_


  • Marccooper5_1

Back To Home Page

« A Great American: Hammered | Main | Max: 'Why We March' »

Thursday, September 29, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8342139a953ef00e5506c6d6c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marching. Or Walking in Circles? [Updated]:

Comments

Marc Cooper

Resitor: This is the last warning. Youve made ur same boring point over and again and proven me to be a liar. Moveon or moveout. Show us ur capable of something other than grunting.

bunkerbuster

Marc Cooper's critique of the left's anti-war position originates from the same cold war paradigm that led inexorably to the war and will just as surely lead to others, even if the U.S. succeeds in getting out of the present mess intact.
Cooper's view does not argue for a change in this political paradigm, which rendered the opposition (the democratic wing of the Democratic party) so powerless after 9/11. Rather, it calls for a shifting of loyalties within that paradigm based on the tactical failure of the war in Iraq to turn out like Kosovo, Gulf War I, Panama, Grenada, and so on.
Admittedly, my analysis ignores some of Cooper's anti-war posturing. That's because I'm trying to illuminate his underlying, thus unspoken, assumptions are based on. As such, there is an element of speculation on my part and I, of course, welcome any corrections by Cooper.

Some of the (false) assumptions are:

1. Dissent in time of war is tantamount to disloyalty.
2. U.S. moral authority in geopolitics is a pre-existing condition and therefore requires no demonstration, maintenance or ongoing development.
3. Dualism: e.g. those who oppose the occupation favor the insurgency, by definition.
4. ``Terrorism'' is a strategic response to perceived military weakness, rather than a tactical reply to overwhelming military strength.
5. The U.S. won the Cold War by attacking ``bad'' third-world regimes and arming itself more aggressively than the Soviets. That ``victory'' offers a model for the ``war on terror.''
6. The primary obstacle to the development of democracy in the third world is the existence of evil tyrants, so the demonization and removal of these men is the best way, indeed the only way, to build democracy in those countries.
7. Islam is primarily at war with the West, rather than primarily at war with itself.

The rapid increase in terrorism in Iraq, the decline in Iraqi living standards, security, public health, oil production, electricity, secularism--the failure of the Iraq war--offers the most potent evidence yet that the assumptions the war is based on are false. The polls showing Iraqis' overwhelming support an immediate U.S. withdrawal erase any lingering doubts.
The Kerry-Clinton position, which Cooper seems to share, is that these failures are the result of George W. Bush's incompetence as a military decision maker. This is an exceedingly convenient analysis for the two politicians, because it obviates their responsibility for not doing more to stop the march to war.
It is not nearly enough to oppose the war in Iraq as a noble misadventure. Unless and until Americans acknowledge and overturn the political paradigm that allows this kind of war, the nation is doomed to fall into one after the other misbegotten military debacle until it can no longer muster the guns or the butter to keep it up.

Marc Cooper

Bunkerbuster, old boy, let me be direct: you're making an ass of urself. If u wish to continue, Ill be happy to accomodate you-- it's rather amusing. Lots of people on this blog know my work over 30 years and right now they are writing you off as some sort of witless adolescent (though I suspect u are in reality a witless 20something!). Anyway... my little friend.. Im not going to take ur bait and answer ur ridiculous charges.. OTHER THAN TO SAY.. that u can say lots of things about me but to faintly suggest that I equate dissent with disloyalty (!) and that Im some sort of Clinton/Kerry supporter (LOL!) is to have your head either way way down in that bunker of urs... or to have it way way way up ur ass. Either way, it's kinda becoming.
Take my word for it, ur making urself look to be an illiterate fool.

bunkerbuster

Marc: shouldn't you speak for yourself? You give away the game by invoking the opprobrium of unnamed others. There isn't a more juvenile debating tactic than that.

And you're missing an important nuance in my comment, so I will try to make it clearer.

While you may claim to be opposed to a Fox News Channel view of the world, your criticism of Answer and their ilk gives credence to that worldview and the assumptions that underlie it.

You claim, for example, that Answer's support for the Palestinian resistance plays into the hands of those who paint the anti-war movement as extremist. I'm saying that this view implies that that view of the anti-war movement is a viable one.

I will deliver some more specific examples of what I'm talking about when I have more time.

Mavis Beacon

Ahmed, I don't mean to say that mass protest is by definition useless. What I mean is that it is often driven by forces like nostalgia and solidarity and not a realpolitik desire to effect change.

Ahmed

But there are plenty of good things that mass protests can do to. And beisdes whats your strategy here, where are the viable alternatives for oppossing this war. I've heard nothing from all of those who so are so dismisive of marches

delete yo mama

another leftist whom COoper finds credible (Doug Henwood) also disagrees with him on his pointless pretending he is the only person on the left who has noticed that ANSWER is hardly the answer...


http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050926/021442.html

Michael P writes:
UfPJ has CPUSA and ex-CPUSA leaders, among other marxist and
>non-marxist tendencies. I have no problem with Leslie Cagan and the
>CPUSA rep. on the UfPJ steering committee or Bob Wing, ex cadre in
>Line of March. Allowing those Stalinist ANSWER pricks to browbeat and
>harangue themselves into an unwarrented leadership role in a PEACE
>movement, when there hasn't been a TANK they ever saw mowing down
>workers, peasants and students they haven't supported, is the scandal.


Henwood replies:
No one except you, David Corn, Marc Cooper, and Nathan Newman really
finds this a scandal. Carrol Cox's liberal comrades in Illinois don't
care. Philip Weiss, writing in this week's New York magazine, doesn't
care. This is sectarianism disguised as anti-sectarianism. The cold
war is long over. Give it up.

Doug Henwood

After all Cooper's attempts to paint me as crazy or 'rude' for disagreeing with him and making the same arguments Sawicky and Henwood make against him...it is sweet to see him finally break down and answer Sawicky, Henwood, and my arguments...

Respectfully, delete yo mama

richard lo cicero

The alternative is to get a new Congress next year which is no longer a fantasy. I wish Bush would change his mind but that assumes he has the capacity to change or has a mind. If he does, losing control of a tame congress and facing the prospect of endless investigations will concentrate that mind famously.

reg

Abbas...Crooks and Liars has a great video clip up in which Alan Colmes almost earns his salary by confronting Crazy Ann Coulter and his co-pilot Sean Hammity with the fact that Pat Tillman's mother disclosed that he opposed the war in Iraq (where he served, before being sent to Afghanistan, the campaign that motivated him to volunteer), that he was planning to meet with Chomsky when he got back, that he couldn't stand Bush and was encouraging his buddies to support Kerry. Coulter's eyes bugged out (farther), she got that "I'm dumb as a post, despite the fact that I'm on drugs and talk fast" look on her face and simply denied that it could possibly be true. She'd written Tillman a faux-political mash note when he was killed, so the fact that Tillman was disgusted by her ilk is more proof that she's a wack job, pure and simple. Hammity also chimed in with an "I don't believe it", to prove that he also is driven by pure ideology over anything resembling the truth.

Presumably the Swift Bait Veterans will come up with some kind of hit job on Tillman's service record, implying that he was at fault for getting hit by "friendly" fire - maybe engaged in a publicity stunt so he could run for President some day.

Woody

reg, I'm usually suspicious when someone has a political agenda and decides to speak up for the dead. I honestly don't know specifics, but the past attitudes and actions of Tillman are not consistent with what Colmes presented. Recently, someone was telling me what Jesus would think today if he were still around. (BTW, He is.) It took an even greater leap of faith because that person doesn't even believe in Him. It's best to consider the documented record of a person to determine what he thought about what existed when he was alive. Going past that is pure speculation, selected memories, or deceit. If you don't agree and pass on before me, then I'm going to tell people that you secretly admired Ronald Reagan and, if you were alive today, would support Jeb Bush for President. That's true, because you were thinking "anyone but W."

reg

In the context of the propaganda-motivated cover-up surrounding Pat Tillman's death - another example of just how low these scumbags will stoop with their desperate lies - it's interesting that Tillman's mother says that his journal - which he kept with the same discipline and rigor he maintained in all aspects of his life - disappeared after his death. It's not too much of a stretch to assume that the propaganda fiends who knowingly fabricated a cover-up of the real circumstances of his death also destroyed his diaries in order to protect the far-right friendly image of Tillman, another lie which pukes like Coulter projected with all of the finesse of Joseph Goebbels.

reg

Oh fuck you Woody...don't tell me you know Tillman better than his mother. You're sick - really sick with this obsession to disbelieve anything that doesn't fit your fantasies.

People like you have been proven so consistently wrong with your BushCo bullshit about Iraq that if you had any sense of shame you'd go crawl in a hole and quit repeating GOPer talking points like an idiot.

The Jesus Christ comparison is completely stupid, since the information about Tillman is coming directly from his family. You're as much of a moron as Coulter. And frankly, if Jesus Christ came down and told you that Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole lot of them were destined to go to Hell, you'd probably think it was a liberal hoax and choose to go with them. In my view, in some metaphorical sense, you already have. (My advice would be, if you didn't believe Jesus, check with his Mother before joining your boys from BushCo.)

reg

Also, what's Tillman's family's political agenda ??? They've already shown that the Pentagon put out a phony story of his death, obviously for propaganda purposes. Is it poltical to get pissed when your kid is killed and the people in charge lie about how it happened and try to use his good name ?

Have you no fucking sense of decency ?

richard lo cicero

You are so right Reg. Pat Tillman is a standing rebuke to conservative supporters of this war. You are no doubt aware of "Operation Yellow Elephant" the attempt to get Young Republicans (and CORNER types like Jonah Goldberg) to put up or shut up by enlsting. Their excuses (usually on the order of "I can be more useful fighting the lberals here") are priceless. So Tillman, turning down a multimillion dollar NFL contract to serve his country, challenged their prioritiea and commitment to country, Now that we know all the lies and his personal beliefs he has to be destroyed. Or his parents have to be destroyed. Once again, like George McGovern and John Kerry, its the people they call "Hate America" who stand and deliver. And the right wing nut jobs and war cheerleaders are exposed as the sniveling cowards they are.

reg

"And the right wing nut jobs and war cheerleaders are exposed as the sniveling cowards they are."

Not to mention war profiteers, like the execrable Richard Perle who runs a fund investing in various war stocks while advising the Defense Department to "give war a chance". Cheney, of course, made tens of millions hooking up Halliburton. Reminds me of the old Bob Dylan song..Masters of War.


Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

reg

"Old Testament" Dylan, of course. He's got some great "New Testament" songs as well, but there's nobody better at being pityless and unforgiving than the young Mr. Z.

Woody

reg, you not only misunderstood some my comments, you sunk to your typical low level in responding. You're too emotional, hysterical, and crude to carry on a reasonable discourse and to calmly defend yourself. I'm going back to the Red Sox - Yankees game, where the opposing fans exhibit more class to each other than you ever have to anyone disagreeing with you. If you can't or don't want to discuss different points of view and want to be with fellow believers, go have a beer with Jay Byrd and suck up suds together. The Red Sox just went ahead in the bottom of the second, and keeping up with that is more enjoyable than watching you run off people that you can't handle.

reg

Youi don't have a "differing point of view" - you've got a rigid monomaniacal streak, implying that Pat Tillman's mother is a liar with a political agenda. Pathetic...yeah, go involve yourself in something where you're harmless and don't make a fool of yourself. The idea that my reaction is crude, when your comments could only make sense as an assault on the integrity of Tillman's mother, is preposterous. If it's wrong to get angry at that crap, well excuse the fuck out of me.

Also, who the hell is going to "speak up for the dead" if not the man's mother ??? Certainly the Pentagon did a star-spangled job of mocking the man's sacrifice by turning it into a lie.

reg

SF Chronicle, byline Robert Collier:

Pat’s widow, Marie, and his brother Kevin have not become publicly involved in the case, and they declined to comment for this article.

Yet other Tillman family members are less reluctant to show Tillman’s unique character, which was more complex than the public image of a gung-ho patriotic warrior. He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman (Pat's mother) said a friend of Pat’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, “Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.”

End clip.

Time for Woody to attack the S.F. Chronicle because...well, it's based in San Francisco. It's not a great paper, but it's got some good reporters and is as "unbiased" as any paper I've read. The only national political columnist on the Chron's staff is a conservative, Debra Saunders, the local political columnists are centrist at best and they regularly print Will, Victor Davis Hanson, and numerous other conservatives. In the history of the Chronicle-Examiner (merged) they've had numerous moderate to very right-wing reporters, including Lester Kinsolving. So any attempt to debunk this information because it originates with the Chron is a testament to ignorance of the journalism that it practices. I'd say it's a very long shot that Collier got this wrong. Anything is possible, but any hysterical leap to the notion that somehow this news has got to be some poltically-motivated demeaning of the dead is, until some countervailing information is in, an example of "true believers" who can't stand the truth when it threatens their fantasies.

The_DC_Sniper

This is the best thread ever. I, honest to Nikki, teared up with laughter reading some of the comments.

"Marc Cooper's critique of the left's anti-war position originates from the same cold war paradigm that led inexorably to the war and will just as surely lead to others, even if the U.S. succeeds in getting out of the present mess intact.
Cooper's view does not argue for a change in this political paradigm, which rendered the opposition (the democratic wing of the Democratic party) so powerless after 9/11. Rather, it calls for a shifting of loyalties within that paradigm based on the tactical failure of the war in Iraq to turn out like Kosovo, Gulf War I, Panama, Grenada, and so on.
Admittedly, my analysis ignores some of Cooper's anti-war posturing. That's because I'm trying to illuminate his underlying, thus unspoken, assumptions are based on."

I'm glad to find yet another psychic on this blog-- we always seem to find each other, even over the internet. Only us empaths can really know that Marc is merely posturing so I'm glad that one of our talents has taken the time to point it out to the mundanes.

"I, of course, welcome any corrections"

Something needs to be added, given how devious CIA assets like Marc can be; and that is this: the burden of proof does not lie on the person making the claims, Marc, but on *you* to disprove them. I mean that would be pretty silly, people having to prove their claims. Who ever heard of such nonsense?

"Some of the (false) assumptions are:
1. Dissent in time of war is tantamount to disloyalty."

I'm glad someone has finally had the perspicacity to notice that Marc has *never* spoken out against this war and I applaud you for having the courage to point out Marc's loyalty and assent. After all, we know that criticizing a dissenter, or group of dissenters, (regardless of whether you're criticizing the effectiveness of their tactics or not) is the same as condemning dissent itself.

"Dualism: e.g. those who oppose the occupation favor the insurgency, by definition."

Marc has clearly stated this *many* times so it's not as if he can try to deny it. And no, Marc, those who opposed the war to begin with don't count as being opposed to the occupation. That was then, this is now. What have you done for The Movement lately? *Ooo ooo-ooo ooo-ee yeah-eah*

Just to preempt any banal attempt to turn the tables, let me state authoritatively that, no, saying that the people who criticize the get-out-now folks actually favor imperialism, by definition, is not dualism-- it's just revealing a truth hidden deep in the imperialist psyche that was waiting for psychics like us to ferret out.

"The U.S. won the Cold War by attacking 'bad' third-world regimes and arming itself more aggressively than the Soviets. That 'victory' offers a model for the 'war on terror.'"

Now this one is *undeniable.* Let's see if I can remember the exact quote from Marc: "The brutal, tyrannical, undemocratic, and godless regime of Salvador Allende had to fall and I'm glad I was able to assist the Company (that's the CIA to you non-spooks) in the accomplishment of this glorious, and very necessary, task. This is why I grieve deeply for the loss of our greatest president, Ronald Reagan, for it was he who, in the end, won the Cold War by overthrowing the unspeakably evil puppet regimes that had been set up in Latin America, such as Nicaragua and Chile, and by forcing those godless commies to spend themselves into the ground in a feeble attempt to keep up with the might of our glorious army. Good night, sweet President; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest." I might be paraphrasing slightly but I think I conveyed the gist of Marc's thoughts.

"The primary obstacle to the development of democracy in the third world is the existence of evil tyrants, so the demonization and removal of these men is the best way, indeed the only way, to build democracy in those countries."

Yeah, that's crazy. The things people let themselves believe just blow my mind sometimes. Everyone, except people like Marc of course, knows that evil tyrants don't get in the way of democracy and it's just inexplicable that there are people out there who actually want to *demonize* tyrants. What bastards!

"The Kerry-Clinton position, which Cooper seems to share, is that these failures are the result of George W. Bush's incompetence as a military decision maker. This is an exceedingly convenient analysis for the two politicians, because it obviates their responsibility for not doing more to stop the march to war."

The connection is clear as can be. If you think the failures of the war are a result of military miscalculation then you *must* be in favor of the war. It's self-evident that human beings only oppose things on purely pragmatic grounds. And if you're deluded enough to think that someone might somehow object to a war on moral grounds then I've got only one thing to say to you, "Look, there's a unicorn behind you!"

The_DC_Sniper

"The idea that my reaction is crude, when your comments could only make sense as an assault on the integrity of Tillman's mother, is preposterous. If it's wrong to get angry at that crap, well excuse the fuck out of me."

All he did was express skepticism based on his belief that there is a chance that Tillman's mother could be lying about her dead child in order to push a political agenda. I, personally, don't see this as out of line and I don't see how anyone can deny that this is a *possibility*-- I think people just disagree about the odds here. I think the odds are fairly low myself. I'm a misanthrope and even I think people sick and opportunistic enough to pull something like that have to be fairly rare, thus making the odds that Tillman's mother is one of them fairly low-- low enough to say that she's most likely telling the truth, but not so low that one can claim complete certain about what the truth here is. I really don't see the need to get pissed-off, and add to the degradation of modern political discourse, over the fact that people make different blind guesses about statistics.

Woody

...or, that her comments were reported wrong.

reg

Bullshit...

reg

This isn't a blind guess about statistics. And if you read "...it's a very long shot that Collier got this wrong. Anything is possible..." it accounts for the "fairly low odds" that his mother is either lying or her words were reported wrong.

Woody and people like him can't stand the liklihood that Tillman isn't the cardboard hero that the Pentagon tried to fabricate. Tillman is a real hero, which means he's complex and, apparently, very liberal. That makes the Ann Coulters head's explode. Their entire fabric of nonsense, lies and insanity regarding the war in Iraq have been crashing down around them since the "WMDs" couldn't be found. This is just one more example of what fools and frauds they are. Fuck them... And yes, they make me mad because they are chickenshits who play petty, near-insane partisan politics with other peoples lives. Scum...

reg

As for the "degradation of modern political discourse", it's coming directly from people who's most profound reaction to the kind of news that's been coming out about Tillman and the Pentagon pimping his corpse is "I don't believe it." Coulter for one built a little alter to her notion of Tillman ("speaking for the dead") and the fact that in life he was one of the people she calls "treasonous" because they are liberals makes both her insanity and the fact that her phony "patriotism" demeans America obvious. Hannity is equally guilty of puking on meaningful political discourse. My original post was about them. Woody, true to form, had to chime in as though their bullshit had some validity. So he deserves some of the calumny as well. He makes vicious statements about liberals as consistently as Coulter. I disagree profoundly with most conservatives, but I make a distinction between conservatism that's deserving of rational argument and the kind of garbage peddled by today''s gang of right-wing "pundits" or by the hacks who populate this sorry excuse for an administration.

The comments to this entry are closed.