December 14, 2003

Jimmy Carter: It is not right that the more fortunate should occupy palaces while the less fortunate are left to subsist in mud huts and holes. In my bid for another Peace Prize, I am off to Iraq to build houses and oppose AmericanUnilateralImperialism any way that I can. Long live Che Guevera! Long live the Revolution!

Horsefeathers: Let's not pass up an opportunity to write another gratuitous, divisive post.

Awww, Frank... Have you NO sense of humour???

Bernard,
It's a grim day for Frank. No humor allowed--it's "divisive".

Stephen: What Edwards really said is:"There's a lawsuit here somewhere."
Then he called his buddies at the Trial Lawyers Association and decided to sue the doctor who examined Saddam for violating Saddam's privacy.

Yeah, right, it's a grim day. You can see the divisive post I put up this morning, if you wish.

Seriously, while I'm glad he was captured, I'm not sure what all the elation is about. As the President said months ago, we removed him from power and that was all that mattered. And as he said today, there will continue to be bloodshed, because there will be further violence.

Humor is fine — I especially like the kind that's funny — but why make fun of Democrats only? Why not make fun of Saddam Hussein? (Isn't it odd that instead of doing that you made fun of Democrats. Weird.)

Okay, Frank, you've got a point there. Saddam Hussein certainly was looking a little scruffy today, and I *suppose* that's a good ... er, humorous thing.

Exactly Frank--you DON'T understand the elation; the fact that a genocidal monster who was trying to escape long overdue justice was caught! Well I'd guess the families of the 1 million Iraqis slaughtered, the families of the victims of Saddam's suicide bombers, all those whom he terrorised, and those of us who viewed him as a danger to civilization do understand and do feel elation. The fact that our great young men and women patiently tracked down this monster also induces elation. You can rain on the parade tomorrow Frank; we all know there are tough struggles and losses ahead, but for now we'll take elation.
You might check out Peggy Noonan. She has a nice Johnson quote too

The opportunities for humor are only limited by the creativity of the writer.

Pick one from the following, and do your best. Run with it!

• How many dethroned Iraqi tyrants does it take to screw in a light bulb?
  
• Why did Saddam Hussein cross the road?
  
• So Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein walk into a bar.
  
• I crossed Saddam Hussein with a _______ the other day. (Whadja get?)
  
• So Saddam Hussein gets up to the pearly gates, where the Lord, without hesitation, sends him to hell. When approached by the devil,
  

Stephen, and all this is relevant to your constant desire to be divisive because ...?

Because his heart is filled with vindictiveness. It was not sufficient to feel a sense of justice with Saddam's capture, he had to carry it forward against others.

JESSICA LYNCH CAPTURES SADDAM
EX-DICATATOR DEMANDS BACK PAY FROM BAKER
GregPalast.com
Sunday, December 14, 2003

by Greg Palast

Former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was taken into custody today at approximately a.m. Washington time. Various television executives, White House spin doctors and propaganda experts at the Pentagon are at this time wrestling with the question of whether to claim PFC Jessica Lynch seized the ex-potentate or that Saddam surrendered after close hand-to-hand combat with current Iraqi strongman Paul Bremer III.

Ex-President Hussein himself told US military interrogators that he had surfaced after hearing of the appointment of his long-time associate James Baker III to settle Iraq's debts. "Hey, my homeboy Jim owes me big time," Mr. Hussein stated. He asserted that Baker and the prior Bush regime, "owe me my back pay. After all I did for these guys you'd think they'd have the decency to pay up."

Frank,
I think I'll ignore the ad hominem charge--it would be too easy to turn it against you. I will also refrain from emulating your questioning of motives. You can see how quickly that could take us down to H.C's childish level. Instead I will remind you of what you said: You failed to understand the elation. To paraphrase slightly Dr. Johnson "I have offered you an explanation. I am not obliged to offer you an understanding."

How typical, Stephen: miss the forest for the fig leaf you can use to try and justify yourself. Seriously, why was your first reaction on this blog not one of elation, but of divisiveness? You could have led with hosannas and credit to the US, but instead you chose to put down Democratic Presidential candidates. I won't offer any hypotheses; perhaps you should account for yourself. I read no elation in that post.

Compare your first post to mine.

Frank,
Your suggestions for what I should write and in what order are about as worthwhile as would be my suggestions about what you should write on your blog. Oh and yes, I did read your rather grudging acknowledgment that "given where we were" it was a good thing to capture Saddam. I think I now understand why you don't understand the elation many of us feel.

I'm not suggesting, I'm criticizing. And questioning. Where was your elation when you chose to mock Democrats?

Obviously, his true enemy is THE DEMOCRATS. He doesn't care about Saddam Hussein.

Yeah, that Saddam is a mere piker compared to those Democrats.

Sheesh!

Frank,
Let me assure you my jubilation knows no bounds. I chose to skewer several of the Democratic candidates because at a moment of great triumph for the President's policies it's useful to recall the carping and whining of those would-be Presidents who for months denounced him and his policies. Were their attacks 'divisive'? No not really--they were the give and take of democracy. When SNL satirizes Bush as a moron is that divisive? No it's called 'satire'--sometimes funny, sometimes not. I suppose in your politically correct utopian paradise, satire will be banned as divisive. Now as to you Frank, you too offered up every imaginable argument against our taking military action when we did. And yet you want to express happiness at the result of a military action which would never have occurred if you had had your way. Fine, go ahead, but forgive me if I fail to take that happiness seriously. It's as if you thought you were on the wrong bus and shouted over and over for the driver to but when he arrives safely at the correct destination you pat yourself on the back for being happy at the outcome.
Oh, and speaking of 'divisiveness', isn't that related to 'exclusiveness'? I did notice when I went to your website that you exclude comments from your own website. Any explanation for your failure to be more tolerant and inclusive?

I wonder if you have a black heart. Your last comment reads as if you seek to deny me the genuineness of my appreciation for the capture of Saddam Hussein. Your bus traveler analogy is rife with flaws; I'm not "patting myself on the back" for the purity of my reaction, I'm merely offering it as a contrast to the initial reaction you displayed on your site. Why must your world be so vile and wicked, that you post so divisively? No congratulations to our armed services, nor an expression of happiness: just a slam at the Democrats. It was a fairly good indication of your priorities.

Do you really want to comment that badly about the material on my web site? Feel free to send me an email, just like you have to do with Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan. It has nothing to do with tolerance or exclusivity.

"Do you really want to comment that badly about the material on my web site? Feel free to send me an email..."

Frank, were you intentionally trying for humour there? Or did it just slip out unexpectedly?

As Glenn Reynolds might say: Heh.

Bernard, Stephen (and Grumpy before him) both complained about the inability to post comments on my web site. I was only responding to Stephen's latest...

Frank, okay... But I couldn't help thinking how easily Stephen could say the same thing to you.

Frank,
Now you are providing the humor. I would think you might simmer down a little at this point. After all, for months you objected to the administration's Iraq policy. Had your policy recommendations been followed, the butcher of Baghdad would (as my favorite Dem., Joe Lieberman, pointed out about Howard Dean)still be sitting in his palace(s) rather than in jail. He'd still be putting people into mass graves while you were insisting that UN sanctions be given more time. So it is quite funny to watch you now scrambling to let us know how happy you are when the policies you opposed, succeed. And you DON"T UNDERSTAND THE ELATION!It may seem 'divisive' Frank, but I believe we are in a war of ideas and you represent a school of thought that is as dangerous as was the "appeasement" movement in 1930's England. Forcefully confronting your ideas apparently wounds your easily injured pride. Hiding behind other peple's web practices isn't too impressive either--I doubt that you'd have to contend with the volume of responses Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds get. Try to be more inclusive of your critics Frank. Adjectives like "vile" and "wicked" to describe my view of the world do little to enhance your arguments. I think your world view is misguided and naive, but well-meaning. That makes it particularly dangerous.

Stephen, your continued efforts to misrepresent my pre-war attitudes are atrocious. I will gladly dig out the comment from February again, if that's what it takes (I did it before when you tried it). I would have gladly supported a war to dethrone Saddam Hussein for humanitarian reasons, but that was not what the basis on which Bush et al were campaigning for war. So, read my lips, if I had my way Saddam Hussein would still have been dethroned and the failure to find WMDs would not be an issue.

Put it into a bus driver analogy all you want, you'll be lying, because it's been pointed out to you before and you acknowledged it.

Frank,
More humor? We went over this many times before--In addition to my own observations, remember Deb? She understood you perfectly. Go back and read her comments. How often do you require being told that there were multiple reasons offered for the military action against the tyrant--including the humanitarian ones. Ideas have consequences and yours lent support to delaying military action. You ignored Bush's arguments for liberating Iraq from the dead hand of tyranny and tried to argue that he gave invalid reasons, therefore should not have launched the military effort. You can shout all you want, but we've heard it all before and it's amusing to see you accuse me of your own practices. Maybe you and HC would consider spewing your rants elsewhere like at DU or Moveon.org, where everyone can agree that you have a beautiful worldview and we should not have moved against Saddam because our "reasons" for doing so were incorrectly stated.

Who's shouting? Anyone can read the record. It's in this thread, weeks before the war. Scroll down to Fedbruary 25, 10:10 AM, where I typed:

As for comparisons to Hitler, I understand your loathing, as well as your intense interest in avoiding a similar situation. If there were evidence that Saddam Hussein is engaged in that kind of annihilation now, I would be the first to recoommend immediate invasion.

(Typoes retained.)

Twist it all you want: it's far from your pinch of Joe Lieberman and "if you had your way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power."

I will leave it to your readers to draw their own conclusions.

As for this thread itself, my original point remains: your first inclination in this space was to dig at Democrats rather than to celebrate the capture. And I find that divisive.

Good idea Frank, to leave it up to others. And don't you understand yet? I favor divisiveness--in the war of ideas. Yours are on the other side of the divide.

Well, then, one could say you are as vile as Maureen Dowd.

You could, if you wish. And in fact you did. Feel better now? You and Maureen: perfect together.

"I find Kristof and Krugman almost as vile as Dowd and have stopped reading them to spare myself the aggravation."

Did you only give them up for Lent?

Frank,
Here's the money quote from Frank Lynch in the thread you yourself posted. I recommend everyone read it.

"There is no case for invading Iraq now." The rest of the thread is an elaboration of your argument against our invading Iraq. Oh I suppose you might have approved when we persuaded Moammar Khadaffi, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac. By then, of course, thousands more would have been put through the shredders, but high minded Frank, a good man, a rational, peace loving man finds there was no case for invading so we should have continued sanctions and avoided military action.

Do you realize that you argued endlessly against invading Iraq when we did? You didn't argue vigorously for toppling Saddam on humanitarian grounds. Why not then take responsibility for supporting the continued reign of a genocidal dictator? I can find no evidence that you urged invasion to topple a genocidal tyrant. But Frank Lynch is a kind man, a high minded man, a prudent man-not a black hearted war monger; he's a thoughtful and generous spirited man. He may readily characterize policy differences as 'lies' and those who differ with him as 'liars', but that's because he's such a seriously moral man with such a highminded dedication to truth. Well Frank, tell it to the Iraqi survivors. I hate to be 'divisive' but with friends like you, Iraq's victims of Saddam hardly need enemies.

It's easy, Stephen. Throughout that thread I talked about the credibility of the WMD evidence, and questioned it, because to that point the Bush administration had shown that they played with the truth on other matters. Time has shown that my incredulousness about WMDs was justified.

As for humanitarian grounds, I didn't campaign for invading on that basis because I didn't have that evidence. Everyone was talking WMDs, not humanitarian issues.

Try again. I'm not duplicitous, as you keep trying to cast me to be.

I bet you're fun to have a beer with, Steve, because you have trouble being around people with principles — the best you can do is your "high minded" this and so on. (You're so kewt on your horse!)

HC: I don't think Stephen is a Catholic. But it's a good question, nonetheless, why he would strut so loudly and proclaim that he can't tolerate reading Kristof & Krugman and then go back to do so, as evidenced by his continued analyses of what they write. Go figure!

Frank,
Remarkable how you manage to ignore your own words! You say you would have supported a war on humanitarian grounds but lacked evidence for Saddam's barbarism?? But that evidence had been widely available for a long, long time. Remember Halabja, the gassing of Kurds, the genocide following the '91 cease fire, the Lake people, etc, etc. Evidence of Sadddam's crimes was widely available Frank. Does that mean you are a liar? Not at all; you are so persuaded of your own virtue that you truly believe in your own virtuous ignorance. You just didn't know--like all those good Germans. Just as you believe, against all evidence that "Everyone was talking WMD's not humanitarian issues". However even if that were correct (it isn't) why should what "everyone" talks about cause you to forego supporting a humanitarian cause? But that might have been "divisive" Frank, to stand for principle when others among your friends were most concerned with undermining the President.
Oh yes, I plead guilty to reading Kristof after vowing to spare myself the aggravation. I hope I atoned for that grievous sin by my blog. It is after all the purpose of our blog to fight folly, ignorance and cant. My own suffering at the hands of such cantmeisters as Kristof will be worth it if I can help spare others similar pain.
I'd pass on the beer if I were seated next to you in a bar, Frank. Not strong enough; it would take at least a double Gentleman Jack.

Stephen said:
http://www.insomnomaniac.com/movabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=337
"I find Kristof and Krugman almost as vile as Dowd and have stopped reading them to spare myself the aggravation."

(yet you still read them?)

or, "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll BLOW your house down." Huff. Puff. Bricks on the left, big guy. You lose.

Imnpressive to see that H.C.'s now almost ready for Mother Goose. Tell your 4th grade teacher you're only 3 yrs behind reading level for 9 year olds and moving up fast.

You know, Stephen, I look at this thread, and I continue to be shocked. It would be wrong to turn "elation" into some kind of modern day loyalty oath, but you seem to see patriotism in terms of causing division rather than joining together. First, as I said at the start, by choosing to mock Democratic presidential candidates rather than just simply enjoying the moment; then later here you've described your pride in being divisive, labeling me as "the other side," as if I'm not every bit as much an American as you are — it all suggests McCarthyism and red-baiting, that you can't differentiate between people who disagree with you and Saddam Hussein. "You're the other side." Do you really think so? Do you really think you live in a country where I don't have the right to be glad about this event because I didn't support our invasion (as implied by your silly bus metaphor)? It's almost like you resent the very idea that anyone who doesn't agree with you could be patriotic, as if it cheapens your concept of patriotism.

It's sad, really. You should go to a mall, or something, and hand try hanging out with others who aren't in your world. I fear you've become quite the isolationist.

(I hope everyone now knows that when you post blusterous comments like you did in that other blog about not reading Kristof and Krugman any more that people will discount all your other words accordingly.)

When I look at this thread, I continue to be... well, not "shocked" but rather a little puzzled why anyone should continue to make such a big deal out of what clearly was meant as a humorous jab. It's called satire, Frank, and it has a long and respected history in literature and even everyday life.

Laugh and the world laughs with you...

Fairly said, Bernard, but it was too early for divisive humor. And in the meantime, Stephen has said many things which deserve my reproach. He chooses to come out into a public space with this web log; reactions are part of it.

Now let us capture someone really nasty, like SHARON!

Frank,
Sorry to hear of your 'shock'. I didn't realize the delicacy of your mental apparatus. My threshold for feeling shocked is higher than yours. Thus when you added Mc'Carthyism, red-baiting and besmirching your patriotism to your usual stock of accusations, a slightly raised eyebrow was the extent of my reaction. This is Frank, the guy who hurls around charges of 'liar' to substitute for ideas about policy differences. By now I'm familiar with the way you embrace victimhood while hurling your accusations.
Poor Frank, victim of blackheartedness. Instead of going round this track again and again, Frank, why not head to the local bar and have a few beers. Any experienced bartender will recognize the mix of self pity, self aggrandizement and victimhood. I'm sure he'll understand what a good and patriotic American you are. And if he asks you how you felt about the capture of Saddam you can explain that it was a good thing but no cause for elation. I'm sure he'll suggest another beer.
I'm going to make an early New Year's resolution to forego the pleasures of responding to the charges you hurl as substitutes for thought. Enough is really enough. I will keep our Comments section open however, but I do suggest you might prefer DemocraticUnderground or Moveon.org. After all, you don't welcome different views at your own weblog--I know, I know, Andrew Sullivan, blah blah blah--so why not go where no-one will question or challenge you? No divisiveness there.

Aw, if Frank leaves, the job of making you think will fall entirely to me!

Who the heck is this Frank person? What happened to his sense of humour? Did it die from neglect?

Ah, Pixy, my sense of humor has not been neglected. I'm a regular reader of Flann O'Brien (I can even spell his name correctly!), viewer of the Honeymooners, and listener of Leon Redbone. But if you've read much on this web site, you've noticed that it doesn't tilt towards the humorous as much as the aspersions. At least, towards Democrats — they'll write up psychobabble alerts to defend conservatives all the time, and give Charles Krauthammer free passes from here till sundown. Not out of a desire to strip cant, but to protect an agenda.

The Honeymooners? Flann O'Brien? Well, never mind.

Now I admit that these little soundbites were not roll-on-the-floor funny, just wryly amusing. But they were extremely accurate - only the suggetion that John Kerry was going to give up the race was out of character.

You complain that this humour is divisive, but the whole value of the humour is in the fact that every comment made by the present democratic candidates (with the notable exception of Joe Lieberman) is nothing but divisive. Steven is just using the very lightest touch of satire to point out this fact.

As for the treatment of conservatives here - I haven't been around Horsefeathers much of late, so I can't comment. But given your complaints of the treatments of the democrats - which treatment is merely a reiteration of said democrats views - I suspect that the treatment here of conservatives is equally reasonable and that your complaints there are equally valueless.