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