After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

John Shinal posted a link to an excellent Wall Street Journal piece
that explains where the neo-con terminology came from. No, I don't
read "The American Conservative",

Interestingly enough it appears that at least one small passage in
Zelden's article is "lifted" without attribution from Buchanan's
article that appeared a month earlier. No biggee, just an observation.

Ms Kwiatkowski has enjoyed her fifteen minutes of
Wharolian fame, but brought no great distinction to
the debate other than adding to the the list of women in the military
who seem to be rising to the surface of infamy.

I gather from your cursory dismissal that you did not read her three
part description of events in the Pentagon. ad hominem anyone? Nah not
you Ed.

As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better.

Two for two...any you boys seen a definition of ad hominem around
here?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the
character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the
person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is
making (or presenting).

But you would never dismiss an argument simply for something weak like
that.

Excuse me, but did I miss something on 9/11/01? Or at Khobar Tower? Or
the USS Cole? Or the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or Mogadishu? Is that
the years of peace we are forfeiting by not turning the other cheek?

You did omit Timothy McVeigh.

So these terrorists events/attacks prove...what? That Buchanan's claim
about the peace won from the COLD WAR (that'd be the Big One you and I
fought in Europe) is in error? You mean we didn't win the COLD WAR?
I'm pretty sure that Treaty in 1991 that allowed Germany to re-unite
was part of that victory/peace. Buchanan was not presenting a Theory
of Everything...but that the cold war was a success.

But I'd say YES we were at peace up to 9/11. We chose to have our
troops or ships in dangerous parts of the world (foreign countries),
I'm not surprised there were terrorist attacks overseas...our friends
have had them for years. Remember the RV explosion at Ramstein in
front of USAFE HQ? I do.

If you went beyond your single citation to explore neo-conservatives,
you might expand from the pejorative to a greater understanding of the
work of Straus and Kristol. But, that would endanger your strawman.

Straw man fallacy? I don't think so. You missed (or ignored) my 25 May
epistle with other citations. I've read Perle (note the date)
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/americawa...tstopiraq.html

I've also read

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic
and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward
2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a
discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle,
James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert
Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The
report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on
strategy. [snipped for SOME brevity]

etc...

So, you'd prefer the steady, well-reasoned leadership of Al Gore that
we heard this week?

Ummm, here's a basic difference. If Al Bore (you read that right) were
in the Oval Office the war on terror would be different, SH would
probably still have his iron-fisted grip on Iraq. I've got no problem
with that.

Does that herring stink?

You failed to grasp the intent. In very basic terms, we won the war in
Iraq, but poor conduct or bad decisions by the "good guys" in the
aftermath can lose the peace. And it won't be because folks like me
opposed "pre-emptive, nation-building, 800 pound gorilla" foreign
policy. We didn't plan to fail, but we certainly failed to plan (for
the peace).

We were talking about the correctness of response to terrorism and
whether a democracy replacing Saddam in Iraq was a worthy
foreign policy goal.

Foregoing my snappy repartee for a moment. I don't recall democracy
building as a goal for taking down SH, it was the THREAT he presented
to the USA. The democracy notion was ancillary to the ANNOUNCED
reasons. [Yes I have the text of all gwb's State of the Unions]

When the ties to AQ weren't found and the WMD stockpiles weren't
found, democracy took center stage...worthwhile but not quite the
sizzle of discovering WMD stocks. Afterall we have friends that are
not democracies...so it doesn't fit neatly into the war on terrorism
rhetoric.

Dare I say "faulty syllogism"? Because the sun comes up post-rooster,
doesn't imply cause/effect. There was looting after the fall of Hitler
as well. Ditto fall of Saigon. Unfortunate, but you might recall that
some of the reports were exaggerated as well--remember the
archeological artifacts in the tens of thousands that were
looted....oops, they were in the basement.

Again you failed to grasp the message, not that everything should be
perfect; rather the clear demonstration that Rumsfeld and the
architects of this nation building experience did not have a plan for
post war. Oh yeah, I'm sure there was something they call "a plan" but
I suspect it was predicated on Cheney's claim we'd be greeted as
liberators.

Have you considered the disconnect in the rhetoric between the demands
for us to withdraw and turn over sovereignty from the left and the
simultaneous questioning of how could Bush possibly keep the June 30
deadline for just that?

Most definitely. I've considered the desire to give Iraq back to
Iraqis and not leave it as damaged goods now that we've "broken it" to
paraphrase Colin Powell's counsel (ala Woodward's book). Rock and a
Hard Place, Deep Kimchee, Up to our Ass in Alligators...

Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
must get involved.

Again I go back to the raison d'être promulgated in gwb's 2002 State
of the Union and the absence of a smoking gun (oh yeah, one sarin
round) to show our friends and allies..."here I told you he had all
this ****, and was linked to al-Qaeda." Clearly I have a higher
threshold of proof. In the information age I expect the proof.

Appeasement on all fronts may seem warm and friendly, but it isn't
always the best course, Mr. Chamberlain.

Ed, kicking al-Qaeda ass in Afghanistan is NOT appeasement. Containing
SH's ass in a small portion of his country is NOT appeasement.
Tracking down terrorist cells with the assistance of our allies is not
appeasement.

This notion that folks like me would do NOTHING is poor comprehension
on your part, and a frequent error by bush supporters that label my
ilk as "unpatriotic.". I would not have invaded Iraq. I would kill AQ
****s where I found them. Iraq was taking our eye off the ball so to
speak.

I confess to the flaw of convictions.

I do not envy the student that writes a paper opposing your
convictions. Believe me when I say that is NOT ad hominem...simply
they way I see your debating style...not your message.

Robey