Ready to rumble? Village Voice Author, Rick Perlstein, Here to Debate the Freeper Horde

08/03/2004 | Rick Perlstein

[dead]

Opening Statement

Dear FRiends:

I once suffered two great frustrations in being a freelance political writer. First, the loneliness: you put an article out there, and you might as well have thrown it down a black hole for all the response you get. Second, the ghettoization: when you do get response, it would be from folks you agree with. Not fun for folks like me who reliish--no, crave and need--political argument.

Then came the Internet, the blogs--and: problem solved.

I have especially enjoyed having my articles in the Village Voice posted on Free Republic by "dead," and arguing about them here. The only frustration is that I never have enough time--and sometimes no time--to respond as the threads are going on. That is why I arranged for an entire afternoon--this afternoon--to argue on Free Republic. Check out my articles and have at me.

A little background: I am a proud leftist who specializes in writing about conservatives. I have always admired conservatives for their political idealism, acumen, stalwartness, and devotion. I have also admired some of their ideas--especially the commitment to distrusting grand social schemes, and the deep sense of the inherent flaws in human nature. (To my mind the best minds in the liberal tradition have encompassed these ideals, while still maintaining that robust social reform is still possible and desirable. My favorite example is the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, author of the Serenity Prayer and a great liberal Democrat.)

Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.

I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.

Finally, in what I see as the errors of the Iraq campaign, I recognize the worst aspects of arrogant left-wing utopianism: the idea that you can remake a whole society and region through sheer force of will. I think Iraq is a tragic disaster (though for the time being the country is probably better off than it was when Saddam was around--but only, I fear, for the time being).

I am also, by the way, a pretty strong critic of my own side, as can be seen in my latest Village Voice piece.

So: I'm yours for the day--until 7:10 pm CST, when I'm off to compete in my weekly trivia contest at the University of Chicago Pub. Until then: Are you ready to rumble?

Respectfully,
Rick Perlstein

[WOSG]

Thanks for answering... But .... YOU IGNORE THE EVIDENCE I CITE FROM THE 9/11 COMMISION REPORT ... to say "no evidence". it's breathtaking in its head-in-the-sand approach.

"1. Bush weapons inspector David Kay says there is no evidence. "
Kay was looking for WMD, not terror connections. David Kay was *not* a CIA interrogator of AQ. But my question is more specific.

I gave a specific manifest, list of meetings, contacts, and suggested/sourced collaborations. You cant simply say "no evidence" when the evidence is right there! You have to either say "I believe it" or "I dont believe it".

Did Kay say that the offer by Hussein to give Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq not take place? Or was he just ignorant of that data? Or is he claiming that such meetings and such an offer do not constitute a 'link'? And if not, what does 'link' mean then?


"2. The 9/11 Commission says there is no evidence."

No evidence of *what*? they gave *plenty* of evidence pg 61, 66, 128, and more in the footnotes ...

your answer is a 'head in the sands' ignoring of it is an implicit denial of the meetings and contacts that the 9/11 commission report states took place. High level meetings in 1992, 1994-1995, 1996, 1998. And their common interest in setting up Ansar Al-Islam.

The 9/11 Commission report many high-level meetings, like ...
p61: "With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and early 1995."

RP: "The staff report of the 9/11 commission concluded that there was "no credible evidence" that Hussein and al-Qaeda were collaborating."

Wrong!

The direct quote on page 66 of the report is more narrow - no evidence of an "operational collaborative relationship" according to them.

RP: "According to the commission, Bin Laden was hostile to Hussein's secular government and Hussein never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or supplies."

Wrong! Bin Laden was *not* hostile to the Iraq Govt. Read his 1998 Fatwa. Look at the fact that Bin Laden himself met with Iraqi intelligence leaders in 1994, 1995 and 1998.

In his March 1998 Fatwa, Bin Laden allied himself with Saddam's Iraqi regime in the following way:
"On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden published his "Kill the Americans" fatwa. An intriguing feature of this fatwa was its prominent mention of Iraq, not just once, but four times. Analysts at the CIA and elsewhere have long propounded the theory that secular Saddam and religious Osama would not have wanted to work together. But Saddam's secular style seemed to bother bin Laden not a whit.

His fatwa presented three basic complaints. Mainly, he deplored the infidel presence in Saudi Arabia (i.e., the U.S. troops stationed there during and after the Gulf War). He also cited grievances about Jerusalem, while not even bothering to mention the Palestinians by name. The rest of his attention, bin Laden devoted to Iraq and "the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people" as well as "the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance" and--here is the specific reference to U.S.-led sanctions--"the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war." Two paragraphs later, bin Laden picked up this theme again, calling Iraq the "strongest neighboring Arab state" of Saudi Arabia, and then citing Iraq, yet again, as first on a list of four states threatened by America ..."
See:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/436zhuju.asp


Now as for your 'Hussein didnt respond', there is sources who say Hussein did respond to these requests:
p61: "With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and early 1995. Bin Laden is said to ask for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.(55)"

Okay, but in the footnotes, as I said: "they cite CIA memoranda with sources that did claim requests were fulfilled, in particular training requests. The report was that an Iraqi military bomb-making expert and the chief of Iraq's intelligence services met with Bin Laden and trained his group on bomb making techniques in 1996. This piece of intelligence was passed to the US in 1996. "

Now, you write "no evidence" as a reply to a post I made that contained the evidence! We may argue with whether or not this particular piece of evidence actually rings true (I think it does, you might think it does not), yet this was sourced evidence. It was part of the reason that:
"An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999."

Again, say whether or not this is actually true or not, but dont fall on the patently false "no evidence" myth.


RP: "3. Colin Powell says there is no evidence. In January, Colin Powell said there was no "concrete evidence" of a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda."

Wrong again! Please get the full context quote - that was actually an example of media-bias spin trying to get Powell to be more definitive than he was ... no 'smoking gun' does *not* imply that (a) there's not circumstantial evidence and (b) that it didnt exist.

Did Colin Powell say that the offer by Hussein to give Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq not take place? Or was he just ignorant of that data? Or is he claiming that such meetings and such an offer do not constitute a 'link'? And if not, what does 'link' mean then?

"4. The U.N. says there is no evidence." So?

Again... Are they saying the following didnt happen or that stuff like this doesnt 'count':
"Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995."

[TN4Liberty]

I've been at this a while, at least scanning comments. You have it pretty well pegged. Insightful comments from Freepers are ignored, with only some occasional minor point of information being debated in any way.

JimRob says this isn't a debating society for liberals to come and defend their points of view. I think this is why. There really isn't much value in this, and the writer is frankly so far behind the curve on what conservatism is and isn't, that it would take him months to catch up with even a newbie. And even then, only if he wanted to learn.

Tell a lie, throw out an accusation, move on to the next lie. Each evaluation done without regard to the larger context of history. It is what passes for discussion among liberals.

Ah well...

[TN4Liberty]

It's not like liberals want to force OTHERS to get abortions

True, but liberals do want to force OTHERS into being aborted.

[TN4Liberty]

Sorry, improperly addressed post. Please see 883.

[GOP_1900AD]

Check out how anti American PRC expats, PRC immigrants and various other PRC bootlickers are bashing Bush - on a forum run by a guy out of Columbus Ohio. I am not sure of the forum owner's status, US Citizen, permanent resident or on some sort of visa. Anyhow, there has been a steady flow of undermining garbage there ever since 9/11. Yep, that's right, they were already going after Bush even before the war in Iraq, as if by some sort of preexisting plan. I recommend you and others here to witness this for yourselves.

[Drawsing]

Sorry BenLurkin,

I was not referring to your post (which I did not read, but I will later). I was talking about the general idea of dismissing a whole group based on one or two posts.

[fightu4it]

"Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature."

I don't know exactly what time frame you are talking about when you say lately, but in case you didn't grasp it, the whole landscape changed here in the United States on the 11th of September 2001.

On that day, and I believe largely because the previous President did not answer terrorist acts against the United States with swift and decisive retaliation during his administrations, we were bitch slapped by a third rate terrorist organization.

George W. Bush's response to that attack has been excellent, in my estimation.

Your charge about conservatives being more concerned about power over principle doesn't hold water. The President is using his power, our country's power, in a very principled manner. It is not possible, either physically or financially, to secure this entire country against terrorist attack, a fact that must be apparent to you by now. The only real plan of action that will achieve the desired results is to identify the enemy and destroy him where ever you find him.

We are at war and the time for you to decide who's side you are on has passed. You surely are not suggesting that the strongest country that has ever existed on this planet, cave into a handfull of terrorists?

The fact that we are even having a public conversation about what needs to be done, only serves to highlight the extent to which Godless, liberal, muticulturalism has already destroyed the American culture.

[valkyrieanne]

True, but liberals do want to force OTHERS into being aborted.

Yes, the unborn child has no "choice" in the matter at all.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Anyone wanting to follow up can write me at rperlstein@villagevoice.com. I'll be back when FR has a thread about my article on the Republican convention, but probably won't be able to spend five hours doing nothing else!

Thanks, it's been fun.



833 posted on 08/03/2004 5:19:57 PM PDT by Perlstein


MoJo? Dare ya! Copy your whole WONDERFUL post to an email, then when you get your reply, post it here.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thanks for the ping, dead.

Rick Perlstein,

Finally, in what I see as the errors of the Iraq campaign, I recognize the worst aspects of arrogant left-wing utopianism: the idea that you can remake a whole society and region through sheer force of will. I think Iraq is a tragic disaster (though for the time being the country is probably better off than it was when Saddam was around--but only, I fear, for the time being).

What I find flagrantly irresponsible and even dangerous in a time of war, is the arrogant demagoguery of the Left. They don't mind spreading and perpetuating the same factual errors that they claim this war was based on.

The Left's contention that the war in Iraq was fought because of GW's Saudi connections and his desire for oil are not only a lie, but a premeditated and well orchestrated campaign to derail the war efforts, weaken the Bush presidency, and defeat him in the next election.

The Saudis were totally against the war as most of the Middle Eastern dictators were, since a neighboring democracy is the last thing they want to see.

[Porterville]

The fact that he pulls convenient quotes and historical tid bits without recognizing the context in which he is using it smacks of socialism. It is classic for socialist and social re constructionist or structuralist, to began their assault on American virtue at the very base of institutions. In this case he is quoting James Madison to further his socialist agenda which is the antipathy of capitalism.

By using James Madison who along with Jefferson pushed for agrarian economics and less on commerce, he is co-oping American heroes into his corner in order to further social agendas developed by Marx during the 19th century.

Furthermore, since Madison is pop culture and an American icon, these socialist using a strategy based on the Italian philosophy of Antonio Gramsci which is to infiltrate the institutions of America and control them from within to weaken the base. After the base is sufficiently weakened the socialist take the nation by the leash into red waters.

Un American? It is only un American to not know your enemies... know what they are doing before they do it; this guy is using philosophical arguments from the Revolutionary war to undermine are nation. Why not philosophies from Barny Frank or Hillary Clinton? Because it doesn't quite have the ring of Madison or Jefferson; furthermore, historical arguments about the divisions of the founding fathers are legitimate not un American.

[Indy Pendance]

I think Jim is not wanting the vitriol of the usual troll. Give credit where credit is due, this lib didn't throw out the usual insults. He still had no substance, thus, cementing the fact they have no basis for their arguments other than their lose of power and abb (anyone but bush) mantra. Basic simple questions about what constitutes a liberal were not answered.

[BJungNan]

The point is that politics in the "heartland" is more complicated than 30-word leads can reveal.

I did not ask you to give me everything about politics in the heartland in a 30-word lead. I will presume you misunderstood my question.

A lead tells the reader what the article is going to be about - I realize you know this. What I was asking you to do is write a 30-word lead as if you were writing a newspaper article that will explain the point you intend to get across in your article.

Or if you prefer, use standard essay format. You know, English 101. Controlling idea and all that.

I'm not trying to be rude or hostile to you.

[Southack]

"Budget cuts for veterans. Everyone who follows politics knows that there is huge argument over what constitutes a "budget cut"; both parties play the game of calling shortchanging increases cuts. Dismiss my use of it if you wish. But my favorite invocation of the SPIRIT of the Bush veterans budget comes from..."

I'm not dismissing it, and I'm fine with you using it (not that you need my permission), but I would hope that you would want your readers to be as informed as possible (one presumes that you aren't simply trying to con them).

To be that informed, it might help if you said "spirit of budget cuts" or "cuts in projected budget increases" instead of "budget cuts"...the latter term being so easily misinterpreted as an actual *reduction* in money for veterans, something that is incontrovertibly not the case.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[cake_crumb]

"It's amazing to me how unshakable people are in their political/ideological beliefs. It's like it's hardwired after a certain age."

I dunno...I had a lot of liberal ideas when I was young. The Carter administration was either shock therapy or the programming hadn't took..or I just wasn't liberal enought to begin with.

I must say I've never experienced a stranger debate though. Here we had a "proud leftist" who claims not to like Kerry, trying to use debunked rumors and half truths against Bush to convince us Kerry's the better man for the job, while simultaneously claiming we've become shallow, powermad whining, Bush zealots.

In fact, I learned nothing to convince me Kerry's the better man for any job, let alone leader of the free world, never discovered in what way we've morphed into powermad Boshbots, nor got an answer to my question asking in what way we're shallow or whiners.

I didn't even learn any new DNC talking points. I was reminded of every one of Mr. Perlstein's talking points at the DemCon.

[Porterville]

Gramsci

The Liberal God!!!

Know What Philosophy The Liberals Are Using To Enact Marxism.

[Turbo Pig]

Virtually every delegate interiewed admitted they cared more about regaining power than espousing their principles in this election.

Exactly, what 80-90% of the delgates polled said they didn't favor the war, yet they nominated not one, but two candidates that voted for it. They say that the bush admin commited "war-crimes" and "atrocities", yet they nominate a person who admitted to committing them. They decry Bush's ties with business, and nominate two people of untold wealth, that made their money through either marriage, or suing people. The delegates didn't agree with Kerry in large numbers on any of the issues, except "we hate Bush". The delegates at the DNC convention wanted Dean, but they knew he couldn't win. They chose the horse they think can win. Very principled.

[Osage Orange]

Mr Perlstein...since I've no idea who you are, and have never read anything that you've written..I will sit the pine on this one.

[VRWC_minion]

So, if you like means testing then you should love what Bush did with Veterans.

[Soaring Feather]

You go girl!! Good job.