dagblog - Comments for "Bonfire of the Vanities: Robert Parry and the Red Mist of Partianship"

GWB was 'trigger happy', if

NCD — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 23:46:32 +0000

In reply to Parry makes good points, and

GWB was 'trigger happy', if you call starting two wars that may have killed a million people by that idiom, Obama ended one war and is ending another, hopefully soon.

The Pentagon endures, Presidents come and go. Obama is doing as a good a job as can be done in one term. Even Eisenhower felt the military-industrial complex was a threat to democracy, and I doubt he could do any better at restraining our hawks than Obama.

Parry makes good points, and

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 18:28:28 +0000

In reply to Robert Parry: "This vanity of

Parry makes good points, and frankly many here at Dag display what Parry calls the 'vanity of perfectionism'.

I agree, although I think Perry is using a pejorative description for what can be a correct and principled stance and is therefore wrong to do so. Do you/can you, recognize that there are also those here who represent the type whom Floyd describes? It seems quite obvious that there are. Can you reject all the good points Floyd makes because you identify one you disagree with or do you think there are none? Are you intellectually satisfied that Perry wins the debate because you believe, wrongly in my opinion and that of many, many others, that Perry is right on the one issue of the Awlaki killings and Floyd is wrong?

I would submit Parry has more familiarity with the nation's crimes and history, many of which he personally revealed, than does Chris Floyd.

Can you give evidence to support that assertion? Otherwise, it is mere speculation on your part which you imply supports your position and I think does not, one way or the other. In any case, that statement does not speak to the points Floyd makes and does not give weight to either side of the issue, and so is irrelevant.

Fact: The kid wasn't targeted, and he was brought to Yemen Terrorland by his terrorist Dad to hang out with terrorists and plan terrorist acts.

Fact? Do you have evidence that the son was " ...brought to Yemen Terrorland by his terrorist dad to hang out with terrorists and plan terrorist acts"? His family says he ran away from the family home in Yemen's capital to go find his dad. Do you think you can know what was in the father's heart regarding his son and what he wanted and expected his son to do? I am open to evidence of the kids intentions but regardless what they were he was a sixteen year old U.S citizen never accused or charged with a crime by the government which killed him.
Was he targeted? I cannot know and neither can you with any certainty or even high level of confidence. The U.S. position initially was that he was in his mid-twenties. Was that a deliberate lie or a demonstration of the reliability of the intelligence used in passing his death penalty? Again, either way, it does not refute Floyd's point, IMO. The two Awlaki cases are just two of many examples and neither of them needs be completely accurate in order for the larger point to be valid. That larger point is partially conveyed by Floyd here:

"Therefore it is extremely dispiriting to read his recent bitter blasts (here and here) at any and all of those "on the left" who might even contemplate refusing to support Barack Obama for re-election. Such people, he tells us, are vain, preening perfectionists who care more for their own self-righteousness than the fate of the world. Indeed, "leftists" who have refused to support the Democratic candidate -- no matter who he is, no matter what he has done -- are complicit, we are told, in all the atrocities perpetrated by Republican presidents since 1968.

Floyd states his case and supports it. I agree with him. You do not. Fine, but you should, if you can, support your case with some substantial argument.

If his Dad's gang blew up another US ship, or brought down a commercial airliner, Obama would be blamed, investigated and accused of coddling terrorists.

That is true. Principled leadership is risky to a President who is about to stand for another election. Our country, meaning all its citizens, not just its soldiers, must take some risks, IMO. We cannot continue to support our military's killing everyone/anyone on the planet who would like to do us harm. We take out too many innocents. We have become trigger-happy. The feed-back loop of hatred in which we play a huge role just keeps on making things worse.

Robert Parry: "This vanity of

NCD — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:03:42 +0000

In reply to Bonfire of the Vanities: Robert Parry and the Red Mist of Partianship

Robert Parry: "This vanity of perfectionism sometimes takes precedence even if it may help empower an unstable or incompetent U.S. leader who would implement horribly destructive policies that could kill millions."

Parry makes good points, and frankly many here at Dag display what Parry calls the 'vanity of perfectionism'. It's what, along with the millions of true nutcases in the nation, makes America what it has been, and is today.

I would submit Parry has more familiarity with the nation's crimes and history, many of which he personally revealed, than does Chris Floyd.

Floyd writes: He can even kill a 16-year-old American boy -- kill him, rip him to shreds with a missile fired by a coddled coward thousands of miles away -- and you must support him.

Fact: The kid wasn't targeted, and he was brought to Yemen Terrorland by his terrorist Dad to hang out with terrorists and plan terrorist acts. His Dad knew he and his group were being targeted but he brought his kid there anyway. If his Dad's gang blew up another US ship, or brought down a commercial airliner, Obama would be blamed, investigated and accused of coddling terrorists.

Why? For not taking them out when the Pentagon was able to. Plus a lot of Americans would be dead, although they probably wouldn't be anyone from Dag or Chris Floyd.

It's like Vegas - as long as

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:24:07 +0000

In reply to Bonfire of the Vanities: Robert Parry and the Red Mist of Partianship

It's like Vegas - as long as you're playing, the house wins. If you don't play the house rules - you're evil, castoff, helping the other side send us to hell in a hand-basket.

Funny how both parties have this rule.

Excellent LULU. Spot on.

cmaukonen — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 03:04:28 +0000

In reply to Bonfire of the Vanities: Robert Parry and the Red Mist of Partianship

Excellent LULU. Spot on.

With my browser at least one

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 02:44:22 +0000

In reply to Bonfire of the Vanities: Robert Parry and the Red Mist of Partianship

With my browser at least one comment is required before the number of reads of the 'In the News' item is displayed, so this is just to satisfy my curiosity.