Martin Kramer, excellent analyst, scholar and all-around good guy, is advising the same candidate that is taking advice on Iran from Norman Podhoretz. This is a bit like getting advice from both Dick Holbrooke and Noam Chomsky.

Who's really got Giuliani's ear regarding Iran? Sounds increasingly like poor Martin Kramer's taken a back seat to Sturmin' Norman.

What Tepluhin said...

And akso what he said on another thread re an article that's a good, in-depth look at Biden...

Teppy,

The American Prospect just did an article on Guiliani's foreign policy advisors and the collective impression was something like "these are the guys who were too nuts for Bush".  Podhoretz was there, along with D. Pipes, and others.

My question is this:  Will The Spine endorse Guiliani?  It seems that at least from the foreign policy perspective, it is a match made in some kind of neo con E Harmony heaven...

I appreciate that it is not reassuring. The problem is that no viable Democrat in the hunt is saying anything better that I am aware of.

But viable Republicans are. And as Teplukhin notes, Kramer is advising Giuliani.

Is it enough to not make you vote Democrat?

Teplukhin is too hard on Podhoretz.

Read the symposium in the last Commnentary on Podhoretz's book, the contributors to which include Kramer, Ajami and other plenty smart folks. In foreign policy, the Republicans, to my mind, have it  over the Democrats. They, as they say, "get it." And if I was a Yank, I'd be torn as to who to vote for, for that very reason, as domestically I'd be with the Democrats ..

Only Hillary--and maybe, I'm not sure, Obama--would keep me in the Democratic fold.

mrcookie1 the heckler  said:  "The American Prospect just did an article on Guiliani's foreign policy advisors and the collective impression was something like "these are the guys who were too nuts for Bush".

The American Prospect when it comes to foreign policiy is worse than nuts, it is worthless.

Kramer as teplukhin and Itzik said is as sane as Obama and knows twice as much.

"The American Prospect when it comes to foreign policiy is worse than nuts, it is worthless."

says who? You?  bah....that is your standard line for any journal or journalist who does not hold to your opinions.  

Proceed with the unhinged cannonade...

basman - from the Old TNR, the one that still made its archives available to us lowly subs, here's a devastating report by Johann Hari on Sturmin Norman Podhoretz, one that makes Wm F Buckley look like a model of sweet reason and liberal judgment.

DO you believe we're engaged in "World War IV"? Do you think it's prudent for us to launch yet another war when we have not even finished the two we're embroiled in (and losing) right now?

(Apologies in advance - still cannot do italics with this new web redesign.)

FROM HARI's ARTICLE IN TNR:

Buckley united with Podhoretz in mutual hatred of Godless Communism, but, slouching into his eighties, he possesses a worldview that is ill-suited for the fight to bring democracy to the Muslim world. He was a ghostly presence on the cruise at first, appearing only briefly to shake a few hands. But now he has emerged, and he is fighting.

"Aren't you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?" Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. "No," Podhoretz replies. "As I say, they were shipped to Syria. During Gulf war one, the entire Iraqi air force was hidden in the deserts in Iran." He says he is "heartbroken" by this "rise of defeatism on the right." He adds, apropos of nothing, "There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we're winning."

The audience cheers Podhoretz. The nuanced doubts of Bill Buckley leave them confused. Doesn't he sound like the liberal media? Later, over dinner, a tablemate from Denver calls Buckley "a coward." His wife nods and says, "Buckley's an old man," tapping her head with her finger to suggest dementia.

I decide to track down Buckley and Podhoretz separately and ask them for interviews. Bill is sitting forlornly in his cabin, scribbling in a notebook. In 2005, at an event celebrating National Review's fiftieth birthday, President Bush described today's American conservatives as "Bill's children." I ask him if he feels like a parent whose kids grew up to be serial killers. He smiles slightly, and his blue eyes appear to twinkle. Then he sighs, "The answer is no. Because what animated the conservative core for forty years was the Soviet menace, plus the rise of dogmatic socialism. That's pretty well gone."

This does not feel like an optimistic defense of his brood, but it's a theme he returns to repeatedly: The great battles of his life are already won. Still, he ruminates over what his old friend Ronald Reagan would have made of Iraq. "I think the prudent Reagan would have figured here, and the prudent Reagan would have shunned a commitment of the kind that we are now engaged in. ... I think he would have attempted to find some sort of assurance that any exposure by the United States would be exposure to a challenge the dimensions of which we could predict." Lest liberals be too eager to adopt the Gipper as one of their own, Buckley agrees approvingly that Reagan's approach would have been to "find a local strongman" to rule Iraq.

A few floors away, Podhoretz tells me he is losing his voice, "which will make some people very happy." Then he croaks out the standard-issue Wolfowitz line about how, after September 11, the United States had to introduce democracy to the Middle East in order to change the political culture that produced the mass murderers. For somebody who declares democracy to be his goal, he is remarkably blasé about the fact that 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. troops to leave their country, according to the latest polls. "I don't much care," he says, batting the question away. He goes on to insist that "nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo" and that Bush is "a hero." He is, like most people on this cruise, certain the administration will attack Iran.

"I keep telling people we are in World War Four," Podhoretz declares. He fumes at Buckley, George Will, and the other apostate conservatives who refuse to see sense. He again declares victory. And for a moment, here in the Mexican breeze, it is as though, thousands of miles away, Baghdad is not bleeding.

Cookie - I'd bet my next paycheck that the Spine would go with Giuliani over HRC.

Can Martin Kramer really get the upper hand against the likes of Daniel Pipes and Norman Podhoretz? Based on what we've seen of Rudy's mayoral career, it all comes down to whether Martin can pass the loyalty test. This Washington Monthly piece is devastating on his pattern of surrounding himself with "YesRudys".

www2.washingtonmonthly.com/.../0711.morris.html

jackson or cookie or anyone who cares to answer me: I have an off-topic question and can't find a quick answer.

What does "the several states" mean in the context of the history of the USA?

anyone? please?

various? different?

abigail - here's a guess. IIRC that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence-- "these _several states_ are and of right ought ot be indepenent."

I believe this reflects not just the colonial legacy in which each state was chartered and governed indpendently of the others but also a widespread assumption, persisting up to the CIvil War, about the relationship between the states and the federal government. Prior to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, the custom was to refer to the United States in the plural, in deference to the notion that sovereignty inhered in the individual states, not the Union.

jhildner, help us out here

babs,

hell, you've got me.  No clue....

maybe the answer is:  Less than the number of states who voted for McGovern or Mondale?

Tep: you asked me some questions: let me reciprocate and try to answer them at the same time.

The "World War 1V "thing is more provocative and rhetorical than anything else and one can disagree with that specific characterization and stil pay heed to the substance of P's argument.

Do you think that that Islamism is bent on the destruction of Israel and the Koranic inspired destruction of as much of the developed world as it can, fed by Caliphate dreams? Its prime concern--driving the U.S. and Israel out of the middle east--is of profound importance and has to be fought against for the sake of Israel and the global economy.: does it not? Is the West not in a war with radical Islam, even if the best means of that is counter -nsurgency?

Do you think it is important to prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think Iraq is a central front in the war on terror? Do you think that American failure there will embolden Jihad? Has there not been value in America's refusal so far to cut and run, to fight things worth fighting for, to show undeterrable strength in the face of concerted terrorism? Is there not some progress now being made in Iraq?

Was it not good that Bush broke the back of then existing realist purely and vulgarly utlitiarian prescriptions?  Is not the idea of liberty at the core of the Bush Doctrine commendable? What does that notion stand against in the middle east if not fanatical anti-semitic and anti-enlightenment and anti-Western despots and religious lunatics and autocrats and tyrants and merchants of terror?

Ajami notes the persistent and enduring influence of Wilsonianism on American thought.

How can a comittment to democratization not continue as a corner stone of American foreign policy? Is that ultimately at the levelof ideas not answer to Jihad?

To change horses: do you disagree that pre-emption must remain another corner stone of American policy? How it could it not be.?  And are not these two ideas--democratization and pre emption--at the essence of the Bush doctrine and of P.'s argument?

Like calling the war on terror World War 1V, one can also bracket the specific prescription of now bombing Iran, and still pay heed to the substance of P.'s argument. The more underlying point, from the not so much I know about either geopolitics or military strategy, is, as Giuiani says, better a military take down of Iran's evolving nuclear capacity than a nuclear Iran. The calibrations of that are beyond me. P's argument is that all diplomacy is exhausted in the case of Iran, and the time to act is now. But,even if one dissents from the first premise of that argument, if one embraces the consequent prescription, one is not fundamentaly disagreing with P.

All these questions raise many ofthe themes at the heart of Podhoetz's argument, an argument in its essence I think is right.

thanks!

it's repeated all the time in Madison's proposed amendments to the constitution from 1789.

Is this any clue?

why would a perfectly sane person keep referring to the fucking several states?

i wonder whether these are the states that adopted the constitution? That opposed it? That were severed from the rest? That were few?

I'm with Buckley. Had I known there were no WMDs, I would never have supported invading Iraq and giving the Iranians a huge beachhead-- actually, ca 1/3 of the country-- to the south.

I do not support the cause of democracy in the muslim world. I believe the ills of authoritarian governments in those nations are far less threatening to American interests than the dangers created by a collapse of order in the middle east and SW Asia.

I also think that Norman Podhoretz is emotionally disturbed. He's transferring his childhood experiences of being bullied on to the islamist menace. He should be kept far away from the White House and any other insitution charged with making US foreign policy.

abigail - I think that, given their legal background and intense concern with common law that permeated all the Founders' writings, the use of the term "several" is primarily the legal one that emphasizes responsibility for EACH state individually, sort of like partners in an enterprise or bondholders.

mrcookie you are a predictable heckler.

The American Prospect has no more credibility than anyone else and hence alluding to it in order to attack TNR is just plain stupid.

But you knew that already. You just can't stop heckling can you, asshole.

"I also think that Norman Podhoretz is emotionally disturbed. He's transferring his childhood experiences of being bullied on to the islamist menace."

Your medical degree is from where? Where is your  practice?

Your evidence for his transference is what--his about 40 year olld essay about his Negro problem and ours or yours?

You can disagree with his argument without such speculative ad hominem nonsense. It's the all too ready trashing of P. I find objectionable. The equation between P and Chomsky is absurd.

(You know, don't you, that before his turn away from literary criticism: he was a protege of both Lionel Trilling and F.R. Leavis.)

But I still like you anyway and am coming to your party unless I have managed to disinvite myself.

teplukhin2you  thanks. Ok, so it's like "member states" I guess. You don't have to answer if I'm right, only if I'm wrong :)

y

basman, you're always welcome at my table.

Tep

I am glad to hear that, truly glad, and of course you at mine.

babigail said:  "jackson or cookie or anyone who cares to answer me: I have an off-topic question and can't find a quick answer.

What does "the several states" mean in the context of the history of the USA? "

Abigail, "several" used to mean  different, individual, single, distinct, etc.

It is still used this way in some common phrases:

"They went their several ways," etc.  It's also still used to denote individuality as opposed to commonality in legal phraseology it means "each individual party."

Hence "these several States," would mean the individual or separate States.

I hope this helps.

teplukhin2you said: "I also think that Norman Podhoretz is emotionally disturbed. He's transferring his childhood experiences of being bullied on to the islamist menace. He should be kept far away from the White House and any other insitution charged with making US foreign policy."

I hope you are turning into another Cookie, TEP!

I have never liked Norman Podhoretz though I must say he did put an very good magazine. Still calling him insane is itself insane, especially since you don't have any evidence on which to base your preposterous charge.

Let's not medicalize political disagreements. He who lives by medical diagnosis will die by medical diagnosis.

jackson,

You know, for some bizarre reason, I always find your unhinged sociopathy rather amusing. And, I learned that losing my temper is useless, and as sobel once pointed out,threatening you or anyone on a blog is folly.

Let me just say that you can continue to call me such lovely names as "asshole" or "degenerate" or whatever suits your twisted mind.  I can't do anything about it so spew on.  My only hope is that the readers of this blog are as disgusted as I.

Let me tell you this:  If tnr ever has a confab, and you have the courage to attend, I will bet my ENTIRE paycheck that if I were to find you wedged in some dark corner and sit next to you, you would not call these names.  And if you did and you weren't some gnarled, obese, hunched up husk of a man, then you and I would finally come to some sort of agreement, one way or another. You can bet your entire disability check on that.

That said, proceed as per your diagnosis...

tep,

Sorry, you rang at a very bad time  I will call you tomorrow.

Basman, I just can't seem to find the time to learn that facebook thing.  email works so much better. We asshole degenerates are weird that way.

For all your pretense to avuncularness, Cookie, you are just a bully. You come here and heckle Peretz each time he posts something you disagree with. Disagreements are what this web site is all about, but you never offer any counter argument. You just attack the man personally, or you quote from another website where some other blogger said he too hates Peretz.  You are too ignorant to offer any serious counterargument.

You are a burro, buster.

Other than that I have no strong opinions about you. I don’t care what you think of me and I have your veiled threats before. They are just wet-dreams Cookie. Wet daydreams, I might add.  

Disagreement are the currency of this post.  Name calling, juvenile name calling is what it is not about and this s what you bring.  And no crocodile tears about bullying.  You call me others vicious names and as soon as you feel a bit of heat, you whine about bullying.  You are the worst kind of cyber bully.  You can only insult and when called on it, you whine like a child.  You are a coward. Today.  Tomorrow.  Forever. I pity you, you sad sad weakling.

And perhaps this will be a lesson, a sorely needed lesson for someone like you: There are potential consequences to all our actions.  And you just learned a needed lesson:  There can be consequences for our bad behavior.  And irrespective of Sobel or your knee knocking fear, if we ever meet, we will sort this out.  You can bet your yellow streak on it.

mrcookie1 said:  " You are a coward. Today.  Tomorrow.  Forever. I pity you, you sad sad weakling. "

There, feel better?

Glad you got it off you chest.

You are an ignorant boob and you prove it with every post you compose. I don't know if you will always be ignorant and I certainly don't pity you. Still, it is strange the way you stalk and shadow Peretz; a man you hate. In real life someone would have taken out a restraining order against you. Maybe they already did.

Prove me wrong. Try writing something to the point, sometime.   Tell people here why YOU think Peretz is wrong about an issue rather than calling him names or quoting some third party.

mrcookie1 said:  "And perhaps this will be a lesson, a sorely needed lesson for someone like you: There are potential consequences to all our actions.  And you just learned a needed lesson:  There can be consequences for our bad behavior.  And irrespective of Sobel or your knee knocking fear, if we ever meet, we will sort this out.  You can bet your yellow streak on it."

My god he is still masturbating.

How did Sobel get in here?  You are deranged. Go take a swig of whiskey or smoke a joint beofre you hurt yourself.

nice change of tone. Okay, in a recent post, questioned whether Peretz had actually read the book in question. I believe the only name calling came from...you.

No one is stalking Peretz.  He writes a blog.  I agree with some, disagree with most. The only person who seems to take personal offense is...you.  I have always speculated as to why.  I still believe that you do so because you have closer ties to the man than you have the honesty to admit.

You like to perch yourself on this citadel of "issues and reason" when in really, you too often wallow in the gutter of malevolence and juvenile name calling.  On a blog, you can and do get away with it.  In real life, you would be called to task for it.  Only I suspect that you are too smart and cowardly to ever really try this garbage in real life  You are classic cyber bully and you don't even know it.  I do pity you because you waste a fine mind with all this vitriol and garbage. I want to like you but sometimes you make it almost impossible.

Goodnight jack. Think about what I said.  It may keep you in good health and from from any broken bones.

mrcookie1 said:  "Goodnight jack. Think about what I said.  It may keep you in good health and from from any broken bones.'

The avuncular bore is back.  He must have finished whacking off.

ah well...checked to see how you responded and am disappointed.  Oh well, jack, just remember: tnr has  confab and you have the courage to show..I will be first in a long list on your dance card.

Jesus, interesting thread until Jacksondyer starting ranting and raving. "Whacking off", new lows everyday.

Teplukhin, I'm always a bit concerned when people start using the WMD issue as the reason to invade. What about WMD Capability or WMD Knowledge. Surely, you don't think it was about WMD?

Don't mind dear John, Jackson.

If standards like these applied here, The Spine would have been transformed by now in a vanilla atmosphere of sisters (meaning "friends") in which poseurs would "rally around Che" and say "whack off" around Peretz, congratulating each other on how wonderfully dumb they all are.

luispc,

I can appreciate what you're saying and no one wants a sanitized conversation. I do think though that you are confusing sanitizing conversation with just flat out degrading the conversation. Luispc, I have a high tolerance for goofing but I am just tired of cyberbullying.  And what is most fascinating is that when it all is said and done, no one can really do anything about it.  Jackson is completely and totally free to post and he pleases and there ain't a damn thing that I or anyone else can do about it.  I know that.

However, I do raise the extremely rare possibliity - and I do not back away from it - that if tnr ever has a conference or pow wow or confab, and cyber bullies like jackson have the courage to show up - which I seriously doubt - I will engage this man and anyone else who thinks it is okay to insult me with names like degenerate and asshole and other such charming sobriquets. Where I live, if you engage in this kind of thing, you must be ready to realize the full consequences of your actions. What cracks me up is how, after all this vicious name calliing and faux tough guy rhetoric, I mention the extremely rare possibility of engaging the bully in a expansive converstion about the vagaries of life and love in this post modern age...and the fellow starts to quiver and squeel about my bullying and being such a mean nasty person.  Bah!

No, I stand firm.  jackson and other acolyte can continue to do as they please and I really am helpless to do anything.  However, I make a pledge - and all you thin skinned Spine He Men with big mouths can call it what you like: I ever occupy the same space as jackson or anyone else who insists on doing this, we will reach some kind of mutual understanding.  You can bet on it.

Really Cookie, don't get angry. This is cyber-space anyway and, sometimes, it is fun to bully in this context. Anyway, I do not wish to interfere in the fight you are having with Jackson and he can defend himself. But there are many ways to bully and there are many ways to offend.

Explicit and noisy ways are never relevant (in my country, this is even a sport, called "desgarrada" in which people drink and mock each other around a table, laughing to tears while doing it) and words like "avuncular" are fun (when used by someone in a context like this, surely not to be taken seriously).

Much more offensive, from my perspective, are paternalistic, insidious and deceitfull ways of reaching another person. If one wants to hurt, one does not call "avuncular" or "dumb". One says "I will be first in a long list on your dance card".

Anyway, let's not give too much relevance to all this. After all, this is only a passtime  

luispc,

You have an interesting perspective, one that I am not quite sure if I buy into. Perhaps with you, a person who does seem to be a well balanced hombre with periods of fun, mixed with desgarrada, I can surely see your point.

Problem is luispc, you are not jackson, nor do you have the record of jackson, nor the decided lack of a desgarrada suffused personal.  No, if you allow yourself to be honest, you know exactly what I am talking about.  

I also agree that when anyone calls me dumb, or silly, or avuncular (which is a compliment) I laugh.  I also laugh when someone calls me an asshole or degenerate one time, perhaps twice. But not as a staple of their blogging discourse.  So, if my dance card comment stung, it was meant to sting, and perhaps it will sting this lost soul enough to realize that he is doing something that is inappropriate.

But ah, you're right.  Only a pastime.  Life is so rich that you are correct that giving it relevance is foolish. I will just remember. tnr conference, dance card, resolution.  

A note on the emotional disturbance charge against Norman P: if you read the Johann Hari account of NP's heated interchanges with Bill Buckley-- on a cruise, in front of their magazine's subscribers, mind-- it's hard not to see the following emotional traits:

1) Denial. "[Podhoretz] He again declares victory", repeats the line about how we're bringing democracy to Iraq, and then sneers, "I don't care" when it's pointed out that the democratic wish of the Iraqis is for us to leave.

2) WIld exaggeration: NP's allies on the right are craven "defeatists" whose concerns about prudence, the WMD justification for the war etc are not even worth a decent response.

3) Absorption in a fantasy world: Donald Rumsfeld is not only not a flawed DefSec who botched the postwar strategy but the very BEST man for the position.

4) Creeping paranoia: contrary to his lurid wishes, we are not engaged in "World War IV."  We're dealing with a very small movement that opportunistically battens on the chaos of the ME, Africa and western Asia. Our military interventions against this movement have more in common with punitive expeditions than with the all-or-nothing battle-to-the-death that the Red Army waged against the Wehrmacht or that we waged in the Pacific against Imperial Japan. Think Indian Wars, not Stalingrad.

Teppy,

I don't know if this is proof of Pod's insanity but check out his dedication to his new book, WWIV.  He dedicates it to his grandchildren - which is sweet - but then he goes on about how he hope they live in a world free of Islamofacism, or something like that.  Now, I too hope that my children live a peaceful world but something about this linkage seemed very weird to me.  I seriously doubt that if my Old Man links his grandchildren to such dark fears and motifs.  I found it kind of creepy.

"He dedicates it to his grandchildren - which is sweet - but then he goes on about how he hope they live in a world free of Islamofacism, or something like that."

Nothing creepy about that at all.

really?  that was my visceral reaction.  I guess when I see my kids, visions of apocalyptic struggles and exhortations to war just aren't my go to places...

As an aside, which is all I can muster after reading this thread - jeez, some of youse need to lighten up - Congratulations to the Great Soviet Peoples on the 90th anniversary of Velikaya Oktyabrskaya!!  

BTW, how's that whole CPSU thing workin' out?

really?  that was my visceral reaction.  I guess when I see my kids, visions of apocalyptic struggles and exhortations to war just aren't my go to places...

Ahhh, but then you are thejauntyboulevardier.

hee, hee...

but yes, I do see how one can see their children and grandchildren and hope for peace and prosperity.

I think that the problem with NPod is that he really needs to retire and spend time with those grandchildren.  I remember in college, I read his stuff and though even then, I disagreed with it, especially his views on race, I saw the razor sharp mind and integrative perceptions.  Frankly, he is just too old for this kind of stuff. I hate to be ageist but he has lost whatever edge he once had and it is kind of embarrassing.  La Decter should stop kissing that Rummy picture and pull NPod into retirement.

thejauntyboulevardier

Are you perhaps a cookie?

This name sounds suspicious to me to. Another John Cleary - Ignorant Populist?

Who is The Jaunty Boulevardier?

There's only one Ignorant Populist Louis. I've never even read this NPod chap. Although, I think he's only being honest when he decries the right for getting soft over the lack of WMD, which was in effect a propaganda device. I can make WMD in my bedroom if I want. I can also have knowledge in my head to make them as does dinnerjacket. He seems to acknowledge this as a truth and looks on in disgust at his fellow right wingers as they succumb to the media hand wringing. I don't see that as crazy or emotionally disturbed, I just see it as honest.

Anyway, my 2 cent. Now back to "wacking off".

basman and luispc

cookie no more.  I tired of it.  I am now what you read...still the same denegerate a--hole...:)

Jaunty - welcome. Cool, sums you up nicely. We should all give each others names that reflect our personalities. In my case, as most people are aware by now - I am very Ignorant and I'm an unreconstructed Populist.

What's a boulevardier?

Just from the last few posts: we are a collection of odd ducks, aren't we?

What's a boulevardier?

Someone who vardiers on boules.

M. Chevalier /  Mr Cookie - you nailed it here: "check out [Podhoretz's] dedication to his new book, WWIV.  He dedicates it to his grandchildren - which is sweet - but then he goes on about how he hope they live in a world free of Islamofacism, or something like that."

"Islamofascism" is indeed active globally, but it is not a threat to the future of the globe or the global interstate system. If one were to step back for a second and cooly, rationally evaluate the major threats to the freedom and prosperity of our grandchildren, Islamofascism would be at the bottom of any short list.

The risk of islamists gaining possession of nukes is a subset of the larger proliferation issue, which should be addressed primarily through state-to-state and multinatinal diplomacy and coordinated initiatives like our (languishing) non-proliferation effort with Russia.

The risk of islamists gaining possession of a swing-producer oil-rich state, or of the old ColdWar prize, Sea Lanes of Communication, is, again, basically another aspect of a much larger f-p problem that should be addressed by the standard diplomatic and realpolitik tools. Specifically, keep the House of Saud from falling, protect the main oil production facilities in the east of Saudi Arabia, bear-hug Musharraf, etc etc.

The risk of islamists doing economic damage to the US is trivial, and the risk posed by the islamist ideology to the minds and the cultural milieu surrounding our grandchildren is non-existent. They have no serious or coherent ideology about the role of the state, the distribution or creation of wealth, trade, global warming, the interstate system etc etc. This is a small death cult occupying the fringe of islam. It is not teh Vanguard of the Proletariat, or the Spectre Haunting Europe, or a totalitarian movement preying on the ruins of the Hapsburg, Ottoman and Romanov empires. It's just a wahabbi death cult.

Could we please have a foreign policy that is SMART as well as tough.

mrcookie1 said:  "ah well...checked to see how you responded and am disappointed.  Oh well, jack, just remember: tnr has  confab and you have the courage to show..I will be first in a long list on your dance card."  November 6, 2007 11:43 PM

Let's be clear about one thing, Cookie. I don't give a shit what you think of me. I am not here either to make friends or to pick up boyfriends as you seem to be.

I am also not interested in being liked. Unlike you, I don't canvass for people's approval the way a politician canvases for votes. Besides, I don't much like you, Cookie.

Finally, Cookie,  if you want me to ignore your post, stop launching personal attacks on the blog host.  However, as long as you keep personally attacking Peretz I am going to be all over you like flies on shit. Get it.

teplukhin2you said:  "A note on the emotional disturbance charge against Norman P: if you read the Johann Hari account of NP's heated interchanges with Bill Buckley-- on a cruise, in front of their magazine's subscribers, mind-- it's hard not to see the following emotional traits:..."

I did read Hari's account a while ago.  

Nothing he says makes me think that Norman P. is insane. If anything I question Hari’s sanity. I would not have closeted myself with Podhoretz and Co. for days on hand without the possibility of escape.

In any case, while I agreed with Norman P. that communism was bad and that we need to stand up to Islamicists, I don't think it's useful calling our fight against the different varieties of Islamic tyrannies “WW4.”  There is something about his style of expressing himself that grates on me.

Still, the best way to deal with Mr. Podhoretz is engage him issue by issue and not to dismiss him out of hand by calling him insane.

jacksondyer writes: "However, as long as you keep personally attacking Peretz I am going to be all over you like flies on shit."

jacksondyer is such a fawning prick that were Martin Peretz to recommend "Mein Kampf" jacksondyer would post that he has already ordered it from Amazon.  But the shit-eating fly parallel is interesting because that more-or-less describes the intellectual level jacksondyer brings to all too many of these threads.

teplukhin2you said:  ""Islamofascism" is indeed active globally, but it is not a threat to the future of the globe or the global interstate system."

Well, I strongly disagree with you there.

We face many difficult challenges both long term and short term.  Islamic radicalism is one of the more pressing ones.

Still, I wouldn't call it WW4, not yet anyway.

There is nothing wrong, btw, with Podhoretz' dedicating his book to his grandchildren and wishing them to live in a more peaceful world.

This is often done by writers especially in times of crises. There were hundreds of books written during WW2 hoping for peace for future generations. Only an extremely biased poster would thing there was something wrong with that.

teplukhin2you said:  ""Islamofascism" is indeed active globally, but it is not a threat to the future of the globe or the global interstate system."

Well, I strongly disagree with you there.

We face many difficult challenges both long term and short term.  Islamic radicalism is one of the more pressing ones.

Still, I wouldn't call it WW4, not yet anyway.

There is nothing wrong, btw, with Podhoretz' dedicating his book to his grandchildren and wishing them to live in a more peaceful world.

This is often done by writers especially in times of crises. There were hundreds of books written during WW2 hoping for peace for future generations. Only an extremely biased poster would thing there was something wrong with that.

Well, well, the nazi ndmackenzie is baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

Not surprisingly she is back to give aid and comfort to her idiot friend.

“jacksondyer is such a fawning prick that were Martin Peretz to recommend "Mein Kampf" jacksondyer would post that he has already ordered it from Amazon.”

Only you would recommend Mein Kampf to anyone here, Mackenzie.

“But the shit-eating fly parallel is interesting because that more-or-less describes the intellectual level jacksondyer brings to all too many of these threads.”

I bring up  shit when I speak to dumb ass shit heads, like you!

Is this intellectual enough, for you,  Fraulein Mackenzie?

jacksondyer -

You have so abused the English language on these threads that your words have long since lost any and all meaning.  So go ahead, jerk off as much as you like and share your worthless ejaculate with us.  Your words are meaningless and merely serve to remind us how stupid you really are.

«Now back to "wacking off"»

Ok. Is it that you wack off to that O that you put in the middle of name? How sick and stalkerish, dear John. Glad we are not friends.

ndmackenzie said:  blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

Odd ducks indeed

And who cares about Podhoretz anyway. It annoys me that some still bring his name to this discussion. It is not relevant at all. What were we talking about exactly? Ah! Wacking off! How depressing, teenagers like dear John frequent this place. One is continuously brought to these themes.

Luis - he's said to be advising the prospective GOP presidential nominee on Iran. I know it sounds absurd, but if these accounts are correct, then Pod's views are a major issue that should alarm anyone who thinks starting a war with Iran is an insane idea for a nation that has not even begun to finish its existing two wars with Iran's neighbors.

jack 'n' mack - gettaroom

jack,

Your message is crystal clear.  So was mine.  Someday, if there is a just God, we will discuss our differences together, like men, and find out what's what.

Until then, proceed as you always do.  There is nothing I can do about it.  You are what you are.  Enjoy.

thejauntyboulevardier said:  "Your message is crystal clear.  So was mine."

Who the fuck are you?

Ok! Ok! Tep.

Then, the man is dumb. The only way to get Americans in Iran is to show them that, in this case, there may a rational, this being a completely different situation from the Iraqi one. Since these folks actually are close to get WMD.

"thejauntyboulevardier" is the new Cookie, Jackson!

And I'm sure he'll make as many friends as the old Cookie!

Then, the man is dumb. The only way to get Americans in Iran is to show them that, in this case, there may a rational, this being a completely different situation from the Iraqi one. Since these folks actually are close to get WMD.

Luis, my old friend, this is a mite convoluted for me. Could you please unbundle it some?

jack 'n' mack - gettaroom

Basman and anything in a skirt--no kilts or military tunics-- gettaroom: if only.

jack.

Sorry my affectionate antagnonist.  It is I cookie...i got tired of cookie.  I am at your service...

Itzik! How refreshing it is to hear from someone sane in this nut house!

I was referring to Tep's reference to Iran and Podsomething (him being an advisor to a prospective GOP candidate on Iran). And saying that if the advises he gives do not recognize the major errors Americans made in Iraq, he will never get anyone to support any American intervention in Iran, this being a very dumb political strategy.

At the same implying that I would understand much more an American intervention in Iran, than I could understand the Iraqi disaster. Iranians are actually dangerous and they are actually close to get nukes. If you ask me, Iranian nukes are unacceptable and must be prevented.

Luis: you have my vote.

Podhoretz, who is an impressive intellectual, of course recognizes major American errors in Iraq.

As for your clear statement: "At the same implying that I would understand much more an American intervention in Iran, than I could understand the Iraqi disaster. Iranians are actually dangerous and they are actually close to get nukes. If you ask me, Iranian nukes are unacceptable and must be prevented."

I could not agree more.

Regards,

Luis:  Agrred.

How?

luispc said:

""thejauntyboulevardier" is the new Cookie, Jackson!"

Oh, it was a rhetorical question, Luis.

He, like John Cleary,  thinks that by changing his ID he can change who he really is.

He is about as "jaunty" as John is a "populist."

"As for your clear statement: "At the same implying that I would understand much more an American intervention in Iran, than I could understand the Iraqi disaster. Iranians are actually dangerous and they are actually close to get nukes. If you ask me, Iranian nukes are unacceptable and must be prevented.""

Well said, Itzik. Still, I don't want Bush to take any action right now. They'll fuck it up just as they fucked up Iraq and we'll be worse off.

Let's wait till the next administration is in office.

"As for your clear statement: "At the same implying that I would understand much more an American intervention in Iran, than I could understand the Iraqi disaster. Iranians are actually dangerous and they are actually close to get nukes. If you ask me, Iranian nukes are unacceptable and must be prevented.""

Well said, Itzik.

Still, I don't want Bush to take any action right now. They'll fuck it up just as they fucked up Iraq and we'll be worse off.

Let's wait till the next administration is in office.

jack,

No intention to change "who I am".  I got tired of the user name. I know exactly who I am.  Maybe, hopefully, someday you will enjoy the full measure of who I am...

Butchie:

By preemptive attacks that destroy nuclear facilities. If this isn't effective, by land occupation. NEVER by the use of a nuclear weapon (or we wouldn't be better than them).

Luis, much easier said than done.  Let me direct your attention to a map of Iran. Iran is FAR larger than Iraq, and has mountains and 75 million people.  A ground invasion would be folly, even for teh US/West.  It's too big and has an army that would actually fight, at least for awhile.

Preemptive strike?  Yes, possibly, but no one is sure where all the facilities are, and BDA would be a very tough job.  Besides, the US is getting tired of carrying the world's water.  If Europe wants the threat of Iranian nukes eliminated, let them bomb Iran.

Oh, that's right, the Euros have chosen military weakness, and so rely on the Americans for all, or nearly all, military actions.  Pity.

luispc,

Given our collective impression that due to the advanced state of our military capacities, it may seem possible to surgically strike and eliminate Iran's nuke capacites but butchie b, who I always defer to in matter military, makes the strong case that one, a ground invasion would be insane and folly, and a surgical strike would be devasting but most likely not entirely successful.  

Iran has us and our allies by the short hairs.  Given the exhausted nature of our military, fighting losing wars in two strongholds, we really have no good options.

"Let me direct your attention to a map of Iran. Iran is FAR larger than Iraq, and has mountains and 75

million people. "

It is true. But there won't be in Iran the problem there was in Iraq: meaning: an ethnically devided population that is revenging from it's internal flaws provoking the impotence of Americans.

The military operation may be more difficult at start, but afterwards it won't.

And this is only a second option. Surely intelligence can identify those facilities. And there are weapons able to reach them, aren't there?

And don't wait for Europe. A military Europe is gone. Vanished. But if Americans this time are able to attract and not to hostilize, the new franco-german leadership would be much more favourable to an American intervention, then it was to Iraq. And a Nato intervention is not unthinkable at all. Just don't expect too much military support. After all, in Europe, today, only the British still have a fighting army. No one else (and this was imposed by Americans after WWII, probably well...)