference with Iraq. I am not sure that 'concentration camps' is the right word for what happened in Iraq. Hitler was out to kill all jews. Every one of them. Saddam used torture to keep the Shia and the Kurds under his thumb. And after Gulf War I, Saddam was very much contained. It wasn't a great government, it wasn't a nice shiny happy government, but it wasn't our job to fix it. And most of the large massacres of Saddam happened 10 years before this war started. It isn't a justification for this war and it wasn't the difinitive reason given for going into this war.

What the original post my comment related to was comparing how FDR brought us into WWII to how W brought us into Iraq. FDR probably did manipulate things to get us into WWII. However, WWII was an actual hot war that was going to come to us sooner or later. Iraq was a pre-emptive war sold to America based on the trust we had in our government.

Can you not comprehend the difference?

The reason people in this country are now so willing to believe that Bush lied in taking into this war, is that he is so unwilling admit that he made a mistake. When people make honest mistakes and are caught, they generally apologize and promise to do better. When someone is lying to you and they get caught, they continue to expand upon the lie until it becomes so overwhelming that it becomes impossible to continue. Think Clinton during the Lewinski scandal. Think Nixon during Watergate. That is where Bush is at now.

Anonymous said...

All the shots at Jonah just show me that there are a lot of jealous mo fo's that read this blog.
When all is said and done, Jonah is writing for NRO and LAT and most of you guys are publishing under pseudonyms on blogs you don't even run.
Jonah did not post to Galley Slaves. He posted to NRO and Last felt compelled to call our attention to it. Well, you can't be jealous without showing it, Last.
Now, Jonah is no "On Line Editor of The Weekly Standard", but give him some time, he is still young and might yet attain the lofty journalistic heights of Jonathan V. Last.
Now, Last - get back to slagging the Instapundit. You're out of your league with Jonah and NRO.

Anonymous said...

But of course:


"CALL ME CRAZY [Jonah Goldberg]

But I thought the Corner was pretty strong today.

Posted at 06:45 PM"

A day without self-puffery is like a day without sunshine and puppies, my friends. Now if only we could get him to open up a bit more about himself.

Thank God for the new media!

rich said...

Japan started the USA's combat participation in WWII by attacking Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines. Japan also brought England and the other Europeans into the Pacific war. Hitler then declared war on the USA.

If Hitler had not declared war, there is a possibility that the USA would have concentrated on Japan (At least until victory in the Pacific was clear.). That certainly would have been a logical decision. If so, the course of the European war may have been different.

FDR did put us in a position where Japan was inclined to start a fight, but FDR, and surely England and the Europeans would have preferred to fight only Hitler and Mussolini.

As for W, he has done the right thing in Afghanistan and Iraq. History will show he is a great President. We are lucky to have him as our President. What is underappreciated is his continuing civility in spite of the very nasty attacks he is subjected to. He is a very good man.

Anonymous said...

Hey kwawk, Lend Lease predated Operation Barbarossa (war with the Soviets).

Regarding Saddam, the Kurds were subjected to something called the "Anfal" campaign by Saddam. Human Rights Watch (that puppet group of Chimpy McHilter et al) estimated that over 50,000 Kurds were killed. What a way to keep people under his thumb?

It isn't a justification for this war and it wasn't the difinitive reason given for going into this war.

Seems it was. Take a look at the resolution passed by Congress authorizing war with Iraq (Public Law No. 107-243). It was passed by the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. It states that Weapons of Mass Destructions (including Iraq's failure to allow inspectors access), terrorism, violation of the 1991 international cease-fire that ended Gulf War I, "brutal repression of its own citizens", willingness to use WMD's on its own citizens, etc...

TopCat said...

I agree with kwawk that spellcheck would be very appreciated on comments sections.

I also agree Goldberg's comparison of noble lies was a diservice to Bush - Bush would have been reckless to come to any other conclusion on the information provided - FDR was bombing U-boats in '40 and '41 in violation of the neutrality acts, I don't think those actions are analogous. All Goldberg's column did was give the Bush Derangement Syndrome folks their own version of OJ Simpson's "Gee if I did kill her it would only prove I loved her." I think it was the stupidest thing I've ever seen him put his name to.

Anonymous said...

Am I missing something? What's wrong with Goldberg's post? And why are people slamming Last for being jealous? This whole thread reads like non sequitor.

Anonymous said...

I don't get it either. Mr. Last didn't even say anything. It seems like he was just highlighting an item of interest. Why are people worked up?

Dean Barnett said...

kwAk's ignorance is exceeded only by his...actually, nothing exceeds his ignorance. Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way around. It is commonly considered Hitler's greatest strategic blunder. Had Hitler not declared war, there is little doubt that any war against Germany would have been deferred until we had achieved victory in the Pacific.

But even more incredible is KwAk's assertion that FDR was somehow spoiling for a fight with the Nazis to protect the Jews. Gosh guy (or gal), learn some history.

kwAwk said...

Actually what kwawk said was that after the war the extermination of the jews would be something that one could point to and say that was a good reason for having went to war. kwawk didn't say that saving the jews was the reason we went to war.

Methinks Dean needs to spend a bit of time taking some reading comprehension courses.

And who declared war on whom is not the issue. Roosevelt wanted us in the war against Germany, he just didn't have the grounds at that point to get it done, thats why we had the lend/lease program for Britain.

Another thing kwawk never said was that Saddam Hussein being a bad guy wasn't one of the reasons given for going into the war. What kwawk said was that it wasn't the definitive reason for going into this war. WMD was the difinitive reason. If Bush had tried to make a case for going into war based upon the Saddam is not a nice guy arguement, he would have been laughed at.

Well, laughed at even more than he already is.

Anonymous said...

kwawk,
(1) It has been proven that you really don't have a grasp of WWII history.
(2) Read the authorization to use force with Iraq and you will see the justifications, those are the reasons (plural) as to why Congress authorized the President to use force against Iraq. If you want to know what the reasons were, read the statute.

Anonymous said...

kwawk wrote:
Actually what kwawk said was that after the war the extermination of the jews would be something that one could point to and say that was a good reason for having went to war. kwawk didn't say that saving the jews was the reason we went to war.

Methinks Dean needs to spend a bit of time taking some reading comprehension courses.



kwawk, this is what you wrote:
When WWII was over, had FDR still been alive, he would have been able to point at the concentration camps and all the dead jews and say "This is why we faught this war!"


Kwawk, you may have meant something, but you certainly didn't convey that thought through your writing.

Anonymous said...

Mr. kwawk, stick with the head cold defense and call it a day.

kwAwk said...

Lordy you guys are pathetic. Right there in the first line it says AFTER the war! After! It is a word that means when the event is concluded. And it was a simple statment meaning that after the war there was obvious justification for the war itself. That who we were fighting were indeed evil people. That is what Bush lacks in Iraq. No terrorist connections found. No WMD's found. Nothing to warrant having gone there in the first place.

I have noticed however that you guys like to completely avoid the real topic of my posts. You can't formulate a real defense for Bush's policies, so you have to nit pick things off the topic to try to distract people from your complete lack of intelligent arguments.