Congratulations, Iraq!

“As one of, oh, what—five Hollywood screenwriters who openly supported and continues to support the liberation of Iraq—January 30th is an honest-to-goodness emotionally moving day.”

Make that six.

Oh, wait: You said “Hollywood” screenwriters. Okay, five it is. For the moment.

Thanks for the site. More information on the business side of things is always welcome on the outside. Always good to know how the water is before you jump in.

OK, let me get this straight. When we were heading towards war, you openly and publicly stated that you supported the war because you believed it would lead to the liberation of Iraq? You were the one human being who didn’t use threat to America or WMDs as your justification for war?

If that’s the case… congratulations.

And if that’s the case, let me ask you the one question that I would ask GWB if I got to talk to him - if going into this war, you were told that you could trade a quarter of a trillion dollars (and counting) and 1500 American lives (and counting) so that the Iraqis could have an election (which may or may not lead to democracy), would you have said that was a good deal and gone forward?

Oh, and thanks for the invite. ;)

Jeff:

No, I thought that there were WMD’s in Iraq. In addition, I thought (and still think) that any country living under a dictatorship ought to be liberated.

Yes, I would trade $250B and 1500 American lives to give a nation new hope and spread democracy.

Glad to have you, dear Virginian!

Good to be here.

I think I’m going to stick to talking about writing. I knew you were a republican, I didn’t realize you were a neo-con… Now I’m afraid. Very afraid.

Jeff “If it’s tuesday, it must be Iran” Lowell

Jeff:

I always thought of myself as a paleocon. However, if agreeing with the following statement makes me a neocon, so be it.

Let every nation know, whether they wish us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Pay any price. Bear any burden. Oppose any foe. I tell you, that JFK was one crazy warmonger…

Ah, the out of context, partial quote. A scoundrel’s favorite friend.

Let’s remember that Kennedy was responding to Khrushchev’s speech at the U.N. where he made it clear that he was planning to support and spread armed revolution in third world countries, bringing their military closer and closer to our country. A superpower declaring intentions to overthrow other governments. A littlle more of an “imminent threat” than a crippled, feeble dictator without a real military force. (And I’m going to ignore that we’re a superpower who now overthrows other governments to install our preferred system.)

The revisionist history makes me nuts - you think Bush could have sold the war by saying “we’re going in to install democracy at great human and financial cost to us?” It’s cognitive dissonance at work - Americans don’t like looking stupid and gullible, so it’s much easier to accept that we went in to the war to liberate them, rather than admit we were sold a bill of goods by our leader.

But hey, you really believe that it’s our business and responsibility to invade countries and install democracy, at least be consistent - start arguing for going into China. Remember, any price, any burden, any foe.

Mr. Lowell:

Why is it so important to qualify your oppenent as a dim-witted, revisionist scoundrel?

Explain why Saddam posed no threat. Engage in a valid debate.

I challenge you to debate this topic without a personal attack. Then, we can see if your argument actually has legs. Until then, you simply look childish (“cognitive dissonance” and all).

Some context: Jeff and I are friends.

Of course, he’s also beyond salvation.

Now, granted, I’m not sure Bush could have sold the war as one of liberation only (although that certainly worked back when Sadaam invaded Kuwait). Regardless, that has nothing to do with my support of the war.

If I felt there was a way to achieve the liberation of the Chinese people through military action, I would support it. Any price, any burden, any foe. As it so happens, I do not believe military action would achieve the goal of liberty and democracy, but rather a nuclear holocaust.

I’ll add my corollary to JFK’s words: any cost or burden save one—our own destruction.

Clinton got it right in the Balkans. He blew it in Rwanda. We shouldn’t ever stand quietly by as dictators slaughter their own citizens if we have the capacity to stop the slaughter without risking our own survival.

You know, Jeff, back in FDR’s day, you would have been a good Republican. Those guys didn’t quite get the point of fighting for other citizenry’s liberty either.

Anyway, it’s great that we’ve planted this seed of democracy. Let’s hope it blooms (even if the sour grapes crowd insist it’s all still an awful quagmire, etc.).

Calling someone “revisionist” is valid debate, if supported. And although I feel that Craig is dim-witted, I restrained from calling him that. Until now. Shit.

Saddam posed no threat to us because he didn’t have any WMDs and his army was impotent and antiquated. We basically castrated him after Kuwait (which, by the way, was totally justified in the Kennedy mold - if someone is invading countries that are our allies, we should absolutely stand with them.) And wait a second - we conquered him in a matter of weeks and he’s never attacked us - why don’t you explain was Saddam was a threat?

I’m confused by your callling cognitive dissonance “childish.” May I ask if you know what it is? It’s a well studied, widely accepted psychological phenomenon. I offer it as an explanation for America’s collective state of mind. If you understand it and disagree, please say so. If not, I can give you some great sources to study it.

Jeff

“OK, let me get this straight. When we were heading towards war, you openly and publicly stated that you supported the war because you believed it would lead to the liberation of Iraq? You were the one human being who didn’t use threat to America or WMDs as your justification for war?”

It makes me laugh, I know not a single person who was for the war who believed it was solely based upon WMD, and I don’t know a single person who was against the war who didn’t believe it was for the sole “stated reason” reason of WMD -most my friends who were against the war thought it was about Oil which is a whole nother laughable argument.

And now that no WMD are found, all the people who were against the war say Aha! And can’t understand why the people for the war still are for the war. And the people who were for the war just shake their heads. Good discourse can’t happen if people don’t understand other people’s point of view.

I realize this isn’t directed at you, as you also stated “the threat to America,” more of just a random comment. However the threat to America aspect is definitely debatable. Your statement about “Saddam posed no threat to us because he didn’t have any WMDs and his army was impotent” Could have been stated about Bin Laden also, in this new age of war, para military and terrorism seem to be more powerful then large armies, just look at the harm Saddam did in Israel paying suicide bombers, and how those attacks have almost dried up since he lost power.

Also on Kennedy’s speech… Are you saying the above quote used in context against communist influences is alright? But stating it against Islamic Fascism is not? To say it was a direct quote to Khrushchev is an over statement, as Kennedy throughout the campaign -At least read his acceptance speech- stated that stopping Communism was the great call of his generation. It was the threat of the time, if you believe stopping Islamic Fascism is the threat of our time, can you really say that using Kennedy quotes is out of context?

……………NOTE to administrator, I don’t see any paragraph breaks on my preview, go ahead and erase this comment if they don’t apear as it will be near un readable. Thanks and great site!…….

J-Deal:

Well put. Thanks for the kind words (and I’m working on that comment preview bug…).

Wow. Sources to study it? Was that necessary? I know what cognitive dissonance means. I know a lot of freshman classroom phrases. My point was obviously poorly communicated and “confused” you.

And, let’s be fair, you didn’t just call him “revisionist”.

Once Iran has a nuke, will they be a threat, according to your definition?

State sponsorship of terrorism is a threat to America. If you want to sit around and look at terrorism as something that has nothing to do with middle eastern dictatorships, you go right ahead.

CSD

No, people didn’t support the war only because of WMD’s - they also supported the war because of Iraq’s link to 9-11. Which was a myth knowingly fostered by the administration.

Enough. We won’t solve it here, and I’ll I’ve done is muck up Craig’s nice writing blog. We’ll have this fight again when we’re going into Iran or North Korea.

“As one of, oh, what?five Hollywood screenwriters who openly supported and continues to support the liberation of Iraq…”

Craig:

What fascinates me most about critics of the latest Afghanistan/Iraq wars is that their hatred of Bush blinds them to the potential long-term implications of democratizing the Middle East, one country at a time. We’re all (especially those of us from Canadull) accustomed to being ruled by politicians who can’t see past the next election, so we’re lucky the US has a leader with the courage and foresight to tackle a huge, long-term problem like Islamofascism head-on, instead of just lobbing a few cruise missiles into the desert and declaring victory. It’ll be a long, tough fight, but it’s one that must be fought.

Considering Mel Gibson’s recent success with a project aimed at a religious audience, I’m surprised nobody has tried to create a movie that might appeal to conservatives. According to USATODAY, the entertainment industry has planned several upcoming projects that feature the US role in fighting the WOT, and apparently they’re handling it in a positive way. It would be ironic if conservatism turned out to be the next big thing in movies, wouldn’t it? Nah, never gonna happen…

Gary Here via Instapundit

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-02-07-military-projects_x.htm?csp=34

Gary:

Welcome from Insta!

You’re absolutely right. Honestly, I think it boils down to this: intelligent folks have a gut feeling that GW is just dumber than, say, Clinton, and this enrages the intelligent left (just as the intelligent right was enraged by Clinton’s Jedi mind-trick powers, e.g. “I feel your pain” and so forth).

Stupid! Insincere!

Who cares?

These gut feelings are useless in determining the value of presidential policies. This war is crucial; I believe history will shine brightly on those who support it. It’s a sad truism that as more and more incidents like the Theo Van Gogh slaying occur, more and more of the anti crowd will turn pro.

Islamo-Fascism is real. It doesn’t obey or even concern itself with the almost suicidal Western desire to “respect diversity.”

It’s nice to hear a voice like yours from our northern neighbor. I spend a lot of time in Vancouver (for obvious reasons), and let’s just say that Canadian politics are often, um, disturbing to me. :)

As it so happens, my current collaborator David Zucker is working on a funny film in support of conservatism. I’m going to be helping out along the way. Who knows? It just might work.

“As it so happens, my current collaborator David Zucker is working on a funny film in support of conservatism. I’m going to be helping out along the way. Who knows? It just might work.”

Craig:

If that film is as funny as the ad (link below and hyperlink under my name) David Zucker created during the last election, it will definitely work. I’m surprised more pols don’t use humor in their ads, because nothing is more effective, IMO, especially with those folks who might be a little reluctant to watch attack ads. It’s even more powerful when your adversary has a reputation for taking himself far too seriously…

Gary

http://www.clubforgrowth.net/

Well, I cowrote that ad, so thanks. :)

“Well, I cowrote that ad…”

Nicely done, Craig. Did you guys ever get any feedback as to what kind of impact the ad had? I remember it was certainly big news on the political blogs when it was unveiled, and everyone agreed that it was very effective, but of course it never saw the light of day up here.

Also, when you get a chance, I’d be interested to hear your take (generally speaking) on the quality of the comedies that are currently being produced.

Gary

Thanks, Gary. I had fun working on that with David. That’s basically the style of the movie he has envisioned.

The quality of comedies currently being produced.

Man, that’s a loaded question. Ummm…put a pin in that. I’ll probably write an article about it one of these days. :)

C.

I am a Canuck who supported the American invasion of Iraq, WMD or not. I have difficulty in seeing the difference between a terrorist regime and Oswami Bin Blabbin hiding in the hills and no amount of intellectual assault and battery is gonna get me to feel wrong. What I find offensive is the use of the words “liberate iraq” and such. That’s the PR spin. (silly ed’s formula: PR = BS squared) C’mon, you kicked Sadam’s ass a second time, that’s gotta feel good. Sometimes the good guys just have to drop all that over-socialization and give the villain and good fucking shit kicking! Good going George and the coalition of the willing!

Just found you highly entertaining blog today. Great stuff! Particularly liked your what appears to be opening post, but it made me a little curious. Can you still eat lunch in this town?