VANITY: Email to a friend re the war

OK this is a complete vanity but here goes. A friend, a middle-aged US citizen living overseas, sent me an email containing the Hermann Goering quote from Nuremberg Diary, the one where he says you can always browbeat the people into supporting a war by lying about your intentions, 'it is the same in all countries.' She included no comment or analysis of her own, just the subject line "Bush and Goering Beating the Same Drum." Not about to sit still for any cheap Bush-bashing, I replied with some heat. Here is what I sent back - your comments welcome:

It really is beneath you to draw flimsy comparisons between an elected and accountable leader and a heroin-addled slave-holding German socialist.

First you posit that George W Bush is being dishonest when he says that we are under attack by a loose coalition of extremists and tyrants and that Hussein's regime is a part of it. But you supply no evidence of a will to deceive on his part. It is axiomatic with you that he is lying. But the simpler and therefor more likely case is that he means exactly what he says.

And what about Tony Blair? He is saying precisely the same things - perhaps with greater eloquence - that Bush is saying. Further, Blair has jumped into the war effort with both feet, taking a gigantic economic and political risk, not to mention risking his career. What is Blair's hidden agenda? Again, the simplest explanation is that, 300 Britons having died on 9/11, he is convinced that the confluence of oil money and Islamic extremism can no longer be left to fester and that Iraq's regime is central to the problem.

The Poles are also on board, with their special forces are operating in Iraq. Any hidden agenda there? Vaclav Havel is on board. And the Australians under John Howard. The list goes on and on. By my last count there are about 30 European countries endorsing, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the war in Iraq.

Second you imply that we are not under attack. Perhaps this is unintentional. Or perhaps you mean to draw a parallel between Iraq and Poland circa 1939. But to draw this comparison would be to ignore the arguments that Bush and Blair (and Howard and Havel and so on) are actually making, to wit:

1. That the Iraqi regime has never complied and will never comply with its obligation to disarm under the 1991 cease-fire, and must be compelled to do so by force,
2. That the Iraqi regime has never complied and will never comply with any of the numerous UN resolutions calling upon it to account for various nasty stuff it was known to be working on,
3. That the Iraqi regime is, right now, a source of money, training and equipment for terrorist groups,
4. That the Iraqi regime will, in the long term, be a source of NBC weapons for Al Qaeda and similar groups.

Only the last point is arguable, and only because precognition is still trapped in Pandora's box. If we were to rely on Iraq's behavior both past and present, and the behavior of the terrorist groups whose possession of those weapons is the thing most to be feared, then I think no reasonable person would deny that, sooner or later, Saddam or his equally psychotic children are going to put mass destruction weapons in the hands of the people who carried out the Sbarro bombing. Saddam has been sponsoring terrorism for years. In an ironic but not-too-surprising turn, the first person killed in the attack on Baghdad was a Palestinian terrorist kingpin:

My point is, Bush and Blair are consistent, firm, reasoned, informed and yes, honest in what they are saying about Iraq and the need for force. Disagree with them all you like, but if you challenge their integrity please supply evidence.

Third, you trivialize the Nazi regime. Of course this is unintentional. But be advised that Jew-baiting and Holocaust denial are favored tactics of some in the anti-war bloc, in particular of that Stalinist cult called ANSWER and of course of most everyone in the middle east. Take, for example, this charming fellow:

My observation of most anti-war rallies here in the states has been that by and large they aren't about the war at all. To some extent they are about George Bush and what an evil man he is (again they forget Blair and Howard.) And they certainly aren't about Iraq. Talking about Iraq might get us to talking about Saddam after all, and who knows where that might lead. No, the protests are mainly about the protestors. They're about what good people the protestors are, about how the protestors are on an elevated moral plane, free of racism and materialism and every other -ism you can think of, and how they are so wise and pure that they could never countenance solving any problem by violence (which gets a little awkward when they hoist the Bush=Hitler placards, Hitler having been destroyed by means of war. Did I mention these protests are highly entertaining?).

At the end of the day, Bush's veracity and motivations are irrelevant. Nat Hentoff:

You imply that like Goering, Bush is intent upon imposing mass slaughter upon innocents from the air and careless as to the results, a la Guernica or Coventry or London. Perhaps you do not mean to say that - it being obviously false and quite silly - but you should understand that Nazi imagery is strong stuff and won't go unchallenged.

Finally you imply that Bush is punishing people for protesting the war. Examples, please. You imply that he questions the patriotism of those who oppose the war. Again, when and to whom did this occur?

There are lots of logical, moral and consistent arguments against the war. 'Bush is a Nazi' is not one of them."

Got a reply from my friend in Japan:

Your response is proof that Goering is right. He says it doesn't matter what the politics are, if you want war, all you have to do is say the country is under attack. Even though the majority of the population is against war, they will follow.

For every point you make in favor of Bush, one can find arguments against. (See Institute for Policy Studies, www.ips-dc.org, or Senator Byrd's Senate Floor Speech, Feb. 12, 2003.) But arguing whether Bush is right or wrong is not the point. The question is are we making our commitments because they are the right things to do, or because we have been manipulated into committing ourselves and now think we are doing the right thing.

My response:

"Carolyn,

First you cited a Nazi, now a Klansman.

Please free yourself of the notion that only some people are opposed to war. Everyone is against war. It is a commonplace among so-called progressives (a word reeking of arrogance and presumption) that they inhabit a higher moral plane, that they are more sensitive to the ghastliness of war and more fit to judge when violence can and cannot be applied. In reality, everyone opposes war, but thinking people examining the same facts will come to different conclusions about when the benefits of using violence outweigh the cost.

I present you with evidences and factual arguments, but rather than contend with them you repeat this incantation that 'we are being manipulated'. A neat trick, that: At a stroke you free yourself from the need to evaluate facts and logic. After all your opponent is operating under duress, isn't he? His opinions are the product of suggestion and manipulation, and you need not take them seriously.

Ah, Senator Robert C. "Sheets" Byrd. About the only thing he hasn't named after himself is a burning cross. Let's take a look at his speech:

Byrd's speech on the Senate Floor 2/12/2003

Executive summary:
- The Afghanistan war is a failure because bin Hidin' may still be breathing.
- Muslims hate us already but if we attack a secular leader who slaughters Muslims by the truckload, Katie bar the door! That'll really piss 'em off!
- We need the money back here in the US to build more stuff named after Robert "Sheets" Byrd.
- Bush is arrogant.

Point-by-point:

>Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming
>rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against
>global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Solid alliance? Does he mean the NATO the French have been ripping apart? When Joseph Stalin was alive, sure, it was a solid alliance. Since then I'm not so sure. Maybe he means Europe and America in general. From what I can see the French and Germans are busily surrendering their own countries to Islamic extremism and can hardly be considered solid allies in carrying the fight to south Asia.

>This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.

Beware politicians pronouncing crises.

>This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling,
>for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.

The UN a stabilizing force? Is he serious? Or just senile? The UN arms embargo against the Kosovo Albanians is what left Slobodan Milosevic so free to slaughter them. The whole situation could have been resolved by simply allowing them to defend themselves (Gun control zealots take note) but the UN refused to do this ('cycle of violence' and all that). And there there was that affair in Rwanda. NATO is a cold-war relic and Joseph Stalin is dead.

>We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well
>as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.

Translation: "We must continue to take the French seriously and continue to pay barbarians to pretend to like us." In reality the French have made it clear they will not cooperate with us in any way whatever. During the Kosovo war the French were leaking intelligence and targeting data to the Serbs and getting our people killed. That's the kind of 'cooperation' Byrd would like to see continue.

>Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting
>support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters
>cheering us on.

Now he wants to send troops all over the place. And not just our own. Make up your mind there, Sheets.

>The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that
>terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not
>found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of
>terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Not a word about the 13,000,000 Afghans now free from a brutal theocracy. Go ask them if the war in Afghanistan was a success. And again the implication that just because Osama bin Hidin' may not yet be taking his dirt nap the enterprise is a failure.

>To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein?

Bush answered this question at the Azores press conference. The country goes back to the control of its citizens. That won't be easy, but it will happen. The oil goes back to the people as well, and the French with their cozy oil contracts with the Saddamite regime can go screw themselves.

>Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel?

Like they need any prompting to kill Jews.

>Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the
>interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join
>the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice
>for nations which need the income?

At the time of this speech Colin Powell was wrapping up six months of negotiations at the UN and elsewhere, the end result of which was the French made it very clear they would obstuct whatever the US attempted. The administration went to the most astonishing lengths to court the interests & opinions of countries great and small. The sole result of this was to expose with perfect clarity the French pretension to lead a united Europe as a sort of Anti-US. The French want another empire but are too lazy to do the required work. We have, at every point, paid scrupulous attention to the opinions of many when there was little practical reason to do so. Not for nothing is the UN called a theater of the absurd.

>One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and
>an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

The clear implication being that attacking Saddam Hussein is just a fit of pique, a lashing-out at a world we do not understand and cannot tame. In fact it is a carefully considered part of a larger plan to disassemble a worldwide alliance of Islamofascists, tin-pot Mussolinis and wealthy-but-frightened oil potentates.

>I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a
>massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children
>is "in the highest moral traditions of our country".

A bizarre remark. Presumably the war would be less odious if waged on a country comprised exclusively of adults. This reminds me of fatboy Michael Moore's outburst on September 11 that the hijackers had slaughtered thousands 'who didn't even vote for Bush!'

Enough of "Sheets" Byrd.

I am quite aware that there are counter-arguments. My point was that comparing GW Bush to a mass-murdering Nazi is silly and demeaning - demeaning to the person making the comparison. You point to 'proof' but you cite only axioms. Can you point to any example of anyone in the administration making, at any point in time whatever, any statement equivalent to Goering's? If not, then how do you know their intent is the same, that they are 'beating the same drum'? Let us suppose, thought you haven't cited any examples, that some of Bush's statements are broadly similar to some of Goering's statements from, say, 1940. Can two people making making broadly similar statements be assumed to have the same intent and the same degree of veracity, with no further evidence than the words they spoke? Of course not, but that is what you imply.

There is a large kernel of truth in what Goering said, and history is full of examples - but so what? We *are* under attack. Perhaps you mean to say that we are not under attack by Iraq. In a narrow sense that is true.* But again, so what? Blair and Bush aren't making any such arguments. The arguments they are making are coherent, closely reasoned and moral, and I have already listed them.

What is this Right Thing that we have convinced ourselves - or as you say, have allowed ourselves to be convinced - we are doing? Is it to preserve the concept of national soveriegnty? By that standard we should probably be leaving Saddam alone. Or is it to prevent human rights abuses? By that standard removing Saddam, by whatever means, is a no-brainer, and would still be justified if the death toll from the war were far, far greater than it actually is. Or is it to preserve the fiction that the UN is a worthwhile and respectable body, never mind that Libya, Syria and Sudan are on the human rights committee? You use phrases like 'the right thing' as if it were a given that other people will agree on what the right thing is. They won't agree if they don't share the same values and traditions as you, and maybe not even then. Utopian schemes like the UN consistently ignore this simple reality.

* I think there is good reason to believe that Hussein's regime was behind the 1993 WTC bombing."

Your comments welcome!

Got another reply from Japan:

>Subject: Re:
>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:06:43 +0800
>
>I gave you Sen. Byrd because I thought you, being a Rush Limbaugh fan might have
>been amused. But if you prefer, I can refer you to "Stupid White Men" by Michael
>Moore, (the same who won an academy award for Colombine) for a more humorous assessment
>of our current president.

>By the by, you really should try to come to Japan. There are a lot of like-mind people
>whom you might enjoy meeting!
>
>Carolyn

My reply:

"Carolyn,

Do you bring anything but slurs and cant to this debate?

I am amused in the sense that progressive people do not hesitate to cite unadorned racists when it suits their purpose. You must not be aware of Byrd's 'White Nigger' outburst two years ago:

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Michelle Malkin

If you think Rush Limbaugh is a racist (or more precisely, if you heard from fellow 'progressives' that Rush Limbaugh is a racist and accepted this without question) it might surprise you to learn that two of his guest hosts are black scholars who know better:

-Dr Walter E Williams of George Mason http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

TIP: Williams' Amnesty & Pardon at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html makes a great gift for the guilt-addled white lefty hand-wringing set.

-Dr Thomas Sowell of Stanford http://www.tsowell.com/

Neither man has any patience for the niggling (hey can I say that?) pinheads who've never listened to Limbaugh but seem to know all about him. Why don't you tune in on streaming audio at rushlimbaugh.com and have a listen? I won't tell anyone.

Of course I could be wrong, and you could be referring to Paul Shanklin's "Dueling Bozos" parody of Robert Byrd, which got a lot of play on Limbaugh's show a few years ago. But I don't think so.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/parody.guest.html

Michael Moore is a phony and not worth my time.

- He tackles complex issues like violence and poverty and attempts to explain them with dime-store psychoanalysis - "America's obsession with guns" and so on. I think you see through this.

- He is very sloppy. Even the title of his best known work is a classic Moorean screwup. 'Bowling' gets its name from the report that Klebold and Harris had gone bowling that morning. Later investigation showed that report to be false. But Moore's research is, well let's just call it superficial, and his fact-checking is limited to bouncing his stuff off fellow travelers over a latte at an upper West Side organic-shade-grown-fair-trade-coffee house. When confronted with the resulting errors in his books and films he grows very indignant and accuses his questioner of dwelling on trivia.

- He pretends to champion the common folk but in reality has only contempt for them. Have you noticed how all the people in his work are either helpless victims, poltroons or complete idiots? If you're not a convenient stereotype, Moore doesn't want you.

- He is personally brutal to interviewees and his own staff.

I recently heard Moore described as the token funny man for an increasingly humorless Left. I think that's perfectly captured, don't you?

Reply from Japan:

Let us agree to disagree. I don't think I will find
anyone whose view you approve of, and there is
no way you can convince me that Bush has not
initiated this war for self-gain.

But less you think I am pro Saddam Hussein, let
me hasten to say he is not a flower that smells
so well either.
I am for neither party. I see mankind living their
paltry 60 odd years on earth fighting, staking
out their territories, and amassing their worldly
goods as if they will live indefinitely. The truth
though, is that none of this matters. They will
not be able to take any of it with them when they
die.

Earth has enough resources to provide every
human being with a comfortable life: good
shelter, sufficient clothing, nutritious food,
and medical support for all who need it. Is there
any reason why we cannot come up with a
system that would ensure every one at least
this much? And if you think Bush will give the
Iraqi people this, then I suggest you look at the
standard of living of the people in Kuwait since
1991.

My reply:

>and there is no way you can convince me that Bush has not
>initiated this war for self-gain.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but it is impossible to prove a negative, yes? Your framing the question this way is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me, to make me prove the absence of a hidden agenda. Actually the burden of proof is on you.

I think the way to judge Bush's intentions is to compare his rhetoric with his actions and see if they are consistent. He said serious consequences would follow if Saddam did not disarm; he clearly meant that. He said humanitarian aid would follow hard on the heels of the military; this is happening. He said he would seek the help of other nations in disarming Saddam; he got that help. Clearly he is a man who means what he says. He says Iraq is going back to the control of its people, do you have any reason to doubt that he means this?

And what on Earth do you mean by self-gain? You're not wallowing in tinfoil-hat oil conspiracy theories are you?

>But less you think I am pro Saddam Hussein, let
>me hasten to say he is not a flower that smells
>so well either.

Good Heavens Carolyn who do you think you are talking to? When I see you torturing people in same Baghdad basement then I will conclude you are pro-Hussein. It isn't necessary to say you are anti-Saddam. I think it something that can be safely assumed of all decent people.

>Earth has enough resources to provide every
>human being with a comfortable life: good
>shelter, sufficient clothing, nutritious food,
>and medical support for all who need it. Is there
>any reason why we cannot come up with a
>system that would ensure every one at least
>this much?

Yes. You frame the question as if it were an emotional one: "Can't we just agree that no one will ever go hungry again?" And for many people it is an emotional issue, and their examination of it stops there.

But it is not emotional it is economic. The problem with arrangements that purport to 'guarantee' everyone's 'needs' are met (socialism being the most common example) is that they assign decision-making to third parties. Instead of deciding for myself how much water, bread and concert tickets I need and deciding for myself how my limited resources can be used to meet those needs, an economic system explicitly designed to 'meet' my 'needs' for me just deprives me of the ability to make my own decisions. Would you leave it up to third parties to determine what color & pattern your walls are? What objets d'art are in your home? What kind of tires go on your car? Of course not! The results would be ugly and in the case of the tires possibly fatal. Third party decision-making is also slow and inefficient. It might take years for the Tire Committee to decide what kind of tires to kill you with. I recommend Sowell's Basic Economics as an antidote to socialistic nonsense:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/046508138X/qid=1049211557/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-5474569-0867355

Not to be confused the deadly dull Keynesian stuff ladled out in Econ 101 classes every day, this is actually a very readable and quite entertaining treatment of the subject. There is not a single chart or equation in the book.

>And if you think Bush will give the
>Iraqi people this, then I suggest you look at the
>standard of living of the people in Kuwait since 1991.

I don't see how this is relevant. It isn't the responsibility of government to achieve paradise on Earth. If you think it is, go live in any of the countries where this has been tried. And Kuwait isn't run by Bush, it's run, for better or for worse, by the emir. We went to war to boot the Saddamites out of Kuwait, and then we went home. Iraq is and will be quite another matter. We are there to change its government and we are going to do so. In the long term - I hope not very long - it will be some sort of representative government. That's the hope anyway, and I think the chances are good this will happen. And finally, it isn't the government, be it representative or totalitarian, that delivers prosperity, it's the people working for their own interests.

There are a great many leftists and socialists whose views meet with my approval. They accomplish this by being carefully reasoned, morally sound and regularly compared against reality. Nat Hentoff I have already cited; Christopher Hitchens is another. And my favorite historian is the late Barbara Tuchman."

Your comments welcome. I think I went pretty easy on her this time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.