Tim Blair

Follow the Friedman link to see whats going on. 3 out of 4 blogads have been pulled from "The Daily Kos" as a result of Friedman and his readers efforts.

I am curious to see what the fallout from this will be. At least 2 of the Democratic candidates have pulled their ads from his web site. I have never been over there and don't intend to look in now. But I would be curious to know if or how much his audience drops off. The original was an absolutely appalling post, with the non-apology being even worse.

Here's an Iraq story that'll simultaneously lower your blood pressure but have you feel pumped up.

Kos's comment is still up. You can see it here. Requires scrolling down, but it's there. I think he just redirected the link.

Re: D

Correct. Go to the link and search for the word screw them, and you'll see the original Daily Kos entry, in WebDiary form. I just don't know how long before he realized that little oversight.

He's certainly a bumptious pissant. Suitably oily too.

...but have you feel pumped up.

But Hanz and Franz were not in that article, just this dude named Arnold!

Here's a sweet comment from that thread:

Halliburton is Hiring

I hear four positions just opened up.

That's nice.

Hmm, the CNN article is interesting. It doesn't really reflect the blogosphere as I see it, but they seem to have listed number of blogs, rather than ranking according to traffic. Of course, a lot of the high traffic blogs are more Libertarian (e.g., Instapundit) than Republican, but I don't see them, or most of their readers, voting for Kerry.

Notice that the Shi'a mullah isn't scrambling nearly as much to cover HIS tracks... a scumbag is a scumbag is a scumbag, and there's not much future in denying it.

Kos might want to consider hiring Paul Anka's band for character references...

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that Tim has not mentioned Kos' support for the troops in Iraq. He has also neglected to link to any of Kos' posts questioning why merceneries are in Iraq and how their actions could be damaging to the cause of peace.

Because That Makes It Okay.

tas

What about Kofi Annan`s merceneries?

"Of course, a lot of the high traffic blogs are more Libertarian (e.g., Instapundit) than Republican, but I don't see them, or most of their readers, voting for Kerry."

Can someone give a brief definition of what a Libertarian is, partic. when compared to Republican/Democrat

Cheers

I have more than a screen shot, I archived the whole page.

People should throw this cr@p in Markos's face every chance they get.

Libertarians are basically in favor of as little government intervention as possible into the daily lives of citizens. They would have less affinity for the left/Democrats because a basic tenent of leftism is more government intervention into the lives of citizens.

Max:

Visit polical compass for an excellent introduction and a questionnaire to find out what you are.

There is a Libertarian Party here in the U.S. which believes in as little government participation in a citizen's life as possible; in practical terms this means legalizing drugs, civil liberties uninfringed by any sort of federal or state authority, freedom to do anything you want - up until you infringe on someone else's rights. This party opposed the war in Iraq (as isolationists, they don't believe in any international involvement at all, except totally unlimited markets). They are very small and unpopular, mostly because their platform is idealistic and extreme.

What Donald S. Crankshaw meant to write was small-"l" libertarian. Definition - One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. One who believes in free will. The degrees of freedom from state-prohibited activity vary from person to person. [i.e. one libertarian might say child pornography should be allowed due to freedom of speech, while another would not.]

The difference between the two is like the difference between a Democrat (like John Kerry) and a democrat (any supporter of democracy).

Republicans and Democrats both believe in powerful state authority - Democrats want the government to provide welfare and protect minorities, outlaw guns, protect American jobs, etc. Republicans like the government to fight illegal drugs, control illegal immigration, and maintain an expensive, highly trained military. Many people I know, myself included, identify with either the Republicans or Democrats, but are libertarian on certain issues.

Personally, I am a libertarian Republican. I support the war in Iraq, but unlike most Republicans I have a laissez-faire attitude about marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage. Not because I believe these are our RIGHTS, but because I don't think the government should tell us what to do in these areas.

Max Power:

In the specific context, it means somebody who's basically a Republican but doesn't support "social conservatism".

What "libertarian" means overall is rather disputed, and is pretty hard to answer.

"In all fairness, it should be pointed out that Tim has not mentioned Kos' support for the troops in Iraq. He has also neglected to link to any of Kos' posts questioning why merceneries are in Iraq and how their actions could be damaging to the cause of peace."

That may be true, but so what? The guy has revealed his gut level feelings and to me that makes his "support" for the troops a bunch of bullshit. All of our troops are paid volunteers so they could be characterized as "mercenaries" too. If robbers gunned down Brinks guards would he say, "screw them" because they were hired guards? What the whole thing says to me is that he actually "hates" supporting the troops because he hates warriors but he can't morally or politically justify dissing them. But this situation took him outside of those strictures and his true animus took over. I mean come on, would the guy possibly have the same attitude if the truck drivers of the convoy were killed in the same way? It just doesn’t make sense that he would feel that way just because they were guards if he didn’t have some sort of major internal agenda. He is a putz of the lowest order.

"That may be true, but so what? The guy has revealed his gut level feelings and to me that makes his "support" for the troops a bunch of bullshit. All of our troops are paid volunteers so they could be characterized as "mercenaries" too."

Not may be true, is true, and Kos' thoughts in support of the troops and how it relates to his thoughts on paid mercenaries in Iraq have not been represented. Every right-wing blogger bashing Kos has selectively quoted the man, hence misrepresenting him.

There's a difference between a volunteer military and paid mercenaries. If anyone should know this difference it's Kos, since he used to be a member of the United States military, something clearly stated in his bio that you don't hear any right-wing bloggers talking about, either. Kos cares about troops in Iraq just as much as the rest of us do; I certainly don't want to see them dying, especially for what I consider to be such a bullshit cause.

At his blog, Kos has also talked about the role of paid mercenaries and how they should be banned from participating in war zones like this. You'll have to goto his blog to read it, though, since nobody here is willing to question the notion of paid mercenaries in combat.

I'm not saying that I agree with Kos' original comments, but I am saying that he's been selectively quoted and unfairly represented.

They are still using "mercenary" as justification for their joy over at Kos. Am I wrong or is not the term used to describe non-aligned paid armed forces, available to anyone with enough money, rather than private security teams that in this case were protecting food shipments? I don't mind leftists/"liberals" showing their true colors as Kos did, but I do get frustrated when they redefine terms to rationalize their hatred for the anti-Saddam efforts in Iraq.

tas,

Just what is YOUR definition of a mercenary? Do you accept the definition being used by Kos and his 300 plus fans? Do you really think the murdered, mutilated Americans are properly defined as mercenary? They were protecting a food shipment for Haliburton, not engaged in combat. My email address is correct if you don't want to tie up Tims blog with a reply.

Thanks for the libertarian info

The trouble with Kos is he got caught making an outrageous comment in order to drive traffic to his site. He's ex-artillery. Screw them.

The trouble with libertarianism is that it's an ideology rather than a party. To be libertarian one must believe in, for instance, unlimited immigration and absolute prohibition of the draft.

If we had proportional representation (God forbid) I think a Libertarian/Republican Alliance combining the best of both would draw a lot of votes...mine for instance.

Yeah, this whole "support the troops" BS is a lesson learned from the Vietnam War. It's their brains not their hearts saying it. And Kos said exactly what he meant the first time. I wonder if even that first post was compromise on what he really thinks. Far worse, I would imagine--maybe not a desire for a milliom Mogadishus, but maybe a couple of dozen.

So what would a libertarian think of government waging war, pre-emptively invading another country, perhaps the most signficant form of government intervention there is?

I just wrote Kos' political consulting firm, Armstrong Zúniga, including the following passage in my missive:

"By virtue of the First Amendment, Mr. Zúniga [("Kos'" real name)] is free to express his opinions on his own weblog. However, I have First Amendment rights, too, and I intend to use them. From this day forward, I will not vote for any candidate, or support any initiative or referendum, which uses Armstrong Zúniga as a consultant. I will not vote for any candidate who advertises on the "Daily Kos" weblog. I will not vote for any candidate who is endorsed by Mr. Zúniga, unless that candidate publicly disclaims the endorsement. While I am not terribly active in politics, if I learn that a candidate for office in my area is using Armstrong Zúniga as a consultant, I will immediately volunteer to work for that candidate's opponent--and I will make certain that the local media is fully informed of Armstrong Zúniga's connection to the election, and of Mr. Zúniga's colorful comments.

"I would further suggest to Mr. Zúniga that if the political consulting business does not work out, he should perhaps consider moving to the Middle East. I understand that the Ba'athist tyranny in Syria, and terror organizations like Hamas and al-Qaida, are always looking to hire people with no sense of decency or honor. Mr. Zúniga would fit right in."

Robert Lee Yates was a veteran too. So was Benedict Arnold. Having served one's country THEN does not give someone the right to work against it NOW. Let's hear no more of that shite.

The crazy people seem to be on the anti-Kos side this time, to me. I'm as pro-war as anybody but I don't get the feelings-test idea. At some age you give your feelings a pilot, or should.

So he's not saddened. 100,000 people die every day and I'm not saddened.

Kos and I probably differ on policy recommendations at this point, is all. I'd go the spectacularly targeted justice route. Spectacular in getting the people involved and not getting the people not involved. I take it Kos would want to pull out or something - I don't know because I don't read him.

The rest is pointless posturing. I'm just as puzzled by flag burning hysteria and the Pledge controversy. Some of the right wing is definitely off the wall on this or that subtopic.

No, Ron, the "crazy people" are not on the anti-Kos side; none of the views here (even the malevolent, evil, and verbicidal ones of "tas") can even be described as crazy -- angry, yes, or stupid and malicious in the case of tas, "crazy," no. But as usual (from my observations of your droppings on other blogs such as Big Arm Woman's) you have made some shit up out of whole cloth just so you could derail the conversation and show that you are an "in-DUH-vidual." BAW rightly ignores everything you say; that will be my policy from now on. Blow smoke up someone else's ass.

"Not may be true, is true, and Kos' thoughts in support of the troops and how it relates to his thoughts on paid mercenaries in Iraq have not been represented. Every right-wing blogger bashing Kos has selectively quoted the man, hence misrepresenting him."

What do you mean selectively quoting? We are talking about a particular post he made in which he expressed a complete idea – one which was not mitigated by any other part of his post nor later retracted in any way.

"There's a difference between a volunteer military and paid mercenaries. If anyone should know this difference it's Kos, since he used to be a member of the United States military, something clearly stated in his bio that you don't hear any right-wing bloggers talking about, either."

Not relevant. I’m sick and tired of people bringing up the “veteran” thing to support their political agenda regardless of which side of the fence they are on. (not aiming this at you TAS) John Muhammad was a veteran too. So what. I could bring up examples of veterans to support any range of extreme views from far left to far right.

"Kos cares about troops in Iraq just as much as the rest of us do; I certainly don't want to see them dying, especially for what I consider to be such a bullshit cause.
At his blog, Kos has also talked about the role of paid mercenaries and how they should be banned from participating in war zones like this."

See this is the key point in my view. All these guys were ex-military so at one time Kos would have shed a tear for them. But now, because they have crossed his political divide they are scum. I don’t believe you should parse your basic human decency into categories based on your political views. Even though I would like to see the perpetrators of this incident be brought to justice I wouldn’t gloat if they were killed. I would strongly protest if they were brutalized or their bodies mutilated. I would feel their deaths were justified but wouldn’t think it appropriate to figuratively spit on their graves.

And let me say that I’m not all outraged over the fact that these contractors were killed per se. These were tough men who knew the risks and things went badly for them. However, they were all veterans (just like Kos - not much alumni spirit there, huh?). They were fellow Americans (one was from my home town) with families. They were regular guys who needed to make a buck like anybody else not amoral paid killers that Kos has transformed them into in the fevered swamps of his mind. His comments were a dehumanization of these men into stereotypical representations of his “mercenary” neurosis. Fuck that. Fuck him

Ron:

You wrote, "So he's not saddened. 100,000 people die every day and I'm not saddened."

I think the importance of the whole incident was not that they died, or, perhaps, even that they were civilians attacked for no good reason (honestly, what strategic advantage can really come to Fallujah residents from this?). What was important was what happened to the victims after they died: the ritualized robbery of all dignity one might be able to keep in death. The dragging, the beating, the hanging, and the dismembering of charred bodies in front of the cameras.

Sure, umpteen people get murdered every day, and, like you, I rarely feel something about it. Half of the ones I read about in the paper have a context that makes me think, "Well, they had it coming." You know, they were involved in a drug deal with people you could never trust anyway, or they were a physically abusive husband who turned his back one day, ot they were breaking into a house. Of course, their killers need to be pursued and tule of law upheld, but I'm not waiting by my TV to see it happen in most cases.

But every so often there is a killing which is so horrific that it indicates that we have a deeply disturbed, violent, and dangerous person in our midst. The killing might even be of an animal, not a human. In any case, what has clearly been done to the body by the killer -- some sort of mutilation, posing or other postmortem pleasure-taking -- raises one's adrenaline and gives everyone a sense of emergency: "Get whoever did this, and now!"

To not have this feeling after seeing what was done in Fallujah is creepy. To cheer it on is ever more disturbing. Likewise, the scenes of Palestinians cheering after 9/11 or the dragging in Somalia. It betrays a mentality reserved in this country for serial killers and other entities too horrible to tolerate.

Some weak analogies have been made to the killing of Uday and Qusay, but these are only superficially similar. In those cases, their killings had practical purposes (they were murderers who were trying to continue their careers), they were given chances to give up (and would surely be sitting well-fed in a jail now if they had), and it was important to prove to the Iraqis that they were dead. To equate the two acts would be to say that (a) these brothers were innocent and their deaths unworthy of some relief or even rejoicing and (b) the people who killed them and prepared the bodies for viewing made an effort to rob them of dignity and take pleasure in humiliating their victims. I did not see this at all, and moreover, if I were to see a video of a US soldier doing those sorts of things to the bodies of even two as horrific as those brothers, I would want them out of the service, and away from my neighborhood.

The fact that Kos cannot see the horror in what happened in Fallujah and even sympathizes with the residents is some real food for thought. The fact that one of his sposors, Jane Mitakides, still advertises there and thinks (I guess) that this'll all just blow over, is telling. The fact that this the Left's "blog poster child" and that, overall, what happened on 9/11 and in Fallujah is apparently is within the realm of acceptable behaviour in the Left (you know, if you had suffered the same "injustices" you'd do the same) is the core of my opposition to the Left.

Such behavior -- this pleasure in death, celebration of taking the dead's dignity, and targeting those who can provide the easiest access to blood -- cannot stand, it cannot be tolerated, supported, excused, ignored, or rationalized in any way other than as a psychological phenomenon. It is what makes terrorism terrorism, and we must fight it or run the risk of losing our own lives in the same undignified fashion.

THEY WERE NOT MERCENARIES.

Read freaking Article 47 of the Geneva Convention.

brett,

The attack means to provoke a response; that's its point. Either no response, or an excessive response, is bad for our side. A measured, spectacular and perfectly targeted response is a win for our side. That's what they don't expect to happen.

They're playing to the cameras so you can see it and get really angry. It's not depravity but ordinary strategy aimed at the TV audience, you. Without media, there could hardly be terrorism; that doesn't come up in the media, by the way.

They plan events to be as horrible as possible, given the media available.

See relevant sections of Geneva Convention in first comment of Kos topic at www.donaldsensing.com.

Those guards were *not* mercenaries. They provided security just as Amb. Bremer's bodyguards do -- same company, in fact.

Kos admits his remarks were "stupid" in my overly civil e-mail attempt to get a response to the guy. He still doesn't take full responsibility for the remarks though:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000185.html

I e-mailed him back to try and wrangle an apology, let's see what he says.

Ron:

You wrote
"The attack means to provoke a response; that's its point."
and
"A measured, spectacular and perfectly targeted response is a win for our side."

I absolutely could not disagree more. The attack was meant to engage an enemy they perceive as weak, and a "measured" response is the perfect set-up for an endless game of tit-for-tat between the new government and Fallujah. These people do not want to lose their lives any more than Arafat and OBL do (notice, if you will (a) that these guys and their families never engage in suicide bombings and (b) that the Palestinians have been awfully quiet after they realized that the next bombing will mean the death of Arafat).

Did you know that Egypt and Syria had an fundamentalist Islamic uprising -- esentially an extrnsion of the Palestinian intifadah? Do you know why it stopped? Because the Syrian and Egyptian government opened fire with live ammo on the protestors. End of intifadah. Israel has been caught in this struggle because it hasn't put its foot down (it did with Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and notice how quiet they are).

Now I'm not saying that we open fire on protestors, and, of course, these two goverments have to use insanely brutal tactics to hold on to dictatorial power for decades. But what I am saying is that when we decide to stop such behavior, we can. Dragging charred bodies around the town and hanging them from bridges is such behavior that simply needs to stop (in addition to flying planes into buildings). It must become a certain equation in the minds of Fallujans that this behavior will result in their own deaths. Then it will stop.

"What Donald S. Crankshaw meant to write was small-'l' libertarian. Definition - One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. One who believes in free will."

Thanks, Courtney. I should have been more precise. I didn't mean that these people identified themselves with the Libertarian party itself, only that they were small-"l" libertarians who avoided identifying themselves with any party (and thus would fall under the Independent category in the survey), but who generally identified less with the Democrats than the Republicans. Blogs like the Indepundit (aka Citizen Smash), Instapundit, and the Volokh Conspiracy come to mind. They aren't Republican, and disagree with Bush on key issues, but unless something major happens, I'd guess that's the way they're going to vote.

Do any of you beleive that, if an Afgan appeared carrying a big bag of Opium money, called up Blackwater because he needed help hefting it, that Blackwater would roll out a line of security people for him to take his pick? How about a Belgian invester taking a trip down to the Coute D' Ivorie to pick up some conflict diamonds? Would Blackwater"s people happily ensure our Belgian didn't get machettied on the way?

Is it a matter of money?

As reported at LGF, John Kerry's campaign site has delinked Daily Kos for the following reason:

"In light of the unacceptable statement about the death of Americans made by Daily Kos, we have removed the link to this blog from our website. As John Kerry said in a statement earlier this week, “My deepest sympathies are with the families of those lost today. Americans know that all who serve in Iraq - soldier and civilian alike - do so in an effort to build a better future for Iraqis. These horrific attacks remind us of the viciousness of the enemies of Iraq’s future. United in sadness, we are also united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail."

I have just read the "apology." It actually manages to be viler than the original comment.

mikem-- Gosh, tas should go over there to tell Kerry how Kos' comments were out of context and presented unfairly.

Good for Kerry and his campaign site. Everyone should turn their backs on that kind of sentiment, especially given Kos' behavior in the aftermath.

I emailed each candidate who was advertising when this story was orginally posted. The following email reply is from the Mitakides Campaign:

"Thank you to all who have contacted us to alert us to the unfortunate
statements made on The Daily Kos regarding the deaths of the American
contractors in Iraq.

Many of you know that I come from a family with deep military roots, and
I have been dedicated to supporting our troops and our veterans my
entire life. I also believe that whenever a life is lost to violence.
American or Bosnian, Somalian or Hutu, Palestinian, Israeli or Iraqi.
mankind is diminished.

We have made the decision to remove our advertising from that website,
to assure that there is no confusion about my position on this matter.
But I want to be clear on one point: this decision is not because of any
"pressure" I have received. It is a personal decision, and one I have
not made lightly.

In the past, Kos has provided a valuable forum for Democrats, for the
sharing of issues and information, and I believe "blogs" such as these
will continue become a real force in political communications.

Again, thank you for your e-mail, and for your interest in this very
important race.

Sincerely,
Jane Mitakides"

I added the ".

"The trouble with libertarianism is that it's an ideology rather than a party. To be libertarian one must believe in, for instance, unlimited immigration and absolute prohibition of the draft. "

This is completely untrue. Libertarianism works in some circumstances, but not in others. This is also true of Democracy. Does anyone think we should have a national referendum on every single decision before the country? Would we claim that anyone who answered no is precluded from being a Democrat?

Likewise, libertarians must judge when the circumstances are appropriate for the principles to be effective. This is the reason people who self-identify libertarian, such as myself, nevertheless believe the Libertarian Party is full of crap. They've taken a good idea but failed to fit the principles to the circumstances. Rather, they rationalize the facts in order to support their preferred solution in all circumstances, even where they would pretty clearly fail.

Libertarians have different views on the circumstances which justify government action, although they clearly support less than the current level. But it's wrong to assert they all believe there should be no restrictions or regulations.