From Victor Davis Hansen:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/club_america.html

When Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman pulled up to Savannah, Ga., after his legendary March to the Sea in December 1864, he was savagely slandered in the Southern press as a renegade leader of a "vandal horde."

But at that same time, leading Confederate officers privately appealed to him, hoping he would guarantee the safety of the relatives they had left behind in Savannah. Why, Sherman wondered, would his sworn enemies trust that such an enemy might be kind to their loved ones -- unless they knew that their own slurs about him were mere rhetoric?

That same sort of pretense is evident in the Middle East, where the leaders of countries and organizations hostile to or critical of the United States often trust us far more than they let on.

Nabih Berri, the Lebanese Amal militia chief who is now allied with both the anti-American Hezbollah and Syria, has much of his family residing in Dearborn, Mich.

Amr Salem, until recently a cabinet minister in Bashar Assad's anti-American government in Syria, was a senior program manager at Microsoft. His family still lives in the U.S.

Bilal Musharraf, son of Pakistan strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has been a Boston-based consultant and a Stanford business and education student. Meanwhile, his father's government is either unwilling or unable to arrest on his soil the remnants of al-Qaida, among them, most likely, Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former Saudi ambassador to the United States and high cabinet official in a monarchy that funds much of the world's radical Islamist madrassas, is selling his 56,000-square-foot mansion in tony Aspen. The asking price is $135 million -- the most expensive home ever put up for sale in the United States.

What are we to make of these incongruities and others like them?

First is the obvious hypocrisy. Allying with radical Shiites in Lebanon, anti-American Syrians or Islamists in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia does not seem to disqualify Middle Eastern politicos from appreciating the freedom, security and opportunity of the United States.

For all the talk of America's faults, no Middle Easterner worries about vengeful Americans kidnapping or car-bombing his relatives. And few seem to consider that if the worldview of a present-day Lebanese militia or Saudi Arabia ever sweeps the globe, there would be no Dearborn or Aspen for their kin to find sanctuary.

Second, the wide gap between what many in the Middle East say and do should be a reminder that much anti-Americanism is poorly thought out or mostly for show. Many who decry America to the press and cameras privately prefer to send their loved ones here to take advantage of our success brought about by secular education, gender equality, meritocratic democracy and the primacy of law.

Third, the families of leaders of autocratic nations often hostile to the United States are kept safe and sound in this country precisely because of our openness and respect for guests and foreigners. Unlike most of the Middle East, where it is nearly impossible for Christians, single women or homosexuals to live openly and freely, Americans are a tolerant people who are not captive to tribal, religious or sectarian vengeance.

Americans may also think that these personal ties of Middle East authoritarians to the United States will lead to either liberalization back home or at least more favorable impressions of us there. Sadly, that hasn't happened. In the case of Syria's Amr Salem, his tenure at Bill Gates' Microsoft seems to have made him only a more perfect minister of computer surveillance.

Indeed, sometimes exposure to American culture creates feelings of ambiguity -- a sense of guilt among conservative arrivals at their newfound liberal appetites. In other cases, the perception arises that someone or something must have prevented the Middle East from enjoying what Americans take for granted.

The United States probably will not -- and probably should not -- deny entry to the families of Lebanese militia leaders, Pakistani dictators, Saudi sheiks or Syrian high officials. But we should at least point out to them, as Gen. Sherman once did to his grandstanding detractors, that there is certainly a reason why Bandar, Berri, Musharraf and Salem want their children over here -- and apparently as far away as possible from the countries where they themselves are in charge.

This article makes the mistake of thinking that elites in Arab countries have the same views as the majority of the people in these countries. Even in a dictatorship, the government responds (at least somewhat) to popular opinion. Regardless of whether or not elites in Arab countries actually think the U.S. is a great country, since the people do not think this, the elite leaders are free to pursue anti-American policies. They only care about their own power, they're not concerned if they're hypocrites.

I agree with Raul.
Look at Iran. I understand that the current president and "idiot" Amadujihan (trying to spell his name) is as unpopular as GW.

Also, when you say Anti american, do you mean American governemt and coporate culture as opposed to the American people? And yes, we are tollerant at least in comparision to the Middle Eastern.
I think even the rest of the world has its "red and "blue" regions
The universities in Tehran are no different than universities in the USA. You have open minded progressive elements and when you leave and go to the ourter regions of a country, you encounter more conservative, less tollerent people. Al Queda tends to recruit from the outer areas

Raoul and James, I don't know if you've paid much mind to the "Cracking the Code" forum, or anything to do with Luntz or Rove's word spin tactics, but your comments look like you have.

I'm going to be more direct, although I'm not saying Coalage is a paid correspondent just because he posts from roughly nine to five Eastern time, five days a week, I'm not even saying if he is he shouldn't be posting these constant lead threads from his "favorite" sites that always seem to have this sort of "flavor." Especially since I don't see where he violates any rules of decorum. In fact, I think it's great that he does. Adds that necessary spice to the Board and helps keep members in practice. So I'm just practicing with my handy dandy Luntz/Rovian word list spotter.

This is the second article in a week that I've noticed Coalage has posted from "Real Clear Politics." Those who are not put off by the Orwellian sound of "Clear Skies Initiative," "Healthy Forest Initiative," "Operation Iraqi Freedom," (Changed from "Liberty" to "Freedom" for obvious Luntzian-based reasons) and so forth and so on, then probably their deeper frames are not being contradicted or challenged in any way by any of this mind play.

A better title for this piece (which self consciously starts with a reference to rhetoric) might be: Luntzian surface frames vs. deep frames. Because our mental deep frames are the basis for each of our realities.

Ren,

I post articles from RealClearPolitics because they provide articles and links to conservative and progressive sites alike. I don't always agree with the substance or tone of the articles I post.

I post the articles I do because I hope they will stimulate discussion. I post at the time I do because that is when I have the availability to do so. My evening hours are devoted to other interests.

Most of the stuff I post probably has a "conservative bent" to it. Why? Because I think this is a forum mostly used by self described progressives. I think it is vitally important that all sides of the issues be presented, especially when it comes to politics.
No matter which side of the political spectrum you fall in, I don't see how you can begin to understand any issue without considering what "the other side" has to say.

quote:

Raoul and James, I don't know if you've paid much mind to the "Cracking the Code" forum, or anything to do with Luntz or Rove's word spin tactics, but your comments look like you have

Ren: I have not visited that thread but after you suggestion, I will.
The source of my posts comes from "
democracy Now with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez www.democracynow.org
Amy Goodman recently interviewed some Iranian dissidents who, while totally opposed to the current regime (one was imprisoned for his political views) they strongly opposed military intervention in Iran. Amadajim (spelling)would win as all oposing forces would rally around their leaders in repelling an occupying force.
Zabrinski made a very insightful observation on
PBS. We are attempting colonial actions in a post colonial world. If you can, go rent the The Battle of Algiers and you will see what I mean. We need to suport progressive secular movements in the world.

quote:

Most of the stuff I post probably has a "conservative bent" to it. Why? Because I think this is a forum mostly used by self described progressives. I think it is vitally important that all sides of the issues be presented, especially when it comes to politics.
No matter which side of the political spectrum you fall in, I don't see how you can begin to understand any issue without considering what "the other side" has to say.

Coalage, you don't need to defend whatever your motivations might be for posting to me, I tried to make that clear. But it would imply that you actually cared about a debate that has some educational value if you could explain after you post some of this, how beginning an article with a freshman level fallacy in logic is a "side," as in my recent critique of your other post from this "Real Clear Politics" site -- if that's so important to you. That particular logical fallacy of "weak or bad analogy" related to "free market" ideology is deeply imbedded in the Luntz playbook and I can't help wanting to reveal it when I see it is being used.

And regarding the source of these two articles, I don't know about you, but any time someone outright names something "real clear" or tells me I'm entering the "no spin zone" my mind goes into alert.

Whether you are personally cognizant of the tone and particular use of language of what's being presented in the pieces you post, I can't hardly know. What exactly you mean by "side," I can't know. But Luntz style spin doctoring aimed at framing ideas and limiting the scope of discussion, imbedded in much of what's called conservative rhetoric, I can recognize because I have been studying it. I'm not criticizing the logic of any position, here, I'm looking at the language and how it is being used to manipulate public debate. It seems to me that's a relevant reason to critique anything you -- or any of the other people -- post on this Board. After all it relates to what Thom Hartmann himself is trying to discuss on his programs, given what SueN has been posting on "Cracking the Code." I couldn't care less whether anyone labels it anything.

Both James and Raoul quickly recognized the spin in this article. I'm all in favor of that level of critique. Bandying about the opinions of sides isn't very interesting and doesn't really do much for me. Especially when I can write the other side's opinions for them, probably better.

So, to answer your last "side based" comment, I don't think it matters which "side" of anything you "fall" on if you don't understand the underlying meanings of what's being said, and can't get past the knee jerk responses the commodified minds of the world have been programmed to make. As I said, keep posting away, gives me practice.

James,

I appreciate Amy and Juan, they seem level headed in their presentation, and they also show a knack for getting under the language of camouflage to get at the grit of a story.

If you get a chance rent "
The Battle of Algiers" it gives you an incredible insight on insurgent forces. the Algerian underground forces resisted French colonial rule. Look, I don't care what language,"spin" justifiction you can think of. Once you cross a country's borders, You are an Occupier and the people will resist you any way they can.
BTW Zabrinski is considered a conservative Salman Rushdie, now opposes the Iraq War.

I'm not exactly sure what you are driving at Ren. I would think that practically any article, or essay, concerning anything political is going to have a "slant" or "frame".

I know of very few writers who don't have a slant to what they are commenting on. VDH is obviously a conservative writer and ommentator. Anyone who has read anything from him can make that determination pretty clearly.
Its no different than knowing that something from David Corn, for example, is going to have a "liberal" slant to it.

RealClearPolitics is just a site that posts other articles from all kinds of sources. They do have a blog site of their own, but I use it because you can get news and articles without having to search a lot of different sites.

Saw it years and years ago when I was in college, but I might look at it again. These are the deep structural reasons for insurgency and they transcend time, obviously.

I don't know if you pay attention to the geopolitical level of things. I find that gives a level of discourse that provides a much broader context for what appears to be an entirely insane reaction to the American public will by this administration, and why they have some chance of winning out in their quest to stay in Iraq, and maybe even attack Iran. If you want to understand why Congress could fold in the end, it will be be more likely for those geostrategic reasons related to U.S. power in the face of a now up and coming energy rich Russia, and the Eurasian economic strength which has already eclipsed the U.S. Not for the ideologically rhetorical content in article linked in the lead post. One of the main reasons for that is the intermixing of the goals of the tax based funding that benefits all parties in the long term planning of the Military Industrial Complex, and the correlation of that Complex with foreign policy goals. It's almost like an already sprung trap, and the whole nation is caught in it.

I believe that "Colonialism" is one of the great evils of the world. We have another tread about "Liberals and Gun Control" and it sort of piggybacks on this issue.
http://thomhartmann.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4061097651/m/9221006722
One of the reason Thomas Jefferson, as well as many of our founding fathers, proposed the 2nd Amemdment was they wanted a citizen armies that could defend the borders! (if the need arises) Large standing armies are mainly for colonial purposes.(quelling insurrection for example)
Many of these Middle Easter Borders are the result of lines drawn by French and British diplomats after WWI - Sykes-Picot Agreement
Even the names have changed:
Iraq was previously Mesopotamia
Iran was Persia (Iranians are Persians and not Arabs)
Why are we Americans defending colonial borders. Washington in his Farwell Address warned against this!!

Coalage, I believe I said quite clearly what I meant. I said pretty much what you repeated about slant. And I also said that I'm identifying not just slant, but it's sources. It happens to be a relatively new forum topic on this Board, so I'm trying to promote a little cross fertilization to go with Thom's radio presentations and the discussions on that forum. After all, this is a commercial site and it's owner, Thom Hartmann, has a right to have his own ideas cross fertilized and argued on it. Maybe that's a new wrinkle for you? That underlying theme of the Cracking the Code forum is the relevance of noticing that an idea presented is with slant. Otherwise slant comes down to merely boring opinions. And we get to sit here watching them go back and forth like hard shelled ping pong balls. Only barely educational because it's more like a sporting event.

Yes, I'm aware that Hansen is a member of Hoover Institution at Stanford, as is Thomas Sowell, the conservative economist, whose opinion pieces I've also dissected for Luntz/Rovian spin, as is Condie Rice, who's words I've also dissected for said spin.

I don't mind in the least that you keep missing my point about the name of the site.

Ren,

I can't say that I disagree with anything you have said. But I see an obvious problem, at least to me. I know very few people who have the will and inclination to delve into the underlying "frames" and concepts that are delivered to us on a daily basis by pundits, authors, essayists, etc. We are all too well aware of the apathy of the american voting public. For whatever reason, the public seems to want their info delivered to them in sound bite form. And it better be short and sweet.

I like most of the PBS prgramming...NOVA, POV, Frontline, Globe Trekker. I watch it whenever I have the chance. I literally know no one else in my circle of acquaintances that watch these shows. One of my favorite shows was the old PBS series "Firing Line"...hosted by William F. Buckley. It was an hour of reasoned, intelligent discussions touching on some of the issues you have raised. No shouting, no cursing, just good give and take. How I wish it were still on the air.

Obviously, you have the determination and drive to "dig deep". Alas, I am afraid that there are very few like you.

But for your amusement, I will continue to post stuff from RCP.

Coalage, My favorite poet, Wallace Stevens has a poem I favor, titled: Of Mere Being. In it he mentions the "Palm at the end of the mind."

Beyond that palm lies any real knowledge not made up by various forms of clever guessery, and that includes whatever goes on in the American voting public's mind, at least for me. So I'm just going to keep on doing what I do whether I'm the only person on this planet doing it or not. I keep getting surprising indications that I'm not alone from time to time. And I hope you can keep feeding me sources of entertainment.

I particularly enjoyed this bit of cross referenced "realist" oriented entertainment from your site: A Dose of Reality for the Realists by J. R. Dunn. He's from the "American Stink... er, Thinker"

James,

I agree, Colonialism, and it's various cognates and metamorphosis, are a virulent force. Certainly the past five hundred years of it were not it's first instance. Would you consider globalization (shhhh, we are supposed to be using the term "free trade") as a variant of Colonialism?

This could've been posted on another thread, but at some point on this one was a recognition of the sources that provide some of the snippets, justifiably so [what does this source have to gain? is always my own skeptical question] I think this guy passes with flying colors, and anyone with first hand knowledge of VietNam, no matter how that experience came about, [and there are endless manifestations], should be included in a proper evaluation, discussion, or genuine 'perspective seeking' task Reflections from someone that knows

quote:

eflections on Widening the War

by Roger Morris

One of the books in the backdrop of the White House Library must have been on quantum physics. As President George W. Bush stood awkwardly at his podium Wednesday night, nervously drawing breaths at each sentence as he began his long-awaited speech Iraq, Washington’s parallel universes seemed to crowd the room.

Vietnam Memorial.

There were other universes then, too. I sat across from the angry deflecting bravado of another military unable to admit defeat, impotence and its own ample share in the common disaster, officers who became mentors of our puerile power point generals of Mesopotamia. After I resigned from the White House over the invasion of Cambodia, I saw another universe of careerism, of craven equivocation in a Democratic opposition ever cowed by Republican chauvinism. I sat then across from maimed Vietnam veterans come to Capitol Hill to scream and murmur for peace, their bodies shaking in rage yet legs and arms strangely still, frozen in paralysis. Iraq is not Vietnam. Not just in the far wider geo-political ruin, but in sheer blind repetition of behavior expecting a different result, a mark of madness in nations as in individuals, it is worse.

The universes around Mr. Bush’s speech still tell the story. There is his, a feast for future biographers. At one of the most challenging moments in history, we cheered, and choose again, the most ill-equipped president and advisors of the most tragically uninformed and desperately held presumption. When those who ruled as his regents, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, were dominating the Ford Administration and seeding much of today’s calamity three decades ago in their own universes of ambition, twenty-nine year-old George W. Bush, the lineage’s least fortunate son, was in Midland, Texas, partying heartily and scrounging for some role on the rusty panhandle fringes of the oil business.

Then the others: In its plush offices, the American Enterprise Institute, so typical of Washington’s think tank warriors so near power, so far from Baghdad and the consequences of their prolix urgings to invade and surge, and now with many Neo-Cons venomously jumping ship, nearly the last of that relentlessly deficient claque, or any other constituency, to tell Mr. Bush what all failed politicians hope to hear, that he still has a chance to retrieve history.

there's more on the link