Monday, July 26, 2010

Neocons Can Have It Both Ways

So here we have a post at American Power called The Left’s Default Response is Fascism. It’s a pure cut and paste of John Nolte that includes the following:

I remember how frustrating that was and so it only makes sense that Leftists would find appealing everything from a literal “shut up” straight through to wishing that America wasn’t a democracy but instead the kind of country with a government willing and able to permanently silence those opinion and broadcast outlets a chosen few don’t agree with or don’t think “advances us in this country.”

Immediately below that we find, WikiLeaks and the Afghanistan War Logs, the expected denunciation of WikiLeaks for actually providing the US citizen with information about the war in Afghanistan. Don, of course, doesn’t think the Afghanis know what is happening in their country and are going to be shocked to read it in the NY Times.

There's more at the link, but I stopped at this line. "The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests"?
Don't believe it for a second. The New York Times has been the radical left's institutional organ working to bring about an American defeat in Iraq and the War on Terror, and now in Afghanistan.

The article itself does not have a lot in it that anyone paying attention does not already realize. It may add some details. I await Don pointing out exactly where and how it harms our national security interests. Meanwhile, I’ll listen to the crickets.

Anyway Don, you’re in good company. The White House is pretty unhappy too. I guess when it comes down to hating on Obama or supporting war at all costs, you have to come down on the side of war. I’m old enough to remember being lied to during Viet Nam and have decided I would rather get accurate information. You can talk about Socialists and Fascists all you want. To me, you sound like you’d be happy living under totalitarian rule (as long as it was right wing).

2 comments:

repsac3 said...

That's an interesting juxtaposition, that sadly, I missed.

Obviously we (that is, pretty much all of us, from the most nihilist nihilist to the great and wonderful Donald Douglas, himself) neither want a government powerful enough to censor any/all media reporting, OR a government so weak that it cannot stop the media from revealing military secrets and whatnot.

Even for professor Douglas, obviously, it isn't a question of whether the government should have any power at all over what the media does and does not report, but how much power is appropriate, and what mechanisms are in place to be sure that power remains limited.

I haven't delved into the particulars of this Wilileaks dump, but my general philosophy on whistle-blowers where military secrets are concerned is the same as my beliefs about those involved in "ticking time bomb" torture situations. Torture/divulging military secrets is legally and morally wrong, but if you really and truly believe that the greater good will come from breaking that law, do what you have to do, and then turn yourself in and argue for jury nullification. If you expose large enough government misdeeds or save innocent lives, you can sleep well, even if it is in a cell. (Even some of the wingnut narratives about disgraced conservative blogger andrew breitbart are suggestion that the utter loss of his credibility was worth it, because they believe he exposed the NAACP, in the process. YMMV, but it's kinda the same argument. Personal sacrifice for public good.)

What I did catch from Dr D's John Nolte/Fascism post was a line that professor Douglas failed to quote from the original, where Nolte allegas "never once have I heard a fellow Vast Right-Wing Conspirator even hint at the idea of silencing, quieting, or shutting down the other side."

Clearly, John Nolte has never read the comments of Donald "SHUT. IT. DOWN." Douglas on this very blog.

Anyone who suggests that the government should act to shut down or quiet the voices of a media outlet with which they don't approve is sadly mistaken... The way to deal with speech you don't approve of is more speech--(Again, that's why we're here...)--not silencing or intimidation by one's government.

DCB andrew breitbart has every right to talk... I content that no one should listen to him, but that's the marketplace, not the government. As I once said about Imus back when he was going through his deal, he has the right to speak, but he doesn't have the right to an audience, or even a soapbox to stand on; those, he has to earn. In a more perfect world, his websites would shut down--not via government action, but because no one gave a shit what he and his had to say, anymore.

And as far as that law professor who wondered aloud on Journolist whether the FCC could just fail to renew FoxNews' broadcast license, I take it no more seriously than I do Dubya saying that the US would be a whole lot easier to run if it was a dictatorship... ...as long as he was the dictator. People say dumb stuff when they think they're among friends, and often, they don't actually mean them. Hypothetical (and ridiculous) arguments of legal theory are like games of beer pong to lawyers. If he was serious, he's an ass, but even if he IS that much of an ass, he's still hardly representative of all liberals.

Anyway, a good catch... This isn't the first time Donald has presented a pair of posts that send mixed messages about where he actually stands on a given issue. Situational ethics, designed to help his "friends" and hurt his "foes" is the only standard he has...

ex DLB said...

I was a little worried about catching some flack from fellow nihilists on this one. I supported the idea of getting Bin Laden in the first place, of course.

Kerry got roundly ridiculed for saying in 2004 that it should have been a law enforcement matter and it probably should have been. We had close enough relations with the Taliban in 2001 that we likely could have coerced them to turn over Bin Laden. The oil companies were buddying up to them to get a pipeline through to Pakistan. Pretty sure they could have cut a deal.

At the very least we should have just finished the job there and not let hubris carry us into Iraq. Although I'm not sure I feel that Afghanistan would not still be as big a mess as it is regardless of our dicking around in Iraq.

It's starting to feel like Viet Nam redux to me. We haven't lost 55,000 yet but it's still got that feel. It doesn't inspire me with confidence that the Obama WH is sounding exactly like the Bush WH would and like Johnson's and Nixon's did.

If I thought the release of these documents would endanger soldiers I would agree that it's dastardly. I'm pretty sure that's a hollow complaint, tho. Insurgents, Afghanis, al-Qaeda, etc. know all that's in there. The real danger is to continued support of the war effort. The citizenry cannot make an informed opinion without information. Reliance on propaganda is why we're in Iraq.

I'd like to think that with the openness of the internet it would be harder for govts to hide away information they'd like to suppress. Sunlight is the best diinfectant and all that.