Continues to astonish me.
Take, for example, the letter from Heather McKey, published yesterday in the Seatle Times. It begins as follows:
Have we entered a new era of barbarism? I wake up to front-page news that we have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with air strikes in Iraq and that this killing is being hailed by political leaders here and abroad. What happened to due process? Since when do we brazenly bomb foreign nations to kill individuals in those nations?
At least in my lifetime, until this administration, the CIA did this kind of killing clandestinely. What has changed in our nation and our philosophy about warfare and the sovereignty of other nations that this kind of labeling of individuals as "enemies" and then the brazen killing of them is hailed without question?
And she continues in this vein for four more paragraphs.
The idea that an enemy leader, particularly one as loathesome as Zarqawi, deserves "due process" during a war is bizarre. But what is even stranger is her question at the end of the paragraph about bombing foreign nations in order to kill individuals. She appears to believe that no president ever did this until George W. Bush came along. Was she not paying attention when Bill Clinton bombed, among other places, Kosovo, Iraq, and the Sudan? Does she think those bombings were intended not to kill people, but to muss up some bad guy's hair?
Let me answer her question. To my knowledge, the following presidents bombed foreign nations in order to kill individuals: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, and Calvin Coolidge. I can't think of any examples for Jimmy Carter or Warren Harding, and I am not sure whether American airplanes attacked Germany while Woodrow Wilson was president, though they did attack German troops. (American airplanes were used against Nicaraguan rebels while Coolidge and Hoover were in office; there's a good description of that campaign, along with much else, in Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace.)
So in killing Zarqawi with an airstrike President Bush was doing what almost all his predecessors have done, since the development of military airplanes. And what Bill Clinton did, or tried to do, on several occasions. Yet somehow Ms. McKey is unaware of these facts.
Now it would be easy to laugh at this thinking — and tempting. But let me propose a more difficult task for commenters. Suppose that you knew and liked Heather McKey, and that she had just made this argument to you. How would you answer her?
Since you like her — and I have known people with equally absurd political ideas that I liked — you don't want to call her names, or otherwise insult her. But you do want to give her a clue. That would be, as I said, difficult, but I have faith that you can come up with some plausible approaches.
Posted by Jim Miller at June 14, 2006 08:31 AM | Email ThisGo back to Thomas Jefferson 3rd President. His actions against the Barbary Pirates carried out by Edward Preble.
While not air power, Preble used the High Tech of the day.
Posted by: JCM on June 14, 2006 08:56 AMWhat due process was afforded Nick Berg, or the contractors hung from the bridge in Falluja, or the bodies of our airmen dragged through the streets of Tehran after Desert One?
You can't have it both ways if Zarquwai is a soldier in a war then his death is justified by the conduct of the war, if he is an innocent civilan then why is he cutting off heads?
Posted by: Dennis on June 14, 2006 09:12 AMIt is now an archieved piece of our history, and a sad one at that.....
Do the Editors believe what Heather says? I know it is a letter, not a news story, but when the "feel gooders" repeat it enough, it becomes news to them.....
Posted by: Chris on June 14, 2006 09:15 AM What has changed in our nation and our philosophy about warfare and the sovereignty of other nations that this kind of labeling of individuals as "enemies" and then the brazen killing of them is hailed without question?
Dear Ms. McKey, you need to atually meet and talk to some military people. Yes, yes, I know you think they're icky, and scream "Not in My Name!" at them as they go by, goosestepping like robots, driving in their shiny phallic tanks.
But you have to learn what rules of engagement (ROE) are, and what they are in Iraq.
You would find that "our" philsophy has changed quite a bit over the past 60 years, since mass daylight bombing was all the rage. You might learn that Zarqawi himself had no reason to be in Iraq--he was a foreigner, representing not the country of Iraqi but Al Qaeda and some militant factions. He chose to not wear a uniform, and target civilians (because they are easier and less risky to kill, of course, and terror makes a good tactic to use against the American press.)
You may also learn that the ROE in Iraq are quite strict, and hamper a lot of what the military (Iraq and American) try to do, as they try to work around the very civilians that "freedom fighters" like Zarqawi hid behind, and targeted.
This, Ms. McKey, is reality. If you want to be reality-based, look into the sun of reality instead of the fog of ideology.
I want to make it clear that I only disagree with using these scum as the standard to which we compare ourselves. I am proud of our military and the medics for trying to save the scumbag's life. I also think they are doing a great job in eliminating them and the manner in which they are doing it. This is a war, not a police action - wars use bombs, police action use courts.
Posted by: Fred on June 14, 2006 09:22 AMWoodrow Wilson did send the Navy to Vera Cruz, Mexico in 1914...they ended up shelling the city. I think that counts as "Hair Mussing"!
Posted by: Shaun on June 14, 2006 09:27 AMGo back to Thomas Jefferson 3rd President. His actions against the Barbary Pirates carried out by Edward Preble.
Weren't the Barbary Pirates Muslim, too?
Posted by: huckleberry on June 14, 2006 09:43 AMRadical Islam has declared war on the U.S. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to enemy combatants.
In fact, it was leftist whining about clandestine CIA operations in Vietnam that gutted the Agency's clandestine service, setting U.S. humint gathering and clandestine direct ops capability back a generation. What Frank Church started with the CIA, Standfield Turner completed. And we still haven't fully recovered.
Posted by: Hoplophile on June 14, 2006 10:16 AMforce and killing are part of life; not pleasures, but necessary actions to preserve one's own life or others' lives; how long does a lioness anguish over killing her prey or for killing to protect her cubs? did Heather watch the 9-11 people jumping out of buildings and dying or was that conveniently edited out of her historical memories? how about the U.S. seamen burning to death at Pearl Harbor in WW2? How about the Bataan Death March? maybe a donated subscription to the history cable channel will solve it; maybe not; i say a trip to a Vet's hospital;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 14, 2006 10:17 AMWhenever I confront a pacifist like Ms. McKey, I simply ask them if I will be able to count on their support when we are attacked again by Islamic fanatics. And if they can't answer that question, I ask them when they are no longer able to tolerate a threat. Is it when a distant friend is killed? A relative? An immediate family member?
Michael Berg is the father of Nick Berg who was beheaded in Iraq by Zarqawi. He went so far as to say that he would throw himself in front of Zarqawi's blade before confronting and killing Zarqawi had he been there when his son was killed. That's pacifism taken to the extreme where not one, but two innocents are killed. Two dead innocents and one live terrorist doesn't stop the threat. I assume that most pacifists are smart enough to draw the line a lot further from themselves than Michael Berg.
And on another note, due process applies to American citizens. It's not a requirement of war, nor is it a requirement of even addressing foreigners. We refuse entry to this country to foreign nationals every day without process. There is no due process for those who are not American.
The attacks will continue. I predict that the next wave of Islamic attacks will be a synchronized wave of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in malls, tourist attractions, etc. all across the US. When enough pacifist, progressive, liberal, socialist, appeasers are killed and horrified, and enough passive, isolationist Americans are awakened, we will give Islamic fanaticism its proper title of "Enemy." And then we will destroy it once and for all.
Until then, we have to listen to appeasers like Heather McKey abet our enemies and cow those of us who are unresolved to defend our way of life.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 14, 2006 10:52 AMTrue or not, I don't know, but if it takes more of the earth's resources (which usually leads to higher costs), then recycling is a feel good activity that does more harm than good. If Janet is right, then she is taking "personal responsibility (like a true Republican)". Provide a link to a reliable source to correct her perception of the efficiencies of recycling.
Posted by: Fred on June 14, 2006 10:54 AMI do understand your original question. And appreciate your intent. But I am not convinced that applying reason and not therapy to mental illness will actually accomplish anything of lasting value.
On one web site I got into a lengthy series of conversations/arguments with these folks. When asked, a lib history professor at a major university, in reponse to the question of what the longterm analysis of our current situation would be, could come up with nothing more than "Bush lied, WMD's", as if the war was an oily vacuum, devoid of Islamic radical elements or Saddam's misdeeds. When asked what his/her response would be to meeting one of 911's or Saddam's victims, there was complete silence. Nothing.
Even with facts, they either won't or cannot connect the dots. They are jousting at windmills.
Posted by: scott158 on June 14, 2006 11:08 AMThe left cannot wrap it's collective mind around the concept that the prisoners in Gitmo are "illegal combatants" as defined by the Geneva Convention Article 4.
I truly believe they do not, cannot fathom, a group (other than republicans) that will ignore every legal, human, religious convention to further their aims.
If we just talk and get to know each other, love, peace, kumbyah, mindset, then we can all live together.
The never answer the question: What if the other party doesn't want to play nice, and would rather saw your head of with a dull knife?
Posted by: JCM on June 14, 2006 11:10 AMI'd say, "Heather, I like you, but you're a dumbass."
Posted by: ScottM on June 14, 2006 11:16 AMSometimes, a particular collective does something so bad, the left cannot ignore it, or something they perceive as so bad, that they must condemn it. That's when suddenly it flips for the left. And then they paint the offender as an "individual." Someone who has strayed from the collective, decided to think for themselves, and has thus become bad. Whether really bad as in the case of Zarqawi, or perceived to be bad, as in the case of the Oil CEO who received a large compensation package for his services, the left will reduce and excuse the behavior as an individual acting alone.
As such, the terrorists are just a bunch of misguided individuals. They left refuses to see that it would not even be possible for Bin Laden or Zarqawi to attain the status that they did without complicit support of dictatorships, theorcracies and other totalitarian governments throughout the Middle East that were willing to fund and support terrorism. Rather than have to admit that there might be flaws with certain collectivist totalitarian governmental structures, the left tries to dismiss terrorists as renegade individuals. Individuals who simpy need criminal prosecution or treatment, etc.
Once someone has succumbed to the myopic collectivist ideology of the left, it's often necessary for them to warp common and obviously negative affiliations and behavior to correct their world vision to 20/20.
Take off the liberal corrective lenses and suddenly; organized Islamic Totalitarianism, distributing anti-Western hatred, comes in to focus.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 14, 2006 11:38 AMShe should know that not long before her world began:
Clinton bombed Baghdad, Belgrade, and other places in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo, including civilian targets such TV and radio stations, power plants, a civilian airplane factory, the Chinese embassy, bridges, trains, a hospital, a hotel, and residential areas and schools (presumably by mistake).
Peaceful sanctions imposed on Iraq and enforced all through the Clinton administration are said to have resulted in the deaths of up to 1.5 million Iraqi civilians, including 500,000 children. Daily air raids could not have killed so many.
Democrat Kennedy took us into Viet Nam. Democrat Johnson escalated the war to it peak before Republican Nixon brought it to an end.
Democrat Truman is the only leader in the history of the world to authorize and carry out a nuclear attack on a foreign nation, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians (though no more than were killed by the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities shortly before that).
Heather could log onto Wikipedia.org and search for words like "Dresden" and "Waco" for more interesting information about Democrat humanitarianism.
Republicans are certainly willing to use military force, but historically, when it gets right down to killing lots of people and terrorizing the hell out of an enemy, Democrats and liberals are the true afficionados.
When those nations invite us in to assist in settling their internal disputes, and that request coincides with our national interests.
Heather makes the mistake of ignoring the fact that this action was done with the full knowledge and approval of the Iraqi government; in other words, it was COMPLETELY LEGAL in the country in which the action took place.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 14, 2006 11:50 AMThere was a sticker that said, “We can have world peace,” right next to a sticker that said “Regime change ’04.”
Sums it up fairly well.
OK, so i'm supposed to try and convert Heather McKey, because I like her, right? I would just ask her if she likes soccer?
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 14, 2006 12:30 PMFirst is the notion that after Terroists hit us again and do lots more killing that these lierals will come to their senses and condemn the terrorists. Maybe some of the more moderates will, but the LLL will simply blame the attacks on our recent actions and say that they were justified response to our imperialist, oil grubbing ways.
Second is the notion of the collective. They do not excuse all collectives and blame the individual. In fact, they often blame a particular collective for the sins of the individual. Often if an individual member of an identified special group commits an offense it is due to the straight, white, evangelical, wealthy, corporate, male. Sometimes one just needs be wealthy, or white or Christian, or male. Any one of these "privileged" statuses is sufficient to be included in the "bad" people. Of course, if you are "Liberal" you can be excused from every one of the others. Think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Ultimately what defines the LLL is one key issue and that is the belief that ALL of today's ills can be directly attributed to white, male privilege and capitalist imperialism. While you might attempt to prove that other factors might be involved, you cannot get them to shake the firm and uassailable belief that the white, male, wealth class (WMWC) is so firmly entrenched in power that nothing they say or do can be trusted.
As an anecdote, let me relay a conversation I had with my father-in-law. When I mentioned how Kennedy got such a soft treatment for his DWI and how his father, if he were a Republican would never have been a Senator after Chappaquidick. His response was to say that the Kennedy's had so much tragedy in life that they DESERVE a break and that if George BUSH had done anything wrong you can be SURE that it would be covered up and no one would even know about it.
You cannot argue against the line of thought, and that is what permeates the LLL. Thus, ANYTHING that happens that they disagree with is not because reasonable people disagree but that their opponets are either part of the WMWC, or are duped by their spokespersons. Facts are not going to sway them because they inherently disbeleive anything that does not match their preconceived world view, chalking it up to misinformation and maniputaion by very powerful people.
And one other note. They hate capitalism. Oh, they might give it lip service, but they detest anyting that even hints at advantage for one person over another, and captalism reeks of advantage and exploitation to them. making money is anathema to them, and having money is worse. To make money you have to exploit the underclass or rip them off. Having money means you can exert power over the underclass. That is why they think taxes are a moral good and that businesses are inherently evil.
You cannot logic your way past those biases in the tradiional sense, and every argument you have on these boards fails to sway because of these few simple principles.
To sum it up:
It is not a matter of facts and truth. It is a matter or preconceived notion and perception.
Until you change their underlying belief system, you will never succeed in your arguments.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on June 14, 2006 02:26 PMOf course there would be the obvious topics such as relevance to the topic, length, typographic and grammatical errors, filtering of truly profane and/or virulent, etc.
But then, there's clearly another level of scrutiny that gets applied based on how the paper wants to bias a particular topic, the political correctness of the topic, merit or demerit for multiculturalism, the newspaper's agenda, political candidate agendas, advertiser agendas, etc. No doubt this job falls to a small number of persons who've long been entrenched in the doctrines of the mainstream media and know just how to carefully tread on or tow the line.
Scary thought.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 14, 2006 04:12 PMBoth papers are fairly good about publishing letters that sharply criticize the papers. They are way better than the New York Times, which is simply disgraceful. (See Mickey Kaus's blog about a week ago for the difficulty General Motors (!) had in getting a reply to a Tom Friedman column printed.)
As long as the Seattle Times and PI continue to publish letters that criticize them, I will have no quarrel with them publishing letters that I think are silly.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 14, 2006 04:26 PMI believe your premise is false.
I think it was Mark Twain who said words to the effect that there is something to be learned from picking up a cat by its tail, and people who can learn it in no other way.
Heather McKey is one of those people.
Posted by: Micajah on June 14, 2006 04:33 PMNow, to take something some private citizen wrote in a letters-to-the-editor section and paint this as indicative with the line of thinking of those whom are voting Dem in November appears to be a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: CandrewB on June 14, 2006 06:42 PMIt's not worth the trouble. The people of Seattle seem to love living in ignorance.
Posted by: BananaLand on June 14, 2006 08:12 PMIf this is indeed not representative of the liberal viewpoint, the media is doing a very poor job of making that clear, especially with the focus on Cindy Sheehan, arrogant celebrities, and
nutcase professors.
Oh, yeah, I forgot! She is a Seattle P-I reader!
Posted by: bigdawg on June 14, 2006 08:54 PM