It's not a success yet, but the Leftist & Islamist descriptions of its being a debacle are absurd. A lot is at stake in Iraq. If we can help them get a workable non-militant government, the ramifications for the rest of the Middle East would be enormous. It is a shame that so many people want Iraq to fail so they can prove Bush wrong. This isn't about Bush. It is about a battle with a hostile force and one of the major battlegrounds today is Iraq. Some of us want it to succeed. Some of us think a successful Iraq is worth fighting for, but the Anti-Americans hope we will lose. Being pessimistic about Iraq doesn't place your standards higher than mine. Quite the contrary. Our troops have complained about the twisted warped view swallowed over here as fact. They think they are fighting for something worth while and doing a good job, but the anti-Americans are painting good evil and evil good. Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 5:21 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up We're bogged down in Iraq, which you see as a success, that's the bottom line. Obviously my standards are higher than yours, that's the real difference between us. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 5/6/2006 4:31:59 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up You arent taken responsibility for your poor argument. You switch to something different a spin. But your spin is also untrue (Ill skip the illogicality of it since logic is obviously not one of your interests): 1) Pollack discussed the pros and cons of invading Iraq in great detail. His knowledge can be said to be the knowledge available to the Bush administration inasmuch as he was in the intelligence community until Bush took office and knew what those knew who advised Bush. Since you havent read Pollack, you cant know that the cons he discussed didnt come true. 2) Your perception of the situation in Iraq is faulty. We are now facing the insurgents made up of Sunnis who supported Saddams regime and Islamists who realize that a success in Iraq would cause their cause tremendous harm. As the Iraqi government comes into being and as the Iraqi security forces become more competent they will be able to deal with their own insurgents. 3) Your statement about ignoring the consequences of invading Iran is false. I have indeed posted the downside of invading Iran. Eric and I posted several things and discussed them. I suspect you dont read long articles, Irene; else you would know this. 4) Your statement that I just want war because I want a war is, well, the sort of personal attack that the inarticulate seem to find irresistible after a failed argument. Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 12:23 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up Lawrence, you never post the down side of invading Iran. Surely there are downsides? Did you or did you not support invading Iraq? Apply some of your logic to starting a war. Negative consequences were addressed for Iraq before the invasion, and they came to fruition. Worse negative consequences are predicted for invading Iran and you ignore them completely. I therefore stand by my statement that you do not have the best interests of the U.S. in mind. You just want a war because *you* want a war. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 5/6/2006 3:07:59 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up Irene, You have a serious problem with logic. Let me illustrate: You argue a) Eric was a huge proponent of Mylroies conspiracy theories. b) Lawrence (all of a sudden a false statement btw) doesnt like conspiracies theories, c) therefore (presumably) Lawrence is being inconsistent. Rebuttal: Eric and Lawrence are not the same person. I dont recall Erics comments about Mylroie so Ill let him respond to them. Nevertheless, I repeat, I am not Eric and it is not logical of you to insist that I am. Another problem with your Logic is a) Mylroie wanted to invade Iraq. b) You wanted to invade Iraq. c) Therefore you supported Mylroies conspiracy theories This is a logical fallacy. Although it is clearly a fallacy and I dont want to detract from its fallaciousness, I will add that I never cited Mylroes book as reason for invading Iraq. I cited the Clinton CIA expert on the Middle East, Kenneth Pollack (The Threatening Storm, the Case for Invading Iraq, as well as Sandra Mackeys The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein. Did you read the article I posted Irene? How about responding to that? Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 10:25 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up Lawrence, where were you on Annie Myelroie's conspiracy theories? Eric was a huge proponent of her book as justifying invading Iraq, and you wanted to invade as well. Her's was the evidence cited. Now all of a sudden you don't like conspiracy theories. Also, viewing only one side of the evidence for invading Iran is tantamount to a conspiracy theory. I wonder that you're not considered unamerican, luring the U.S. into another cudda wudda war so it can have its already black and blue butt kicked even harder. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 5/6/2006 1:05:50 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12105047_1 This is another interesting article from the current issue of Commentary. Since we lived through it, at least I did, we havent realized that not only do the Conservatives of today hark back to the Liberals of 40 & 50 years ago, but the Liberals of that time have morphed into something resembling the Conservatives of those days especially the interest in Conspiracy Theories. When I first went to work for Douglas in 1959, one of my most memorable experiences was arguing with a member of the John Birch Society who regaled me with conspiracy theories and almost turned me in as a security risk for not accepting them. My contempt for conspiracy theories arose during that period. But now it is the Left who is enamored of Conspiracies. James Piereson discusses this interest shift. Lawrence