True... However, we only know that it leads there, due to 20/20 hindsight. That's the important point.

And yes, I also tend to forget that when bashing politicians, particularly Democrats...

saying nice things about the anti-Obamacare crowd. They are going to fail, but they sincerely feel their hearts are in the right place.

Do you honestly think they are going to fail, considering what we know... FACTUALLY know about Obamacare???

The hardest thing to do in politics (as in foreign policy, to get back to the subject at hand) is to put the shoe on the other foot, or walk a mile in the other's shoes. Don't know why the obsession with shoes in these homilies, but you know what I'm saying. Trying to see how "the other side" perceives things is crucial to understanding their point of view, and a precursor for any sort of workable compromise.

Exactly!!!

Which is exactly what I try to do when I do what I do here... I try to see the arguments from BOTH sides of the issue w/o any partisan influence whatsoever..

Yea, I may not succeed as often as I think I do, but.... I DO have the best of intentions..

yuk... yuk.... yuk... :D

I could start with the obvious quote about where the road paved with "good intentions" leads...

But I'll save my snarkiness for writing today's column instead.

Seriously, I came to the same conclusion a while ago, even though it's pretty hard to do initially. While there are indeed opportunists and demagogues in DC, I firmly believe that most politicians from the entire spectrum actually do believe they're attempting to do the right thing.

For instance, although I think Ted Cruz is an opportunist and a demagogue on the issue, I think there are many Republicans who sincerely believe that Obamacare will be the end of America as we know it, and therefore it is their duty to fight against it with every tool at their disposal.

Of course (no surprise), I think they're wrong and deluded, but that doesn't mean they are acting with false motivations. Who am I to know the inner workings of anyone else's mind, after all?

Hey, if you can say nice things about Carter, then I felt it merited saying nice things about the anti-Obamacare crowd. They are going to fail, but they sincerely feel their hearts are in the right place.

The hardest thing to do in politics (as in foreign policy, to get back to the subject at hand) is to put the shoe on the other foot, or walk a mile in the other's shoes. Don't know why the obsession with shoes in these homilies, but you know what I'm saying. Trying to see how "the other side" perceives things is crucial to understanding their point of view, and a precursor for any sort of workable compromise.

Even here in the CW.com comments, we both know that attacking a policy or a position is one thing, but statements like "Politician X is for policy Y because he/she believes Z!" This is worse than putting words into people's mouths, it is putting words into people's heads.

Anyway, got an article to write, gotta run...

-CW

OK, to go with your premise: but only if you can accurately predict what the "end" is going to be. And that's awfully tough in the ME. Looking out for our own interests is one thing, but predicting how a proposed bit of meddling is going to affect that (for better or worse) is quite another.

True enough.. But that actually kind of illustrates my point to Paula.

We tend to think of the leaders in those days who screwed things up so badly as evil, wrong, etc etc.. But we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We see how badly things turned out and demonize those leaders for that...

However, we (and by "we" I mean "ya'all" :D) fail to consider that those leaders likely made those decisions in good faith because they honestly felt that it was in the best interests of their respective country and citizens to make that call..

Oh, and I am just kidding on the we/ya'all part. I myself am guilty of that too...

I blame and demonize Carter for the debacle that was Operation EAGLE CLAW. But I do so only in hind-sight and I must acknowledge that Carter likely made the best decision possible with the best of intentions..

So, mea culpa..

As for Greewald, I will personally attest that your position on him has been remarkably consistent as well. You always have said the same thing about him: "I don't agree with anything he says, I think his ideas are dangerously wrong, but he is true to those ideas and must be respected for his unwavering consistency."

Since "hypocrisy" is indeed an ugly word in these reality-based pages, I salute you for your own consistency.

Thanx.. I DO try to be consistent in my attitudes. It makes it so much easier to keep track of things if one simply remains true to who one is..

"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we truly are."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

Personally, I would rather be caught in a lie than to be caught being inconsistent.. :D

Well done, everyone! Pats on the back all around!

Awww p'shaw... :D

OK, to go with your premise: but only if you can accurately predict what the "end" is going to be. And that's awfully tough in the ME. Looking out for our own interests is one thing, but predicting how a proposed bit of meddling is going to affect that (for better or worse) is quite another.

Paula [4] -

Good point. Or perhaps "the chickens come home to roost."

Pastafarian Dan [7] -

Oh, SNAP! (do people still say that?)

Excellent reference, and well appreciated.

Michale [8] -

Nice post. I think the phrase you may be looking for here is an older one, circa the Cold War: "Politics ends at the water's edge." It was never as true back then as people now think, but the whole concept of "foreign policy is too large a subject to be subjected to petty partisan bickering" is an interesting one. Of course, this can backfire, as when everybody just stands up and marches in lockstep towards an ill-considered war (which has happened a number of times throughout American history). But still, it's an interesting concept.

As for Greewald, I will personally attest that your position on him has been remarkably consistent as well. You always have said the same thing about him: "I don't agree with anything he says, I think his ideas are dangerously wrong, but he is true to those ideas and must be respected for his unwavering consistency."

Since "hypocrisy" is indeed an ugly word in these reality-based pages, I salute you for your own consistency.

Paula [9] -

Greenwald fascinates me because his knowledge base -- especially on legal matters -- is so broad and deep. Agree or disagree, pretty much anyone who reads his articles comes away learning something interesting about the nuts and bolts of the issue. And that's something I respect highly.

[general comment to all]

What a pleasant and enjoyable exchange of opinions! Best comment section I've read in a while, folks, so I am really glad to see that even though I haven't been watching over the comments nearly as well as I should, that respectful and thought-provoking debate is what I find when I belatedly tune in to offer my responses!

Well done, everyone! Pats on the back all around!

:-)

-CW

Agreed.... :D

I think Glenn Greenwald would positively relish an honest debate, a marathon of debates, months and months of open debates, about Civil Liberties, with any and all comers. He would be completely willing to put his beliefs out there for discussion, unequivocally.

Considering my background, I would LOVE to have that debate with him...

My position has always been that safety and security trumps just about anything. I don't feel that my privacy is worth even one single innocent person's life..

"Good talk...."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE: ATLANTIS

:D

"But he IS consistent. He has the same attitude, opinions and does the same things, regardless of the -'x' behind the POTUS's name...I respect that, even if I disagree with him."

It's nice to find something about which we can agree!

Of course, for the most part I agree with Greenwald's positions and respect the fact that most of the time he really focuses his ire on people's actions, not on their personalities. Many people find him too strident and uncompromising but I think he really believes what he believes and he acts on what he believes to the best of his ability. That doesn't mean he is a nice man, or a perfectly wise man. And there's a fine line between strong support and fanaticism and I think he get's close to crossing over, but I don't think he's a fanatic.

And when people are consistent, which you accurately point out that he is, my view is that they have, in some manner, recognized the "rightness" of their feeling and/or thinking about something and they have internalized it. Some people do this via a thorough thought process; some people do this by being sensitive to their own emotional reactions to something and have accurately evaluated them; some do both. But the result is that they are "solid" about the "issue" and/or "belief"; they act upon it, make decisions based upon it, can defend it on the merits, etc.

I think Glenn Greenwald would positively relish an honest debate, a marathon of debates, months and months of open debates, about Civil Liberties, with any and all comers. He would be completely willing to put his beliefs out there for discussion, unequivocally.

I think he wants people to really, really look at the implications of limitations on civil liberties; he wants decisions to be "informed"; not based on short-term fears, exaggerated fears, deliberately fostered fears. And, unlike so many forces out there that flourish most when people know the least, he's prepared to respect people's intelligence and maturity. When there's an honest and open debate about something people can still disagree, but everything about the disagreement is different and everyone ends up smarter.

Having said that, it just chaps my arse that the Left always likes to point to America's mistakes (of which there are many, no argument from me on that) but then condones (by omission or commission) the exact same "mistakes" in the here and now by the current Administration...

This isn't about political party's, amazingly enough. Rather it's about people, of any party or no party, who absolve themselves from responsibility for the results of their actions by claiming their actions were for some "greater good".

But by not holding the current Party in power to that lofty ideal (which I wholeheartedly agree with, by the bi) you MAKE it about political Partys.

I think they do count. That's what accountability IS.

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying.. You know I am big on personal responsibility and what you put forth is the epitome of same..

My only point is that those lofty ideals should be applied to ANY and ALL administrations, regardless of the -'x' behind there name.

Only THEN can one truly say that "This isn't about political Partys"

Glenn Greenwald is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

During the Bush years, GG was the toast of the Left. A liberal's dreamboat...

Under Obama, GG is a pariah and an outcast. Castigated and demonized by the Left that was so in love with him just 4+ short years ago..

Why?? Because he had the audacity, the unmitigated gall to be completely and utterly consistent...

Don't get me wrong. GG is wrong on just about everything he writes and believes in.

But he IS consistent. He has the same attitude, opinions and does the same things, regardless of the -'x' behind the POTUS's name...

He may be always wrong.. But at least he is consistent. No one could accuse GG of being a hypocrite..

I respect that, even if I disagree with him..

That's the attitude that I believe we need more of around here from the rank and file Weigantians. The willingness to call a spade a spade, regardless of the -'x' behind the person's name...

This isn't about political party's, amazingly enough. Rather it's about people, of any party or no party, who absolve themselves from responsibility for the results of their actions by claiming their actions were for some "greater good".

It's about people who look at humans but don't "see" them -- who see slogans, who see concepts, who project their own fears or find rationalizations that, as it happens, usually create the side effect of personally enriching themselves or gaining them power; who then take actions that victimize actual living human beings. Somehow they decide that the actual human beings' wishes simply don't count -- their sufferings don't count; their ability to make their own choices don't count; crimes committed against them don't count.

I think they do count. That's what accountability IS.

Funny how ya'all condemn such actions, yet give the Dem POTUS currently in office a pass over similar/worse actions...

"GEE!! I WONDER WHY THAT IS!!!
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

Why not lay the current "sorry episode" at the feet of Emperor Barack The First??

Don't bother, I know the answer... Because he has a '-D' after his name...

In a way this sorry episode in our history is another sterling example of the truth of the proverb: you reap what you sow.

Funny, I was told once by some Left Wing fanatic back in the early 80s that the saying originated with Adolf Hitler...

But, I notice you did not dispute the validity of Democrats using such a mindset in the last 4+ years... :D

A good reminder that this area of the world has been heavily manipulated by western powers long before the cold war.

So? Life's a bitch...

Funny, I had not taken you for a supporter of the modern Iranian state...

On NPR there was an interview with an Author of a new book on T.E. Lawrence. A good reminder that this area of the world has been heavily manipulated by western powers long before the cold war.

However, I dispute that there are no easy answers..

The answer IS easy, once one simple axiom is applied..

An axiom that has been used by the GOP tim and time again..

An axiom that has been co-opted by the Democrats with frightening and undeniable success..

The Ends Justifies The Means