Raimondo vs. Poe -- A Question of Patriotism

RichardPoe.com ^ | February 9, 2003 | Richard Poe

[Richard Poe]

<< Why don't you try restating your criticisms, and call on Justin to rebut them one by one? >>

Maybe you didn't notice. Here are the two questions I asked Justin earlier. I am still waiting for his response.

1. What makes you so sure that Al Qaeda alone -- without any helpers -- is solely responsible for 9-11? You appear to be so sure of this fact that you are willing to bet your nation's very survival on it. The evidence must be extraordinarily compelling. Let's hear it.

2. What makes you so sure that the U.S. government has no reasons of its own for undertaking this war? Why do you assume with apparently 100-percent certainty that our foreign policy is being dictated from Tel Aviv?

I did not formulate these questions lightly. I believe they go right to the heart of the matter. And I trust you will agree that they are "substantive."

[IronJack]

Certainly they are substantive. And I concur that they go to the heart of the matter. You can attribute Justin's silence to whatever motive you choose, but it will remain speculative.

If I might play devil's advocate for a moment, I'll take on the "Nay" side of this argument (against my own stance, by the way).

1. What makes you so sure that Al Qaeda alone -- without any helpers -- is solely responsible for 9-11?

I don't know that anyone has claimed al-Qaida alone is responsible for 9/11. I believe the statement is that no clear link has been established between al-Qaida and Iraq. Should the United States, on the strength of a supposition, break its precedent of eschewing pre-emptive war, or should a large burden of proof be required before we dash that precedent and attack a sovereign nation?

2. What makes you so sure that the U.S. government has no reasons of its own for undertaking this war? Why do you assume with apparently 100-percent certainty that our foreign policy is being dictated from Tel Aviv?

Iraq couldn't touch the United States with any of its ephemeral weapons of mass destruction. The only US ally threatened by Saddam is Israel; all other Middle East nations are sympathetic to the Iraqi dictator or neutral. What reason -- other than oil or Israel -- do we have for intervening in Iraq's affairs? And since Iraq will continue to sell us oil as long as our checks don't bounce, the motive must be our alliance with Israel. Either our aggressiveness is being driven from Tel Aviv or its agents in the United States.

The above opinions are offered in the interest of a thorough discussion. They DO NOT represent the views of this poster!!!!!

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

I agree that the main beneficiaries of an Iraq campaign are going to be Israel and Iran.

Unlike Gulf War One, no one is going to pay us for exposing our boys and girls to bullets and toxins. On the contrary, we are going to pay for the war, pay for bring 'the coalition of the willing' to act as if they are fighting the war with us, for Israel 'agreeing' to let us fight the war (not them), for scores of other beggar nations in the area and, at least in part, for re-building all the stuff we are going to break while at war and for maintaining the country occupied so that there will be some illusion of order in the country.

Meanwhile, both Israel and Iran, mostly Israel, are going to claim that they don't really like us taking care of their old enemy and are going to demand more and more payments and favors from us.

Meanwhile, I heard an interesting statement. Someone observed that all kinds of terrorists have been arrested in Europe since 9/11. They were Saudis, Pakis, Algerian, Egyptian... etc. There were ZERO Iraqis among them.

Does anyone know if any Iraqis have been arrested in relation to 9/11 anywhere?

[Richard Poe]

<< ... no clear link has been established between al-Qaida and Iraq. Should the United States, on the strength of a supposition, break its precedent of eschewing pre-emptive war... >>

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that, at this late date, our government, with all the resources at its disposal, has not figured out everything there is to figure out about 9-11. I'm sure they have.

If they do not let us in on what they know, it is not because they are in the dark -- it is because they feel it is necessary or advisable to keep us in the dark.

In war, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for keeping the masses in the dark about important issues. I remind you of the "Ultra-Secret" of the Enigma Decoder during World War II.

I can only hope and pray that our government is keeping us in the dark today for good and legitimate reasons. Until given good reason to believe otherwise, I will continue to trust our president. What choice do we have? Hillary in 2004?

The fact is, we're both speculating. My speculation is based upon faith, hope and trust -- yours upon cynicism and despair. For both of our sakes, I hope that I am the one who turns out to be right.

<< Either our aggressiveness is being driven from Tel Aviv or its agents in the United States. >>

That is a most interesting analysis. But what real value does it have? Your analysis depends completely on your assumption that you are privy to all the facts. And obviously you aren't, because those who know the facts have not taken you into their confidence.

As the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu put it: "Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know."

If it is so easy to explain why nations go to war, perhaps you could explain to me why the United States entered World War I. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

[Richard Poe]

<< Does anyone know if any Iraqis have been arrested in relation to 9/11 anywhere? >>

If the Iraqis are running false flag operations -- as Laurie Mylroie charges in her book -- then you would not expect Iraqis to be arrested. You would expect the patsies to be arrested.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Big brother knows best eh? Did you believe the fairy tale about 100,000 dead in Kosovo too?

[sargon]

Don't try to obfuscate the issue of the War on Terror/War on Iraq, with your complaints about the Patriot Act.

I am totally against the Orwellian-titled Patriot Act. I believe it's an abomination to the Bill Of Rights.

But that doesn't mean I have to be against the War on Terror in general, or War with Iraq in particular.

People on both sides seem to get caught up in these either-or arguments; in most cases, the real perceptions are (or should be) somewhat more nuanced.

Your antiwar views seem to be based on dogma and reactionary pacifism, rather than on any interest in what the actual foreign dangers to our Republic are.

It's hard to argue that the U.S. has no national interest in seeing the Iraqi regime fall.

Only the President, and maybe Congress, have access to the complete intelligence information.

You need to ask yourself why so many DEMOCRATS are supporting the President against Iraq.

I will defer the the President in this case. If he concludes that there is a clear and present danger, then I am with him.

This situation is to be distinguished from the laughable Kosovo intervention, and such others, in which the US had no compelling interest.

The fascist Patriot Act can go to Hell; and so can Saddam...

[Justin Raimondo]

Please cite your source. If he said that, I disagree with him. Context, however, is everything.

On the other questions coming up in this thread: hey, guys, I went to the gym and now I gotta go to work. Will answer later.

[Justin Raimondo]

Richard, your idea that the Al Qaeda terrorists didn't act alone, or are a "false flag" operation, is not nutty on its face: just the idea that Iraq was involved. There is zero evidence pointing in that direction. But I do indeed think that others had some sort of foreknowledge -- to what extent is difficult to gauge. This is the subject of my forthcoming book, "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection," out from Verso Books on September 11, '03. I think it's an overstatement to say that 9/11 was a "false flag" operation, however.

[IronJack]

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that, at this late date, our government, with all the resources at its disposal, has not figured out everything there is to figure out about 9-11. I'm sure they have.

You ARE a trusting soul!

If they do not let us in on what they know, it is not because they are in the dark -- it is because they feel it is necessary or advisable to keep us in the dark.

See above.

In war, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for keeping the masses in the dark about important issues. I remind you of the "Ultra-Secret" of the Enigma Decoder during World War II.

Why am I getting this disturbing "Mussolini made the trains run on time" feeling? Richard, hopefully you're not naive enough to believe the Father Knows Best argument.

I can only hope and pray that our government is keeping us in the dark today for good and legitimate reasons. Until given good reason to believe otherwise, I will continue to trust our president. What choice do we have?

No, you can do much more than hope and pray. You can maintain a healthy skepticism whenever America commits its sons and daughters to die (and kill) in a foreign land. If all you've got left is hoping and praying, the battle for truth is lost.

The fact is, we're both speculating. My speculation is based upon faith, hope and trust -- yours upon cynicism and despair. For both of our sakes, I hope that I am the one who turns out to be right.

Once again, you've founded an entire argument on "hope." While it may be the "thing with feathers," it doesn't fly here. Your hope that Bush & Co. is doing the right thing is no substitute for empirical proof that we're justified in this war. And you're right: we're both speculating.

That is a most interesting analysis. But what real value does it have? Your analysis depends completely on your assumption that you are privy to all the facts. And obviously you aren't, because those who know the facts have not taken you into their confidence.

And, by your own admission, neither have they you. But my "cynicism" is less frightening than your blind trust in the rightness of a government that has ever proven duplicitous. My ignorance is forced on me; yours seems a willing blindness.

As the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu put it: "Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know."

As I recall, you started the "talk."

If it is so easy to explain why nations go to war, perhaps you could explain to me why the United States entered World War I. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Red herring. Subject for another thread sometime perhaps, but irrelevant to this one.

If the Iraqis are running false flag operations -- as Laurie Mylroie charges in her book -- then you would not expect Iraqis to be arrested. You would expect the patsies to be arrested.

Certainly that is one explanation. Another might be that no Iraqis have been involved. We'll let Occam's Razor decide which is more plausible. It seems logically "convenient" that the absence of something proves it.

[decimon]

That "sue for peace" may have been an exaggeration but not by much.

"Even if our nation is directly attacked by another, justice for those who look askance upon war efforts and levies still requires that the scope of state action be kept within responsible limits. The goal of all state action at such times must be a negotiated peace, so that the burden of destruction and taxes will cease. The state should do its best to put limits and rules on the war, and to outlaw as many weapons of destruction as possible – starting with the worst. Furthermore, so long as the emergency endures, all efforts should be kept voluntary – without conscription, economic controls, or inflation."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard7.html

[Austin Willard Wright]

Well....if you recall many Republicans supported the president on Kosovo (though most didn't)...so the argument doesn't carry much weight as such.

[Unadorned]

Decimon, I was literally incredulous when you first claimed that Rothbard had said that, and was going to post a reply saying I flat out didn't believe it, and demanding a reference. But I just read the link you posted, and it's true. INCREDIBLE, is all I can say! The man is still one of my idols, but .... well .... digesting this will require, shall we say, some more thought, to say the least .... . Thanks for that tidbit.

[Unadorned]

This post by Justin Raimondo comes THAT CLOSE to apologizing for having called Mr. Poe's analysis a tinfoil hat theory. It certainly is conciliatory in word and in tone, and appears to be a sincere attempt to meet Poe half-way. Perhaps this is as far as a man with Raimondo's amount of pride can go toward making an outright apology. I'll take it as the equivalent of one, and I'll imagine in my mind that it has been graciously accepted by Mr. Poe, and consider the two men to have had, let's say, a productive meeting of the minds -- a meeting of the minds, moreover, from which all of us have learned quite a lot.

[decimon]

I think that Rothbard made his contribution as a theoritician and that he blundered when he stepped into practical/political realms. That's not to knock him but to recognize that no person is without flaws.

[jedwardtremlett]

"But why do you say I was "purged" from FrontPage? I thought I resigned."

Why did you resign, if you don't mind my asking? I completely missed that happening.

J

[Kevin Curry]

Justin Raimondo brings a cogent, respectable argument in favor of his stance.

Horse manure.

[Unadorned]

Jedward, does this answer your question?:

http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=84

[IronJack]

Horse manure.

Powerful rebuttal.

[Kevin Curry]

Powerful rebuttal.

Fitting rebuttal. Why debate the merits of an overflowing toilet? Clear it with a plunger, flush it, and move on.

Look at your previous post. In one breath you praise and fawn over Raimondo for his supposedly coherent and well-supported positions. In the next breath you repudiate his conclusions as being wholly wrong. There is a disconnect here, unless you are praising him for his entertainment value only.

Every successful lounge magician in Vegas uses great technique to produce the illusion of substance. Raimondo is an Internet Vegas lounge magician in the world of political commentary. He is not the most famous or accomplished lounge magician in Internet Vegas, but he is hard-working and talented enough to win the applause and tips of the mostly blue and lower-white collar types who attend his show.

On this particular issue and at this particular time (as we prepare to disarm Saddam if he will not disarm himself) Raimondo is more dangerous than a Vegas lounge magician. He is aggressively using his lounge magician's technique to undermine those who must carry out the task. That's his first amendment right. But it will earn nothing from me but contempt and scorn.