Now this is a hardcore conservative... or maybe not.

[XPav]

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_09_07_corner-archive.asp#013348


Look: I'm willing to defend income inequality, sweat shops, child labor, tax cuts and the like, if the merits are there. I'd privatize everything but the army and maybe four other things if I had my way. In other words, I'm no softy on these issues. But am I the only one in the corner offended by Dick Grasso's 9/11 bonus? I mean at a time when everyone was talking about sacrifice and loss, when we were touting the resumption of our normal lives as a patriotic counter-strike to the terrorist menace, Dick Grasso get's a five million dollar bonus on top of his enormous salary because the stock market re-opened? I despise financial populism of any kind, but this just strikes me as galling.

[Jason McCullough]

The really interesting bit is that the NYSE is a quasi-public institution, begging the question of what the hell is going on in there.

[XPav]

And one last funny conservative for tonight.

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2003/091003e.htm


On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did.

[Midnight Son]

Coulter has no credibility. She's like a caricature of herself.

[Lizard_King]

Coulter has no credibility. She's like a caricature of herself.

Is her rhetoric overblown? Yeah, but she has a fantastic sense of comic timing...her columns never fail to bring a smile to my face. A bitter one, occasionally. Not to mention she's a useful counterbalance...

It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq.

As for NR's corner...I particularly like the follow-up (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_09_07_corner-archive.asp#013354) to the well-look-how-much-hollywood-actors-make argument. Goldberg's tangents are the most solid part of his lineup.

[Midnight Son]

National Review: Fair and Balanced?

[Lizard_King]

National Review: Fair and Balanced?

Shhh...don't let Fox hear you say that.

[Midnight Son]

It would be hilarious if Fox sued NR!!

[chet]

I would argue that we will be keeping our ground troops on in Iraq, spread around the country longer just to protect Halliburton employees. If this was really for the Iraqi people, wouldn't we be "empowering" them to rebuild their own country? They seem to have an awful lot of idle hands.

It really is a comparable situation to the war on drugs and private prisons. The government creating a situation/infrastructure to help private companies.

Halliburton, Wackenhut, they are all the same.

Chet

[Lizard_King]

I would argue that we will be keeping our ground troops on in Iraq, spread around the country longer just to protect Halliburton employees. If this was really for the Iraqi people, wouldn't we be "empowering" them to rebuild their own country? They seem to have an awful lot of idle hands.

That's great. Can you bring some class warfare into it? Perhaps through another non-sequiter....
So can your position best be summed up as "the solution to Iraq is fewer troops and less foreign investment"?


It really is a comparable situation to the war on drugs and private prisons. The government creating a situation/infrastructure to help private companies.

Halliburton, Wackenhut, they are all the same.



Wackenhut: TEH NEW HITLER. I think you should embark on a quest for the Democratic candidacy yourself. Your platform could be "Creating a situation/infrastructure to hinder private companies". I bet it'd be a bigger hit than Algore's "Fuck the rich" approach.


It would be hilarious if Fox sued NR!!
It's only a matter of time til they decide to copyright "conservative".

[chet]

Wow you so eloquently put some words together that maybe had something to do with the thoughts in your head, but do you really think we won't be spending extra days in Iraq because we have chosen to rebuild the infrastructure ourselves?

I can only guess from your response that my point is so obvious, you were being wacky sarcastic.

Chet

[Gav]

Coulter has no credibility. She's like a caricature of herself.

Is her rhetoric overblown? Yeah, but she has a fantastic sense of comic timing...

She's a moron. In this column alone, I find this: "On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did. " Is she trying to imply that Saddam Hussein hit us on 9-11? (because, of course, the Democrats are always wrong)



her columns never fail to bring a smile to my face. A bitter one, occasionally. Not to mention she's a useful counterbalance...

It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq.


It probably also wasn't lost on him when Reagan pulled the marines out of Lebanon. But God forbid that she mention that.

Or her idiotic comment that "I note there was no need for a Marshall plan in Japan." And there was no need for a MacArthur constitution in Germany. Does this even mean anything to a rational human being?

And does she really want to bring up the draft-dodging thing when she's comparing Clinton to President who was AWOL during his stint in the Texas Nat'l Guard?

And is it a good idea to complain about $200 billion annually for the Marshall plan when Bush has just asked for an ADDITIONAL $87 billion for Iraq, and we haven't even been there a year?

I'm going to end this rant now, b/c it's just too irritating to continue.

Gav

[Lizard_King]

Wow you so eloquently put some words together that maybe had something to do with the thoughts in your head, but do you really think we won't be spending extra days in Iraq because we have chosen to rebuild the infrastructure ourselves?

I can only guess from your response that my point is so obvious, you were being wacky sarcastic.


Smooth cover. I can only guess from the considerable weakening of your "point" in the follow up that you are now being wacky regretful.

[Lizard_King]

She's a moron. In this column alone, I find this: "On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did. " Is she trying to imply that Saddam Hussein hit us on 9-11? (because, of course, the Democrats are always wrong)
No, I believe in her own way she is simply connecting the dots between the "We are getting sidelined from the war on terror" approach to Iraq with the equally Democratic "It's all about the greedy corporations".



It probably also wasn't lost on him when Reagan pulled the marines out of Lebanon. But God forbid that she mention that.

An excellent point. Reagan is one of her more flagrant blind spots. I especially like how "that Lewinsky woman" is lying under oath but "I don't recall anything about that pesky Iran-Contra thing" isn't.


Or her idiotic comment that "I note there was no need for a Marshall plan in Japan." And there was no need for a MacArthur constitution in Germany. Does this even mean anything to a rational human being?

Well, yeah. That Japan (handled by the US exclusively) required mostly a structural framework for reconstruction, as opposed to the massive infusion of cash and the structural messes that Germany entailed.


And does she really want to bring up the draft-dodging thing when she's comparing Clinton to President who was AWOL during his stint in the Texas Nat'l Guard?

You've got me. I guess there are different degrees of draft-dodging if you wish hard enough.


And is it a good idea to complain about $200 billion annually for the Marshall plan when Bush has just asked for an ADDITIONAL $87 billion for Iraq, and we haven't even been there a year?

I don't think she was complaining about the cost so much as correlating the relative success of the reconstructions of Germany and Japan. It's not like the occupation of Japan was free, either.

Also, 200b was a lot more money back then.



I'm going to end this rant now, b/c it's just too irritating to continue.


I agree. Deconstructing pundits of any sort is intellectual masturbation of the most frustrating kind.

Like I said, I am amused and occasionally aggravated by her. Not informed.

[Jason McCullough]

Right. Ann Coulter, reasonable! McCarthy got a raw deal!

[Gav]

L_K, long as you don't take her as gospel, I have no quarrel with you about Ann Coulter (obviously, we disagree about just about everything else :-) )



Or her idiotic comment that "I note there was no need for a Marshall plan in Japan." And there was no need for a MacArthur constitution in Germany. Does this even mean anything to a rational human being?

Well, yeah. That Japan (handled by the US exclusively) required mostly a structural framework for reconstruction, as opposed to the massive infusion of cash and the structural messes that Germany entailed.

But it's still essentially meaningless if you know anything about the two regions. Frex, the Marshall Plan covered 16 countries, as opposed to Macarthur's one.


I don't think she was complaining about the cost so much as correlating the relative success of the reconstructions of Germany and Japan. It's not like the occupation of Japan was free, either.

But, as I mentioned above, it's a bizarre comparison. You might as well argue that b/c of Japan's current economic problems the Marshall plan was more successful than MacArthur's reconstruction.

Also, even if she's not complaining about the cost as such, she's just inviting comparison with Bush's Iraq spending. Bush can only hope that he ends up with something as successful as the Marshall plan, and probably at a far greater cost (remember, the Marshall plan was $200 billion annually over 16 countries--Bush is coming close to that annual figure for just one.


Also, 200b was a lot more money back then.

She's using today's dollars for that figure. The cost in 1948 dollars was $13.3 billion over 4 years.


Like I said, I am amused and occasionally aggravated by her. Not informed.
Fair enough. I guess I'm just frustrated by the ninnies I hear on the radio who hang on her every word.

Gav

[Lizard_King]

Right. Ann Coulter, reasonable! McCarthy got a raw deal!

You really want to open that can of worms? Bloody Commie....

Gav: Yeah, you're definitely right in pointing out the glaring inadequacies of her argument. I guess it's a sign of how seriously I take her that I barely even stop to think about what she writes, rather just laugh and move on.

And I think it's a sign that I shouldn't post on an empty stomach when I start considering 200b a reasonable estimate of Marshall Plan funds.

[Midnight Son]

Well, enough about her. How are those moderates Limbaugh and Buchanan doing?

[Desslock]

Right. Ann Coulter, reasonable! McCarthy got a raw deal!

She actually say that?

[quatoria]

Right. Ann Coulter, reasonable! McCarthy got a raw deal!

She actually say that?

She's been devoting an incredible amount of effort the past couple of years to "correcting" McCarthy's image, yeah. Trying to make people "see" that there really was a vast communist conspiracy, that McCarthy was a good and noble patriot, that all of the excesses weren't his fault, and that it's traitor democrats who have sullied his noble image. Freaking insanity.

[Desslock]

Right. Ann Coulter, reasonable! McCarthy got a raw deal!

She actually say that?

She's been devoting an incredible amount of effort the past couple of years to "correcting" McCarthy's image, yeah. Trying to make people "see" that there really was a vast communist conspiracy, that McCarthy was a good and noble patriot, that all of the excesses weren't his fault, and that it's traitor democrats who have sullied his noble image. Freaking insanity.

Yikes. Yep.

[Midnight Son]

McCarthy? A paranoid who saw leftist conspiracy everywhere and tried to use it to further his career? Now WHY would she like HIM? :lol:

[Lizard_King]

She's been devoting an incredible amount of effort the past couple of years to "correcting" McCarthy's image, yeah. Trying to make people "see" that there really was a vast communist conspiracy, that McCarthy was a good and noble patriot, that all of the excesses weren't his fault, and that it's traitor democrats who have sullied his noble image. Freaking insanity.

Coulter actually wrote her last book on it. Haven't read it, but I can probably do without.

Oh, and the popular conception of the era of McCarthyism could certainly use a more balanced evaluation than the self-righteous treatment it is usually given.

[quatoria]

She's been devoting an incredible amount of effort the past couple of years to "correcting" McCarthy's image, yeah. Trying to make people "see" that there really was a vast communist conspiracy, that McCarthy was a good and noble patriot, that all of the excesses weren't his fault, and that it's traitor democrats who have sullied his noble image. Freaking insanity.

Coulter actually wrote her last book on it. Haven't read it, but I can probably do without.

Oh, and the popular conception of the era of McCarthyism could certainly use a more balanced evaluation than the self-righteous treatment it is usually given.

Somehow I suspect a balanced evaluation is unlikely from a woman who states, with utter seriousness, that all liberals are traitors who hate America more than Al Qaeda.

[Jason McCullough]

We did have communist spies in the period, and a couple in the state department. That this somehow proves McCarthy right - who was just making shit up - is wrong.

[Brian Koontz]

McCarthy had many problems, but probably the biggest was the "witchhunt" factor.

In both Salem centuries ago and the United States of the 1950s, it was not clear who was to blame and who was not to blame. This resulted in confusion.

From this confusion (again in both cases, the situations are analogous) emerged opportunism. So everybody that hated their "neighbor" or business rival ratted them out. Since it was not clear who was to blame and Fear was the order of the day, even an entirely empty claim was specious and people however innocent they might have been were in danger.

Also, the degree of paranoia was silly. Communism in the US had not risen to a level where leaders became public and thus could be destroyed. So WAIT for that to happen and THEN bring out the timber and bonfire instead of an idiotic campaign built on fear and ignorance.

Also, this sort of thing should not have been made public. The FBI and CIA should have been on the case. People who were proven Communists could have been dealt with, *Behind the Scenes*. The idiocy of Public Hearings on Communism is surprising even to someone like me who routinely calls humans idiots.

[quatoria]

"Dealt with?" Was it ever illegal to belong to the communist party?

[Brian Koontz]

"Dealt with?" Was it ever illegal to belong to the communist party?

From http://www.aclu-mass.org/general/civillibtimescrisis.html ...

"After the end of the war anti-communist fears were manipulated in a war against the trade-union movement. An Immigration Act was past in October 1918 that provided for the exclusion of anarchists and the deportation of immigrants holding radical or revolutionary ideas."

"The Red Scare was not just fought at the level of the federal government. By 1952 47 (of 48.) states had passed anti-subversion statutes, over thirty had laws against sedition, laws requiring loyalty oaths from teachers, and may barred "subversives" from public employment. Six states had functioning state un-American activities committees. Two states outlawed the Communist Party. In 1950 Michigan imposed life imprisonment for writing or speaking subversive words.
By the late 50's the anticommunism consensus was breaking down, thanks to rulings by the Supreme Court under Justice Earl Warren, to Democratic Party majorities in both Houses and to the Civil Rights Movement on the streets."

To answer your question, it is illegal to belong to the Communist Party during times when American leadership becomes concerned for its own safety with respect to Communism, as history has proven on multiple occasions. When Communism is powerless in the United States it is perfectly legal to belong.

[quatoria]

Christ. And that's what Coulter's now trying to white wash. Great choice for your pundit and spokeswoman, folks.

[Midnight Son]

How come the Oil Reich hasn't given Fraulein Coulter an official job yet?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

So can your position best be summed up as "the solution to Iraq is fewer troops and less foreign investment"?


Using non-Iraqi companies to rebuild Iraq isn't foreign investment, at least not in the way the term is usually used. It might be called foreign investment in public infrastructure, but that won't be enough to strengthen a capitalist economy (although rebuilding infrastructure is, of course, necessary.)

What is needed is investment in Iraqi companies, who will ultimately be the driving force in the Iraqi economy; it will also help greatly in stabilizing the country. The current arrangement is better for the U.S. economy.

[Jason McCullough]

You still have to sign an affidavit that you're not trying to overthrow the US government to get a job with the state of Oklahoma. I know this because they make college students who work for the University sign it.

[Midnight Son]

You still have to sign an affidavit that you're not trying to overthrow the US government to get a job with the state of Oklahoma. I know this because they make college students who work for the University sign it.

Are you for real? Why, this country was founded in a revolution!!

[Lizard_King]

Using non-Iraqi companies to rebuild Iraq isn't foreign investment, at least not in the way the term is usually used. It might be called foreign investment in public infrastructure, but that won't be enough to strengthen a capitalist economy (although rebuilding infrastructure is, of course, necessary.)

What is needed is investment in Iraqi companies, who will ultimately be the driving force in the Iraqi economy; it will also help greatly in stabilizing the country. The current arrangement is better for the U.S. economy.

Right. But that happy arrangement you describe in your second paragraph can only come about with that (as you note) necessary first step. Without some semblance of stability, which will require a strong military presence for the near future, you cannot have either.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Second paragraph can only come about with that (as you note) necessary first step. Without some semblance of stability, which will require a strong military presence for the near future, you cannot have either.

Well, Iraqi society isn't exactly pre-industrial, and they built most of the stuff that was blown up. There is nothing to suggest that Iraqi companies wouldn't have the capability to rebuild it as well, given funding. Killing two birds with one stone, or whatever the expression is; rebuilding the infrastructure and aiding the Iraqi economy.

You don't just need a purely military presence, but more of a security presence, a stabilizing presence. The military can fulfill that function, but troops are mainly trained to kill enemy troops, not to police, as various unfortunate incidents during the occupation has illustrated.

[Lizard_King]

Well, Iraqi society isn't exactly pre-industrial, and they built most of the stuff that was blown up. There is nothing to suggest that Iraqi companies wouldn't have the capability to rebuild it as well, given funding. Killing two birds with one stone, or whatever the expression is; rebuilding the infrastructure and aiding the Iraqi economy.
I don't think we fundamentally disagree on this, rather it is a relatively small question of degree. Unless I am misreading you, you are for the same sort of investment that I favour, except you want it to happen now. I think that is somewhat unrealistic, because while Iraq is not pre-industrial it doesn't really have industry in the conventional sense that is available for Marshall Plan-style aid (I am assuming you would agree that most private investors are unlikely to be interested at this point). Decades of Baathist crony mismanagement does not translate easily to the sort of industries I think we would both like to see in Iraq.


You don't just need a purely military presence, but more of a security presence, a stabilizing presence. The military can fulfill that function, but troops are mainly trained to kill enemy troops, not to police, as various unfortunate incidents during the occupation has illustrated.
I completely agree, and I really wish more of a visible effort where being made in that direction. Certainly at some point the marginal returns on more of a military presence become negligible, which is why I am skeptical of the possibilities if the original Joint Chief's assessment were applied (250k) at this point.
But that does not justify a paranoid pseudomarxist response to the troop presence in general (like Chet's).