mattp

I am somewhat surprised by this result, as I remember various threads where several hard core posters who have been banned or who have stopped posting got very agitated and posted a bunch of stuff like that in the context of arguing about the coming war and how the defeatocrats and French were urging appeasement like Chaimberlain before world war II. I don't specifically remember those who are still representing those views on this site using those words. I am only somewhat surprised, though, because I have had very mixed success when going back to look for threads that I knew existed and searching for words that I knew had been used. I didn't find what I was looking for when I searched "Muir on Saurday," for example, or Fairweather's actual name, or "bush lied" or ... "ragheads."

I have literally spent months snow camping under a tarp on extended trips up to three weeks long and dried wet socks in a down sleeping bag hundreds of times. It works just fine, but don't do if you are in a small or poorly ventilated tent, if you are using a bivvy bag, or if you have some kind of breathable waterproof shell on your sleeping bag.

Actually, I think we could run some searches and find exactly that being urged by some fairly prolific posters on cc.com a few years back - unless the politically correct moderators you complain about deleted it.

Actually, glasgowkiss, I read a history text a few years back that cited examples of their tolerance exercised in Spain. That book was the Columbia History of the World - not a book that I am aware has ever been criticized for being soft on Islam. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for Muslim Golden Age: Hhere an entry from the page on the muslim conquest of Alexandria: You can easily find historical references to the brutality of the Muslim conquest, and I won't dispute those. When tent bound on an expedition to Alaska I read a world history book, however, and I was surprised to learn that Muslim jihad has more to it than the simplistic ideas I read here on cc.com.

I don't disagree with the condemnation of Muslim intolerance expressed here but I don't agree with Recycled's history lesson. Yes, Islam was born in a tribal time and yes, they did seek to conquer the world. In their conquest they were, however, far more tolerant than were the Christian crusaders who followed. They allowed their subjects to practice their own religion as long as they paid their taxes. Is "kill all infidels" necessarily part of Muslim creed? I don't know.

Jay, I don't know enough about Mr. Lindberg to form a judgment as to whether he was unfairly treated. But what about McDermott? Have you expressed an opinion on his trip to Baghdad here? (You could have, somewhere in this thread, and if so I apologize for not simply referring to it rather than asking again). I think he was one of very few members of Congress who spoke against the war, and for that I am proud of him. I also think he was pandering to a Seattle electorate. I don't have any impression of him as particularly bold or effective and I doubt he would have pulled such a move had he not thought he'd win some political points at home. And what would you have a Congressman do when President Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama wants to start a misguided war based on a misleading premise three years from now? If they draw attention to such misgivings, will you call them a traitor?

Reflecting on the case of McDermott and his trip to Baghdad, I'd like to know what those who condemn him here would say he or any other Senator should do if they believe there is a delusional push to war being promoted by the NEXT administration?

I agree with your second paragraph there, Porter, and I agree too that the rise in incidents of terrorism directed toward the U.S. is probably not something you can blame on a particular administration or party, but Say what? Bush and the Republicans have done absolutely the WRONG thing in Iraq and it doesn't look as if they've done well in Afghanistan either (the Democrats went along with it, but Bush and the Republican led Congress were in charge). Probably a more accurate statement would be One thing is for sure, though, Baghdad Jim was right. The French were right. General Eric Shinseki was right. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson was right. Simply because they spoke against the war in whatever media or with whatever opportunities were available to them, they were all branded as cowards and traitors except maybe Shinseki who was merely sacked.

Bill, I've paid attention to other posts of yours and I realize you are not one of those blame-it-all-on-Clinton types. Still, it astounds me when I read stuff like your essay here and when I see someone post that they'd still vote for Bush an endorse an Iraq invasion, even knowing what they know now. Wringing their hands over whether Saddam may have thought he could benefit from a McDermott publicity stunt (if you believe that is what it was), these folks witness and even occasionally acknowledge that "mistakes were made" but they want to blame Clinton for Bush's failings and they argue that Bush's failure somehow means that a Democratic president starting in 2009 is going to do worse.

OUCH. That really hurts, coming from you (Fairweather) the beacon of thoughtful writing around here.

Bill: The incoming Bush administration is famous for complaining that the Clinton folks were obsessed with terrorism and failing to even discuss the issue before 911. And don't forget the memo that Bush was read while on vacation in Crawford, a month before 911, that warned of an attack. He replied that the reporters were wasting his time. We can point fingers at who dropped the ball, and those fingers may well point at Clinton, but they point at Bush too. 911 happened 9 months into the Bush administration, yet discussions such as yours want to blame Clinton without mentioning that Bush might have had some responsibility? And what about the clearly bungled response? Was that Clinton's fault, too? I agree with your idea that the corrupt influences of business interest affect Democrats and Republicans alike but it was the Republican President and Congress that did this to us and, at worst, the Democrats were only willing dupes. Al Queda killed 3,000 Americans and destroyed 3 or 4 buildings. Bush and the Republican Congress have broken our defense capability and weakened our position in the world for a generation or more. The terrorists were responsible for 911. I'm not sure that an essay such as yours really says anything but that somebody wants to convince themselves that the disaster that Bush has created is the fault of his predecessor. Too bad nobody listened to Baghdad Jim.

I agree he was right to go, but it isn't just semantics. His motivations in making the trip have everything to do with whether you think he was boldly speaking truth to power, pandering to a liberal Seattle electorate, or committing treason.

Tvash, I seem to recall it being more of a political trip than a fact finding trip. I think he said at the time that he felt he had to go to Iraq to get any coverage of his statements that invasion was a bad idea.

Careful there, Joseph. If you suggest that Cheney is a calculating businessman or ruthless politician and not a true patriot you may find these guys calling you a conspiracy theorist or a traitor.

I agree with that, Porter. In the interest of business and even politics, we deal with bad people all the time. I think Glasgow's point may have been that these guys seem to be criticizing McDCermott for lending support to Saddam, but Bush or maybe Cheney had previously lent support to the Taliban at a time when, even back in 1997, they knew that the Taliban were enemies of the U.S. I don't think it is quite the same -- we had not already been through one war with the Taliban and were not engaged in a campaign to start a second war with them in 1997 -- and MCDermott was there to make a statement about our foreign policy and not to make a business deal. But there certainly is SOME similarity. They were clearly hostile to us at least in their rhetoric. I also don't think McDermott was lending support to Saddam. He said it was not time to invade, but he certainly did not say anything "nice" about Saddam that I can recall.

Whatever, Fairweather.

There actually WAS a story behind Glasgow's post. I agree there may not have been a direct Bush connection at the time so had you bothered to look it up you could have made a stronger reply than assuming he was confusing the Taliban with the Saudis and calling him names. But was there some other connection? Wasn't Bush governor then? Or if, as you so often seem to argue, any friend of our enemy is by definition a traitor, should we wonder whether Cheney is a traitor based on dealings he had with the Taliban several years before 911? But your "example" appears to be rhetorical nonsense.

Say what? Your logic eludes me.

Fairweather: all I did was point out that you were obviously too lazy to look it up. In that, I believe, it is YOU who was lame and lazy. And here you called our poor defensless Glasgowkiss names over it. Have a nice day.

Don't sweat it, Serenity. I didn't get the impression you were claiming that you wrote the article. Anybody wanting the source could obtain it with a click or two.

Actually, the dumb and lazy act here was yours, not bothering with the simplest google search (Taliban Texas) before you lashed back at our poor misunderstood Mr. Glasgow here.

Fairweather: a simple google search will answer your question about what Glasgow is referring to.

Bill, if you are referring to the frequent rantings from myself and others who are beside ourselves over what has happened lately, and often willing to take a critical view of something out government may have done years ago too, you are greatly misunderstanding the message if you think these posts add up to "the US is always wrong and so fucked up."

Serenity has some good insight sometimes and I enjoy reading his posts but I gotta agree with Bug here. Serenity writes that McDermott was among those urging “capitulation.” Say WHAT? He appears here, as many did then, to be holding on to the idea that Saddam posed some significant threat and that we were safer attacking him then rather than keeping him contained and waiting for further inspections and diplomacy (this is what McDermott was advocating). Remember the arguments that McDermott was like Chamberlain in the 1930’s, appeasing Hitler? I’ve said it before and I think it is worth noting again: all you had to do was to read the newspapers and pay attention and you knew, before we invaded, those arguments were bunk. We knew that the inspector Hans Blix said Saddam had no nuclear weapons, that Saddam hadn’t been able to threaten anybody outside his country for years, that he didn’t allow Al Queda to operate in Iraq, that the alleged aluminum tubes and Urainium purchase efforts were bogus, etc. We knew that Chalabi and his pals were opportunists and their claims could not be substantiated. TO get this information, you had to read the newspapers all the way to page ten – not just the headlines. And you had to ignore the “mainstream” group think caused by the fog of 911. Any reflection based on the barest knowledge of history suggested that we were not going to march in there as liberators and have peace and democracy take hold without a serious struggle. McDermott was one of very few politicians willing to stand up and speak this truth. Whether he was a heroic rogue or a pandering opportunist is debatable. Whether he was right is not. Those, like Serenity, who argued then and maintain now that Saddam posed a serious enough threat that our invasion was a good idea were reacting to the horror of 911, and the reality that Saddam, a bully with nothing to lose, was standing up and poking our dear leader Bush in the eye and gaining from this. I can understand someone’s doing that THEN, but how can Serenity, Fairweather, or anybody else refuse to reevaluate that stance now?

It seems to me that a two year warranty period is not all that unreasonable. I return things when I think the product did not perform the purpose for which it was sold and, depending on how much use it got two years may be a rather short life for a headlamp but consider this: headlamps are prone to getting knocked about and are not something that most people will take super careful care of. Even if you are careful with them, they use batteries that sometimes leak and they have wires and connections that always fail eventually. A fixed warranty period seems fairly reasonable though may be it should be three years or something.