Michele Bachmann: Spectacle or Prophet?

[Beckwin]

uh-oh the JAG clerk is chiming in.

Neo, I'm not quite buying the idea that we've effectively disrupted alQ through our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we even seeing significantly less frequent terror attacks since 9/11? I don't think so.

And what if alQ simply changes focus/location from Afghanistan to Yemen, for instance? Or maybe Saudi Arabia?

[Kuya]

This isnt a debate on the effectiveness of the "war on terror". OEF (operation enduring freedom) has very little to do with the "war on terror" beyond the initial motivation for entry. Referencing terrorist cells as unorganized and ununited and thus categorizing them as a "non enemy" of the US because they dont fall into the same league as our military is ignorant of the direct military organization and funding that took place in afghanistan (with support of the Taliban) previous to our attack (which was the reason for our invasion in the first place).

Disruption (i.e. near total destruction) of Al'queda organizational operations in the region and taliban/extremist funding has significantly reduced the effectiveness of such cells and their ability to operate internationally. The "war on terror" is just a poor choice of words and simply expresses the never ending persistance that the US (and any other country) must have to guard itself from domestic terrorism by organizations/states without the ability to wage war by conventional means.

You see to be missing the point of the debate and going off on some rant in another direction to express your frustration for a situation you dont seem to understand.



You are basing that statement off no actual facts. Ive seen the afghan army 8 years ago(or what was left of it), ive seen the afghan army now (a trained force of competant soldiers), and there have been huge leaps and bounds. Comparing surgical SF training of Al'queda operatives to the massive organizational training of entire brigades of nationalist afghanies is rediculous. Half the operations we do here are lead/coled by the ANA, and they are getting better at it every day. Assuming the US is just "killing ideas with bullets" instead of fighting a complex battle to win the hearts and minds of a complex group of people in a dangerous region with multiple outside influences is naive and just plain silly. I hope you arent that ignorant of what is going on here and what both sides of the fight are really about.

First of all, i would not speak of ignorance when you're the one who initially fed me the line about being in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban when the initial point was to fight Al Qaida. The Taliban is insignificant for US security because the Taliban is ultimately not interested in waging international war with the US. The only problem the Taliban poses, is providing a haven for Al Qaida, but the latter organization's strenght, at this point in time, lies in what is referred as Al Qaidism, as in, the idea.

As for the idea that i wasn't aware of the funding both from the ISI, from Saudi Arabia and from Osama himself, i think someone like you, who implied that Al Jazeera was some sort of propaganda network knows far less of what is going on. What is your rank anyway? Or what exactly have you studied of islamic extremism? I want to make sure that when i make fun of you, i am justified in doing so.

I am also aware that what little the US has done has disrupted its operational abilities. Unfortunately, Al Qaida isn't the only problem, and the US has only agitated the situation without actually responding to what leads to the existence of these groups in the first place. I get the feeling you did not read the link, or else it should have been sufficiently clear that there is no real central command to Al Qaida, nor is Al Qaida the only organization out there. Killing a few of them or the leaders does not stop the threat. The US is just bleeding out money.

As for the comment about how i'm basing it off no facts, i'm going to ignore you. I already posted information on the inadequacy of the ANA, you obviously did not read it, or ignored it, but to rub it all over your face again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDNaEbsxMiU


http://www.juancole.com/

The US military has admitted that it is failing to recruit soldiers for the Afghanistan National Army (ANA) from Pashtun regions where the Taliban are powerful. Lieutenant General Bill Caldwell, of the US Army told Skynews that only 3% of the ANA came from the southern Pashtun regions (I presume he means Qandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan).

Since most recruits are illiterate, training has to be by 'show and tell', and pretty much anyone who sits through the whole 8-week course is declared trained, even if he should have been washed out. Drop-out rates had been 48%, but Caldwell says that they have been reduced to 10%. It is not clear how many of those graduates stay in the army any length of time, though. The Pentagon has dispatched over 800 new trainers (which, however, do not sound like nearly enough to me under these trying circumstances).

You have not once even addressed the fact that such a low percentage of the ANA is Pashtun, which will only lead to the same situation that developed in Iraq. Do you even know what Pashtuns are? Baluchis? Tajiks? I really need to know what you've read on all of this, or else i'm wasting my time, when instead of debating you i should be educating you.

[Kuya]

I am not even sure what this thread is about anymore.

[Acturus]

I propose that Michele Bachmann and Alan Grayson have a cage match using only their fallacious arguments as weapons.

[Correction]

I am not even sure what this thread is about anymore.

soda

[Olo401]

I propose that Michele Bachmann and Alan Grayson have a cage match using only their fallaces as weapons.

Fixed, Cuz you know..

[Acturus]

Fixed, Cuz you know..

well, I didn't know. But now I do.

And knowing is half the battle.

[willriker]

First of all, i would not speak of ignorance when you're the one who initially fed me the line about being in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban when the initial point was to fight Al Qaida. The Taliban is insignificant for US security because the Taliban is ultimately not interested in waging international war with the US. The only problem the Taliban poses, is providing a haven for Al Qaida, but the latter organization's strenght, at this point in time, lies in what is referred as Al Qaidism, as in, the idea.

As for the idea that i wasn't aware of the funding both from the ISI, from Saudi Arabia and from Osama himself, i think someone like you, who implied that Al Jazeera was some sort of propaganda network knows far less of what is going on. What is your rank anyway? Or what exactly have you studied of islamic extremism? I want to make sure that when i make fun of you, i am justified in doing so.

I am also aware that what little the US has done has disrupted its operational abilities. Unfortunately, Al Qaida isn't the only problem, and the US has only agitated the situation without actually responding to what leads to the existence of these groups in the first place. I get the feeling you did not read the link, or else it should have been sufficiently clear that there is no real central command to Al Qaida, nor is Al Qaida the only organization out there. Killing a few of them or the leaders does not stop the threat. The US is just bleeding out money.

As for the comment about how i'm basing it off no facts, i'm going to ignore you. I already posted information on the inadequacy of the ANA, you obviously did not read it, or ignored it, but to rub it all over your face again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDNaEbsxMiU


http://www.juancole.com/


You have not once even addressed the fact that such a low percentage of the ANA is Pashtun, which will only lead to the same situation that developed in Iraq. Do you even know what Pashtuns are? Baluchis? Tajiks? I really need to know what you've read on all of this, or else i'm wasting my time, when instead of debating you i should be educating you.

This is a guy who knows what he is talking about. I am not in the military, I do not know who pashtuns, baluchis, or even tajiks are. I assume they are tribal names. But, that is irrelevant to the majority of your post.

We went into Afganistan to attack AlQ. The taliban were not the target. The taliban became the target as they actively tried to prevent us from attacking our true enemy. I may have issues with the whole, whoever harbors terrorists are our enemy deal, (because these guys pop up within the USA also.. are we going to let another countries military enter the USA to track them down? Its just hypocritical) and we might not have had any respect for their soveriegn nation when we invaded, but they did stand in our way of revenge.

That is the only reason the united states fought the taliban. I am against how we aproached the whole situation, but it is what it is.

I get a little weird feeling inside when I am told that we went into Afganistan to topple the taliban, and free the Afganistani people. It simply isnt true. It is the mess we got stuck with, due to our method of entry, but it was never the reason we went into Afganistan.

As for the ANA, the last i heard about this, we were having tons of issues filling the ranks. And with respect to Kuya, how can you expect there to be a large amount of recruits for the army in the 'hottest' prtioin of afgainstan. Thats where the highest concentration of the remnants for alq and the taliban are reported to be. If you dont play thier game you and your family are shot, or worse. Of course there are not many recruits from that area.

[Orden]

I've boiled down any argument involving Leif into its essential ingredients:

- Leif tells us why conservatives have never and can never do anything wrong and everything which is wrong is that way because of a liberal agenda.
- Arguments are raised. If opinions are given, opposing views are incorrect, misinformed, or a victim of the liberal media. If facts are given, sources are required.
- Sources are given. We are then informed that citing sources is not an argument.
- Repeat.

Quoted for truth. I've only seriously been browsing the general forum for about a week and i've noticed this formula in every thread that Leif was given any kind of serious attention.

Leif is actually a good troll, one of the best. He is not, however, a debator. I actually fell for it on my first days in general, but I can see now that he is just following the actions outlined above.

[6souls]

But he is managing to tip toe past the Bachmann topic pretty good.

[Neosutra]

First of all, i would not speak of ignorance when you're the one who initially fed me the line about being in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban when the initial point was to fight Al Qaida. The Taliban is insignificant for US security because the Taliban is ultimately not interested in waging international war with the US. The only problem the Taliban poses, is providing a haven for Al Qaida, but the latter organization's strenght, at this point in time, lies in what is referred as Al Qaidism, as in, the idea.

Our current enemy IS the Taliban (or shall I say our largest enemy here, as it is a mix of insurgent groups from various ethnic/cultural regions). The initial point was to destroy the Al Qaida infrastructure, and part of that was dismantling the sympathetic Taliban government. Even at the beginning of the war our primary enemy was the Taliban, as Al Qaida is significantly smaller by comparison. Saying that the Taliban offers no threat to the US when their direct support/funding/sanctuary of Al Qaida resulted in domestic attacks on the US and several other countries is REDICULOUS.
And yes, Al Qaida is more of an international idea now rather than a strong terrorist cell located in one spot. The fight against terrorist cells like Al Qaida is completely different than the current tactical fight/goal in Afghanistan. You should start seeing the difference.

As for the idea that i wasn't aware of the funding both from the ISI, from Saudi Arabia and from Osama himself, i think someone like you, who implied that Al Jazeera was some sort of propaganda network knows far less of what is going on. What is your rank anyway? Or what exactly have you studied of islamic extremism? I want to make sure that when i make fun of you, i am justified in doing so.

Im a CPT in the US army, have been in for 9 years (4 enlisted), and my studies of Islamic extremism is mostly from 2 deployments to the area and various books on regional history on Iraq and Afghanistan. I am aware of how the Taliban came to power, what ethnic influences are behind each of the movements, and how surrounding countries are sympathetic to their cause even now.
And if you don’t think Al Jazeera is propaganda, then you must think Fox News is fair and balanced.

I am also aware that what little the US has done has disrupted its operational abilities. Unfortunately, Al Qaida isn't the only problem, and the US has only agitated the situation without actually responding to what leads to the existence of these groups in the first place. I get the feeling you did not read the link, or else it should have been sufficiently clear that there is no real central command to Al Qaida, nor is Al Qaida the only organization out there. Killing a few of them or the leaders does not stop the threat. The US is just bleeding out money.

Directly disrupting formal operations of Al Qaida (turning it from a real organization with formal training grounds and millions in financial ties to basically an “idea” is a bit more than “slight disruption”). I wont argue against agitation that the invasion caused. I’m quite aware that many of these people wouldn’t be anti-american/insurgents if we weren’t there in the first place. However we had very little choice in the dismantling of the Taliban in support of Al Qaida, and agitation is just something we have to deal with. We reduce that agitation and extremism by encouraging and supporting a stronger Afganie self-government. The US is doing more than just “bleeding money to kill a few leaders”, we are stabilizing a region and removing this area as an operating base for a combination of groups of people that are actively training and planning to attack our country and other nations.

As for the comment about how i'm basing it off no facts, i'm going to ignore you. I already posted information on the inadequacy of the ANA, you obviously did not read it, or ignored it, but to rub it all over your face again:
You have not once even addressed the fact that such a low percentage of the ANA is Pashtun, which will only lead to the same situation that developed in Iraq. Do you even know what Pashtuns are? Baluchis? Tajiks? I really need to know what you've read on all of this, or else i'm wasting my time, when instead of debating you i should be educating you.

Rub it in my face lol? I’m actually here with these people and I’m telling you first-hand knowledge of the training and effectiveness of the ANA and you’re quoting me an old biased article that you read one day? Really? I’ve been on tactical convoys with these people for the last few months. I’ve helped train their commanders and NCOs face to face. I’ve sat in the meetings that show our statistics on recruitment, effectiveness, and attrition in the ANA. I’ve watched ANA soldiers in 3+ hour firefights against insurgents with US soldiers right by their sides. Educate me? You can’t be that stupid. You’re the only person here displaying ignorance, and it’s fucking embarrassing to even watch.

[6souls]

In a joint interview on a Pittsburgh radio station, Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania told conservative Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota that she should "act Like a lady."

You can listen to the exchange at Real Clear Politics.

As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports, Specter's comments came amid a contentious exchange on 1210 AM's Dom Giordano Show. After Bachmann spoke at length, Specter started to respond and Bachmann interjected. Specter then asked Bachmann to "stop interrupting," stating, "I didn't interrupt you."

"Now, wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk," he said. "I'll treat you like a lady. Now act like one."

"Well, I am a lady," Bachmann replied.

After the two bicker further, Specter again says Bachmann should "act like a lady." When Bachmann again states that she is a lady, Specter replies, "I think you are too, that's why I'm treating you like one. But just don't interrupt me."

Specter later complains that Bachmann, who insisted she voted for "prosperity" when Specter asked her about a specific vote, is "talking from talking points."

Writes Glenn Thrush: "Bachmann is hardly a beloved figure in Democratic circles. But how many liberal women, whom Specter badly needs to defeat front-running Pat Toomey, would appreciate being told to 'act like a lady' by a male debate partner?"

Specter, a Republican-turned-Democrat, is trailing Republican Pat Toomey 49 percent to 40 percent in the Pennsylvania Senate fight, according to a new Rassmussen poll.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01...y6126494.shtml

Audio:
Specter Tells Bachmann To Act Like A "Lady"
Bachmann "Stunned" At Specter's "Arrogance"
Bachmann: "I Was Patronized And Basically Told To Sit Down And Shut Up" (Sean Hannity's radio show)

sources for the article:
http://community.post-gazette.com/bl...-on-radio.aspx
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...y.html?showall
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ylvania_senate

Also, anyone in the OC that would like to meet Ms. Batshitcrazy, you'll have your chance on January 28th.

http://api.ning.com/files/h6OngvX9nr...yer_Page_2.jpg
http://ocgopaction.ning.com/events/r...congressman-ed

Palin to join Bachmann for a day on the campaign trail

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...chmann_400.jpg

Lennon and McCartney. Huntley and Brinkley. And now, Palin and Bachmann.

Two of the brightest stars in the conservative constellation are converging in the 6th Congressional District of Minnesota, and there's no telling what kind of cosmic cataclysm could strike when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hits the campaign trail on behalf of equally beloved (and reviled) Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann, the conservative darling of the talk-show circuit, said Wednesday that the best-selling author of "Going Rogue" would campaign for her April 7. Details have yet to be announced.

"There is absolutely no one more in tune with the hearts and minds of everyday Americans than Governor Palin, and I'm excited to welcome her back to our beautiful state this spring," Bachmann said.

One is a former beauty queen who hails from the wilds of Wasilla. The other is an attorney from the 'burbs of Anoka. One can skin a moose. The other can dissect the tax code. Both have been parodied on "Saturday Night Live."

They are outspoken, telegenic women at the forefront of a conservative movement crowing after a Republican won the U.S. Senate seat once held by the late Edward Kennedy in Tuesday's Massachusetts special election. And while the two have been linked as a potential 2012 presidential dream ticket among some conservatives, they don't have a close, shared history.

But they have crossed paths. Both were on the stage during the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, albeit on different days and under decidedly different circumstances. (Palin, of course, was Sen. John McCain's pick as running mate over Gov. Tim Pawlenty.) Both attended a fundraiser last month in Minnesota, during which Palin gave Bachmann an autographed copy of her book.

And they will share the stage again next month at the first National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn., where both will be featured speakers.

So strap in, Stillwater. Lock and load, Lino Lakes. Heads up, St. Cloud. There's no telling what will happen when Bachmann and Palin team up.

Both Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidates vying to run against Bachmann reacted sharply to the news and in similar ways.

"It is not surprising that Michele Bachmann continues to court the extreme right of the national Republican Party, while neglecting the needs of the district," the campaign of Dr. Maureen Reed said in a statement.

"This is just another example of Bachmann trying to enhance her national star power rather than working on preventing home foreclosures, creating jobs, or offering solutions to address our healthcare crisis."

State Sen. Tarryl Clark's campaign said this: "From her Tea Party travels to hobnobbing with the conservative celebrity set, Michele Bachmann is more interested in pursuing her personal agenda and building her national celebrity than in doing the work so desperately needed by the residents of her district — like addressing the state's highest unemployment rates and foreclosure rates right in her own back yard."

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_14233955?source=rss

[Leif]

hot

[Elvis]

Sorry to derail this topic again.

Just thought I'd make that post I promised Leif.

(Part 1)

First off, this issue is very complex and cannot be understood by simply citing (from Wikipedia) how many people have died from either Islamic terrorism or Christian fundamentalism. All these highly politicized belief-systems function differently. Understanding why is important.

Leif's argument - as I understand it - is that suicide bombing and specifically, Islamic extremism, is more 'radical' than the Christian Right or radical nationalism (such as Zionism - which incorporates religion as well).

He used Wikipedia to reference around 7k deaths attributed to suicide bombing. This is his argument.

I will focus on the involvement of the Christian Right in the wars of Central America. I am not going to argue that one group is exceptionally ‘evil’. I reject that premise. This is simply to inform people of a history that is not made aware in our public consciousness (IMO).

However, the Christian Right and Zionism (‘a political ideology that considers the geographic territory of Israel to be imbued with special religious significance and rightfully inhabited by people of Jewish ethnicity and faith’) are considered socially-acceptable in our political culture.

Christian Right activists are able to channel their political aspirations through the American system legitimately. Their goals and 'radicalism' are by definition 'legitimate' [subjective].

Let me also add that this is not an attack on 'Christianity' in it's entirety. In fact, as Prof. Greg Grandin writes in Empire's Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the rise of the New Imperialism:

Liberation theology threatened to undermine the New Right's long struggle to affirm unbridled capitalism's inextricable relationship to human freedom. It was not enough, therefore, for mainstream Christian conservatives and fundamentalists simply to discredit liberal religious organizations. They had to go on the offensive and make the case that corporate capitalism "mirrors God's presence" on Earth, as Catholic theologian Michael Novak put it.

In other words, well before "political Islam" became the paramount spiritual enemy for the New Right, it singled out Christian humanism for attack.

A short answer to Leif's challenge would be to focus on the crimes of former Guatemalan dictator, Efraín Ríos Montt.

Dr. Virginia Garrard-Burnett writes in her book, Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit: Guatemala Under General Efraín Ríos Montt, 1982-1983:

General José Efraín Ríos Montt was Guatemala's first Pentecostal chief of state, an enigmatic and paradoxical figure who simultaneously spoke of bringing both God's love and scorched earth to the countryside without apparent contradiction. Rios Montt served as Guatemala's head of state for seventeen tumultuous months in 1982-1983, a period now known in Guatemalan history as la violencia, although it was spoken of at the time, if at all, in hushed tones, simply as la situacion.

This sobriquet places Rios Montt's administration at the core, the violent and bloody nadir, of the nation's thirty-six-year struggle between a leftist armed insurgency and the Guatemalan military government, which lasted from 1960 to 1996. The violence of the early 1980s places Guatemala squarely in the company of nations that in the twentieth century purposefully did great harm to their own citizens in order to "save" the State and it's interests from a hostile ideology that seemed to, or in fact did, threaten it's demise.

Historians of the future may well come to define the twentieth century by the number and scope of its genocides - a neologism coined, appropriately, in midcentury to describe a government's killing of its own people on a massive scale. If so, the Rios Montt administration by all rights has, as the cliche goes, earned its place in the history books.

[Leif]

Sorry to derail this topic again.

Just thought I'd make that post I promised Leif.

(Part 1)

Please tell me you have something of substance in Part 2.

First off, this issue is very complex and cannot be understood by simply citing (from Wikipedia) how many people have died from either Islamic terrorism or Christian fundamentalism. All these highly politicized belief-systems function differently. Understanding why is important.

This is like saying I can't look up on Wikipedia what an apple is.

Leif's argument - as I understand it - is that suicide bombing and specifically, Islamic extremism, is more 'radical' than the Christian Right or radical nationalism (such as Zionism - which incorporates religion as well).

Why do liberals keep taking every conservative argument, jiggling it until it means something ridiculous, and conclude that the conservative must have said exactly that!

I didn't compare, discuss, or mention who is the craziest. In your concocted fantasy, what scale did I use to see who was the craziest?

He used Wikipedia to reference around 7k deaths attributed to suicide bombing. This is his argument.

My argument is that Muslim extremists have killed 7,000 people worldwide (of which a majority are Americans) and the "Christian crazies" have killed six American abortion doctors. Neither events involve complex nuclear physics or disputes of facts. As such, you neither contested or refuted these numbers.

So when the United States asks itself "Who's the biggest threat?", Islamic crazies are at the top of the list, followed by, among other things, organized crime, serial killers, and wife beaters.

I will focus on the involvement of the Christian Right in the wars of Central America. I am not going to argue that one group is exceptionally ‘evil’. I reject that premise. This is simply to inform people of a history that is not made aware in our public consciousness (IMO).

Great! Except how does this change what the United States should do and who is should consider threats?

However, the Christian Right and Zionism (‘a political ideology that considers the geographic territory of Israel to be imbued with special religious significance and rightfully inhabited by people of Jewish ethnicity and faith’) are considered socially-acceptable in our political culture.

I'm not so sure

Christian Right activists are able to channel their political aspirations through the American system legitimately. Their goals and 'radicalism' are by definition 'legitimate' [subjective].

You have yet to establish how they are radical. You have yet to establish how being a member of the "Christian Right" makes you a radical. You also complain about them being able to "legitimately" "channel their political aspirations through the American system", yet you do not provide a reason why anybody should be stopped from participating in the political process.

Let me also add that this is not an attack on 'Christianity' in it's entirety.

So far, it's just been "Christian Right". Since liberals don't believe in God, it sounds a lot like you have a problem with Christianity. Perhaps, in the more likely scenario, your labels are a bit over-sized.

Liberation theology threatened to undermine the New Right's long struggle to affirm unbridled capitalism's inextricable relationship to human freedom. It was not enough, therefore, for mainstream Christian conservatives and fundamentalists simply to discredit liberal religious organizations.

Who is the "New Right"? How is it a "struggle" to show that capitalism and freedom go hand in hand? How did the conservatives manage to "discredit liberal religious organizations"? Last time I checked, liberals have been trying to infest the churches for decades, with the aid of the media to trump up anti-religious stories?

They had to go on the offensive and make the case that corporate capitalism "mirrors God's presence" on Earth, as Catholic theologian Michael Novak put it.

Since Michael Novak's original words were not "corporate capitalism mirrors God's presence on Earth", I'm interested in what the actual sentence was.

In other words, well before "political Islam" became the paramount spiritual enemy for the New Right, it singled out Christian humanism for attack.

What? Who died? Why does America care? Why do I care? Why do you care? What does this even mean?

A short answer to Leif's challenge would be to focus on the crimes of former Guatemalan dictator, Efraín Ríos Montt.

Great! I can't wait to see what this has to do with the "Religious Right", "Christian Right" or "New Right"!

General José Efraín Ríos Montt was Guatemala's first Pentecostal chief of state, an enigmatic and paradoxical figure who simultaneously spoke of bringing both God's love and scorched earth to the countryside without apparent contradiction. Rios Montt served as Guatemala's head of state for seventeen tumultuous months in 1982-1983, a period now known in Guatemalan history as la violencia, although it was spoken of at the time, if at all, in hushed tones, simply as la situacion.

This sobriquet places Rios Montt's administration at the core, the violent and bloody nadir, of the nation's thirty-six-year struggle between a leftist armed insurgency and the Guatemalan military government, which lasted from 1960 to 1996. The violence of the early 1980s places Guatemala squarely in the company of nations that in the twentieth century purposefully did great harm to their own citizens in order to "save" the State and it's interests from a hostile ideology that seemed to, or in fact did, threaten it's demise.

Historians of the future may well come to define the twentieth century by the number and scope of its genocides - a neologism coined, appropriately, in midcentury to describe a government's killing of its own people on a massive scale. If so, the Rios Montt administration by all rights has, as the cliche goes, earned its place in the history books.

That's right! Nothing!

[Correction]

I've boiled down any argument involving Leif into its essential ingredients:

- Leif tells us why conservatives have never and can never do anything wrong and everything which is wrong is that way because of a liberal agenda.
- Arguments are raised. If opinions are given, opposing views are incorrect, misinformed, or a victim of the liberal media. If facts are given, sources are required.
- Sources are given. We are then informed that citing sources is not an argument.
- Repeat.

Still true.

[Leif]

Don't bore me with your cheap responses.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Don't bore me with your cheap responses.

In the free market people will buy cheap, quality responses and the market will regulate itself.

[Correction]

Don't bore me with your cheap responses.

What negative effects of religion on politics?

If we only talk about Islam then we might have a discussion, but religion?

Don't puss out, deflect and run away when people smash up your fucking retarded statements.

[Elvis]

(Part 2)

Dr. Garrard-Burnett continues:

The signing of the peace accords in December 1996 finally brought an end to Guatemala's civil war, an asymmetrical struggle that stands out even by the sanguinary standards of the late twentieth century for its efficient use of state terror and its disproportionate deployment of violence against noncombatants.

Since that time Guatemala, confronted by the findings of two separate truth commissions and the demands of a variety of political and social movements, has been force to begin to come to grips with - even to re-conceptualize - its own contemporary history, a process that the Catholic Church's truth commission called the "recuperation of the historic memory."

These two 'truth commission' reports were known respectively as the Comision para el Esclarecimiento Historico (CEH) and the Proyecto Interdiociano de Recuperacion de la Memoria Historica (REMHI).

Dr. Garrard-Burnett continues:

The two truth reports differ slightly in tone, in interpretation, and in their statistics: REMHI, for example, record that 422 massacres took place during the armed conflict, while CEH counts 626 massacres, a significant difference that one may attribute to differing methodologies and confusion in place names that may have resulted in either the over-counting or under-counting of massacre reports. While the two reports vary somewhat in focus and analysis, the conclusions of both are firm: the military committed the vast majority of the human rights violations that took place over the course of the thirty-six-year conflict.

There is also clear, documented evidence of guerrilla-directed violence, particularly in the matter of targeted assassinations, but the violence that occurred during the armed conflict was overwhelmingly lopsided: REMHI found the State responsible for 83 percent of the killings, while CEH charged the State with slightly more than 90 percent of the killings that occurred over the three and a half decades of armed conflict.

A preponderance of these violations took place in the early 1980s, reaching a pinnacle in 1982. Both projects unequivocally lay responsibility at the feet of Rios Montt and his military planners. These are the ones, the commissions charge, who executed the scorched-earth campaign (tierra arrasada) that left hundreds of thousands of Guatemalan citizens dead, exiled, or emotionally maimed, and came close to destroying one of the world's great native cultures.

[...]Of those killed in the early 1980s, the majority - the truth commissions estimate upward of 80 percent - were Mayan, a fact that sharply distinguishes this period from earlier phases of armed conflict, when the war's victims tended to be ladino (nonindigenous): campesinos, trade unionists, students, reformist politicians, and the military conscripted foot soldiers.

The sharp focus of violence on Mayan people during the early 1980s has given rise to the phrase "the Mayan holocaust." This refers not only to the loss of Mayan lives, but also the loss of culture that resulted from the political violence, as rural Maya exchanged their indigenous identity for that of poor ladinos in order to live in relative anonymity in Guatemala's cities. Tens of thousands fled to refuge in Mexica, elsewhere in Central America, and to the United States, where they assumed new conflated and hybridized identities as Guatemalans (a self-identification that many indigenous people only embraced in exile) or, more broadly, Latinos, Hispanics, or even, in U.S. immigration courts, OTMs - Other Than Mexicans.

The counterinsurgency campaign of the early 1980s was the worst calamity to befall Mayan life and culture in Guatemala since the sixteenth-century Spanish conquest. So invasive was the assault on Mayan lives and culture during this period that one elderly Mayana woman referred to it as desencarnacion, the lose of flesh, or los of being - an antonym of "incarnation."

To apply context and bring this back to the activism of the Christian Right (as well as the blueprint for American foreign policy in the 1980s towards Latin and Central America) I will refer to Dr. Sara Diamond's book Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right, among others.

--------
Side-note:

For more info on Sara Diamond, and her research, read this earlier post of mine.

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showp...&postcount=119

In the preface to her book, Diamond explains her methodology:

Spoiler: show

This study is based in part on my regular viewing of Christian Right television for more than a decade. Since 1983, I have also monitored the activities of more than 100 organizations through thousands of newsletters and hundreds of interviews with Christian Right activists and leaders. Much of my material is drawn from participant-observation at scores of evangelical meetings, including the annual National Religious Broadcasters conventions, contra fundraising events, church services, mass rallies and organizational strategy sessions.

One of the best secondary sources I have found is the evangelical magazine Christianity Today which, though conservative in its editorial stance, offers consistently reliable news reporting on Christian political affairs. The reader will also notice numerous references to The National Catholic Reporter, a weekly of high journalistic quality; and to Charisma, a sort of People's Magazine for the "charismatic" movement.

From a scholarly point of view, the pathbreaking work of Dr. Fred Landis on the subject of CIA psychological warfare and destabilization of socialist countries provided me with an initial conceptual framework for studying the Christian Right. To further understand the covert nature of much Christian Right intrigue abroad, I have often relied on the work of Ellen Ray, William Schaap and Louis Wolf, through their publication of Cover Action Information Bulletin.

To the fullest extent possible, I have tried not to draw overly broad generalizations about the Religious Right. The counterpoint to sweeping conclusions is specific detail, which, I believe, is necessary in analyzing any political movement. The process entails the identification of numerous individuals and organizations critical in the past and present of the movement as well as the location of each participant in the proper ideological and political context. Because the mainstream press has dwelled on the names of Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and Pat Robertson, most of the Christian Right leaders remain unknown to the public. I ask the reader's patience in coping with what may seem like an excessive number of new names and details.

However, if progressive activism is to be effective, it is important to identify who is responsible for executing the Right's agenda and by what means. Even more important, though, is an understanding of the political system which encourages and, to some extent, relies upon the participation of the all too real characters in this book.

--------

Diamond writes:

Months before Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, a group of his supporters calling themselves the Committee of Santa Fe got together and produced a blueprint for Reagan-era policy in the Third World.

This report was titled, A New Inter-American Policy for the Eighties. Commonly known as, 'The Santa Fe document [or report]'.

Robert H. Holden and Eric Zolov write in, Latin America and the United States: A documentary history:

As the U.S. presidential election of 1980 approached, the Democratic administration of President Jimmy Carter found itself on the defensive from conservative critics of his foreign policy. The accused Carter of failing to adequately defend the governments of U.S. allies against internal opposition movements and armed insurgencies. One early critic, was Jeane Kirkpatrick, a political science professor at Georgetown University, whose 1979 essay, "Dictatorships and Double Standards," charged Carter with being the idealistic dupe of communist forces that were subverting faithful U.S. allies, above all the "traditional autocracies" that had ruled Nicaragua and Iran. A few months after Kirkpatrick's essay appeared, the following document was published by the Council for Inter-American Security. Clearly building on Kirkpatrick's general arguments, it was written by five men who called themselves the Committee of Santa Fe. They were, L. Francis Bouchey, Roger Fontaine, David C. Jordan, Lieutenant General Gordon Sumner Jr. and Lewis Tambs.

After Carter lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan, three of the five (Fontaine, Sumner, and Tambis) joined the Reagan administration's foreign policy team, as did Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who became U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

This document is widely considered to have served as a blueprint for President Reagan's policy toward Latin America in the 1980s.

Excerpt from the 'Santa Fe' report [as cited in the aforementioned book]:

Spoiler: show

The Americas are under attack. Latin America, the traditional alliance partner of the United States, is being penetrated by Soviet power. The Caribbean rim and basin are spotted with Soviet surrogates and ringed with socialist States.

No great power is sufficiently strong to conduct hemispheric foreign policies as if the different regions of the world were isolated and did not impact on each other.

[...]U.S. global power projection rests upon a cooperative Caribbean and a supportive South America. The exclusion of Old World maritime powers from Cuba, the Caribbean and Latin America has helped the United States generate sufficient surplus power for balancing activities on European, Asian and African continents.

Latin America, like Western Europe and Japan, is part of America's power base. Any United States power base, be it in Latin America, Western Europe or the Western Pacific, cannot be allowed to crumble if the United States is to retain adequate extra energy to be able to play a balancing role elsewhere in the world. For a balancing State like the United States, there is no possibility of flexible global action if its power is immobilized or checked in any one area.

Indeed, in areas vital to any nation's power potential, preservation of the status quo is not enough. The United States must seek to improve its relative position in all its spheres of influence. If there is a loss of will with respect to the importance of improving a nation's relative power position, it will be only a matter of time until the inactive State is replaced by a competitor.

The Kremlin seeks to wed Marxism to Latin American nationalism and anti-Americanism and to exploit the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. government's policy makers to support alternatives to Marxist movements in the search for a progressive and stable Ibero-America.

[...]The American response of camouflaged escapism to Soviet imperialism must be reversed. The United States must push for an inventive, creative and strategic solution to this situation. Ethical realism provides the underlying moral support to the foreign policy principles the United States has traditionally used to solve the problem of value and power in external affairs. U.S. intervation abroad was only justified for the security of the Republic and was not justified for the shaping of any particular order in any other country unless activities there were tied to an extracontinental threat to the United States. The United States can grant this same nationalistic perspective to all Latin American nations which do not develop a semi-vassalage-like relationship with an extra-continental super power.

Such a semi-colonial connection introduces a sterilizing intenationalization into the culture and countries of the Western Hemisphere and undercuts a Latin American policy based on reciprocity[...]

The thrust of the report is essentially advocating the United States oppose the kind of nationalism that was burgeoning and taking root in Latin America (popular nationalism) that would naturally seek independence and self-determination.

The U.S. would go on to seek 'alternatives'. The key thing to note is the part in which the report says 'push for an inventive, creative' solution to the Latin American question.

As Sara Diamond writes:

The report described human rights as a "culturally and politically relative concept" and recommended that the incoming administration step up efforts to wage economic and ideological warfare on its opponents in Latin America.

Proposal Number 3 of the "Santa Fe" report stated that[...]

U.S. foreign policy must begin to counter (not react against) liberation theology as it is utilized in Latin America by the 'liberation theology' clergy.

The choice of the word "counter" was a signal that a preferred right-wing foreign policy strategy would enlist religious groups in the struggle against popular religious movements critical of U.S. militarism.

[My interjection: The 'Santa Fe' report is not available online, you must go to your local library to obtain it, if it even has it. I doubt a local library would have it though. I had to go to the Ohio University, Athens library.]

The following website, includes more quotations from Proposal Number 3 of the 'Santa Fe' report:

The role of the church in Latin America is vital to the concept of political freedom. Unfortunately, Marxist-Leninist forces have utilized the church as a political weapon against private property and productive capitalism by infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are less Christian than Communist.

The 'Santa Fe' report essentially called for (among many other tactics of destabilization/subversion) a religious ideology to usurp Christian liberation ideology. This new ideology would have to be pro-Capitalist and supportive of American foreign policy and imperialism (economic, cultural, etc.). This is where the Christian Right came in.

(will post more tomorrow)