Pasting Feathers Together and Hoping for a Duck

John Holbo writes:

John Holbo: Like pasting feathers together and hoping for a duck: If you haven't, you should read this Intel-Dump post, "National Insecurity" http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2006_09_17-2006_09_23.shtml#1158687984. And then read all 154 comments. If every American voter had to read the whole thread (it's only, like, 30,000 words) I think the Democrats would get about 70% of the popular vote, showing most dramatic improvement in red states. Of course, we would still have no real plan for Iraq, sadly. But accountability starts at home.

The moral progress of the spectacularly ill-named Diogenes, through the thread, is worthy of special attention. He is the first commenter, leaping in with a brash accusation of partisan bias. When it is pointed out this thing he calls "a subsidiary of moveon.org" is a catalogue of facts, he fires back, guns blazing in all manner of directions. Gradually he is reduced to mounting a narrow but determined point defense: we need to be roughing up some terrorists. He's shining a lantern beam of, like, moral darkness, in the dead of factual night, looking for a bad man. Or, to put it a bit less unkindly, he is bound and determined to find some way to be bloody-mindeder than thou. The last stand of the moral clarity brigade. The fact that Diogenes in effect sidetracks serious discussion of Iraq and national security issues by loudly making the case for torture is a hideous illustration of just how wrong the frame of the national debate is, at the moment.

I'll just quote the thread's owner, in comments:

Some will wonder why I bother to respond to Dio instead of ignoring him as a troll? Because he is not a troll. He believes what he is saying, and 32% of US voters agree with him. They can't really say why they agree, or they rely on "documents" that even the White House won%'t push for fear of giving the Democrats another cudgel to beat them with -- in short, the administration knows that such talk is nonsense. But why do they still imply such nonsense? Because people WANT to believe that the president has a plan, they WANT to believe that our nation was not misled or lied to, they WANT to believe that our cause, for which we have sacrificed so much, is just and right. They WANT to believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

The title of this post is taken from another commenter, who thusly characterizes the CPA. The torture debate, I guess, is what happens when "pasting feathers" turns nasty. We'll show that duck.

The first step for the Dems is becoming the party of speaking hard truths about what is going on NOW before they can hope to be the party of making plans about what should be done. (Plans they have no hope of implementing before 2008, after all. But telling the truth can start today.) Democrats will, of course, be maligned as traitors and defeatists and Bush-hating partisans -- a thousand Diogeneses, as if to make up for the duck, will tar and feather with terrible zeal. But I simply refuse to believe that telling hard truths and holding a couple yards of high moral ground -- about torture -- isn't a stance that can win the approval of a majority of the American people.

One of the great things about the internet is that one virtually meets so many people who make one proud to belong to their species. And then there are people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

Comments

[C. L. Ball]

Holbo wrote: "The first step for the Dems is becoming the party of speaking hard truths about what is going on NOW before they can hope to be the party of making plans about what should be done."

This was done in 2004 and look where it got the Dems. The public in midterms needs to believe that a Democrat congressman will do a better job than a Republican congressman in fighting the “war on terror” and ending the Iraq war, but they have no reason to believe that the Dems will be able to do that unless they have a plan. Polls show that the public increasingly doubts the Bush ability to deal with terrorism and Iraq. The recent Pew poll shows that terrorism is the only issue on which respondents favor Republicans over Democrats, which is why Bush keeps linking Iraq to the war on terror—if people believe Iraq is part of terrorism then they may vote Republican rather than Democratic.

The public mostly agrees with what Intel-Dump says. What they want to know—and ‘they’ means independents and disaffected Republicans— is that switching course will make things better. For that the Dems need a strategy, and not a rant.

[Emma Anne]

John Holbo - " He's shining a lantern beam of, like, moral darkness, in the dead of factual night, looking for a bad man. "

I just wanted to repeat that because it is so perfect.

[NeilS]

I agree. Its an amazing thread.

My question is why is that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are our leaders and not the thoughtful and elequent bloggers and respondents at Intel_Dump?

Is this some kind of cruel joke?

Who is laughing?

[sm]

The Dems told the truth about "now" in 2004?'

[Richard Cownie]

"What they want to know—and ‘they’ means independents and disaffected Republicans— is that switching course will make things better. For that the Dems need a strategy, and not a rant."

Actually, no. Latest polls indicate that voters
believe Republicans have a clear plan, and Democrats
don't. But they dislike the Republican plan so much
they're going to vote Dem.

And on the particular issue of Iraq, it's doubtful
that any action by the US government can now
make things better - Iraq is sliding into civil war
and chaos no matter what we do. The choice is
between leaving 140K troops in the middle of that
chaos (also spending 800+ US lives and $100B for
each extra year), or trying to get the hell out
before the US military and budget is further
damaged. There are probably steps we could take
which mitigate the damage slightly (e.g. calling
in the UN and the neighboring countries to plan
the transition), but there is
no silver bullet. All options are bad, some are
less bad than others.

Some honorable people feel differently (including
JD Henderson himself, who still believes we can
achieve a stable peacful outcome, though not
without increasing the number of troops). But
that's how it looks to me.

[Tom C]

Here's what I see happening...real people asking congressional candidates, "Are you in favor of torture or not?" Our local Republican candidate has called for Rumsfeld to resign and is not even sure she supports the so-called torture compromise from last week. Speaking hard truths can work.

[wkwillis]

I'm an inventor. From time to time I invent infrastructure denial weapons. I know how easy it is to fuck us up. The present adminsitration is not making us safer for the inevitable time when the terrorists have someone like me.
Tasmania is looking better every day.

[BruceR]

Not to be pedantic, but it's clear from his comments that "Diogenes" is a U.S. military vet with Iraq experience. So calling him a "Fighting Keyboarder", which your last sentence implies, is clearly unfair to him.

[Bruce Wilder]

Politically, the Right Thing for the Democrats to do is, like most "right" moves, a tad risky, but it is hardly obscure.

The Democrats need to commit themselves to a "Put Up or Shut Up on Iraq" bill: a military spending bill that anticipates two years of ad hoc emergency spending requests, a renewed committment to Iraqi reconstruction and puts it altogether with personnel authorization, a draft, and revenue to pay for it all (-- bring back the "death tax" to pay for Iraq; Republicans would be calling the inheritance tax again, soon enough).

Democrats need to stop spreading crap about who is facing a deadline on Iraq. They need to be focused on giving Bush a deadline on Iraq -- Bush! Give the deadline to Bush!

And, give Bush a deadline coupled with a clear committment to provide, not the resources Bush has asked for, but the resources he should be asking for, to get out in good order, within 18 months or so.

The full pricetag over 2 additional years, will absolutely shock the American People. Tie that pricetag to taxes that hit Bush's Wealthy Base hard enough, and the message will come home.

The message should be tied, as well, to a clear message that the Democrats will support nothing, but withdrawal come Jan 20, 2009.

If Bush takes the money and screws up further, so be it. If Bush vetoes, so be it. Either way, the Democrats should be united behind such an effort, to do the right thing, and as completely inoculated against any "cut and run" stab-in-the-back theory as is possible.

[ilsm]

The dems have the plan it cannot be stated now, with the timid, mindless media; where are Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, because the "more of the same, without plan and no progress" crowd will not call it cutting our loses; they will get more kids killed by calling it "cutting and running".

What would have been if Custer had "cut and run" in the face a impossible odds.

There are things the US cannot do.

[Lawrence]

I was trying to recall another succesful campaign that did not really have a "plan" for peace. The classic one was Nixon's "Peace With Honor" secret plan. (It was supposedly secret because he did not want his hands tied in negotiationsto end the war). If one actually looks back on that election the Dems have far more going for them detail-wise than the Republican's had then. Or Bush evidently has had since.

[christofay]

For Bruce Wilder's Dem plan for salvaging our lost cause in Iraq, fat chance of that happening. And to add to the fantasy, richer families that have benefited greater from the Bush fiscal unbalancing can balance their reponsibilities by sending under this new draft their sons and daughters at a higher rate to the Mid East oil wars. Parents can savor their low tax high spend govt but they might lose a child or two from our two child families.

[save_the_rustbelt]

The 3rd infantry Division is being shipped back to Iraq without adequate troops and without adeqate training.

Why no training?

Because the 3rd ID (Armored) has no armor. It is in Iraq, and the 3rd will have to pick through the busted equipment to find enough working machines to do their mission.

In the words (paraphrase) of Ben Stein:

"Cutting taxes in a time of war is immoral."

[Jonathan Goldberg]

BruceR:

about your statement:

Not to be pedantic, but it's clear from his comments that "Diogenes" is a U.S. military vet with Iraq experience. So calling him a "Fighting Keyboarder", which your last sentence implies, is clearly unfair to him.

It is clear from the history of our host's use of "Fighting Keyboarder" on this blog that the phrase is not intended to apply to Diogenes. I wouldn't have interpreted it that way from the present post, either, but perhaps that is less clear.

[Jon Fernquest]

"Gradually he is reduced to mounting a narrow but determined point defense: we need to be roughing up some terrorists."

Roughing up terrorists probably creates more terrorists. Jason Burke's "Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam" demonstrated this multiplier effect long before this report came out. The Ming dynasty policy of trading to prevent raiding would probably be more effective in the long run.

[Barry]

Goldberg: "Not to be pedantic, but it's clear from his comments that "Diogenes" is a U.S. military vet with Iraq experience. "

It's clear that he *claims* to be such. Let him prove it.

[a different chris]

>Tie that pricetag to taxes that hit Bush's Wealthy Base hard enough, and the message will come home.

Those of us who have lurked here a long time maybe remember a very odd commentator - name escapes me - who was so weird to be uncategorizable politically. His biggest obsession seemed to be some horror about the Italians and Japanese going extinct.

But like a deep space comet, he occasionally got close enough to our world to provide some illumination. And the one thing that he said that always stuck with me was (paraphrasing):

"You get good government when the wealthy are paying for it."

I think it explains a lot of why we've seen the de-evolution of the Republican Party into Banana Republicans. They've changed their focus from "what government costs" to "who pays for it", and at that point every principle they had went to shit.

[crack]

Check out politburo diktat 2.0. I think the commissar has nearly gone shrill.

http://acepilots.com/mt/

[mds]

"The first step for the Dems is becoming the party of speaking hard truths about what is going on NOW....Democrats will, of course, be maligned as traitors and defeatists and Bush-hating partisans..."

This is what continues to confuse me about the current crop of Democratic politicians: refusing to fight on things like torture to avoid being called "weak on terror" even though they will be maligned as traitors and defeatists and Bush-hating partisans no matter what they actually do. What, they think that by rolling over on the destruction of rights enumerated in the MAGNA CARTA, that Republicans are going to start praising them for their firm stance?

[centrist]

It is interesting that "diogenes" the posting hawk is clinging to to notion of the Iraq-911 link!! That error will not go away.

[BruceR]

Barry, veracity of the poster's claim notwithstanding, the whole point of the "Fighting Keyboarder" epithet is surely that the recipient is not shamed by their lack of military experience, and/or feels their blogging contributions have comparable merit to, or power to bestow insight as, real military service. Someone who seeks instead to argue from their authority as a veteran falsely would be many things, but the "FK" attribute is not applicable in their case, either.

[Warren]

There is a real war going on. It's not a huge war but it has potential to grow. If you could prove that GW Bush had had his entire brain surgically removed and wasn't qualified to be the White House Dog it wouldn't make the war go away.

That is, don't let the flaws of GW Bush get in the way of being truly "Reality based". And the reality is that the war against the West started before GWB became President and will continue afterward.

[andres]

Yes, before the terrorists it was the communists. And before the communists it was the Muslims again, though not specifically labeled as terrorists. And before the Muslims it was the Catholics, who had not specifically been inducted into the ranks of the "West" yet.

And in the meantime, the "war" provides a neat excuse to dismantle all of the rights normally attendant to a healthy democratic republic. Warren, don't you get tired of being manipulated and duped? Is fear of some vague foreign enemy all you need to check your brain in at the door?