Monday, October 10, 2005

Forget the Law of Thirds at your peril

Some time ago--long before I became a blogger, or even a neocon--I noticed a certain phenomenon and gave it what I thought was a unique name: the "Law of Thirds."

Well, it turns out the phrase also refers to a recommendation for photography composition, as well as a math principle involving random numbers. I guess it's harder than I thought to be original.

But no matter. Basically, my law refers to the fact that the populace of the US seems to be divided roughly into thirds, at least in the political sense: one-third on the entrenched left, one-third on the entrenched right, and one-third in between. It was something I'd noticed over and over in public opinion polls, and it seemed to be stable over time.

You all know where I stand--in that middle third. I think it's actually where I've always stood, although I used to be positioned towards the leftish end of that middle, and now I stand pretty much in the very middle of that middle. It's from this moderate middle third that elections are generally decided.

For the past few years we've been hearing a great deal of noise from the third on the left, the ones who suffer from the ailment known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. And now, with the Miers nomination, we're hearing the din emanating from the right third. To me, it's not a whole lot more attractive a sound, although it's a very different one in a very different cause.

Yesterday I wrote about what I think motivates those on the right who are rushing to judgment on Miers. Since then, I've done some more reading on conservative blogs about Miers, and some of the comments of those who are dead set against her have reminded me--as if I needed reminding--of just why I'm happy to call myself an independent, and of just how much the extremists on both sides resemble each other in their rage, their rigidity, and their sense of entitlement and grandiosity.

Here, for example, is a reader's dissenting comment to what I consider a very practical and evenhanded post at Polipundit. I offer an excerpt from the comment to illustrate the sort of thing I'm talking about:

What is so disappointing about the Miers nomination is the missed opportunity. No, not the missed opportunity to get a high-powered known-quantity conservative. That certainly could have failed, probably would have failed, as many have noted, given the likely apostasy of several GOP senators. So what? The battle itself would have been the prize:

(1) It would have forced the issue onto public consciousness in a way that the Miers nomination never will. Nobody, NOBODY, outside the respective bases and political junkies will give a whit about or pay a shred of attention to the Miers nomination. A teaching opportunity simply thrown away.
(2) It would have put on record the names, ranks and serial numbers of the apostates to blame for the failure to confirm. Not that we really don't know who they are, but they should be forced on record with their apostasy, with all the consequences that might follow thereunto. It's simply too easy to let them, in effect, kill the nomination of some Really Qualified conservative nominee without ever lifting a finger, and without taking explicit responsibility for the assasination. In the long-run, the best way to instill (enforce) conservative loyalty is to force the wishy-washy "moderates"; (and, truth be told, outright liberal Republicans)to own up to, act upon, and live with the consequences of their betrayals...

The final conclusion from all this: Bush is not a President of, for, or by the conservative movement. He is "conservative"in many (but certainly not all) of his instincts and policy preferences. But he is not a conservative warrior. He really believes in all that "get along together as Americans", "set a new tone and rise above partisanship"; bullshit. He wants to be a good President for America, pure and simple, not a crusader for the conservative movement. Thus all the reasons I've advanced for his pressing the fight for a conservative nominee he very likely would eventually lose have no appeal for him.

Now I, for one, become very nervous when accusations of "apostasy" get thrown around and don't seem to be meant as some sort of joke. The comment tells us quite a bit, I think, about the far right reaches of conservatism, which is rather like the far left reaches of "progressivism," to wit: "tow the most extreme version of the party line or we ostracize and/or destroy you."

The most telling sentences to me are the ones I've highlighted in boldface. If I understand the writer correctly, they're meant to be a condemnation of Bush. In my opinion, they ought to be a recommendation.

Those who are considerably to the right or left often seem to have another thing in common: when their party happens to get into power, they believe it means that the Law of Thirds has been repealed, just for them. It hasn't. As far as I know it's still in operation, and has been for quite some time. Anyone from either radical third who thinks the American people will be happy to give his/her third a permanent ascendance in American political life is quite wrong, IMHO, and that person will be soundly rejected by said American people if he/she arrogantly and openly displays the hubris of thinking so--whether that person's name be Howard Dean or Newt Gingrich or whomever else would be an even better example of the genre.

Right now I'm not sure whether the vocal conservatives whom Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters refers to as the "Rebel Alliance" actually think they can win more elections behaving this way, or whether they just don't care if they do or don't as long as they get what they want now. Either way, the electorate is watching, and my guess is that the rest of the middle third isn't liking what it's seeing any more than I am.

By the way, if anyone wants to read an exceptionally reasonable conservative voice on the matter of Harriet Miers, please visit BeldarBlog. Beldar been hard at work ever since the Miers flap began, and he's somehow managed to stay informative, circumspect, and fair to all concerned. It can't be easy.


At 1:12 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger karrde said...

Well, the "Math Principle" one isn't really a fixed math principle as much as it is a statistical tendency....

But you appear to be right in your observation, that the extreme members of both sets make for lots of noise.

Quite probably, both console themselves for their incivility of speech by saying that they do it "on principle".

At any rate, there is too much light and noise, and not enough information for me to decide the case. Admittedly, there are dozens of better picks in terms of judicial experience.

But politics is the art of the possible. The combination of a vocal segment of the political base and lackluster support from in-Party senators may have destroyed the artful possible, leaving us with this kludgey choice.

(ps--neo, the link on "math principle involving random numbers" is broken. I had to do a copy/paste, and remove the "" prefix before the link itself, "")

At 1:14 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger goesh said...

The Right is showing themselves to have many of the same traits they claim to despise with the Left. They are shooting themselves in the foot and sending some middle of the road folks back to the Democratic party. Harriet it would appear is a center-to-the-right type of person. Compromise is the essence of Democracy - I can live with it.

At 1:27 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger Holmes said...

Nothing like self-congratulatory middle-grounders affirming each other.
What's the difference in shouting down the other 1/3's? The tone is fine, and the verbage is polite, but it amounts to "Those guys are jerks anyway," which is no different than the behavior you're condemning.

At 1:39 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger Holmes said...

And let me add, since I'm a loud-mouthed Conservative, that if the tone were different, and people had real, rational reasons to dislike Miers, would that make a difference?

At 1:40 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holmes, I submit that a polite and respectful tone is indeed very different from the behavior I'm "condemning."

But you misunderstand me, I'm afraid. It's not the tone or the lack of politeness that bothers me. It's the extremist point of view that brooks no compromise, and doesn't care if it wins the battle but loses the war.

At 1:55 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger Holmes said...

Thank you for clarifying for me. Conservatives simply believe that some things are not worth compromising- hopefully they don't think that for everything, as that is, as you state, not politically viable. But, many Conservatives feel that we have compromised enough on a wide variety of issues. It's not whether there should be social security- but how much. Not if the Federal government should provide health care- but how much. And now, when Roe v. Wade may be on the line, and those of us who believe in life at conception consider that millions of children are killed each year in our country, we are even willing to concede "Not if abortion is disallowed everywhere, but in what States," that position is not possible under Roe. Our viewpoint is being held hostage by 5 out of 9 Justices. That is what is at stake. That is why Conservatives tend to shout on this issue. Beyond that, most Conservatives I know are very thoughtful, well-adjusted people.

At 1:59 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger Holmes said...

I wish I was more thoughtful in advance, but I have noticed that liberals/moderates don't differentatie at all between how an issue is decided. Whether a Court determines the issue itself or whether it is democratically achieved, this 2/3 seem to make no distinction. See: gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, etc.

At 2:01 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger Holmes said...

Dangit...and the ability to compromise is severally hindered when the Judicial branch decides issues by decree. OK, I'm done.

At 2:07 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Holmes, I'm a moderate, and I happen to dislike legislating from the bench. I would guess that you and I probably differ a bit on where to draw the line between legislation and valid interpretation of the Constitution, that's all.

At 2:08 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger James Becker said...

Hi Neo,

I'll defend your commenter with faint praise.

I think that the commenter came to the conservative cause through an intellectual exercise. He thinks, that given the current state of political affairs, an intellectual duel in congress will help his cause, and he wishes that George W would provide that debate for all the world to see.

I can sort of sympathize with this position, since I came to the right of center through an intellectual process as well, but I also see that its mostly a waste of energy. I understand that the majority of Americans don't see politics this way (on either side of the divide) and so it doesn't work as well as the commenter hopes.

So the commentater isn't arrogant in my opinion. He just wants a straight forward debate between a conservative legal mind and US congressman (kind of unfair to the congressman though). He thinks this would be a good thing for the cause and for the country. I kind of think so too - in terms of the country. But, then again, he is sort of arrogant, because he is so sure who will win.

George W is sort of an intellectual conservative on some level, but he understands that most political intellectual processes are a waste of time. That drives the real intellectuals in his party nuts. He can't really explain this to them, because by doing so he would explain it to everyone - including his political enemies.

Showing your opponent your hand is a hard way to win at poker.

James Becker

At 2:46 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Neo. Yet another centrist here, but one who has more sympathy for social conservatives than most former-Democrat centrists. I agree that all the talk about "apostates" is pretty awful, but to be fair most conservatives I have heard on this issue are not talking that way. Mostly they are just extremely disappointed, and if you put yourself in their shoes you can understand why. They have supported Bush through thick and thin in the expectation that, when the time came, he would appoint another Scalia to the court. They were given every reason to belive that this would happen, so now that it hasn't happened they feel like they were tricked. Maybe they were. Imagine how the left would howl if John Kerry had been elected and then decided to keep our troups in Iraq AND bomb Iran and Syria. I think the tone of the right has been remarkably civil considering.

Having said that, I don't share their wish to stack the court with right wingers. I just think wanting to have an open debate is admirably democratic. It's a shame that having a record on constitutional issues (from either a left- or right- wing perspective) now appears to be a disqualification for the supreme court.

(Great blog by the way)

At 3:19 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger Michael B said...

You're attacking the weakest link rationales contra Miers, not the strongest arguments. Even Beldar's defenses, and they're the strongest I've read despite his several lapses, have not been as strong as he and others are presuming. He's convinced me I might support her as mayor of a city, but not as justice serving on SCOTUS. Too, there's the reductionist characterizations, e.g., from your earlier post: "... a fire-breathing ultra-conservative with a track record a mile long to make it all crystal clear."

A track record of some substance reflecting a willingness to openly advocate for critical constitutional issues can reasonably be called for; she's sixty-one years old so it can't be said she hasn't had the opportunity, indeed the evidence suggests she's studiously avoided doing so. Put differently, if the concerns typically registered by the Federalist Society (as simply one notable index) represent a "fire-breathing, ultra-conservative" orientation then founders like Washington, Hamilton and Madison can be similarly characterized.

Too many of the criticisms of Miers are regrettable, unquestionably, but that fact hardly makes the more salient and focused criticisms any less viable. However too many of the defenses of Miers, from Robertson to Hewitt, are regrettably shallow as well.

At 3:44 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael B: This post of mine has little to do with whether Miers' critics or her defenders have the better arguments on the merits of her nomination. That's a separate issue, one I've addressed, at least partially, in other posts.

My concern here, as I stated in a previous comment, is about an extremist point of view that brooks no compromise and doesn't care if it wins the battle but loses the war. Extremists who ignore the middle may keep ideologically pure, and they may punish those who stray from the party line, but they tend to end up losing elections in this country.

At 3:44 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that the hard-right has been far too shrill on this. What ultimately matters is how one votes on the court, and there is little reason to believe that the new appointee would vote against them. (Thomas Sowell articulates this incredibly well)

However, it seems like they wanted more than a reliable vote; they wanted to stick it to the Dems in some sort of war, one they may well have lost.

Bush has been very politically astute ever since he got into office, to varying degrees of success. Still, this necessitates compromise, and I think some of us just got sick of it (even though this seems like more of a compromise than I think this actually is).

I think the flack about Meiers has little to do with Meiers. Conservatives are being immature, but Bush should have seen it coming.

At 3:58 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you, The Bunnies, that Bush would have seen it coming if he were a more astute politician.

Of course, maybe he did see it coming, and just didn't care.

Many have compared Bush to a poker player, and I sometimes think that's correct. But even poker players can overplay their hands. I think he had his reasons for this nomination, didn't see the extent of the firestorm coming, and isn't about to explain those reasons. The lack of explanation is consistent with past performance. It's a good thing in a poker player, but it's sometimes a bad thing in a politician. This time, it may be an error in terms of alienating his own base.

One thing I'm beginning to see is the extent to which Bush is not a conservative insider. The right embraced him in 2000 because he was conservative enough, charismatic and pleasant as a personality, and he was seen as a winner. But my guess is that the right always had a lingering distrust of the conservative bona fides of Bush, partly because of experiences with his father. And then Bush junior hasn't followed through with the conservative line fiscally (one of his father's problems, also).

The right has given him a pass till now because of the war on terror. But the perception of betrayal with the Miers nomination has pressed the buttons of the right because this was one thing they thought they could trust him on. Now it turns out that even on this he's suspect. So all that long-suppressed anger comes pouring out.

At 4:12 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with your assessment in terms of the poker player and his bonafides as a hardcore conservative. The hard-right (and left for that matter) are often awful politicians, but Bush appreciates nuances that they don't.

Nevertheless, as one who straddles ideologue and politico, I understand where they're coming from. Iraq is seeming bogged down (and poorly defended by the Administration) and federal spending hasn't exactly gone down recently. I know that we need to play to that center third, and that's what I ultimately support, but at times I would love to just be able to tell them to go to hell and do exactly what I want as if nobody else's opinion mattered.

It's immature, but it can be incredibly satisfying to spike the ball in somebody else's face. The hard-right thinks this was Bush's chance to do that, and he didn't.

Although I would love to change zillions of things Bush has done, the only true mistake I think he made was signing McCain-Feingold. That's because, like him, I recognize that not everybody agrees with me and that you have to be incremental. Still, I would love to rub Lefty's face in the mud, even though I know it's counter-productive.

(The "The" in my name need not be used when addressing me--"Bunnies" is fine)

At 4:39 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger neo-neocon said...

Bunnies (leaving out the "The"): Well, as therapists sometimes say: it's not the emotion that's the problem, it's acting on it.

Although I don't share the frustration of conservatives over Bush's lack of devotion to the conservative agenda, I certainly understand it. I have my own frustrations over almost every politician who has come down the pike in my lifetime.

There's a difference between having an understandable emotion and acting on it in a way that is ultimately destructive, whether in private or public life.

You show your maturity and judgment by understanding the emotion but refraining from acting on it because you know it would be counter-productive. I expect no less from our political leaders ( maybe that's why I'm continually frustrated and disappointed by them!).

At 4:42 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger neo-neocon said...

karrde: I fixed that messed-up link. Thanks!

At 5:10 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger Gabriel Malor said...

Neo, you said:

For the past few years we've been hearing a great deal of noise from the third on the left, the ones who suffer from the ailment known as Bush Derangement Syndrome...

Those who are considerably to the right or left often seem to have another thing in common: when their party happens to get into power, they believe it means that the Law of Thirds has been repealed, just for them...

Which reminded me of "Jane's Law" formulated by Megan McArdle.

Back in 2003 Megan wrote about the tendency of the partisans of the party in power to lose their minds while the partisans of the party in power become smug and arrogant. It seems to me that that is a pretty accurate description of the things you have observed from the right and the left regarding the Supreme Court nominations.

Those on the left are suffering, as you noted, from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now we see conservatives display their smuggness and arrogance in their disdain for Miers and the president.

At 5:20 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neo-neocon, you may be right with your Law of Thirds. I had always considered American politics to be closer to 40:40:20, but with Bush's poll numbers dipping under 40%, I'll have to recalibrate my sights.

I'm surprised to see that you put yourself in the middle of the middle; I'd have thought you to be a tad to the right of that. Using your Law of Thirds, I'll put myself to the right of the left: about 30 on a 1-to-100 scale.

Interestingly, though, that's only been true during the Bush administration, and to be more accurate, since about the spring of 2002, when the Iraq war drums started to beat. Before that, I'd have placed myself -- well, not center of the center; my leanings are Democratic -- but maybe 45 on the aforementioned scale.

Bunnies, I can't believe you made the statement that "Bush has been very politically astute ever since he got into office". I considered him a total lightweight and took some solace in the fact that he surrounded himself with experienced advisors. Unfortunately, his reliance on his advisors and his refusal to consider various divergent opinions outside of the inner circle led him in disastrous directions (Iraq being the most egregious). In what way has he approached being "politically astute"? Presenting himself as a uniter, not a divider, he has divided the U.S. as never before. Promising on the campaign trail to pursue a "humble" foreign policy and vowing not to engage in nation-building, he has been arrogant beyond belief and has gambled his historical legacy on nation-building on an incredible scale. He has governed throughout his term, narrow though the margins of victory were -- and let's not rehash the 2000 debacle -- as though he was a landslide victor.

Neo-neocon responds to you that
"I agree with you, The Bunnies, that Bush would have seen it coming if he were a more astute politician." Since you didn't say that -- you said, without qualification, "Bush has been very politically astute ever since he got into office", it looks to me to be an attempt by N-n to gloss over the differences you two have while still agreeing on the basics and not ruffling your feathers -- I mean fur.


At 5:33 PM, October 10, 2005, Blogger Michael B said...

Well, I very much do understand what you're saying, am simply indicating it's a red herring to the extent it's used to characterize all the arguments against Miers, some of which are much more reasonable and focused than others. If you don't desire to dismiss "all" the arguments contra Miers, well and good, but then the contrasting example given, rather than Beldar's, might have been one which was deemed to be of a more "reasonable" kind, albeit one still opposing Miers.

At 5:45 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to tequilamockingbird, in hopes of not ruffling your feathers, I do maintain that Bush has been an astute politician; I just claim that he has not only been a politician.

Indeed, Iraq has been divisive, and Bush should be selling it better. Nevertheless, being an astute politician doesn't mean that nobody will dislike (or even hate) you, it means that you achieve your goals effectively.

Yes, we appear more divided than ever, but the Democratic Party is in total disarray. The closest thing to a policy they can seem to come up with is "oppose Bush on every front." Bush has co-opted much of their agenda while promoting much of his own. Sure, he's failed so far on Social Security, but he's gotten a lot of what he wants.

The extremist haters of the other side loathing you does not necessarily mean that a politician isn't astute. Clinton was a master politician (although I think an awful policy-maker), and many on the right detested them, in part because he was so politically effective, not because he wasn't.

At 6:18 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bunnies, you claim that Bush has not only been a politician. That's a bit opaque; I'm not sure what you mean by that.

"Iraq has been divisive, and Bush should be selling it better." Perhaps a bit of an understatement? I don't think it's a matter of a better sales job. Roll out a whole new product.

Yes, we're in agreement that the Democrats are in total disarray. No one they've got is giving any pretense of leadership. The Republicans are in deep trouble with their fratricidal infighting, and the Democrats are incapable of capitalizing on it.

"The extremist haters of the other side loathing you does not necessarily mean that a politician isn't astute." It doesn't mean that he is, either, but okay.

"Clinton was a master politician (although I think an awful policy-maker)", and many on the right detested them (sic), in part because he was so politically effective, not because he wasn't."

Clinton was and is a master politician (as you know, that's not necessarily a compliment). It seems irrational to detest a person of different political convictions because they're effective. DeLay and Rove are effective, but that's not why I detest them; I consider them despicable human beings. There aren't many Republicans that I can come up with on short notice that I can say I think highly of, but McCain is one. And I also detest small fish like Coburn, and bozos like Pat Robertson.


At 6:43 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This discussion has left me thinking about something interesting. I've already named McCain as a Republican that I respect and admire. With some thought, can I come up with any more? And can you guys come up with any Democrats you think highly of?

(To be truthful, just of the top of my head, my list of Democrats isn't any longer than my list of Republicans -- is there anyone in American politics today worthy of respect?)


At 8:09 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, this is easy! The religous right knows it doesn't win BIG at election time. They feel that Bush is someone, however, that they put in the White House. Even though, in the year 2000, 2-million of them stayed home. (Bush was promised 17-million Christian conservative votes. But he only drew in 15-million.)

I guess when Gore didn't look all that attractive; and we were saying "tweedle dee-tweedle dum, the value of a Christian conservative vote actually shrunk.

Also, the GOP knows that Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976, because Christian conservatives voted for Carter IN DROVES!

Yup. "Attracting the base, guarantees a certain percentage of votes. But just as the moonbats are expensive to the democrats, IF they intend to attract mainstream voters ... And, this is going to get to be harder, because so many Americans are rooting for the President. AND, his WOT.

But the right feels this was the time to strike. IF THEY COULD SEED A RELIGIOUS MAJORITY ON THE SUPREME COURT, then 1/3 of the government is there's! And, it could be there's for 40 years; no matter what else happens in politics.

But, maybe, it's not the "year of the Christian conservative, anymore than it is the "year of the settler" in Israel. There, too, you saw a party minority trying to hijack the country away from a popular prime minister. Whose gained popularity. (And, if we're lucky, this fight Bush has decided to have with his "base" might be that the time has come to remove "religious" from the word conservative? Barry Goldwater wasn't running a religious conservative movement. And, Ronald Reagan brought Barry Goldwater's conservative movement to fruition.

While the democrats are dying with their global village. And, all the other harms that you get when the only act in town are your "base characters."

At 8:09 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tequila, what I meant by Bush being "not only a politician" is that he also seems to believe in something. Clinton, to the best of my knowledge, would have done almost anything for votes.

And in terms of the Iraq sales job and "rolling out a whole new product," I maintain that the problem is in the sales. We've heard much about "staying the course" but aren't told that the course we're supposed to stay is actually pretty worthwhile, not only for America, but for the rest of the world, too. I know that you disagree, but many good things are happening in Iraq, and if we manage to set up a stable democracy there, the world will be much better off.

At 9:10 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Bunnies, I don't believe that the course we're now being admonished to stay in Iraq is worthwhile. The U.S. is losing the war -- and especially the war for hearts and minds -- in Iraq. You say that "many good things are happening in Iraq, and if we manage to set up a stable democracy there, the world will be much better off."

Well, some good things are happening in Iraq, along with many horrible, indescribable things.

The Administration policy seems to be: hope for the best.

Hope is not a policy. The daydream of an Iraqi democracy established at the point of a U.S tank barrel will not come true.

It's not going to happen. The US is going to have to withdraw, and bloody as it may be, the Iraquis are going to have to work out these things for themselves -- as it should be; people should work out their own destinies.

"Declare victory and withdraw" seems a bit cynical, but in withdrawing from a disastrous war that will forever poison Bush's legacy, it's the best option. Do no more harm.


At 10:03 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Administration policy seems to be: hope for the best."

And that's exactly why I think that the problem is sales. We're proactively doing a lot of things there, and "hope" is but a tiny fraction of it.

"Well, some good things are happening in Iraq, along with many horrible, indescribable things."

That's because we're facing a "horrible, indescribable" enemy. And there is a lot of evidence that that enemy does not in fact have much popular support in Iraq, i.e. drugging potential suicide bombers, recruiting in France and Spain, using the mentally handicapped, etc.

A whole bunch of people voted in that last election, none of them "at the point of a U.S tank." Indeed, many people in Iraq (especially the foreigners) don't want an Iraqi democracy, but many do. Remember the blue fingers? Did they risk their lives like that in hopes of bringing back Sadaam? Or maybe to please Osama? Perhaps all those people voted because they actually want what the U.S. is supposedly shoving down their throats.

Deride it as "hope" all you want, but I've heard countless stories of courage on the part of normal Iraquis standing up to degenerate enemies. I believe that their "hope" and spirit can defeat the nihilism of their enemies, if only we don't "declare victory and withdraw."

At 11:40 PM, October 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, Bunnies. The vote on the referendum is Saturday. We'll see how that goes, but it's an opportunity for progress. I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope for a good outcome.


At 3:17 AM, October 11, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget that many of those who are red-faced with fury on the Republican Right fought the Rockefeller/Liberal wing of the party, and its heirs, for many years. They have watched RINOs like Chafee, Specter, and the late Jacob Javits become darlings of the MSM, usually while taking shots at Republicans. Call them the Coalition of the Spineless, if you will. I do. Those RINOs have betrayed the Republican Party so often that the Party supporters must wonder just who voted for them!

At this point I wish they'd cool off and shut up. However, the venom is nothing compared with the outright lies and muderous smears that the Left has mass-produced against Republicans for decades.

So it doesn't surprise me that they are angry. Me, I accept the Meiers nomination with some misgivings. But I know that we can't predict what any nominee will do until they are actually sitting on the high bench. We saw that with Souter and Kennedy quite clearly. They were touted as constructionists. They weren't.
So I will wait and see. But I won't complain about Bush's pick. Who really knows? Harriet might be the finest Justice in years!

At 8:32 AM, October 11, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NNC: One thing I'm beginning to see is the extent to which Bush is not a conservative insider....

Recollecting back to the 2000 election, Republicans in Texas did not consider GWB to be conservative, but to be closer to 'liberal' in nature. What he had going for him was integrity, commitment, and hard work. These themes have continued throughout his presidency. I think that the originalist view of the US Constitution is an example of integrity: you say what you mean, and don't try to weasel out later.

Thus, many conservatives (including me) are not "Bushies" at all, and have not agreed with many of his policies, especially on the domestic front. On the other hand, his foreign policy has generally been excellent-to-outstanding, and he has done a number of good things domestically, including appointing originalists to the Supreme Court.

Bunnies, you are right about GWBush's less than stellar job as a salesman, but one should remember that the main advertising venues (so to speak) are owned and operated by competitors. People who only read the New York Times and Newsweek, who only watch CBS and CNN, who listen to NPR and AP Network News, these people would conclude that the situation in Iraq is bad and getting worse. (To some extent there is a "police blotter effect", but overall these are adversaries of GWBush, not neutral reporters of events.) Good news (of which there is plenty in Iraq) is inherently more difficult to present; placing things in a larger context often requires more than a sound bite. Perhaps we should be impressed that he's doing as well as he is.

Tequilamockingbird: I love your nom-de-net! You mention this weekend's voting in Iraq. Given last January's voting (a 58% turnout despite real --- not imagined --- voter intimidation), I believe that it is immoral not to oppose the terrorists and support the Iraqi government and continue training and helping equip the Iraqi Security Forces.

At 11:21 AM, October 11, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Declare victory and withdraw" seems a bit cynical, but in withdrawing from a disastrous war that will forever poison Bush's legacy, it's the best option.

The best option for who?

Let's see, if we withdraw we risk turning the country over in essence to groups who have shown they have no compunction about killing women, children, journalists, teachers, Christians, Kurds, UN diplomats, Arab diplomats, foreign civilians, etc. etc. etc.

Well, at least it will be better for the majority of Iraqis right? Except for the inconvenient fact that Zarqawi and his ilk have declared war on Shiites (the majority of the country) and certainly have no love for the Kurds or other groups either. So they'll suffer, too. As they did for decades under previous Baathist/Sunni rule.

Plus, you have the fact that withdrawing and allowing even the possibility of Al Qaeda types taking over the country (or even just part of the country) will give them a base of operations that will make Afghanistan look like a kindergarten. Do you really want an Al Qaeda base in the heart of the Middle East with access to multiple borders and untold petro dollars? Can you honestly say that's the "best option"? With all due respect, are you insane?

Not to mention the fact that a case can be made that asking US servicemen to throw their lives away by not allowing them to finish what they started is immoral in itself. They've volunteered, risked their lives, accomplished much, and you want to yank it all out from underneath them and say "Never mind." That would be cynical.

I think you're suffering from a massive failure to look at the big picture. It isn't about some "legacy" or some short term political equation. These are earth-shaking, world-wide political events that will have consequences for decades to come. Imagine the world as it would exist if Al Qaeda and its minions took over Iraq and then imagine the world that would exist if it didn't. Can you really tell me you'd find the former preferrable to the latter?

Think Cold War. It wasn't over in one year or two or ten or even forty. It cost billions of dollars and two generations of determination and fortitude to come out victorious and preserve freedom for the world. At any given moment we could have thrown up our hands and retreated from the battle. It was hard and that's exactly what many people longed to do (or even advocated doing). It would have been a tremendous mistake and we would have paid the price, and even more so the people who would still be behind the Iron Curtain would have paid the price.

You're advocating the same thing for the Iraqis. Abandon them to the thugs, and murderers, and oppressors. Let more mass graves be dug. It's just too hard. We want to go home.

It wasn't wise 30 years ago and it's not wise now. I don't care what the h*** happens with Harriet Miers if the alternative is putting the Democrats in power and abandoning the fight against Al Qaeda wherever it manifests itself. You might not like how we got into the fight in Iraq but that's no excuse to abandon the field to the like likes of Zarqawi and Bin Laden. There is no way the world will be a better place for us, for the Iraqis, for Europe, for the Middle East, for religious tolerance or for humanity in general if we hand them Iraq on a silver platter. That course offers no benefit. None.

The vote on the referendum is Saturday. We'll see how that goes, but it's an opportunity for progress. I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope for a good outcome.

I respect that a lot. I honestly believe there are way too many people who can't make the same assertion. I think they are hoping for failure to prove themselves right, and damn the consequences.

(Sorry, Neo. Didn't mean to hijack this thread. This was supposed to be three paragraphs. It grew unfortunately larger. But, I guess whereas I don't feel strongly about Harriet Miers, this is the topic I do feel strongly about.)

At 11:28 AM, October 11, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And just to note, I consider myself in the middle third also.

At 5:33 PM, October 11, 2005, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Many conservatives are concerned and frightened over the future of the republic. These people don't care about winning for their party, they would vote Democrat if they thought this would improve the Republicans and save the Republic, or they would vote for the Republicans if that could save the republic.

They're are not worried about the middle, they're worried about the general trend in this country that is in fact independent of politicial victories. The culture of the Left, Death, and Decadence replicates regardless of who is in office. But not regardless of who sits at a bench at the Supreme Court.

And that is the point. The people on the right are motivated by patriotism, love of country, not love of power, not love of winning at the polls, or any other objective that the Left might find sustenance with.

It's a difference of philosophy.

Patriotism, and its different brands, motivate the right. Nationalism too.

Anti-Americanism, and Internationalism motivates the left.

The Left must win at elections, or else they cannot accomplish what they require. The Right feels no need to be in power indefinitely, they only want the President to shift to the offensive and push the Democrats back to a place where society doesn't warp in on itself.

But, as the commentator you quoted has said, Bush is concerned more about diplomacy and making amends, than justice, than doing what is right.

Or at least that is the perception. And it is a perception fueled primarily by dissatisfaction with Bush's job. From 90% Republicans to 75% satisfied REpublicans.

There is a reason for that dissatisfaction.

For one thing, it is about the War on Terror. Not aggressive enough, not enough crack downs as a policy initiative, not prepared to deal with ruthlessness and unconventional warfare with our own brand of ruthlessness and unconventional warfare which lead to the looting and the other problems that fueled the insurgency in the beginning.

But that can be ignored, cause there most Republicans place more trust in the military than the commander, when it comes to winning wars.

On the domestic front, there is no other person or institute for Republicans to place their trust in, and hope for the better. So they are taking the initiative. In a rather uncoordinated way.

The tax cuts were a long time ago. Bush hasn't had a victory in a long time. ANd Katrina and etc, are all efforts which are more Left and pro-Government, than conservative.

A growing dissatisfaction, and patience with the administration, and a feeling of betrayal that the President is not fighting for the people that fought for him for 5 long years, through Abu Ghraib, through Leftist libel and venom, and through stupid and thick.

Aggressiveness, could have been vented, had Bush picked a fight. But Bush never met a negotiation that he didn't like. Which is the problem, you can't negotiate everything, and you really shouldn't.

If Bush doesn't go on the attack, people are going to attack him. That's been happening for years now.

The Republicans are not so much different from other humans, in this respect.

At 5:53 PM, October 11, 2005, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

It's not going to happen. The US is going to have to withdraw, and bloody as it may be, the Iraquis are going to have to work out these things for themselves -- as it should be; people should work out their own destinies.

"Declare victory and withdraw" seems a bit cynical, but in withdrawing from a disastrous war that will forever poison Bush's legacy, it's the best option. Do no more harm.

Why does this sound like Extreme Right Wing dudes like Pat Buchanan and the Republican isolationists during WWII?

And TBird claims to be "30" on a 1-100 scale of liberal to conservative. Funny, heh?

How about that "Declare victory and withdraw" crap, as well? Sounds a lot like what happened after Vietnam.

Everyone said "never you mind" the massacres, it was inevitable.

Self-fullfilling prophecy. Neo-Neocon has herself written the psychological aspects and causality problems of Vietnam.

Trying to espouse the same tactics for Iraq... is old as Mesopotamia itself.

Perhaps a bit of an understatement? I don't think it's a matter of a better sales job. Roll out a whole new product.
That's like saying to FDR, roll out a whole new product rather than propagandizing the effects of US casualties. And I guess we did, in the form of an atomic bomb. I'm always for nuking people we don't like, anyways.

About that commentator that said Bush is not a good salesman because the media controls the gateway of information. That's not exactly true. Bush isn't a Reagan Republican or an Arnold Schwarzenegger Republican, meaning he didn't grow up in Hollywood learning how to manipulate cameras and people.

Because he didn't grow up to be like that, he is not very charismatic on camera. Bush has charisma, but it's the Johnson in your face charisma, not the Kennedy/Reagan/Arnold charisma on camera.

The problem is that the Army in Iraq is not using the information they acquire in an effective way. Take the Zarqawi letter. They did not allow Michael Yon to write anything about it. Instead, they released their own "press release" to CNN, and CNN broke the story... as a blip on the radar meaning nothing.

That's being limited by the media? I don't think so, that's being limited by the Army's stupidity by not releasing the information as a PRESIDENTIAL PRESS CALL.

When I heard about the letter, it was only on blogs. And when I read, I was amazed, so amazed I wondered if it was a forgery, but it wasn't. Then I wondered why the hell wasn't this touted by the administration 24/7.

And the answer is?

Cause they're too incompetent at propaganda to know a victory from a defeat, that's what.


At 8:40 AM, October 12, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You maintain that "if we withdraw we risk turning over the country to" the bad guys, and "Zarqawi and his ilk" have declared war on the Shiites and the Iraqui people will suffer.

I don't think that will happen at all. The presence of occupying Western troops is hugely inflammatory, and withdrawing would probably cool things down a great deal. As others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be much Iraqi support for the jihadists; with Western troops and that source of hatred gone, the homegrown jihadists would be pacified and the huge majority of Iraquis could deal with Zarqawi and his few thousand foreign fighters. Since the status quo in Iraq is so obviously unacceptable, more and more Republicans, not only Democrats, are leaning toward this solution.

The nightmare situation you posit -- Al Qaeda types taking over the country is, I believe, a flat-out impossibility not worth discussing, and yet you accuse me of advocating such a position and question my sanity. Anyone who did should indeed have their sanity questioned; I didn't, and I don't.

The lives of the servicemen: That's a tragedy. The tragedy is that they followed Bush into this needless, immoral, illegal war being waged for personal, ideological, and financial reasons. The fewer that die, the better. (Pat Tillman, a heroic and tragic figure and a great man, enlisted to fight in Afghanistan; he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq).

You've really lost it with your next offering. Would I prefer that Al Qaeda et al took over Iraq, and then the world, than that I didn't? Take a deep breath and get a grip.

Moving on: Yes, although Bush tries to draw bogus similarities between the war in Iraq and WW II, I do see some similarities between the struggle against -- what? Shall we classify it as Islamofascism? -- and the Cold War. And it will likely last for decades.

I think "War on Terror" is a pretty dumb phrase, and while others in the Administration have tried to change the rhetoric by characterizing it differently, Bush won't give up his mantle as "War President." But call it what you want, I think it has to be done.

That's not the same as the war in Iraq! There were no terrorists in Iraq! Think Afghanistan. It was justified, it was supported by the world and the U.N., and NATO troops are still there today. No problem! Well done, guys! If only the U.S. didn't have to spend $5 billion a month in Iraq, it could be fighting the "WOT" far more effectively worldwide.

Thanks for your comment on my referendum hopes. I do NOT hope for a bad outcome in Iraq; I just don't see the possibility of a good one following present U.S. policy.

(I'm not that interested in the Miers nomination either, and I, too, feel strongly about our present topic. I'm more to blame than others for "hijacking" this thread. Sorry.)


At 8:55 AM, October 12, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...


That Iraqis should work out their own political destiny, and withdrawing from a wrong-headed war is Extreme Right Wing? Should I classify myself as a 95?

You're a bit incoherent in your Vietnam and FDR comments. Try again. Or not.


At 11:48 AM, October 12, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Since the status quo in Iraq is so obviously unacceptable, more and more Republicans, not only Democrats, are leaning toward this solution."

You're right about that. It is unacceptable. But the solution is not to make it incomparably worse, it's to make it incomparably better (or at least significantly better). You don't win any battles by running away. And although I agree that your point that an American withdrawal would change the dynamic in significant ways, and in certain ways make things easier, on balance I see it at this point in time as a huge negative.

You can argue all you want whether there were terrorists in Iraq in March 2003 - or al-Qaedists if you prefer (sidestepping the discussion of what a terrorist is). But the fact is they are there now. They are fighting to gain control of a rich, powerful country in the heart of the Middle East. It is a reality that has to be dealt with.

A point I meant to note from your previous message was the one regarding stepping back and letting the Iraqis fight it out. I might agree with that, as harsh as it sounds, if that actually described the situation. But it doesn't. It's not simply a fight between Iraqis for the future of Iraq any more. There are many more players involved and many bigger, longer term issues have come into play. You close your eyes to those facts at your peril, my peril, and the peril of millions of other people. It's not 2003 any more. Sorry.

Have you read Zawahiri's recent letter? They have no intention of withdrawing from the fight if we do and I'm not as sanguine as you are in thinking that they'll just evaporate as a threat if we leave. Reading Zawahiri's letter you can see him positively drooling at the prospect that the US will pull another Vietnam and withdraw precipitously, leaving everyone who trusted us in the lurch and subject to being killed or "re-educated" ala the South Vietnamese. Isn't the burden of having one of those incidents on your conscience enough?

"You've really lost it with your next offering. Would I prefer that Al Qaeda et al took over Iraq, and then the world, than that I didn't? Take a deep breath and get a grip."

I haven't lost it and without having met you I have to assume you are sane and reasonable for the most part (as we all are). So I therefore assume you don't support Al Qaeda's goals and desires. That's why it very much puzzles me that you would advocate any course of action that would play so obviously into their hands and give them a free pass that they otherwise would have to earn. "Here," you're saying, "you can't beat us, so we'll just give you a victory for free." Why?

I think the answer is probably that you've bought into a one-dimensional view of the situation in Iraq. I'm sorry but your illegal, immoral, profit-motivated argument is just repetitive and tiresome. There's nothing immoral about freeing people from forty years of dictatorship and trying to give them the space to develop a representative form of government. You and others have had two years to make that argument and it still hasn't been made. Or the only way it can be made is to pretend that it was moral to look the other way when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, draining the marshes, massacring the Shiites and generally ignoring every human rights principle in the world without penalty. I think the rest of that argument is equally meaningless (and disingenuous) piffle. Argue about the policy, and the wisdom or the lack thereof of the policy, and leave the Halliburton conspiracy-theorizing to someone who truly is insane.

Iraq is a large, complex, dynamic place with many different groups and interests. One-size-fits-all analysis of what "the Iraqis" want is more or less meaningless. Getting a handle on that from the very narrow newspaper reporting that exists is next to impossible. Adding Iraqi bloggers to your reading list helps. Talking to soldiers who have been there or are there helps. Listening to the Kurdish president share his thoughts helps. Reading the Iraqi press and Iraqi polling helps. But the only thing that will tell you what the Iraqi people really want are elections, where everyone has a say. That's what elections are for, making sure everyone is heard. Anything less, especially basing your idea on what the Iraqi people want by who makes the loudest noise, is guaranteed not to be representative.

The Iraqi people, through many sacrifices (both ours and theirs), are bravely going forward along the road to representative government and elections. There are no guarantees that it will be a sure-fire succes but as long as they are on that path, and sincerely so, I think we should support them. It's the best hope for the future and beats any conceivable alternative, certainly the Al Qaeda one, the civil war one, the return to dictatorship one, etc. Why we would disrupt the situation and pull the rug out from under them at this crucial juncture I can't even conceive. It would benefit no one except the forces of illiberal un-democracy. Don't forget that for every one person setting off a bomb there are a hundred members of the silent majority (teachers, shopkeepers, architects, doctors, computer technicians, salesmen, farmers, trade unionists, Christians), who simply want a peaceful society and a say in how it's governed. I stand with them.

(I'm not worried about hijacking the thread any more. We surely the only ones left. Assuming you make it back to read this.)

At 3:36 PM, October 12, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Since you agree that the status quo is unacceptable, would you not agree that the U.S. should change its policy? The problem isn't military; it's political. U.S. military leaders have acknowledged that they cannot defeat the insurgents militarily, and the insurgents, of course, cannot possibly defeat the U.S. militarily. (How do you define "quagmire"?)

The only hope for success is for the political process to succeed, and I think the U.S. presence is hurting rather than helping. I've read opinions from several prominent Arabs that the U.S., driven by the 2006/2008 election imperative, is pushing the process along too fast. And of course, as I maintained earlier, the presence of 150,000 occupying troops is fuelling the recruitment of homegrown Iraqi jihadists.

"Have you read Zawahiri's recent letter?" I hadn't until I read your post; now I have, and I'm not quivering in my boots. He's howling at the moon. Yes, he "urges insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to be ready to establish Islamic rule in Iraq once the Americans leave". (That's from Voice of America News). That's a long way from a clear and present threat that a couple of thousand disunited terrorists can take over a country.

"They have no intention of withdrawing from the fight if we do and I'm not as sanguine as you are in thinking that they'll just evaporate as a threat if we leave".

You go on to compare the Iraq situation with that in Vietnam. Although I think there are some valid comparisons with Vietnam, I don't believe the prospect of an Islamofascist holocaust is one of them. There aren't that many of them, and they are not a unified body with common political goals; they're terrorists attacking what they hate. Ho Chi Minh was a genuine political leader, on the global scene since the Versailles peace talks after WW I, with millions of committed followers.

No, you're right, I don't support Al Qaeda's goals and desires. One of their goals and desires, however, is that the U.S. occupy the Middle East, giving them a target for their hatred and rage, and helping their recruitment. Do you not think that Osama bin Laden was one of the happiest men on earth the night of "shock and awe"?

U.S. withdrawal doesn't necessarily mean abandoning innocent Iraquis to their doom. It's possible (and would be more so under a different U.S. Administration) that with U.S. cooperation, Europe, NATO, and the U.N. could step into the breach. Surely you realize that there are millions around the globe who, though they condemn the U.S. invasion, sympathize with innocent Iraqis.

Here are two excerpts from an article entitled "Looking for the Exit" by Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large at the Washington Times (no, not the Post!).

No. 1:

"The first prominent retired general to break ranks with President Bush's Iraq war policy was a Republican who once headed the National Security Agency and also served as a deputy national security adviser. Gen. William E. Odom, a fluent Russian speaker who teaches at Georgetown and Yale universities, told the Wall Street Journal's John Harwood staying the course in Iraq is untenable.

"It was hard to disagree with Gen. Odom's description of Mr. Bush's vision of reordering the Middle East by building a democracy in Iraq as a pipedream. His prescription: Remove U.S. forces "from that shattered country as rapidly as possible."

"Gen. Odom says bluntly, "we have failed," and "the issue is how high a price we're going to pay — less by getting out sooner, or more by getting out later."

"At best, Iraq will emerge from the current geopolitical earthquake as "a highly illiberal democracy, inspired by Islamic culture, extremely hostile to the West and probably quite willing to fund terrorist organizations," Gen. Odom explained. If that wasn't enough to erode support for the war, he added, "The ability of Islamist militants to use Iraq as a beachhead for attacks against American interests elsewhere may increase."

"Gen. Odom, head of the pro-Republican Hudson Institute, also calls the sum achievement of U.S. occupation of Iraq "the radicalization of Saudi Arabia and probably Egypt, too. And the longer we stay in Iraq, the more isolated America will become."

"The retired four-star's proposed solution is for the U.N. and the European allies to take charge of political and security arrangements. This formal request from the U.S., says Gen. Odom, should be accompanied by a unilateral declaration that U.S. forces are leaving even if no one else agrees to come in".

No. 2:

"Arab opinion has been inflamed to the point where Palestine and Iraq are now two fronts in the war against what Charles de Gaulle used to call "the Anglo-Saxons." Osama bin Laden is probably thinking he's some kind of strategic genius.

"In Iraq, quite apart from Fallujah and Najaf, the U.S. occupation, according to the latest Gallup polls, has turned most of the population against America. In Baghdad, only 13 percent now believe the invasion and regime change it accomplished were morally justifiable. Only one-third of Iraqis believe the occupation is doing more good than harm and a majority favor an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal while conceding this could put them in greater danger. Gen. Odom presumably has his finger on the same pulse."

The article was dated last May. I don't think things have improved since then.

Okay, I take your point about the invasion in 2003. I ranted a bit, so did you. Now I'll try to leave behind my arguments against starting the war in the first place and discuss the situation on the ground today, or as you put it, "Argue about the policy, and the wisdom or the lack thereof of the policy".

Thank you for your suggestions about widening my horizons -- always a good idea. You might be surprised, though, at the amount of time I spend at the Drudge Report reading conservative columnists -- serious writers as well as amusing wackos like Ann Coulter and the Limbaugh twins. The Neo-neocon site isn't a hotbed of pinko lefty faggots, either. And the farthest left I get in my reading is CNN and the WP and the NYT. No wingnut leftist sites.

I hope that you'll accept that I, too, hope for the best for the Iraqi people now that they're out from under Saddam's tyranny.


At 3:41 PM, October 12, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

p.s.: "Argue about the policy, and the wisdom or the lack thereof of the policy". Do you want to kick things off by arguing for the wisdom of the policy?


At 9:21 PM, October 12, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa! I have to backtrack here.

"Have you read Zawahiri's recent letter?" Well, I read what little there is on VOA, as I said. I've now discovered it's a 6000-word harangue that's more significant than I thought, and I'll have to read some more and think about that. If the terrorists start to organize politically, that's a whole new ballgame. Let's hope that doesn't happen.


At 12:00 PM, October 15, 2005, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Someone who hasn't read the Z-Man letter, some numerous months after it had been released, is only a slight percentage of the evidence concerning the lack of well verified information the critics of Iraq have in their possession.

You're a bit incoherent in your Vietnam and FDR comments. Try again. Or not.

The only incoherence lies in your delusionary comments that pulling out of Iraq would not produce a massacre. I predict that when the massacre comes, you'll claim that it was "destined to happen", just like what people said about the boat people in Vietnam.

How about instead of repeating myself to a brick wall, I just quote the question again and have you answer it?

Why does this sound like Extreme Right Wing dudes like Pat Buchanan and the Republican isolationists during WWII?

Feel free to evade the question again, as you did before.

and I'll have to read some more and think about that.

Go ahead, we'll still be here after you've rationalized some facts into your world view that Iraq can be abandoned and everyone will be sappy happy in their relief.

Let me remind you that ZERO and 100 are the same number in the spectrum of left and right. The more left you go, the more rightist isolationist you become.

At 12:34 PM, October 15, 2005, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

I have to admit a rather interesting mistake. Which is that given how the media writes Zarqawi's name, and its various versions, I had gathered the impression that Kcom was refering to Zarqawi's letter.

Which is the one that was found numerous months ago, the one I referenced originally.

I will rephrase the subject then, into whether Tequila has read the original Zarqawi letter, and what he thought then upon it. Rather than the comments concerning how he didn't read it, that assumption may or may not be correct in this instance.

At 5:29 AM, March 27, 2006, Blogger Tom said...

Okay, I admit it. Even I can sometimes be a dummy when it comes to finding stuff on the net, especially about stuff as silly seduce women how to read minds hypnotic persuasion attract. I got a little cocky thinking that I could find the exact site about anything in one keyword search. Boy, was I ever wrong! I think this one site took me an endless number of hours to uncover. So I hope you like it as well. This one has some really juicy info once you get there. Let me be the first to tell ya.
seduce women how to read minds hypnotic persuasion attract


Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger