Ann Coulter: Liberal Arguments: Still A Quagmire

Now you have deeply hurt my feelings. Dr. DeKere. You said you would expect nothing less than me being "Silly".

That is, if you don't know it, a real blow to my self-esteem. Please do not be so hurtful.

I will try very hard, sir, to conform to your lawful requests.

Thank you.

0 Replies

If you place inordinate import on my opinion of yours I fear you are setting yourself up for more agony.

Celebrate the diversity of opinion. Perhaps others have different expectations. Mine would be significantly altered if you actually addressed the arguments nimh raised about Coulter's rhetorical ploys.

0 Replies

Dear nimh- Sir or Madam as the case may be.

I am responding to Dr. De Kere's directive to address your post.

If any of my questions sound "silly" please let me know since I am under strict orders not to be "Silly".

You must forgive my ignorance when I ask you, dear nimh, with the greatest possible delicacy, if you will deign to telle me who you mean when you say- "War Opponents"

Do you mean all war opponents or just some of them?

I vaguely seem to recall some "war opponents" who did, in fact, deny that Saddam was a threat to America's interests in the region". However, I do not have your obvious powers of recall and would have to do research. I just can't remember details and do not have the obvious mastery of the question as you appear to have.

I will do some research on this question. I do hope that you will not feel aggrieved if you have to wait a while. I certainly do not want to aggrieve anyone.

And, again, please forgive my ineptitude. I must ask that you expand on your comment- "we did not feel that was a rationale for a full blown war"

Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that the Congress of the United States declared war.

In fact, the Congress of the United States voted on Oct. 10th and 11th 2001. The House voted 296 to 133 and the Senate voted 77 to 23 to "give George W. Bush the right to use the military as he determines to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of Iraq"(source- Bush at War- Woodward- P. 351.

I may have missed it and you must forgive me if I did but I am not an experienced and brilliant researcher like you, nimh. I did not find anything in the Congressional authorization that said we would be going to "war" with Iraq.

Do you have some evidence that I might have missed?

It is indeed disturbing that, as some have indicated, that the American public by a 66% majority feel that there is a link between Iraq and Al Queda.

Perhaps a strong president like William J. Clinton would have stood up to the American Public and said( as well may be the case)
"There is absolutely no evidence that there is a tie between Iraq and Al Queda."

Alas, George W. Bush has not done so.

Perhaps he is listening to the war mongers on the right- the Wolfowitz contingent--who say "there is no evidence that there is no tie between Iraq and Al Queda"

What are we to do, nimh?

You are wise. How do you extract ourselves from this quagmire?

If the worst happens and Bush is re-elected, we may well be in Iraq for another four years.

How can we persuade the American people that we did not need to go into Iraq?

How can we persuade the American people that we must not meddle in the Middle East and should leave the Israelis and Palestinians alone?

How can we persuade the American people that we must be bountiful to the North Koreans and that all they want is oil, food and machinery so that their citizens do not starve?

How can we persuade the American people that Iran means us no harm and that the days of the Anti-American imams in Iraq are over?

These are difficult questions but they cannot be solved by force.

What's wrong with just giving Peace a chance?

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

When Coulter says that:

"We have seen how well the Democratic surrender approach has worked for fifty years". Not quite correct but certainly not as misleading as Joe from Chicago's comment: "Granted in those 20 years there were only 30 years of Democratic administrations as opposed to 30 years of Republican ones"

Joe from Chicago is apparently either suffering under the delusion that all that is needed for an administration to enact the objectives of the party is to have one of its members as President.
It is clear to anyone who has the most basic knowledge that there is little that can be done by any president if the House and Senate are controlled by the opposition party.

Ah, yes, this is a very interesting point Italgato makes.

Sometimes a President may want to enact one line of policy, and Congress blocks him and forces him to adopt another one. Or vice versa.

Coulter claims, "We have seen how well the Democrats' surrender approach works for 50 years". That pretty much covers all of Saddam's rule. So, at which point in time did Congress and President, Republicans and Democrats, fall out over whether or not to practice a "surrender approach" towards Saddam's criminal regime?

Italgato is free to come up with his own examples, of course. Meanwhile, being too lazy to unearth all too many new ones myself, I'll first just refer back to the example I already used:

In 1988, a resolution urging sanctions against Iraq was tabled by Senator Claiborne D. Pell - that's a Democrat - and passed by both Houses of Congress - of which the Senate was dominated by Democrats. This was in retaliation to Saddam's gassing of thousands of Kurds - a horrrific crime Italgato reminded us of again just above.

The president at the time - George Bush, Sr., Republican - vetoed this decision. Instead, his administration extended a follow-up loan of a billion US dollars to Saddam.

Source: http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn. I'm sure it can be looked up in the Congress voting records, as well.

Just to add emphasis to the shameful "surrender approach" that has been adopted towards Saddam in the past, let me also quote, from that article:

"In August 1988 [half a year after Saddam gassed these Kurds] the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights voted by 11 votes to 8 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations. Only the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly condemning Iraq."

and let me copy from this other thread:

"On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).

The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement."

Please note, concerning these two latter items, that the US representative to the UN SC is nominated by the administration, not by Congress.

0 Replies

Oh, I see I've missed an entire conversation while I was writing, and I've even been mentioned, finally, I think! (Just scrolled through).

Well, let me finish responding to Italgato's earlier post, and then I'll look at what you two have discussed since. Taking a break first, though.

0 Replies

Of course we could also go further back into that 50-year track record still - to 1983-1984, for example, during President Reagan's term. Let's look at this interesting sequence of events, for example - would it count as something a hawk like Coulter would dub a "surrender approach"?

I mean - also in the light of the relation between Congress and President, Democrats and Republicans - who was enacting which objectives re: Saddam's regime?

A. In November 1983, a government memo "indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against [..] 'Kurdish insurgents'" as well as Iranian forces.

B. In December 1983, President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld as his special envoy to Baghdad, "where he was to establish "direct contact [with] President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president".

A. In March 1984, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons".

B. Later in the month, "when asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have 'any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq [and] open diplomatic relations,' the State Department's spokesperson said 'No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq'." The same month, the State Department informs a House Committee on Foreign Affairs staff member that the department has not objected to the sale of 2,000 heavy trucks to Iraq, even though the official US policy is not to export military related items to Iraq or Iran; and, when asked if the trucks were intended for military purposes, responds, "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked."

That spring, the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities".

A. A State Department background paper dated November 16, 1984 said that Iraq had [..] resumed the use [of chemical weapons] in February 1984.

B. On November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. Tariq Aziz, in Washington for the formal resumption of ties, said that his country was satisfied that "the U.S. analysis of the war's threat to regional stability is 'in agreement in principle' with Iraq's".

Derived from: George Washington University - National Security Archive

Concerning the role of Congress vis-a-vis the President, furthermore, this particular snippet might interest you.

Quote:

Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz [..] January 15, 1983.

The State Department asks the U.S. interests section in Baghdad to inform Iraqi officials that Secretary of State George Shultz would welcome a visit by Foreign Minister Saadoun Hammadi, but notes congressional criticism of Iraq and the "sensitivity of the terrorism issue" (Iraq supported several Palestinian nationalist factions.) The department suggests Iraq "contribute to the positive atmosphere of the visit" by curtailing its support for terrorism, mentioning specifically the Palestinian groups Black June and May 15.

With a striking cautiousness, the (Republican) Secretary of State gently suggested to the Iraqi regime that it might "contribute to the positive atmosphere" of a "welcome" proposed visit, by "curtailing" - not "ceasing", but "curtailing" - its support for terrorism. Note: Congress was criticizing Saddam; and the Republican President's administration was trying to compromise, hoping to woo Saddam into just enough concessions to satisfy congressional demands.

Who was preventing whom from taking a hard line, there?

Note, btw, the clamor with which the US occupation forces this year "revealed" the presence of that aged Palestinian ex-terrorist in Saddam's Iraq? That was an easy score ... The US knew Saddam was protecting Palestinian terrorists like that already back in Reagan's time - quite unlike in the case of Al-Qaeda terrorists, I might add, evidence of whose purported presence in Saddam's territory has never been shown - yet it never stopped them from renewing diplomatic ties and extend a whole series of multi-million loans to Saddam's regime ...

My opinion: the war wasnt about these things ... those were just the fig leafs for an occupation meant to promote US strategical interests in the region.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

In December 1983, President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld as his special envoy to Baghdad, "where he was to establish 'direct contact [with] President Saddam Hussein,' while emphasizing 'his close relationship' with the president".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

National Security Archive

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

After reading your analysis of Coulter, I thought that you had graduated from Yale, Harvard, Stanford, N Y U, Columbia or Chicago law schools.

Those are all fine institutions, and I would certainly be proud to have graduated from any of them. But I didn't.

Italgato wrote:

I am sure that Joe from Chicago is familiar with the works and person of Judge Posner- chief judge of the Seventh Curcuit Court of Appeals.

Certainly. I have read many of his opinions, as well as some of his theoretical work on the economic underpinnings of tort law. On the other hand, adverting to Posner as some kind of "authority," especially on the motives of Bill Clinton (which even Posner apparently concedes is merely a "possibility"), is misplaced. On a logical level, this is merely an argument ad verecundiam: a common logical fallacy.

Italgato wrote:

Demonstrably false says Joe of Chicago of Coulter's statement. Not according to Judge Posner who tells us that there was a possibilty that Clinton used the bombing of Iraq as a device to head off the looming vote for impeachment."

I'm not exactly sure how a "possibility" of ulterior motives for a single act of retaliation can prove any assertion "false." Perhaps you could explain this particular conundrum, gato.

Italgato wrote:

Joe from Chicago notes that the unearthed graves are weapons of individual destruction. Not if the graves are the graves of Kurds gassed by Saddam in the early nineties. The gas used by Saddam can be clearly classed as a WMD.

Multiple problems here: (1) if Coulter was referring specifically to the graves of those Kurds killed by poison gas, then it was her responsibility to make that clear, not mine; (2) as far as I know, those graves have not been excavated as a result of the latest invasion -- rather, the mass graves that are currently being discovered are all filled with victims of Saddam's internal security apparatus, not Kurdish victims of gas attacks; (3) poison gas is a WMD because Bush & Co. have decided to classify it as a WMD. There is, as far as I know, no commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a "weapon of mass destruction," and frankly I don't believe that poison gas should qualify under any commonsense definition.

Italgato wrote:

Cute but not even in the area of Opinion( see guidelines)--more of a "non-sequitur"

Surely you wouldn't be so cruel as to deny me the simple pleasure of engaging in a bit of sarcasm? Or is that a privilege reserved exclusively for Coulter and her partisans?

Italgato wrote:

Joe from Chicago does not verify the comment that "a pot impugning the blackness of a kettle." Neither does he note it is his opinion only.

Ah, you are far too clever for me, gato. Yes, I reluctantly admit that I have no verifiable evidence that Ann Coulter is either a kettle or a pot or indeed any cooking implement or common household item. I will advise you if further information on this issue becomes available.

Italgato wrote:

Didn't you study Procedure in your Criminal Procedure class, Joe from Chicago?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did. And that has some relevance to this issue how?

Italgato wrote:

I am sure that Joe from Chicago has received the rigorous training from Michigan Law School which would enable him to teach those of us who are not so well educated what the "nuances" are.

I will state here what I've said before: I don't feel obligated on these boards to do someone else's homework assignments. If you're having trouble with school work, gato, I suggest you go ask your teacher.

Italgato wrote:

I did not have the opportunity to attend law school but I learned that a strawman was an argument intended to divert someone from the real issues.

Then, regrettably, your education has led you astray. A strawman argument involves framing one's opponent's argument in a fashion that makes it easy to refute. In effect, the speaker constructs a fallacious argument, ascribes it to her opponent, knocks it down, and then concludes that the opponent is wrong. A good description can be found here.

Italgato wrote:

I await Joe from Chicago's statements( with verification, of course) about the "real" issues.

You misunderstand the nature of argument. In order to show that Coulter is wrong, I need not prove that the opposite position is right, so long as I can show that Coulter is wrong on her own terms. To illustrate: if Coulter approached an automobile with a blow torch and a rake, and she claimed that those were the right tools to use for fixing a flat tire, I could demonstrate the falsity of that assertion in one of two ways: (1) I could show that there was a right way to fix a flat tire that did not involve those tools (inductive proof); or (2) I could show that those tools could not fix anything on a car (deductive proof). The second method would not tell her the right way to fix a flat, but would only establish that her way was the wrong way.

Italgato wrote:

On Coulter's comment concerning Saddam's dead sons, Joe from Chicago tells us, I don't even know where to begin to cover the arguments here. Oh, please, do begin at least. Don't keep us in suspense.

Only if you say "pretty please."

Italgato wrote:

I am very much afraid that despite the excellent training Joe from Chicago received from the sixth or seventh best law school in the country( There are better ones, of course), he must have missed Political Science or he is attempting to mislead.

When I attended Michigan, it was commonly ranked third or fourth best law school in the nation. And surely you're not suggesting that I, or anyone else, took political science classe in law school? Anyone with a whit of sense must realize that political science courses are not offered in law school.

Italgato wrote:

It is clear that the Democrats held COMPLETE CONTROL ( meaning the presidency, house and Senate) for SIXTEEN YEARS IN WHICH THEY CONTROLLED BOTH THE HOUSE, SENATE AND PRESIDENCY. The Republicans only held the Presidency, House and Senate for slightly over 4 of those lkast 53 years.

And yet Coulter assumes that Democrats were in charge during all of those years. In that, she is certainly wrong.

0 Replies

]I am sorry that nimh did not attempt to answer my queries( I only made the post at Dr. Craven's urging) with regard to the listing of "war opponents"; whether the term "war" should even be used and the strong bipartisan backing of the Congress of the United States with regard to the invasion of Iraq and the feelings of the American people that Iraq is indeed tied in with Al Qaeda.

However, I will proceed from one of his comments, which, I must confess have little to do with my questions, concern the visit of Donald Rumsfeld as ( horrors) an "emissary" in 1983.

That's nearly twenty years ago!!!!!!!!!

I am certain that nimh is aware of the complexities involved in World War II.

Paul Johnson, in his "History of the American People" points out that "even in Europe, Roosevelt tended to give Stalin what he wished, thus making possible the immense satellite empire of Communist totalitarian states in eastern Europe which endured until the end of the 1980's" P. 790

Why?

Johnson indicates:

"FDR's unsuspicious approach to dealing with Stalin and the Soviet Union was reinforced by his rooted belief that anti-Communists were paranoid and dangerous people, reactionaries of the worst sort."

P. 789

Johnson continues:

FDR said:

I think that if I give him( Stalin) everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, nobilesse oblige,he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace"

P. 790

"On June 24, 1948, Stalin blocked the road access to the Western Zone and the Cold War began in earnest"

It is clear that Roosevelt gave Eastern Europe away to his ally, Stalin, who was to have helped in the East with Japan.

Rumsfeld visited Iraq in 1983.

Desert Storm began in 1991, seven years later.

World War II ended in 1945.

The Berlin Blockade began in 1948--a mere three years later.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

The Soviets in 1945

The IRAQI in 1983.

I do really hope that nimh wasn't too shocked by Rumsfeld's visit in 1983 followed by Desert Storm in 1991.

The gap between the Soviets as friends who turned into enemies after three short years.

Henery Kissinger calls it "Realpolitik"

0 Replies

(munching popcorn, watching the Wolverines run up the score, yawning, deciding it's time for a nap)

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

If any of my questions sound "silly" please let me know since I am under strict orders not to be "Silly".

This is a lie.

Italgato wrote:

You must forgive my ignorance when I ask you, dear nimh, with the greatest possible delicacy, if you will deign to telle me who you mean when you say- "War Opponents"

Do you mean all war opponents or just some of them?

You found the rhetorical hole I mentioned.

0 Replies

Paul Johnson, a right wing journalist and historian, wrote the most biased history of the U.S. ever written with editorialization permeating what is suppose to be accurate snapshots of American history. The book "A History of the American People (!)" commits the sin of omission regularly through the text. He even has an opinion about Bible reading is public schools. It's not a history as much as it is right wing propaganda.

0 Replies

"FDR's unsuspicious approach to dealing with Stalin..." A sophist couldn't have said it better.

0 Replies

Lightwizard offers his opinion about Paul Johnson.

I accept his opinion.

I am wondering if Lightwizard knows of any reviewers who have made a professional commentary concering Paul Johnson's books which mirror lightwizard's rather stern judgement?

I ask this, of course, knowing that it is possible that Lightwizard has the expertise to be a professional critic. If so, no referral to other sources is needed.

In the meanwhile and unless I can be convinced that Paul Johnson is a complete "persona non grata" in the field of History, I stand unpersuaded by Ligtwizard's opinion and will continue to utliize Johnson as a source despite Lightwizard's rather strong condemnation of his work.

0 Replies

Most of the reviews recognized the author's bias on that particular work. His historical work on the Jews and the Egyptians are quite good and not nearly filled with so much rhetorical commentary.

0 Replies

(If someone doesn't recognize the significant slant to the right of "American People," they didn't read the same book).

0 Replies

Why I must, if I may be allowed, commend Lightwizard on his knowledge of Paul Johnson's works.

Lightwizard, is in my opinion, quite correct about Johnson's istory of the Jews and the Egyptians.

However, I am very much afraid that Lightwizard does not recognize the principle of equilibrium.

For every book like-"The emerging Democratic Majority" there is a "History of the American People".

But I hasten to inform Lightwizard that there are quite a few more books which indicate that

Roosevelt gave Eastern Europe away to the Soviets at Yalta

The Soviets, our allies only three years earlier, blockaded Berlin and began the Cold War in earnest only three years later.

I will get those facts validated by someone other than Paul Johnson.

I would repsectfully suggest that Lightwizard might profitably spend some time refuting Johnson's comments which I quoted instead of denigrating his book.

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

I am sorry that nimh did not attempt to answer my queries

Italgato, you can read, can't you? You've seen this post?:

nimh wrote:

Oh, I see I've missed an entire conversation while I was writing, and I've even been mentioned, finally, I think! (Just scrolled through).

Well, let me finish responding to Italgato's earlier post, and then I'll look at what you two have discussed since. Taking a break first, though.

Ergo - I'll recapitulate for you -

a) I was writing this long-ass post in reply to your earlier post;
b) posting the first half, I saw that in the meantime, you'd been talking more, and you'd asked some stuff to me
c) I said, lemme first post the second half of my stuff, and take a break, and later I'll get back to whatever you've been discussing since

I.e. - my comments had indeed "little to do with your questions", since they were in response to your earlier post - the one I quoted, you see.

It was in response to Coulter's claim that the failure, in her mind, of past Iraq policy was the result of "the Democrats' surrender approach [of the last] 50 years"; and in response to your suggested follow-up claim, in reply to Joe's reminder that most of the 50 years there were Republican presidents, that if Republican presidents did not succeed in "enacting" their "objectives" it was because of a Democratic Congress blocking them.

Well, considering you and Coulter drag "the past 50 years" into this, I'm sure you won't mind me digging into some of those policies of Republican Presidents in those long decades, concerning Saddam's Iraq. Surprise: you find that it was the Republican administration that "appeased" - hell, abetted - Saddam's dictatorship while the Democrats in Congress insisted on stronger retaliations.

I'm still taking a break right now - :wink: - I just checked in to see what was new in the thread while waiting for the Railways Timetable website to open. Your questions - will - be - answered ... <grins>

Opinion: Damn, someone's got long toes or a big ego! Laughing

0 Replies

Roosevelt took a course at Yalta that many have criticized but he was definitely suspicious of Stalin. He had no choice -- either start a war with Russia or divide the spoils. Churchill was not happy with the decision and felt betrayed -- may as betrayed as Wilson felt when he neglected to tell us that there were enemy submarines in the vicinity of the Lusitania. Politicians no matter if they become statesmen are still politicians.

Incidentally, on hindsight I'm not sure what Roosevelt could have done and I don't know anyone who is. Apparantly Mr. Johnson, a journalist for The Weekly Standard in Britain, is all knowing and could read Roosevelt's mind posthumously and determined he was not suspicious. Quite a trick. Not really, it's just blatant editorializing. He offers opinions about history throughout his book and they are biased.

0 Replies

I believe this thread could benefit from a bit less fault finding and playing "gotcha" , and a little more focus on the issues apparently under discussion.

Paul Johnson is indeed a distinguished historian and his recent works including "Modern Times" and "The Birth of the Modern" and others, have been widely read and occasionally acclaimed. He does have a conservative point of view - some will call it bias. However that is qualitatively no different from the existence of points of view in other notable historians, ranging from Tuchman to Toynbee. Some are liberal, some conservative, some differently cast. Hard not to have some point of view or perspective.

Rumsfeld's much publicized mission to Iraq was conducted early in the first Reagan administration, not long after the embassy seizure by Iran and the hapless response to it by the Carter administration. The Iran/Iraq war was in full play and we very definitely had a vital strategic interest in seeing to it that neither country achieved a decisive victory. It is a fact that under Reagan we significantly blunted the revolutionary aspirations of the then very radical regime in Iran. Things could easily have come out much worse.

Nimh cites the "legality" question in our decision to intervene in Iraq. Apart from the General precepts in the UN Charter, I am not aware of any settled law that governs the decision of a sovereign nation to make war on another. The notion that the US needed yet another UN resolution to make its intervention "Legal" does not pass even elementary scrutiny. Indeed the UN has, at least tacitly acknowledged the legality of our actions, all the heated rhetoric of our political opponents notwithstanding.

0 Replies

Ann Coulter: Liberal Arguments: Still A Quagmire

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know