Author: N.Z. Bear

So a few days back John Kerry said:
“What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.”
This, predictably, hasn’t gone over well with many folks, and equally predictably, Republican operatives and supporters have gleefully pounced on Kerry, denouncing the comments.
None other than Josh Marshall, however, is defending Kerry, labeling criticism of his remarks “bullying”:
“I’m just finishing up a study about how one group of people used overwhelming displays of violence to overawe and terrorize another group into docility and obedience. So, even though this is verbal rather than physical violence, I think I have an idea how this works… For the purposes of our present discussion, the particulars of Kerry’s remark are almost beside the point. This is no better than cheap bullying practiced by the president’s hacks.”
Slow down, cowboy. Did I read that right? Criticizing statements a U.S. Senator made in a public forum is equivalent to using actual physical violence as a tool of intimidation? Did I miss a memo?
But Marshall is not just interested in attacking Kerry’s attackers: he defends the substance of Kerry’s remarks:
“As it happens, I think Kerry’s original remarks are precisely on the mark. The 2004 election would always have been an important election. But the events of recent months have made it perhaps one of the most important elections in the last century. And the future of the country depends greatly on President Bush not being reelected.”
But Kerry wasn’t talking about the 2004 election. In fact, I’d argue he wasn’t talking about any election at all. When you hear the phrase “regime change”, do you think “an orderly, democratic transition of power to be held via the next regularly scheduled election?” No! You think “big guys with guns leading some ex-strongman on a perp walk out of the presidential enclave and off to The Hague.”
Now, do I think Kerry really advocates the violent overthrow of our system of government or our current President? Of course not. But that doesn’t change the fact that the most obvious interpretation of his remarks is, in fact, just that.
If Kerry didn’t mean to conjure such visions with regards to President Bush, then he quite easily could have substituted the words “new administration” for “regime change”. But he didn’t — he wanted to make a direct comparison between deposing Saddam Hussein (vicious murdering dictator) and President Bush (democratically elected President).
And if he gets abuse (verbal and written criticism, mind you, not threats of violence) for that — he deserves every bit of it. That’s not bullying — it’s holding an elected politician accountable for his own words.

Bradford DeLong, responding to my question to those who opposed war against Hussein’s regime (“What do you want?”):
[I want a] … world in which the story the rest of the world tells itself is (1) that of a patient U.S. that–as a last resort–overthrows a cruel and dangerous dictator who has been massacring his own people and is a threat to his neighbors.
I don’t want a world in which the story the rest of the world tells itself is (2) that of a U.S. out-of-control–whipped into war fever by a President who has lied about connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein–that invades and conquers a small country far away for confused sets of reasons that the rest of the world finds scary.
We need to cement the alliance–create a Concert of the Atlantic–if we’re to have much of a chance of keeping future crises from blowing up in our face.
So I charge you, Bear, to do everything you can to change the story the rest of the world tells itself from (2) to (1). For if this is not accomplished, Operation Iraqi Freedom will be an operational victory for the U.S. (and a definite victory for the Iraqi people) but a strategic defeat for America.
Yes!
Charge accepted, Brad. Is there any clearer definition of a blogger — of a writer — to be found, than one who changes the story of the world?
I’ll do my part. And I can only hope that it is enough…

Well, had to happen sooner or later: I disagree with something done by the fine folks over at Command Post.
Journalist Michael Kelly was killed today in an accident while covering the war as an embedded reporter with the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. It goes without saying that this is horrible, and my thoughts and best hopes go to Michael’s wife, children, and all those who counted him as a friend or loved one.
However, at the risk of being dismissed as heartless, I disagree with the Command Post’s decision to run the story on Kelly’s death “above the fold” today with a sticky note which has remained at the top of the front page.
The argument that no one death should be elevated above all the others occurring during this war — from Iraqi civilians to our own soldiers to other nation’s journalists — is so banal it barely merits repeating. Yes, Kelly was a journalist, and by all accounts, a fine one at that. And as such, he is most certainly closer, in some sense, than most of the other unfortunate souls who have lost their lives during this conflict to the authors of the Command Post — including myself.
Singling him out for such treatment, however, raises more questions than it answers. Will every American journalist who dies receive such treatment? Do they have to be a Washington Post columnist and Atlantic Monthly editor to deserve it — or would a stringer from the Podunk Daily Mail get the same honors? How about British reporters? Australians? And why, exactly, is a journalist worthy of such honor, but the American soldiers who sacrificed their lives today (there were at least three) are not?
But for the Command Post, there was another, more serious reason why the above-the-fold treatment was inappropriate: it just wasn’t news.
And news is what the Command Post is all about. Alan, Michele, and the dedicated team of authors that drive the site have done an extraordinary, exceptional job at establishing a straight-ahead, just-the-facts source for breaking news on this war that is second to none. Memorializing Kelly on the front page, while obviously done with the best of intentions and sentiments, distracts from the core mission of the site: to bring together the best sources of breaking news across the media spectrum. Because as tragic as this one man’s death was to all those who knew him: in the perspective of this war, and in the perspective of the world, it simply isn’t a big story.
To be clear: I can’t speak highly enough of the Command Post’s founders, its mission, its authors, and its amazing success over the past weeks. I take it as a small point of pride that I happened to be one of the very first bloggers other than Alan and Michele themselves (the first, I think) to post to the site following the launch. And I carry a similar-sized batch of shame for the fact that I haven’t found myself able to regularly contribute to the site to nearly the degree that I’d like to.
So I hope this will be taken as a constructive critique from one who wishes only the best for the site. I hesitated, for a moment, to post this, feeling a twinge of reluctance to directly criticize the folks that I’m rooting so hard for to succeed.
But I’m a blogger, as are they. And speaking our minds is what we do. It’s all we do. And when we start censoring ourselves — well, we might as well just give up entirely and get ourselves editors.

Ok, yet another reader-participation post. (Somehow my creative juices aren’t flowing, sorry.).
I’m looking to collect bold predictions which have already been made about the outcome of the war. These can be either pro- or anti- war; only limitation is I’d like to stick to near-term predictions about the immediate outcome of the attack on Hussein’s regime — long term speculation doesn’t count for this exercise.
It is too soon to begin reaching conclusions on the rightness or wrongness of such predictions — but I’m beginning to suspect that it won’t be long now. (See, I’m doing it myself! First prediction — N.Z. Bear: “It won’t be long now”.) And I think it is part of our blogospheric duty to be prepared to retroactively fact-check everybody’s ass — including our own.
Anybody is fair game: public figures, journalists, Big Media commentators, or of course, other bloggers. Direct quotes only, and include the date of the prediction where known. And of course, links to sources are highly desirable.
I eagerly await responses…

It says something about something that when I saw this page, it wasn’t so much that I didn’t get that it was a joke — but that it seemed plausible to me:
France Declares WAR on United States
As I said to the person who sent me the link: I suspect it’s all a U.S. plot. French military assistance probably translates to training Hussein’s forces on optimal surrender techniques….

I’ve been noodling a piece about the current state of peace protesters, and the shift in meaning that occured between protesting to prevent a war, and protesting a war that is already in progress.
But frankly, others have done it already, so I’d be retreading old ground. So instead of doing that, and putting words in the mouths of those opposing this war, let me just ask a simple question:
What do you want?
I’d really like to know. And I’ll leave it at that, as I don’t want to prejudice the question any more. But please, if you oppose (or opposed) attacking Hussein’s forces in Iraq, I’d like to hear your “What I would do if I was President” speech. What actions would you take, and how would those actions be better (in whatever way you choose to define ‘better’) than the course we are pursuing today? And if you feel really intellectually honest, in what ways would your approach be worse?
Comment section is thataway…
-NZB

Well, blogging’s clearly over: Time has got a piece on warblogs:
War-related weblogs