The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Ray Ciscon:

I think what Jerry Kendall is trying to say is that regardless of what is perceived here, there is in fact a huge market for Tommy Franks as a speaker.

The man has sold a best-selling book, "American Soldier", and according to the last election, there is a good chance that at least half the country thinks he is capable of, and in fact has done a good job.

Iraq has had a democratic election, they are working on a secular Constitution that will guarantee rights to women, and peace and democracy are threatening to break out all over the middle-east... yet some still choose to perceive the situation as a 'quagmire'.

We live within the worldview of our own creation.

I for one wouldn't mind hearing Tommy Franks talk about his experiences in the U.S. Military... I just don't think I'd pay to hear it though. :-)

Anybody have any thoughts on Eason Jordan resignation/removal at CNN?

I have to give major kudos to Rep. Barney Frank of Mass. and Sen. Chris Dodd of CT. for standing up to Mr. Jordan and his incredibly foolish, and ultimately unsubstantiated, anti-US military statements. It didn't hurt that bloggers kept the story alive while the Mainstream Media would have liked to cover for one of their own.

With CNN not releasing the videotape of the Davos conference where the statements were made, it certainly gives it the appearance that it was as bad or worse than we could imagine it. This also looks like it wasn't the first time he's made outrageous statements like this...

After his earlier revelations about kowtowing to the Saddam Hussein regime in order to maintain CNN news coverage in pre-liberation Iraq, I don't think I'll be shedding too many tears for Eason Jordan.

First off, I agree with Patrick 150% on the Lennon/McCartney "talent" question!

As far as something to discuss, 'Cicero' at the Winds of Change blog has some very interesting questions for anti-war progressives: www.windsofchange.net/archives/006268.php

Here are Cicero's questions:

Liberals are or should be aligned with progressive politics and values. So in light of political progressives who eschew President Bush's war against Saddam, a few questions:

* What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections? Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?

* If your answer to this question involves the UN, address the UN's corruption with the Oil-for-Food scandal, sex slaves in the Congo, and the inability to prevent the Rwandan genocide. If the top dogs of the UN are profiteers for the containment of dictators like Saddam, and their representatives trafficking sex in the countries they purport to peace-keep, how can the UN be a legitimate force for democracy?

* Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away? Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power? If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?

* What can corrupt soft power?

* Are there any circumstances where hard power is warranted?

* If the UN is too corrupt and impotent, and the US is too sovereign to represent the world, what organization would you propose instead?

* Would a 'UN-D' -- a variation or branch of the United Nations, except the members are all democracies -- be a better legitimizing force for democracy than either the United States or the current United Nations?

* If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?

Scott,

Thanks for the kind words... it's obviously a friendly place around here for those who march to a slightly different drummer...

I read about as many lefty blogs as I read righty blogs and there's not been much mention at the lefty blogs I read about the Iraq election... lets take inventory: Here at Electrolite: no mention... BoingBoing: no mention... OliverWillis: a mention, but nothing that I would call serious commentary...

The two righty blogs blogs I read regularly, instapundit and lileks.com have discussed the issue nominally as expected for their respective sites.

The fact that people here are actually arguing about the validity of this election versus previous elections where the only person on the ballot was Saddam Hussein; worries about accurate counts; and not trusting the election makes me shake my head in sadness.

Finally Beth, for your information, I get my information from the same Internet that you get your information from. The only problem with that is that we both get our information from the same Internet that Dan Rather gets his Texas Air National Guard documents from, and we all know how reliable Dan Rather and CBS News is these days... Powerline... isn't that the blog that won Newsweek's blog of the year award? I'll have to check them out...

Nothing like an out of context quote for a little "red meat". It does contrast nicely with last weeks "Iraq is a quagmire... our mission in Iraq is doomed to failure... It's all Bush's fault, etc." speech from Senator Ted Kennedy.

Isn't harping on Frist's comment just a bit petty? Last week over 8 million Iraqi's got the chance to vote for the candidate of their choice for first time in their lives. You wouldn't know it happend from looking at this and other progressive, left-leaning web sites.

You don't have to jump on the Bush bandwagon to admit that democracy in Iraq is a GOOD THING!

I also think that the fact that the insurgents in Iraq are desperate enough to start kidnapping G.I. Joe dolls is pretty damn funny!

While the Baathist regime has fallen in Baghdad, the war is far from over. President Bush himself has been saying this.

While Saddam is most probably taking a dirt nap (or would you call it a 60ft crater nap) and his Baathist cronies have abandoned ship, danger still exists in Baghdad and other cities, particularly Tikrut.

Patrick, as I've heard on the radio, the coalition cannot yet take responsibility for guarding anything in Baghdad but their own camps and installations. Why? Because a large number of fedayeen, mostly non-Iraqi's, are still at large and armed with explosives, RPG's, etc.

I can't really believe that you would compare the liberation of Iraq with the fall of the Berlin wall... that would be an 'apples to oranges' false comparison of gargantuan scale.

The fact is that the Iraqi people now feel free to strike out in frustration and revenge against both Baath party members and their facilities. It's not pretty, but it must be recognized as human nature.

Perhaps this is an opening for the UN to re-enter the picture and provide civilian policing until democratic rule can be established. They can keep the civilian peace while the coalition forces go after the active combatants.

Cheers,

Ray

Mark, I wouldn't say that Ann Coulter is 'evil', I'd just say that her common-sense and tact/good manners circuits are seriously malfunctioning! She's much easier to handle in the written medium, the longer form the better. During live appearances she tends to wind herself up into an almost tasmanian devil whirlwind which can be quite amusing. Many times she was the only entertaining part of Bill Maher's old show.

As for Eric Alterman, he's not evil either, he's just insufferably smug, obnoxious, and unfortunately not-at-all amusing. Take a look at his so-called debate with Brent Bozell of www.mrc.org on National Review Online for a good example.

Damien,

I think it just backs up Patrick's problem with Michael Moore: He just doesn't care about the truth. If you haven't gone to the link that Damien points out, do yourself a favor and read it... If you're a fan of Mr. Moore, this may just open your eyes.

Moore has done set ups like these in all of his movies, but they seem to get more frequent and more outrageous with every new release.

It might be amusing if he presented it as satire, but he actually believes that this is the truth and thinks this qualifies as documentary material.

Worst of all Michael Moore is an embarassment to those who support his political causes because he virutally embodies all of the stereotypes the Right have about leftists.

As Fat Albert would say, "That man is N.C. No Class".

Cheers,

Ray

Is this type of protest counter productive?

Peaceful, non-violent protest was a hallmark of the civil rights movement, and was a huge part of changing the hearts and minds of the average American. But does disruptive protest help or hurt?

On the radio yesterday, Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley (D) supported the right of the anti-war demonstrators to protest, but stated that he was concerned about the cost involved in policing the protest, especially if the demonstrators became surly, or violent.

This very situation happened yesterday, and according to the Chicago Sun-Times, more than 500 people were arrested for reckless conduct and/or mob action.

The costs to an already budget strapped city are large, so Mayor Daley has talked about trying to recoup some of the expenses from the arrested demonstrators, not a development I care to think about.

IMO rowdy demonstrations are counter-productive to the anti-war cause. If the demonstrators would abide by the laws, focus on the peace/anti-war side of the issue and stay away from aggressive anti-Bush arguments, I think it would play a lot better to those who lean towards regime change in Iraq (myself included), and to the general citizens of flyover country as well.

Cheers,

Ray

"The police aren't here to cause disorder, the police are here to preserve disorder." - Mayor Richard M. Daley (D-Chicago)

Comment statistics for Ray Ciscon on the Electrolite blog

Total: 9 comments. View all these comments on a single page.