"I'm all for serious debate & opposing views" (Updated)

"I'm all for serious debate & opposing views," she said, as she censored the discussion.

How I miss the erudite if unenlightened Barnum's Baileywick, who would go on at length to justify his views and usually attempt to address criticisms.

For some left-tilted bloggers, serious debate apparently means that their views are off-limits for criticism.

"Fran" over at a blog called "Ramblings" had rambled on about how the United States should make things right by impeaching Bush and withdrawing from Iraq. Assured of a case for impeachment parallel to that of clueless presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, I attempted to satisfy my curiosity about how one would reason that things would be made right by a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

I'm going to condense the exchange down quite a bit.

Bryan: What, iyo, is "what is right" and what would correct the situation?

Fran: What is right, imo, would be to utilize the Justice System, and prosecute the Executive branch (ie Bush & Cheney), via the Impeachment process, for high crimes- specifically bringing this country to war under false pretenses.

Bryan: Okay, let's say that you impeach the whole rotten lot. Off to prison they go for as long as you like.
Do you want an immediate U.S. pullout from Iraq despite the fact that the current government wants us there? Is that government an illegal government despite its recognition by the UN?

Fran: Immediate U.S. troop pullout from Iraq - YES!
Let an international Peacekeeping group assist after our exit.

Bryan: Uh, Fran, the only other nations willing to go to Iraq were already part of the coalition and most of them are either leaving or preparing to leave. What makes you think they'll send enough troops to do one iota of good?
The only nation that is likely to have real interest in sending a peacekeeping force into Iraq is Iran (not that Iraq would accept it).

Bryan: I should ask why you think the U.S. should withdraw if you think that peacekeeping assistance is needed.

D. K. Raed: I thought about the above scenario during the '04 election. My conclusion was, with new leadership, we could approach the int'l community, through the UN, and literally apologize for the grevious errors commmited by the (what I thought would be) disgraced prior regime. I still think that is the way to start. The key is new leadership here that will stand up & say it was wrong, we shouldn't have rushed to war & then go about the hard work of repairing our country's int'l relationships.

Fran: The people of Iraq do not want the US troops there. In 5 years, time, things have not improved.
If Iraqis wan(t) assistance they can choose whomever they want. It is not up to the US to make such decisions.

Bryan: Fran, a majority of Iraqis in the almost-famous BBC poll from this summer wanted U.S. troops to stay at least for a time (it varied with the group how long and why).
Now you want to get out of Iraq and let Iraq manage itself. I thought you felt that peacekeeping was needed? Have you changed your mind?
What if Iraq manages itself like Sudan manages itself? Is that OK with you?

Bryan: Can you offer me so much as one historical example of a national apology making a significant difference in the carrying out of foreign policy?

D. K. Raed: B your carefully carfted "questions" are masterful efforts to engage in dialogue on your terms. No example given would satisfy your definition of "apology", "national", "significant", "difference" or "foreign".

Bryan: Is that your way of saying you can't think of any example?

Fran: Bryon: I'm all for serious debate & opposing views.
But I will say I won't allow personal attacks or the snarky tone/direction your posts are going.
Consider this final notice.
(condensed commentary from Ramblings)

I believe I detect some reluctance on behalf of these two to deal with potential problems for their foreign policy prescriptions. I think that reluctance manifested itself in the bogus suggestion that I was engaging in personal attacks. It seems as though Fran considers an attack on her position as an attack on her person.

Given my suspicions, I decided to post a followup that was as neutral as possible, without any hint of a personal attack. Not entirely to my surprise, Fran appears to have deleted it shortly after I posted. Through the magic of screen capture, however, I can show you what Fran did not want you to see!

click to enlarge.

Here's how that section of the page looks after Fran the censor is done with it:



Now you see it. Now you don't. Cute, Fran! I'd love to hear what part of it you found childish or insulting.


Update:
Now D. K. is talking in code back at "Ramblings" in reference to this post.

D.K. Raed said...

I'll watch these tomorrow, don't want to wake the sleeping hub. I know, I know, I need a headset. You probably noticed our friend has posted a truncated version of the big conversation in which he is the rational hero & we are the irrational loonies? I'm very sorry I even attempted a response. Next time I'll count to 10.

(Ramblings)

D. K., if you're not an irrational loony then you have the freedom at this site to make your case, particularly if you feel that I did not offer a representative account of your position with my condensed version of the conversation. I don't delete opposing views regardless of the level of snark or insult since I'm more interested in the content of the argument.

Fran has made herself a comic figure, certainly, with her management of her blog's commentary. As for the opinions you two express, I can let my readers judge the quality. They get to read both sides here (and/or I'll refer them offsite).

*****

The bogus quotation machine rumbles on ...

I'm still casting about looking for good (and bad) liberal blogs to visit regularly, and in the process I located "Black Wolfs (sic) Blog," where a liberal Canadian howls about conservatives & whatnot.

The post that prompted me to write dealt with the Israel-Hezbollah conflict ("2 simple reasons why no cease fire in Lebanon"). Black Wolf repeated a supposed quotation of Ariel Sharon that he credited to "Kol Yisrael Radio." That station allegedly reported that Sharon, speaking to Shimon Peres, said "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

Now, it's true enough that the US tends to support Israel, but the "the Jewish people control America" part seemed a bit over the top, so I resolved to double-check the quotation.

I quickly found that I wasn't the first to raise my eyebrows over that alleged utterance.

Michael Miner wrote a story about the quotation, stemming from a related (apparently false) quotation of Sharon in a story by the Chicago Tribune's Georgie Anne Geyer. In a nutshell, neither quotation is properly sourced--the organization behind the original circulation of the quotation was Illinois' own Islamic Association for Palestine.

This appears to be the account that started the rumour mill in motion.

My take is that nobody, certainly not Black Wolf, will be able to confirm the quotation through the attributed source. It is very probably a fabrication.

Something else caught me eye.

In his previous post, Black Wolf noted the Arab states (not counting Iraq, so far as I can tell) who favor the US do not act according to the will of the people: "everytime there is [an] election, [I]slamic parties usually win, making things worse, because populist government[s] usually do what the people want."

Okay, so democracy is bad since it would make things worse in this case.

Then Black Wolf gives us a string of news blurbs with commentary:

Britons want Bush-Blair divorce
Democracy in action, once elected, one mans [sic] direction is the law, instead of a peoples [sic] wishes.

Apparently democracy would be good in this case since it would keep Bush and Blair from snubbing majority opinions.

From what I can see, Black Wolf doesn't so much care that democracy operates but rather wants to see whoever's in power enacting policies that Black Wolf likes. He supplies the talk of democracy in order to effect a patina of higher principle, I think.

The hint of incoherency seen here is, I suspect, merely the tip of the iceberg with respect to Black Wolf's space.