ERROR: Account closed.

[James L Westrich II]

>Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
>> 
>> "W. Kiernan" wrote:
>> 
>> > C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> > >
>> > > A distressingly cogent analysis from the soi-disant Right...
>> > >
>> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > > > From: Jim_Jatras at rpc.senate.gov (Jim Jatras)
>> > > >
>> > > > ...and harmed our relationship with Russia, which should be
>> > > > among our first priorities -- having vindicated every lie the
>> > > > Soviet Union ever told about NATO's aggressive intentions...
>> >
>> > I hate to sound like a Commie or something awful like that,
>> > especially this morning after Memorial Day when, as a U.S. citizen,
>> > I ought to be be blur-eyed hung over with patriotism, but how
>> > annoying the idea in that sentence.  Mr. Jatras's essay was
>> > otherwise pretty reasonable, so I wonder if he was conscious of the
>> > illogic there.  What does the word "lie" mean?  If "every" one of
>> > them has now been "vindicated," then they were not "lies."
>>
>> There is no inconsistency or lack of logic in the Cato paper.  The
>> American rightwing regards Russia (because of it socialist history
>> and potential rebirth) and socialist China as America's fundamental
>> enemies.  US policy toward Russia and US "constructive engagement"
>> policy on China are merely attempts to moderate hostile trends in
>> these countries. Cato's anti-war position over Kosovo is based on the
>> logic of effectiveness.  Cato is not against an eventual war with
>> these "threatening" nations.  It is only opposed to the wrong battles,
>> in the wrong places and at the wrong times, within the definition of
>> which Kosovo falls.  As Cato fears, the failure of American policy on
>> Kosovo has damaged NATO, enhanced isolationism in the US and
>> discouraged future interventionism in cases that really "matter".
>> 
>> The Left, while opposed to the war, can take comfort that the
>> long-term impact of Kosovo may in fact contribute to world peace, not
>> because of the success of the moral interventionist policy behind
>> it but because of the failure.


>I suppose I agree in a logical sense, though it is difficult in an
>emotional sense to see the long-term bright side of blowing up nursing
>homes, refugee caravans and apartment blocks.


>What I objected to was Mr. Jatras's misuse of the word "lie."  Long time
>ago, the Soviets accused NATO of intending to overrun the Warsaw Pact
>nations by armed force.  Cato & Co. ("Carthago esse delendam") say that
>the Soviets were lying when they made that accusation; yet in the same
>breath they also say that that accusation has now been vindicated in
>every detail.


>That's a blatant slip of logic.  The only excuse, and a sorry one it is
>at that, is that Mr. Jatras was not thinking carefully and literally
>when he described the Soviets as "liars," but instead he was just
>passing on an unexamined received idea, a fact-free epithet, as though
>he had called them "thugs" or "rats."  Suppose I tell you, for example,
>"Saddam Hussein is a stinking dirty rat."  I am not saying anything
>material about Saddam, so you can't really accuse me of factual
>inaccuracy; I am telling you about the state of my feelings.  But
>suppose instead I say "Saddam is a liar."  That would be a testable
>assertion of fact, he either is or he isn't.  Now suppose I continue:
>"Saddam is a liar; everything he said has now turned out to be true." 
>You'd probably conclude that I'm stupid or at least very confused.


>Yours WDK - WKiernan at concentric.net