Let’s See If This Posts

We’ll start this experimentation in Blogger tech revisionism (thanks to Mr. B–you rock!) with selections from the mailbag:

Denny wrote:

ted, ted…….again, you have some wrong information….. 390,000 Frenchmen died during the 1940 invasion? WRONG!!! Several resources I checked bring the total of French casualties during the ENTIRE WAR to 213,324. These are the dead, not wounded. Because you did mention Frenchmen DIED during 1940. I had to check this out because I found you hard to believe. More French soldiers were killed in 1940 then American’s for the last 60 years?? By the way, US casualties between World War II and the current war are about 373,855. Another point I see you are trying to make is that the Allies, basically the British, left the French to defend themselves. Well, I would hope that you would at least agree that defending your own country becomes a larger priority then helping defend someone elses. I think you would have to agree that had the British not evacuated the 300,000 troops from France, that they too would have easily been overrun by the Germans in late 1940. As a side note, about a quarter of those toops were FRENCH! I have to ask, where do you come up with these stats?

So did Russ:

You know, the “cowardly French” meme is so virulent that I had ceased to even consciously think about it. Thanks for the good discussion of it. It is indeed ridiculous that the right (while claiming to support the proud sacrifices of brave troops dying for their country yada yada) would so blithely dismiss the deaths of hundreds of thousands of French soldiers who actually did die defending their country. BTW, where did you get the

490,000 figure? That seems high. As far as I can tell, it seems more like 200,000 – there’s a fair bit of variance in different estimates, e.g. see: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm Not that I think it affects the point you’re making – 200,000 or 490,000 or whatever, it’s still a lot of soldiers dead fighting against an invasion.

As did D.:

The ignorance and stupidity of the Limpblob rightards would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic…

How about WWI? At Verdun alone, the French Army lost nearly 400,000 dead and wounded, on a battlefield that was not even 5 square miles…’They Shall Not Pass’, their rallying cry, carried out to a ‘t’ to say the least…total casualties on both sides, 700,000 plus over a period of only 10 months.

France has forgotten more about dying, war and killing than (thankfully) the US as a nation will ever know. Perhaps their reluctance to engage in our idiotic neocon adventures in the Mideast can be explained by this.

The rightards conveniently forget that the French backed our Afghan invasion; I personally watched French AF Mirage 2000s depart Bishkek airport loaded with bombs to hammer Taliban positions…

French soldiers are as brave as any other nations’…to hell with the chickenhawk critics, though ignorance of history is nothing new for them…and now, as we see in Iraq it is coming back to bite them.

What was D. doing in the Kyrgyz Republic? Well, anyway, what we’ve learned today is that estimated casualty figures vary even when they shouldn’t. After all, the French government provided military funerals to their dead; surely someone could have counted them up. But, upon further research, it seems that I posted one of the higher estimates from the 1940 Battle of France. But as one of the writers above points out, 200,000 is still more men than we lost in all of Vietnam in combat, four times over.

It’s war: one side wins, the other loses. Losing isn’t shameful; failing to defend your country is. The French clearly weren’t guilty of that in World War II.

So where does francophobia originate? Partly from the fact that we resent owing our very nationhood to them; French-bashing is a kind of patricide. FDR played a big role, repeatedly telling the American public that France didn’t deserve to be a great power after World War II because it hadn’t fought hard enough in 1940. (What about the US, which didn’t fight AT ALL when the shit hit the fan in 1939-40?) And the French Vichy Government shamed the country by collaborating with the Nazis rather than going into exile as honor demanded.

Technical Problems

I’ve been having trouble updating my blog. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly. Thanks for your patience.

French Cowards

Got some fresh hate mail about the new column going up tonight:

Have you thought about moving to France…. They don’t fight anyone, even peoples invading their own country.

Yeah, but more of them can spell. But enough of that.

One trope of the extreme/Bushist right is that France is an effete nation. “Old Europe,” Herr Rumsfeld calls it. They didn’t fight in World War II, for example.

While France was shamed by the conduct of many of its citizens during the war—the Vichy regime was heinously fascist and anti-Semitic, and participated in deporting thousands of Jews to their deaths—I find the notion that they didn’t fight pretty damned amusing. After all, 390,000 French soldiers died trying to defend their country from the German onslaught during the six week invasion of May-June 1940. That’s more than the U.S. soldiers who died fighting on both fronts of World War II, Korea, Vietnam the two Gulf Wars combined.

In every war, one side loses. France, most historians agree, lost to Germany in 1940 because its military and political leaders committed a series of errors. They failed to extend the Maginot line to the Belgian frontier, allowing the Germans to simply go around it. They refused to appreciate the importance of tanks as the new weapon of modern warfare. They created a defensive strategy that relied too extensively on fortifications. And their Allies evacuated to Britain rather than fight to the end. But none of the 390,000 Frenchmen who died in 1940 deserve any of the blame for those strategic errors. And the Republican Right ought to be ashamed to impugn their bravery.

Greetings from Occupied America

Andrew from the Great White North writes:

I enjoyed your recent column re dying for one’s country, as I’ve always been annoyed by that particular falsehood. However, I’d like to whine about one error of fact: your statement that the US has only been invaded twice by a foreign power.

It’s not really true, because in your first example, the War of 1812, it was the US doing the invading. The US was not defending itself against a British invasion, but invading British territory in what is now Canada. The ostensible reason was to protect maritime sovereignty, but the fact that none of the warhawks actually hailed from coastal states puts the lie to that one. The real reason, it seems, was to halt British colonial ambitions in Canada and remove obstacles to western expansion. In other words, the politicians of the day concocted a patriotic lie under cover of which they launched a war to advance American geopolitical interests and their own commercial ends.

In that respect, the War of 1812 bears a remarkable resemblance to certain present-day events, but there was an important difference. The American soldier of the day, a part-time militiaman, didn’t see much benefit in dying for the warhawks economic ambitions, so he often fought with little enthusiasm. This leads us to the Battle of Queenston Heights, in which American reserves refused to participate on grounds that they didn’t sign up to fight foreign wars, but to defend their homes.

Good points all. It’s important to remember that, from its inception, the story of the United States’ expansion has been tied to aggression. However, this week’s column refers to the fact that the British did invade the United States in the course of the War of 1812, burning both the White House and Capitol in the process. For that matter, the Mexicans didn’t really start the Mexican War of 1846–we did. But they did invade U.S. territory.

Ken writes:

Thank you for your most recent column, pure quality as usual. And I live for your cartoon thrashings.

You referenced the Japanese balloon attacks on coastal Oregon and Washington “without casualties” I read a long time ago and cannot tell you the reference, that there was a life lost to one of these incendiary balloon devices. As I recall it was a young girl on the Oregon Coast who was casually hiking in the forest with a church group. She encountered one of these devices that had not gone off, when she touched or handled it, it exploded and she was killed.

The article revolved around the notion that this girl was the only person who died from hostility on the mainland, the 48 states in WWII. Sorry I can’t provide citation, No ax to grind, I just thought you might find it interesting. Perhaps I’ll Google around and see if I can find some internet reference to the incident.

Several people wrote about this. They’re right. A girl was in fact killed by a Japanese balloon bomb.

Jill writes:

It occurred to me that one of the problems with the Democratic party right now is that they often don’t know how to select a winning candidate during the nomination process. I reflect that in the case of Kerry the nomination process was basically over after about 6-12 states had voted and that the votes in these early states really influenced others. Potential candidates were out of the race before it got to the southern and mid-western states. Considering how important these states have become re electing a Republican president perhaps the Democrats would do well to look at this nomination process to see if they can overcome what I see as a liability that is built into the process. Can that process be changed?

Probably not, but my primary objection (no pun intended) to the current system is that the electorate does such a shitty job picking nominees. Small committees–the proverbial smoke-filled room–were more likely to emerge with candidates with strong personalities and positions on the issues than what we currently have: design by committee. On the other hand, the DNC/DLC picked Kerry many years ago for the ’04 slot, so it’s not like the big shots are picking the candidates anyway. Why waste money on primaries when the fix is in against insurgent candidates like Dean?

Dean writes:

Hi, loved the article; just want to tell you that Japan occupied 2 Aleutian islands in WW II, and there was one major battle in which hundreds of US soldiers died defeating the Japanese. That was all after the Dutch Harbor bombing you mention in the article. I used to work for a museum in Anchorage, and put together a program on historic sites in Alaska, including the WW II sites in the Aleutians.

I don’t know if it’s hundreds of causalties, but this is generally correct. Two small islands were occupied by the Japanese in the Aleutians after the Dutch Harbor incident and had to be dislodged by force.

Jeff writes:

Were you trying to argue that no military action since 1846 was unjustified? It seems as if you are just arguing over semantics, and in a way to poke fun at soldiers who died in Iraq. Fighting for your country’s geopolitical interests is the same as defending your country when one aspect of America’s geopolitical interest is to protect our country from foreign threats through military action that may not have been provoked by direct attack, but that furthers our country’s security. There seems to be no point in your article.

This week’s column raises more questions than answers. Obviously the U.S. can justify the retaliatory war against Japan in World War II. And the Civil War could be justified by both sides as self-defense. But I have no interest in “poking fun” at the Iraq war dead. Quite the contrary–those deaths are tragic, pointless, a waste. I don’t agree, obviously, that promoting the geopolitical interests of one’s country as determined by its political and business leaders is the same as “fighting for your country.” That’s just not what people think of when they think of “defending America.” The point of my column is to expose the military death cult for what it is: a fraud.

Mike wrote:

Great work, as usual, in your column this week. I’ve often argued that nobody’s died for this country since the revolutionary war. Well, that’s not entirely true: lots of people die for this country — police officers, for instance — but not in our myriad military actions.

I must make a small exception, however, to your statement that the attacks on Pearl Harbor (in my hometown) and Dutch Harbor were on American soil. They were certainly on American forces, but neither Alaska nor Hawaii were states yet. Hawaii, for its part, was a colony ill-gotten by overthrowing its government.

Accurate points about Alaska and Hawaii. Still, they were–from the standpoint of mainstream, non-Howard Zinn, American history–U.S. territory.

Finally, Jo writes:

Just a note to say thanks for your excellent piece titled, They Fight and Die, But Not for Their Country. As a career soldier and a veteran of the Gulf War, I believe you are right on target. Soldiers fight and die for their fellow soldiers, regardless of the war. It is tragic that our country’s leaders continue to exploit them in the name of patriotism. America’s soldiers need better leadership at the top; leaders who respect their skills and potential as human beings.

This Week’s Cartoons

This week’s cartoons will be posted online on Monday due to the Thanksgiving holiday. On Monday you’ll be able to view Saturday and Thursday’s cartoons in the archives by clicking “previous cartoon.”

More Various

Owen asks:

Thanks for your book “Wake Up America, You’re Liberal”. It’s a very thought-provoking and encouraging read. As a Brit with more interest in US than British politics — blame `The West Wing’ for starting me

off on that — there’s sadly not that much I can do once encouraged! Still, I’ll be keeping an eye on the Democrats in case any of them show any sign of having read it…

One thing, though: in your proposed policy platform for a revived liberal Democratic Party, you suggest minimum wage reimbursement for Congressmen and Government officials. It’s a nice soundbite, but surely this would exacerbate the current situation where only the independently wealthy can afford to campaign for President and Congress? Wouldn’t it further lock in small-c conservativism?

That could occur, of course. I remember that, when I was a kid, Ohio state legislators earned nominal salaries that had to be supplemented by other professions to pay a mortgage on even a modest home. As a consequence, only wealthy people could afford to serve in the House of Representatives. But the big expense these days isn’t living; if you’re a politician it’s the ability to raise enough funds to run a campaign. That means you have to have rich friends even if you’re not friend–but, for the most part, only rich people have such buddies. So it’s already a rich man’s game. It just seems more than a little galling that the taxpayers have to provide healthcare and other benefits to Congressmen who don’t support the same benefits for them.

Perhaps my proposal should be supplemented by a “maximum wage” for politicians, to make sure they live just as poorly as a minimum-wage worker without benefits, regardless of where their salary comes from.

R writes:

I am amused at the condescension of Ultra Liberals towards those with whom they disagree. They think that insults takes the place of intelligent and rational arguments in the marketplace of ideas. You are on the way of becoming as useful as a buggy whip! Irrelevant due to your vitriol aimed at those who you should be trying to persuade to your viewpoint. I am a registered Democrat and see the hypocrisy of the Republicans who send off other people’s children to war while they hold their coats.

A diatribe of expletives is no replacement for sound rationale thinking or policy. You are alienating more of those who would consider your ideas Ted. Get a clue. Your anger is getting in the way of your message.

I get a lot of these emails, mainly from Republicans. Which makes me wonder: why should you care about my message being more effective? More to the point, what “diatribe of expletives” do I employ in my work? None. I can be snotty, sure, but my worst, most vicious slurs against the Republican liberals (you can’t call such big government, deficit-spending nation builders “conservative”) pale in comparison to the stuff Rush and Company crank out every day. I’m trying to, in my little way, counter a tide of BS running the opposite direction.

Sid asks:

I have read your last five pieces and I am convinced that you are French. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I would love to live in a world without violence, in a world not rife with insane religious positions, in a world where the political opposition is not hated. I would love to see two, or more, candidates for the presidency of the United States, actually debate issues rather than repeat talking points. Alas, I live here, on Earth.

Yes, I do have a point. You are extreme. Your words invite insane opposition, rather than intelligent discussion. You can influence people, that fact incurs responsibility. Could you please rethink your presentation?

I am French. I am also American. I’m a dual national, born here with a French parent. Anyone who wants to make that an issue is welcome to do so, with the caveat that there wouldn’t be an America if France hadn’t saved our butts from the British back in 1781. But I’m curious: How do my words “invite insane opposition”? All I’m doing is saying out loud what many Democrats say and think in private. And I’m totally, utterly unapologetic about being politically progressive. I am so damned tired of wishy-washy liberals constantly trying to reason with assholes who have no desire to be reasoned with. Jesus, people, grow a spine. We’re getting our asses kicked out there; let’s play as rough as they do.

Mark shows how it’s done:

Ted,

I sent the following message to the ombudsman of the Washington Post after reading his editorial today…

Dear Ombudsman,

Your handling of the Ted Rall controversy troubles me. In my view, you have cow towed to those who don’t really believe in free speech (much less dissent). As you are probably aware, there is a well organized campaign (crusade) on the right to squelch the voices of people like Mr. Rall. Thanks to organizations like yours, it appears they will succeed. Please at least be honest and admit to yourself that your actions regarding Mr. Rall were motivated as much by fear than by fairness.

Daniel asks:

I’m a long-time reader (only about three months, actually, but I’ve read the entire archive, including one Ann Coulter article I accidentally clicked on and was very confused by), first time writer, and I was moved to ask you a question after reading the absurd attack mail you recieved after the H&C interview. I didn’t see the interview myself, as we don’t get Fox News here in Canada (yet), but I can’t imagine you doing anything to warrant that kind of a response. You mentioned that you do recieve civil correspondence from conservatives that disagree with you, but rarely print them because they lack comic value. I was wondering what the rough split is between the reasonable and the insane. Of course, I’m also curious about just how a reasonable attack would look. Do they point our percieved flaws in your reasoning or facts, use irony (which, as the accusations of treason against you prove, can be misread in print) or do they just respectfully disagree and occasionally promise to pray for you?

Conservative hate mail runs about 10-to-1 in favor of the “fuck you, sperm drinker” genre. The other tenth typically wonder whether I really believe the things that I write (well, what do you think?), where I grew up or what happened to me to make me so bitter (I’m not), and yes, the random promise to pray for me (which I appreciate because hey, you never know). I’m sure right-wingers receive hate mail; I wonder how many threats of violence and sexual-orientation comments they receive from liberals compared to reasoned discourse. If you’re one of my many readers among the rightist blogosphere, please email me and let me know.

Full Text of This Week’s Column

A technical glitch affected this week’s column, effectively cutting roughly half the words. Here’s the complete version.

IF IT’S 2005, IT MUST BE TIME FOR ANOTHER WAR

Bushies Gear Up for Invading Iran

NEW YORK–You’ve heard this song before. There’s this country, see, and they hate America. They’d nuke us if they had the chance, you bet they would. Damn Muslim religious fanatics! Guess what? They have weapons of mass destruction! Either that or their scientists are about to develop them. Whatever–we can’t let that happen. We’ve gotta hit them before they hit us! What’s that? Of course we’re sure! Our intelligence says so. Huh? No. We can’t show you the proof. We’ll say this much…a little bird told us. A little exile bird that wants to run the country after we overthrow the current regime. They wouldn’t lie, and neither would we. And while we’re at it, can we borrow your son for the next few years?

Colin Powell, disgraced by his 2003 fictional anthrax speech at the U.N., is closing his run as Bush’s poodle-in-chief with a bravura repeat performance. His last big PR project: conning us into war against Iran.

The Administration’s sales pitch for “Attack on the Ayatollahs” reads a lot like the one for “So Long, Saddam.” There’s a supposed “grave and gathering threat”–a nuclear-capable, America-hating Iran. Even as presented, the intel is sketchy. Iran, Powell says, has “been actively working on delivery systems”–missiles that could carry nukes. During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK went on television to show us the satellite photos. Powell thinks we should believe him just because. “I have seen intelligence which would corroborate what this dissident group is saying,” says the outgoing Secretary of Rationalization. Not that there’s much there there: “I’m talking about information that says that they not only had these missiles, but I’m aware of information that suggests they were working hard as to how to put the two [missiles and nuclear weapons] together.” Bombs haven’t even started falling on Tehran and the WMDs have already become WMD-related programs.

Powell’s intel is enough to make a 2005 gold star mother pine for George “Slam Dunk” Tenet. First, it’s ancient. The Iraq WMD info ended in 1998 and was proven wrong in 2003. Powell’s claims that Iran obtained schematics for an atomic bomb from Pakistan are even older, dating to 1996. Moreover, the Iran sourcing–the National Council for Resistance in Iran (NCRI)–makes Ahmed Chalabi look like a Boy Scout. The NCRI, a front organization for the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), is a bizarre, Shiite, pro-Baathist (yes, you read that right) guerilla army infamous for crushing the 1991 Kurdish uprising on Saddam’s orders. Better yet, it’s designated as a “known terrorist organization” by Powell’s own State Department.

Only the Bushiban know whether they plan to invade Iran. But, as Time magazine reports, “the neoconservative hawks who championed the Iraq war have long advocated an aggressive pursuit of regime change in Iran.” Washington kremlinologists are waiting to see whether Bush will promote anti-Iran neocon John Bolton from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control to Deputy Secretary of State. A Bolton ascension, goes the word on K Street, probably means a third war. At bare minimum, writes centrist New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, “the United States will discuss whether to look the other way as Israel launches airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites,” a move that could easily lead to a broader conflict if Iran retaliates by attacking U.S.-occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, or Israel itself.

Does Iran pose a threat to the U.S.? The rejoinders are obvious. If Bush cared about real threats, he’d go after North Korea, which has at least six nuclear weapons and an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can hit the U.S. Of course, North Korea isn’t the second biggest member of OPEC. Iran is, with 10 percent of the earth’s proven oil reserves. Besides, no one with sense believes Bush about anything.

But enough snark.

Iranian nukes, minus a high-precision long-range delivery system, can’t do us much harm. Iran’s Shahab-3 missile has a maximum range of 800 miles, far enough to hit Israel. But that’s Israel’s problem. Iran has no ICBMs capable of traversing the Atlantic and accurately hitting an American target–and no immediate prospect of developing one. Besides, the Iranian government has repeatedly made overtures to the Bush Administration to talk about their nuclear program, only to be rebuffed. It would be truer to say that the U.S. is a threat to Iran.