Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by 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
Now, that is not nice.
I appreciate that Rick has taken time to get live on this thread. I think it may be a first for a writer with an actual paying gig.
Thanks Rick. And good luck on the trivia game. I used to play them at the bar. Is it the NTN thing?
Hey, NICE of you to come by, takes guts...
Now, please cite specific reports and data that clearly show there was a health hazard to the GENERAL PUBLIC in the area around Ground Zero.
Please be sure to indicate the levels and identification of toxins that were OMITTED from any reports. Also the LD50 levels of any toxins cited and any clinical reports that state the carcinogenic or mutagenic or other harmful physiological actions of those toxins.
Thanks. If you insist on citing "reports" and that the EPA was forced to do such and such...I expect that you have SEEN the actual data of particulate air monitoring in the area and have the statistical timeweighted 8h/day maxima for personal exposure with and without safety gear.
FReegards...
GRRRRRR
You speak for yourself, Taliesan. Sunnyside's pic was both appropriate and timely.
well punctured! well done.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140004
I know there are more articles about this, read it here on FR. Others, please link if you have them.
The only thing we really know is the linked article does not support Perlstein claim and that is the only point I was making (any other points were secondary and unnecessary)
No, it's not. DennisW assumed that, from your surname. Are you, or aren't you?
"Who on FR is aware that the mass graves are over ten years old, by the way?"
Is there a statute of limitations on Genocide and Mass-Murder?
Huh. I had no idea.
Sure his big genocides were ANFAL in 1985-1988 (400,000 Kurds) and 1991 (100,000 kurds and Shia), but
saddam kept killing thousands per year every year in his regime btw.
More on Saddam's mass graves here:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/
go down to "dossier on saddam" on the left side.
What has he contributed to this discussion, to advance the liberal cause, other than linking, or cutting and pasting?
First bathroom break. How many posts behind am I? I'll be at it for another hour and twenty minutes. Always glad to answer individual questions I didn't get to at rperlstein@villagevoice.com.
It WAS!
Do I have me some mojo working?
----- You are aware, of course, that the source for the oil-for-food charges is Ahmed Chalabi, the spy for Iran and convicted bank defrauder, that Bush made his point man in Iraq?
You mistake an important part of the liberal argument. Sanctions DIDN'T work. They didn't hurt Saddam. And not because of oil-for-food. Because sanctions are a terrible instrument for changing an enemy's policy. Do you disagree?
------ Then the left was flat wrong, arguing both sides of the issue just to be a pain in the ass. Do you agree? It was a simple yes or no question Rick, and you cant even come up with an answer without blaming Bush. If conservatives didnt exist, you wouldnt have an opinion on anything, would you?...JFK
consider an alternative viewpoint: turning Iraq into an Al Qaida meat-grinder
you might benefit from studying some basic military principles, such as: siezing the initiative; taking the fight onto the enemy's turf; keeping the fight off of your own turf and away from your own civilians; channelizing the enemy into a killzone... and then KILLING HIM.
I don't know about you, Mr. Perlstein, but when I read of thousands of foreign jihadis making their way into the killbox... and then getting blown to hell... I smile, very contentedly.
That's something you don't know and are therefore making up. The argument that he must raise taxes or bankrupt the word economy is straight out of the 1190 playbook used effectively on his father. In 2001 when he got his first tax cut passed (between China downing the EP3 and the 9/11/01 attacks) I had all sorts of clever people trying to convince me that Bush had raised taxes. When that little bit of associative technique failed, they insisted he WOULD raise taxes....just like his father.
In September 2001 I knew enough to accurately predict the push for would commence almost immediately to pay for war and fend off national bankruptcy. They commenced. <
We'll wait and see what the president does, not prognosticate on what he may or may not do based on what his father did.
"Are you people not aware that Berger was just EXONERATED?"
Really. Tell us what actually happened in the archives, what Berger did and did not do. Give sources.
Last I heard, the 'exonerated' story was refuted by Archives spokesman. I'm open to persuasion, I dont think the whole story has been established one way or 'tother.
When does DON-O not have his mojo going LOL : )
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?
Do tell.
Is that the Brainstormers Team Pub Quiz?
I was doing it myself at a pub here in L.A. last year.
Is the picture round a bitch, or what?
-----
Special University of Chicago DIY trivia. Very nerdy. Anyone in Chicago want to join the team tonight? We're missing a member.
why do I have the hunch you will not be answered on this point?
Saddam and Al Q:
1. Bush weapons inspector David Kay says there is no evidence. David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link "evidence free."
2. The 9/11 Commission says there is no evidence. The staff report of the 9/11 commission concluded that there was "no credible evidence" that Hussein and al-Qaeda were collaborating. 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.
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.
4. The U.N. says there is no evidence. Michael Chandler, The chairman of the Security Council group monitoring sanctions against al-Qaeda said there was "no evidence of a link between the terrorist organization and the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein."
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.