Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

When The Playing Field Is Skewed To The Right: Part Two

by tristero

The comments to my post on Goldberg’s cynical partisan query were mucho thought-provoking. Just a few clarifying thoughts:

1. Goldberg’s formulation – which is becoming a right wing blather point and makes it worthwhile to examine – conflates two entirely unrelated ideas. It’s a false dichotomy – either the US must torture or we are not serious about keeping ourselves safe. It’s also a bait and switch. Liberals will immediately seize upon the mention of Geneva as an invitation to affirm their committment to human rights. At which point the right easily trumps that because that’s not the topic theyv’e chosen – repeat, they’ve chosen – to discuss. The real subject under discussion is keeping the country safe: Human rights conventions do not require a country committing suicide if that’s what it takes to uphold them.

My point is that there is no reason to fall for this bait and switch. These are two separate issues, for one thing. Nothing helpful is learned by trying to discuss both together. I’m sure someone can tweeze a small association between any two topics, but there’s no serious insight to be gained unless there is a genuinely significant one. And once again, there simply is no positive association between government torture and the safety of the citizens of that government. On the contrary, torture seems to make many country’s citizens less safe, especially from abuses by their own government.

2. As an American citizen, I naturally, and strongly, believe this government has a solemn obligation to protect me, my family, my neighbors, and my fellow citizens. That is a self-evident responsibility.* It is vital that serious thought, not Bush-league bloviations, be given to the importance of protecting this country’s citizens abroad. This is a very important topic (and I don’t need people the caliber of Jonah Goldberg to tell me so). More “humint” inside the rightwing militia movement, inside North Korea, inside the Middle East – those are serious important discussions to elaborate on.

3. I am utterly opposed to the use of torture under any and all circumstances. I support the Geneva conventions and believe that all American politicians should proudly say so. The hypotheticals such as the ticking bomb scenario are just tv show plots, and cheap ones. The real world doesn’t act that like that. The mindset that assigns serious importance to such hypotheticals is all of a piece with the kind of mentality that thinks, “Hmmm, invading Iraq just might lead to flowers, cakewalks, and democracy.” Back here on planet Normal, we know better.

But Jonah’s question did not address Geneva and to respond to that deliberately placed distraction is to make a spectacular rhetorical error. It was a question about government’s responsiblity to protect American citizens. The mention of Geneva was a red herring. Of all the sub-topics subsumed under the topic of keeping Americans safe, re-examining human rights as a way to us safer is among the least direct and least helpful. A competent computer database at FBI and CIA and a thorough re-examination of American policy priorities are serious concerns. Permitting the use of torture is not; it will make no one safer and will almost certainly lead to more Daniel Pearls.

That Goldberg would conflate the two concerns is prima facie evidence of his intellectual incompetence. That he would pose a discussion about security in such a fashion demonstrates that he understands nothing about the seriousness of the issues involved, or has any insight in how to grapple with them.

4. It’s true, I am often not terribly good at speaking TeeVee – ie, short bites. Anyone care to make these points in a succinct fashion?

5. In re: Lakoff. I’m not a Lakoffian for many, many reasons. But that doesn’t mean I discount rhetoric. On the contrary, it is crucially important that Dems and liberals get their act together. They need to understand what people like Goldberg, et al, are actually saying – as well as why they are saying it and whom – if they are going to be effective in devising a strategy to fight them. I know, I know, they’re saying nothing. But the way they are saying nothing – that plus some creative ballot counting has helped lead this country into an early form of American fascism. It behooves us to listen very, very carefully and never unwittingly accept their framing of any issue. Never.

6. The Hero who dunnt speak much but speaks the truth, as opposed to the slick-talkin’ hair-splitters is an ancient Western myth, going back at least to Moses and Aaron. But it is a myth.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know: Lincoln and Paine. Don’t kid yourselves. They knew the rhetoric of the English language as thoroughly as my daughter knows all the diifferent Pokemon. ‘Tis a gift to be simple, it’s true. But most of us ain’t LIncoln. So if you don’t work hard at being simple, you’ll more likely end up a fool. Or, at the very least, talk like one.

——–
*The present government has done a spectacularly bad job of making us safe. My city suffered a horrible attack. Many of my friends had co-workers and neighbors who died a horrible death. In part because Bush in the nine months prior to 9/11 had shifted focus from al Qaeda to his obession with Saddam. And I needn’t mention Katrina or Bush’s dismissal of global warming. Or Iraq.

When The Playing Field Is Skewed To The Right.

by tristero.

Folks, if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a zillion times. Never argue on the right’s playing field. Ever. It’s a setup and you will lose. That’s ’cause the questions as they pose them are defined so narrowly and foolishly, they preclude anything resembling what a liberal means by rational discourse. In the post linked above, Jonah Goldberg emits:

If Democrats want terrorists to fall under the Geneva Convention let them say so. My guess is most won’t, if they’re smart.

And Kevin falls for it:

Well, I’m a Democrat, and I’ll say it: anyone we capture on a battlefield should be subject to the minimum standards of decency outlined in the Geneva Conventions. That includes terrorists.

Wrong, wrong wrong!

Like, “So, would you rather Saddam stay in power?” this is a framing of the issue that provides for not even the hint of an intellectually coherent response, let alone a “dialogue.” It is designed to elicit the narrowest range of acceptable responses, responses that reduce disagreement with Bushism to a quibble.

And if, without thinking, you take the bait and respond as Kevin has, you’re instantly battling uphill:

– – – – – – –

What is all this preposterous liberal hand-wringing about rights for terrorists? They’re beheading our soldiers! They are evil! And there you are, worried sick about their rights. And look, the world thinks we’re barbarians anyway, anti-Americanism predates anti-Bushism, duh. And let’s not forget the big picture here: The important issue is not to demonstrate we’re not barbarians but to defeat the terrorists before they kill us. The rest is detail.

– – – – – – –

So, should you ignore Goldberg? Compared to falling through the rabbit hole into Wingnutland, that would be a very wise idea. But you don’t have to ignore OR play along with Goldberg’s bizarro rhetorical gotcha. Here’s how I think liberals could respond to the latest rightwing version of “how long have you been beating your wife:”

– – – – – –

Jonah Goldberg is indulging in political games when he knows full well that the lives of millions of Americans working abroad, including soldiers who are fighting a war he supports but refuses to fight, are being endangered by the arrogant refusal of the Bush administration to set an example of principled action in the world. By embracing an official policy that embraces torture and murder, Bush (and enablers like Goldberg) are ensuring that what happened to Daniel Pearl will happen to more and more Americans. But the effect of this egregious flouting of bedrock principles going back thousands of years will transcend even the numerous terrible personal tragedies that are sure to come. As it becomes more dangerous for Americans to travel, trade will suffer and the security of our country will suffer precipitous declines.

Instead helping to create an atmosphere for genuine inquiry and dialogue, with recourse to facts and intelligent give and take, all Goldberg offers is one more opportunity to toss around the same old vacuous smears the right has been peddling for 30 plus years against the rest of America’s politicians, including those who are quite willing to fight wars Goldberg and company don’t have the guts to fight themselves. If Goldberg were prepared to discuss these very serious issues with any seriousness, he never would have proposed doing with such constricted, partisan language. And until he is prepared to be serious, I see no reason to enter his farcical rhetorical world.

– – – – – – – –

Is what I’m suggesting here clear qua style of approach?

I’m suggesting a majorly aggressive effort to ensure the issues are discussed properly – on mutual terms, or our terms, but never solely theirs. By contrast, Kevin, without apparently realizing it, addressed with due seriousness a ludicrously false dichotomy stemming from a worthless – no, a totally non-existent correlation. By doing so, the true issues were obscured, hopelessly obscured. And why? For one purpose only: Partisan gain on the part of Republican operatives, to get Kevin to admit he “cares more about the human rights of killers than keeping America safe.” And Goldberg’s not alone; Dems being nice-nice to terrorist is is the rightwing meme du jour. Even on the surface, it’s really a pretty pathetic one, nevertheless it’s important to understand what their rhetorical strategy is hiding. A few observations:

Goldberg’s framed the issue so that “permitting” so-called terrorists to “fall under the Geneva Conventions” becomes an either/or dichotomy, conflicting with America’s desire to do what it takes to be safe. Does the US government have any responsiblity to place human rights above the safety of the country? THAT is the question Goldberg is posing.

And that question is not in any real sense a useful question in the world of real people, as opposed to television action shows. First of all, there simply is no positive correlation – there is not even a logical association – between an increase in human rights violations and an increase in genuine national security. Yet that is what Goldberg is inviting us to discuss as if it were a serious topic.

At the very least, we’re arguing at the level of 12 grade high school moral dilemmas. At the worst, we are majorly wasting time. That’s because this completely false correlation makes it next to impossible to discuss in a rational way the important matter at the center of it all: What will it take, both in the long and the short-run, to protect American citizens and interests abroad and at home?

When it’s put that way, all sorts of important sub-topics are raised which Goldberg’s formulation dangerously sweeps aside as the subject veers off to Geneva, Gitmo, and gulags in Georgia. How do we increase the number of native Arabic speakers in CIA and FBI? How can the US muster the moral will to undertake a long-overdue and comprehensive examination of the efficacy both of military force against radical Islamist terrorism and of numerous long-held assumptions of American foreign policy?

That’s just a few, of course. As for the Geneva Convention in the 21st century, that, too is a vitally important issue. But it is a completely separate one. And the only way to discuss Geneva is by addressing it as carefully as one addresses all the other issues one confronts and not by frivolous linkages.

Only an incompetent, willfully dishonest fool would characterize the world as some kind of hydryaulic system where the more you torture, the safer you are. But that is the worldview that Goldberg’s eagerly proposes that Democrats respond to. There is no purchase to be had by a response on Goldberg’s terms as they are skewed and unserious.

Repeat: It’s a real mistake to give Goldberg the status of one who ought to be engaged. That’s how Perle and Wolfowitz sold the idiocy of preventive invasion and conquest of a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and was no more involved in terrorism against Americans than Canada was. Let’s not again make the mistake of giving foolishness a status it simply doesn’t deserve.

Fourth Of July Firecracker

by digby

I’ve been trying to think of an inspirational Fourth of July post and I’m coming up blank. I have written on previous holidays that it’s always been my favorite — partially because I like summer and it’s a holiday with its own music and fireworks and peach pie. And in my experience it was always pretty uncontroversially happy. I don’t feel that way this year, for many reasons, not the least of which is the weighty knowledge that my fellow Americans are still dying and being grievously wounded in Iraq — and nobody can adequately explain to anyone why they or many thousands of Iraqis had to make that sacrifice.

I spent some time recently in the naval hospital in San Diego. It’s not easy. What used to be a hospital full of old men, veterans of wars long past, is now a hospital full of young men and women, horribly wounded. Most of them will tell you that they gladly made the sacrifice and you cannot blame them. It is a terrible psychological burden to believe that your country would ask you to do such a thing without good reason.

I find it a little more difficult to understand why politicians are so stubbornly cavalier about it. Not all, of course. You have that tough old ex-marine John Murtha, who looks at the sacrifice and it makes him sick with regret. And there are others, but too few, who can see that the red haze of post 9/11 fear and bloodlust (if not their own craven political ambitions) led them astray. But most are like president Bush. They simply cannot admit they made a mistake. (When did our leadership become so weak?)

Perhaps you have already seen this video of still shots wounded soldiers of the Iraq war. It’s painful to watch, but maybe this July we need a little pain with our pie to remind us of the stakes in all this. Maybe Joe Lieberman could take a look at it and finally explain to us in simple straightforward terms why these men and women have had to pay the awful price they’ve had to pay.

“I am the living death, a Memorial Day on wheels. I am your Yankee Doodle Dandy, your John Wayne come home, your Fourth of July firecracker exploding in the grave.” – Ron Kovic

.

Who Your Friends Are

by digby

I have not been able to post much about this latest rightwing fatwah against the news media, but I can’t help but wonder how those who have been so agitated by the angry leftist blog readers who write nasty emails calling for reporters to be fired for incompetence feel now that they are being subject to public accusations of treason and calls for their executions? I don’t think that even in the depths of the Judith Miller WMD scandal that anyone on the left suggested that the press were literally traitors to America — we directed our fire at the White House that consciously lied to the media and strong-armed it into supporting the Iraq war despite obvious holes in its arguments. At worst, I believe that most lefties saw the press as being passive purveyors of government propaganda — not exactly a profile in courage, but hardly the stuff of treason.

Neither do I recall such hysteria in all the years the media pummeled the Clintons mercilessly with the vilest innuendo and gossip. It never occurred to me, or anyone else I can think of, to suggest that the press should be held criminally liable. Even the Plame affair, which was also a national security issue, did not engender a wholesale attack on the freedom of the press. The criticism generally was focused on the cozy relationship between extremely powerful government actors and certain reporters. I don’t recall any calls to try the Chicago Sun-Times for treason because they allowed Robert Novak to print Valerie Plame’s name. (There may have been some on blogs or among some blog commenters — but certainly there was no calls among nationally known liberal voices for such a thing.)

Atrios linked to this great Tom Tomorrow strip that perfectly illustrates my confusion about the media’s ongoing passivity toward these rightwing attacks even as they screech madly about the emerging “angry left.” Just last week there was a huge hue and cry among the New Republic crew about “blogofascism” —- directed at leftwing bloggers who angrily criticize media coverage and correspond with one another on an email list. Meanwhile, you had rightwing bloggers, talk show hosts, mainstream pundits and powerful elected leaders in coordinated fashion openly calling for the editors of major newspapers to be tried for treason — and in some cases calling for their execution.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of the mainstreaming of rightwing eliminationist rhetoric. And yet, oddly, we see lefty bloggers being called fascists and used as the poster boys and girls for rhetorical violence by mainstream media — not because we are calling the press treasonous, but because we are criticizing their professionalism. How can this be?

It seems like only yesterday that the right was having a full on bill-of-rights moment when those Danish cartoons were published. No matter how many riots they might incite or how many people died because of them, the right of the press to publish was inviolable. As Michelle Malkin, staunch defender of the First Amendment so pithily put it:

First, they came for the cartoonists. Then, they came for the filmmakers and talk show hosts and namers of evil. Next, who knows?

Next, the New York Times, obviously.

As a civil libertarian and free speech absolutist, I was sympathetic to the argument that the press had every right to publish those cartoons, although I wondered why printing them was considered important for any reason other than the principle which allowed the media to do it. Unlike the recent stories revealing that the US government has been operating secret programs that fail to comply with the constitution and which represent an unprecedented executive power grab, the cartoons seemed a rather peurile test of freedom of the press. But even if I believed that it was terribly irresponsible and wrong on every level, I would never argue that because the cartoons inflamed the Muslim population that those who printed them should be tried for treason, despite the fact that a decent argument can be made that such inflammatory provocation was far more detrimental to our side in the alleged War On Terror than the recent revelations that the American government was doing illegally what everyone already assumed it was doing legally.

Freedom of the press is freedom of the press and with the exception of certain narrow categories, it is not illegal to publish classified information. The reason is that history shows that prior constraint leads to tyranny. Period.

When the framers were hashing out all this stuff during the conventions, it’s important to note that the arguments that existed about the necessity for a free press centered around whether the constitution needed to explicitly provide for it (which it eventually did) or whether it was so self-evident that the government had no power to regulate it, that it shouldn’t even be addressed. Nobody ever argued that the government could constrain the press’s right to publish (although President John Adams certainly gave it a good old fashioned try not long after.) In fact, it was considered the single most important check on the awesome power of government — which is why civil libertarians like me have been so critical of the press’s behavior in recent years.

It is worth remembering that this nation’s security was a lot more fragile in those early days than it is now. How much braver the defenders of liberty were then when these principles were so important and so meaningful that they were actually willing to die rather than allow themselves to live under tyranny. Today, those who style themselves as uber-patriots cavalierly throw these principles aside in favor of cheap, short term partisan politics.

Considering what has been happening I think it might be important for the media to evaluate who their friends really are — the liberal “blogofascists” who complain bitterly when the press reflexively accepts the conservative narratives that portray us as knaves ands fools, or the well financed rightwing operatives and powerful government officials who call for their imprisonment and deaths? It pays to remember that while this assault on the press is clearly a ginned up base rattling psuedo-issue, it is deadly serious in other ways. It’s designed to intimidate and the political press has a very dicey recent history in that regard. Aren’t they getting tired of being strong-armed?

If they behave as they did this week-end when dealing with that hypocritical blowhard William Bennet, then they will have a supporter in me, and I suspect most of the left, no matter who is running the government. We supported Daniel Elsberg, after all, when the Pentagon Papers indicted the Democrats. I have never seen a similar example on the right. We actually believe in the liberal values that undergird the press’s rights and responsibilities. If anyone is slouching toward fascism it’s those who betray those liberal values in favor of Republican authoritarianism.

.

He Couldn’t Possibly Be A Republican

by tristero

For all the obvious reasons:

Doctors have their first proof that a man who was barely conscious for nearly 20 years regained speech and movement because his brain spontaneously rewired itself by growing tiny new nerve connections to replace the ones sheared apart in a car crash…

And then there’s this:

“He still thinks Ronald Reagan is president,” his father, Jerry, said in a statement

My God, imagine the horror of waking up after nearly 20 years of coma and learning that an even worse president than Reagan is wrecking the country…The mind boggles.

Happy Fourth, everyone.

America’s Funniest Home Video

by tristero

Must-see video entertainment from none other than Jane Galt Pamela of Atlas Shrugs [got my Randians, mixed up, sorry]. My favorite moment: when she calls Bill Keller “shrill.”

Via Glenn Greenwald

Who Needs The Rank and File Anyway?

by digby

If you missed Senator Holy Joe on CNN yesterday, you missed an amazing interview. John Amato has the vid here and it’s a doozy.

Basically, Joe says that Democrats who will turn out for the primary are unrepresentative riff-raff who shouldn’t be allowed to decide who the nominee for the Democratic party should be. (Unless, of course, it’s him.) He apparently thinks that the “important” voters might not come out in August so it’s entirely possible that the person who is chosen could be the wrong sort, chosen by people who really shouldn’t be doing the choosing, if you know what I mean.

If he loses, he says repeatedly that he considers himself to be running as an “Independent Democrat” whose status within the party will be unaffected by the fact that the Democratic party of Connecticut rejected him — which means he’s either already got the backing of the DC leadership or he’s fully planning to put them on the spot and force them to choose. (Whether or not he can claim to be an “Independent Democrat” on the ballot is beside the point — he has 100% name recognition)

He’s clearly not leaving the party if he loses this primary. Indeed, what he is doing may be the worst of all possible worlds, allowing him to claim he is a Democrat and continue to taint the whole party with the have-it-both-ways, “don’t make trouble” useful idiocy that’s killing us — and yet allow him to split with the party on any issue he thinks will benefit him personally and excuse it by saying he’s not really a Democrat. Harry Reid has been screwed by Joe Lieberman more than once. If he supports this jack-ass move, he’s a fool. Lieberman, the “independent Democrat,” will make his life a living hell if he gets away with this.

This is a terrible insult to the Democratic party in Connecticut and they should all be extremely pissed off that their senator holds them in such contempt. And grassroots Democrats everywhere should also be insulted that their national leadership — with the notable exception of Hillary Clinton — has not already taken a stand in support of whomever Democratic voters choose in their primaries.

I’m seriously beginning to wonder if that story in the New York Times from some time back is coming to pass — certain establishment Democrats really do prefer to lose in November. They are backing a guy to the hilt who goes on national television and insults Democratic voters to their faces. What an excellent strategy to depress the base in an election that depends upon turnout.

.

Senator Lieberman, You’re No Benedict Arnold.

by poputonian

In making fun of Joe Lieberman, Steve Gilliard and Christy Hardin Smith have each taken recent swipes at Benedict Arnold. The only problem is, Lieberman was never a hero, Benedict Arnold was. Plus, Arnold was a victim of Congressional mismanagement; Lieberman is Congressional mismanagement.

To understand the historical root of what alienated Benedict Arnold from America, there are a couple of key points to make. First, remember how the Founders insisted that an army always be placed under civilian control? Well, they were serious about that, and as a result, George Washington was not permitted to promote his own officers; only Congress could do so. Otherwise, Washington might promote people loyal to him and thus build up hierarchical control over the army. The Founders, literally, were afraid of a military coup.

The second point to make is, if high ranking military promotions were only made by Congress, and not by the Commander in Chief, how on earth would they know who should be promoted? They wouldn’t, which is where the problem comes in. Congress had to rely on irrelevant criteria, such as patronage and cronyism as a means of determining promotions, and, as you would expect, they fucked it up … bad. In other words, the higher ranking officer positions, which were the status positions of the day, were just as likely to go to someone with political connections as someone who exhibited battlefield merit. That’s problematic when you’re trying to stand ground against the most powerful military force on the planet.

Here is a fascinating dialog that begins with a letter Washington wrote to Benedict Arnold in March of 1777:

We have lately had several promotions to the rank of Major General, and I am at a loss whether you have had a preceding appointment, as the newspapers announce, or whether you have been omitted through some mistake. Should the latter be the case, I beg you will not take any hasty steps in consequence of it, but allow proper time for recollection, which, I flatter myself, will remedy any error that may have been made. My endeavors to that end shall not be wanting.

Washington then writes to Richard Henry Lee in Congress:

I am anxious to know whether General Arnold’s non-promotion was owing to accident or design, and the cause of it. Surely a more active, a more spirited, and sensible officer fills no department in your army. Not seeing him then in the list of Major Generals, and no mention made of him, has given me uneasiness, as it is not to be presumed that he will continue in service under such a slight. I imagine you will lose two or three other very good officers by promoting younger ones over them. My anxiety to be informed of the reason of Arnold’s non-promotion gives you the trouble of this letter.

Arnold replies to Washington:

I am greatly obliged to Your Excellency for interesting yourself so much in my behalf in respect to my appointment, which I have had no advice of, and know not by what means it was announced in the papers. I believe none but the printer has a mistake to rectify. Congress has doubtless a right of promoting those who from their ability they esteem most deserving. Their promoting junior officers to the rank of Major General, I view as a very simple way of requesting my resignation as unqualified for the office I hold … My commission was conferred unsolicited, received with pleasure only as a means of serving my country … When I entered the service … my character was unimpeached. I have sacrificed my interest, ease, and happiness in her cause …

Arnold goes on to more or less resign from the Army, but at the same time requests a public inquiry to clear his name. He also tells Washington he will postpone his departure until no risk to the public would result from his leaving. Washington responds:

It is needless for me to say much upon a subject, which must undoubtedly give you a good deal of uneasiness. I confess I was surprised when I did not see your name in the list of Major Generals, and was so fully of opinion that there were some mistake in the matter, that I (as you may recollect) desired you not to take any hasty step before the intention of Congress was fully known. The point does not now admit of the doubt and is of so delicate a nature that I will not even undertake to advise; your own feelings must be your guide.

As no particular charge is alleged against you, I do not see upon what ground you can demand a court of inquiry. Besides, public bodies are not amenable for their actions. They place and displace at pleasure, and all the satisfaction that an individual can obtain when he is overlooked is, if innocent, a consciousness that he has not deserved such treatment for his honest exertions.

Your determination not to quit your present command while any danger to the public might ensue from your leaving it, deserves my thanks and justly entitles you to the thanks of your country.

General Green who has lately been at Philadelphia took occasion to inquire upon what principal the Congress proceeded in their late promotion of General officers. He was informed that the members from each state seemed to insist upon having a proportion of General officers adequate to the number of men which they furnish, and that as Connecticut had already two Majors General, it was their full share.

I confess this is a strange mode of reasoning, but it may serve to show you that the promotion which was due to you was not overlooked for want of merit in you.

By the time Arnold and Washington are exchanging these letters, Arnold’s heroics were unprecedented. He took Ft. Ticonderoga back from the British; he led 1,000 men across the Maine wilderness to storm the walls of Quebec, where he was shot; the British Federal Register, written at the time of the Revolution, called the Maine march the most remarkable feat of its kind; unprecedented in history; Arnold built a fleet of ships (ok boats) to take on the British fleet at Valcour Island, which forestalled the British incursion into upstate New York and probably avoided certain defeat for America.

To get a better sense of Arnold’s heroics, I recommend viewing this brief trailer of an upcoming documentary that will begin to redeem the man Washington called his Fighting General. The trailer says Benedict Arnold was, at the time, Liberty’s greatest champion.

Happy Independence Day.
.

Petitioning Democrat

by digby

Is it not perfectly appropriate for Joe Lieberman to announce on the fourth of July week-end that if he loses his primary he’s going to run as “petitioning Democrat” anyway? He’s always shown such reverence for the rules — as when he backed the republicans counting blatantly phony military ballots in the Flrida recount, so that nobody could ever accuse him of not being patriotic. He’s quite the hero when it comes to this stuff.

Here’s the play. It’s obvious that Lieberman’s going to play a little game of semantics, which I suspect has been worked out with Chuck Schumer in advance. He’s not actually leaving the party, you see. He’s just going to be running as an independent Democrat rather than, you know, one of those doctrinaire Democrats who are being forced upon the voters by the blogofascists.

Remember this?

Schumer said that the DSCC “fully supports” Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary bid, and he refused to rule out continuing that support if Lieberman were to run as an independent.

There were degrees of independence, Schumer said. “You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader.”

Lieberman was quoted yesterday saying:

“I’d organize with the Democrats if I’m fortunate enough to win,” he said. “I’d remain a Democrat.”

So, you see, Lieberman isn’t actually leaving the party. He’s just decided that he needn’t answer to rank and file Democrats who vote in primaries. They do not know what a “real Democrat” is and they cannot be trusted to choose who they wish to represent the Democratic party in the fall election. Therefore, smarter people, like Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer, have to step in and tell them what’s good for them. Surely, you can understand that. After all, Joe and Chuck have been leading us successfully to victory lo these many years. We should not question their wisdom.

On this fourth of July week-end, Joe Lieberman wants you all to remember that democracy has its limits.

God bless America.

.

Fundamentals of Invasion (from a Codpiece original) By poputonian In January of 1777, the handsome and flamboyant John Burgoyne placed a wager at the posh Brooks Club on St. James Street in London. He bet Charles Fox fifty guineas that he would be home by Christmas, victorious over the Americans. Earlier Burgoyne had presented a plan to the King titled “Thoughts For Conducting The War From The Side Of Canada.” Through this plan, Burgoyne won himself command of the Army and it was up to him to lead the British invasion south from Canada “to get possession of Albany and open the communication to New York. Once he held Albany, British General William Howe, who had captured New York City a few months earlier, could come up the Hudson River “with his whole force, forming a junction of the two armies.” This would give Great Britain control of the Hudson River allowing them to sever the supply lines between New England and the Southern states, thus ending the American rebellion. No one knows for sure if Burgoyne really said, “Fuck George Washington, we’re taking him out,” but the written plan did contain a caveat from Burgoyne that his own “personal interest and fame … depend on a timely set out” from Canada.Oh man.So in June, several thousand British soldiers set off to crush the American rebellion. More than a thousand assorted others, including three hundred women and children, lagged behind the British army. The baggage carts alone stretched for three miles, including thirty carts for Burgoyne’s personal belongings. Never bashful for a good time, always cultivating his own popularity, Burgoyne would treat officers and wives to formal dinners with linen table coverings, china, and silverware. He reveled in the gambling and card games. Frederika von Riedesel, a German Baroness and the wife of a mercenary officer in Burgoyne’s army, along with her three young daughters, sailed to America to be with her husband. The Baroness kept a journal and left us this glimpse of the British invader:

“Burgoyne liked having a jolly time and spending half the night singing and dancing and amusing himself in the company of the wife of a commissary, who was his mistress and, like him, loved champagne.

As a man with a plan, Burgoyne was similar to his intellectual descendant, the Codpiece derivative, George W. Bush. In kindred spirit, Burgoyne left George a blueprint to follow, a template that spells out how to win the hearts and minds of the people you’re about to conquer. The blueprint, known to history as Burgoyne’s Proclamation, was distributed by Burgoyne throughout the Lake Champlain region of upstate New York. The proclamation constituted both an appeal and a threat to the Americans. Upon review, it is quite evident that George Bush used this document as his own invasion template. For instructional purposes, I’ve made annotations, but the transcription of the document is verbatim:Fundamental: Be a member of the meritocracy.

BY JOHN BURGOYNE ESQ; Lieutenant General of his Majesty’s Armies in America, Colonel of the Queens Regiment of Light Dragoons, Governor of Fort William in North Britain, one of the Commons of Great-Britain in Parliament, and commanding an Army and Fleet employed on an Expedition from Canada. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Fundamental: Appeal to the Flag Conservatives; claim the constitution.

The forces entrusted to my command are designed to act in concert, and upon a common principle, with the numerous Armies and Fleets which already display in every quarter of America, the power, the justice, and when properly fought, the mercy of the King. The cause in which the British arms are thus exerted applies to the most affecting interests of the human heart; and the military servants of the Crown, at first called forth for the sole purpose of restoring the rights of the Constitution, now combine with love of their Country, and duty to their sovereign, the other extensive incitements which spring from a due sense of the general privileges of mankind.

Fundamental: Accuse the opposition of tyranny and invoke God. Make them oppressors of the common people.

To the eyes and ears of the temperate part of the public, and to the breasts of Suffering Thousands in the provinces, be the melancholy appeal whether the present unnatural rebellion has not been made a foundation for the compleatest [sic] system of Tyranny that ever God in his displeasure suffered for a time to be exercised from a forward and stubborn generation.

Don’t stop there; exactly what are the American rebel leaders (Washington, Adams, Franklin) guilty of?

Arbitrary imprisonment, confiscation of property, persecution and torture, unprecedented in the inquisitions of the Romish church are among the palpable enormities that verify the affirmative. These are inflicted by assemblies and committees who dare to profess themselves friends to Liberty, upon the most quiet subjects, without distinction of age or sex, for the sole crime, often for the sole suspicion, of having adhered in principle to the Government under which they were born, and to which every tie divine and human they owe allegiance. To consummate these shocking proceedings, the profanation of religion is added to the most profligate prostitution of common reason; the consciences of men are set at naught; and multitudes are compelled not only to bear arms, but also to swear subjection to a usurpation they abhor. Animated by these considerations; at the head of troops in the full powers of health, discipline, and valor; determined to strike where necessary, and anxious to spare where possible, I by [this document] invite and exhort all persons, in all places where the progress of this army may point—and by the blessings of God I will extend it far—to maintain such a conduct as may justify me in protecting their lands, habitations, and families. The intention of this address is to hold forth security, not depredation to the country.

Fundamental: Money talks; offer up some coin .. and be the daddy.

To those whom spirit and principle may induce to partake the glorious task of redeeming their Countrymen from dungeons, and re-establishing the blessings of legal government, I offer encouragement and employment; and upon the first intelligence or their associations I will find means to assist their undertakings. The domestic, the industrious, the infirm, and even the timid inhabitants I am desirous to protect provided they remain quietly at their houses, that they do no break up their bridges or roads; nor by any other acts directly or indirectly endeavor to obstruct the operations of the King’s troops, or supply or assist those of the Enemy. Every species of provision brought to my camp will be paid for at an equitable rate and in solid coin.

Fundamental: Invoke God again, and then threaten the Americans with suffering at the hands of the Indians, and stress to the bastards that they are either with you or against you:

With a consciousness of Christianity, my Royal Master’s clemency, and the honor if soldiership, I have dwelt upon this invitation and wished for more persuasive terms to give it impression. And let not people be led to disregard it by considering their distance from the immediate situation of my camp—I have but to give stretch to the Indian forces under my direction, and they amount to thousands, to overtake the hardened enemies of Great-Britain and America, I consider them the same, wherever they may lurk.

Fundamental: Let it be known that God agrees with what you’re doing.

If notwithstanding these endeavors, and sincere inclinations to effect them, the frenzy of hostility should remain, I trust I shall stand acquitted in the eyes of God and men in denouncing and executing the vengeance of the State against the wilfull outcasts—the messengers of justice and of wrath await them in the field; and devastation, famine, and every concomitant horror that a reluctant but indispensable prosecution of military duty must occasion, will bar the way of their return. J. Burgoyne

Give stretch to the Indians he did. Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. writing from Albany to his father, the Governor of Connecticut, described the devastation left in Burgoyne’s wake.

August 6, 1777The Indians have spread great terror by lying in wait, surprising and scalping and other ways inhumanely butchering unhappy stragglers. Some innocent families and individuals have undoubtedly suffered by Tories in the garb of savages, but a great proportion of them who have suffered in their own houses and about their houses have been Tories themselves. This spreads the general panic among that class of animals, who begin to think there is no faith in Master Burgoyne, nor any safety in his protection. Some ’tis said have even been found dead with protection in their hands. Governor Skene has his house ornamented with scalps. Some of our prisoners have been tormented in the most shocking manner; some burnt, others dismembered of their hands, etc.. Their cruelties are too horrid to dwell upon. The scenes of distress with the poor inhabitants flying from their farms and habitations are truly moving. Their crops of wheat and corn are amazing–all destroyed or left; and many of the poor people nothing to subsist upon. The public must supply them provisions.August 11, 1777[Albany] is just falling; if [Burgoyne] makes one more move towards it all is lost. Is it possible our situation is known, or is it not attended to? I am almost inclined to think that a penetration from this quarter and possession of all this part of the country, which will be the case as soon as Burgoyne comes to the city, will be of more serious consequences to the United States than even General Howe’s obtaining the city of Philadelphia with its surrounding country. The consequences of the Indian incursions will be most shocking, if not fatal to the whole. New England has almost lost the idea of such troubles; but, [with New York] gone, they will soon have a most terrible recognition of those horrid scenes.The country about is in a distressed situation; the inhabitants flocking in, leaving their final crops and everything almost behind, but their families and children. Such a scene I never saw. In every corner, Indians mixed with Tories carrying terror or in every quarter almost as low as the city. The next move of the retreating army will bring them around, if not into, town.

A contemporaneous and irreverent American reply to Burgoyne’s Proclamation.