'Just World News' with Helena Cobban

I read it last night - I'd say it's a must-read.

That's high praise, indeed, coming from you, Helena. Thank you.

If you interpret the analogy as being too strong, you can seem to knock it down by showing how different the situations are.

The point is simply that Iraqi democracy is beginning, and it doesn't look as good now as it will when it's had a few more years or decades of refinement. That point still stands. And the Iraqis who are in session working on the constitution are not shooting each other. This point also still stands.

If Billmon or Helena can show that "The conservatives" who are making this analogy were saying something else, something ridiculous, then show me. The President was making the same points.

Did you think the point was that the Iraqis were also meeting in Philadelphia? And you debunked that? Or maybe you thought the President was saying the Iraqis were debating slavery? Of course you didn't.

Billmon did give a very nice list of differences between the Iraqi situation and the Philadelphia Continental Congress. It's just that this big analysis doesn't invalidate the points above. Yes the Iraqis are in a desert and the Americans have tanks whereas in 1789 there weren't any tanks. I agree.

The Medium Lobster sees things Billmon's way: Birth of A Nation

WarrenW:

"And the Iraqis who are in session working on the constitution are not shooting each other."

You're right: They've got other people to do that for them.

"If you interpret the analogy as being too strong, you can seem to knock it down by showing how different the situations are"

It's also easy to knock down an argument when you either mischaracterize or ignore all of its main points, as you have done here.

Doctor (?) G,

I've read the blog entry of Medium Lobster you are quoting and found it particularly unconvincing. Let's take one example
"Yes, Iraqi women will suffer as nonentities under a stifling Sharia regime, but weren't American women denied the right to vote at the nation's founding? "
This completely misses the point : while the situation of women second the first US constitution was probably not more than the mere continuation of what it had been previously, the reinstatement of the Sharia regime represents a serious step back for the situation of women in Iraq. Tell me, please, just why I should feel comforted by the fact that a two century older and outdated constitution was just as bad as the new Iraqi one for women's rights ?

I think that Billmon's analysis has brillantly demonstrated that comparing the US and Iraqi constitution like the Bushies are trying to do is absolutely pointless; it's like comparing apples and oranges.

"If you interpret the analogy as being too strong..."

The analogy is not too strong. The analogy is nonexistent.

Doctor (?) G,

I've read the blog entry of Medium Lobster you are quoting and found it particularly unconvincing. Let's take one example
"Yes, Iraqi women will suffer as nonentities under a stifling Sharia regime, but weren't American women denied the right to vote at the nation's founding? "
This completely misses the point : while the situation of women second the first US constitution was probably not more than the mere continuation of what it had been previously, the reinstatement of the Sharia regime represents a serious step back for the situation of women in Iraq. Tell me, please, just why I should feel comforted by the fact that a two century older and outdated constitution was just as bad as the new Iraqi one for women's rights ?

I think that Billmon's analysis has brillantly demonstrated that comparing the US and Iraqi constitution like the Bushies are trying to do is absolutely pointless; it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Billmon
I really think you must be confused or lying about my having "mischaracterized" your article.

Iraqi democracy is in an early state. Comparing early Iraqi democracy to mature western democracies is a little unfair. When the US democracy started it wasn't so hot either. Things improve. This is the obvious point that "The conservatives" and the President were making. It's not that complex. My argument was that you (billmon) failed to dispell that analogy.

How does this mischaracterize your argument?

Warren W:

"Iraqi democracy is in an early state. Comparing early Iraqi democracy to mature western democracies is a little unfair. When the US democracy started it wasn't so hot either. Things improve."

Your point seems to be that Iraqi democracy currently exists and its just not "mature" or better yet not "so hot."

I would suggest you reconsider this point, for there are many experts, observers, and pundits who would argue that what we currently have is not democracy, but a failed American attempt to establish a transitional democracy. Just because a flawed vote was held does not mean a democracy resulted. Even more will argue that the draft constitution, when it emerges, will not be the product of a process that in anyway resembles a democratic process. It is, rather the product of an alliance of revenge. Reconsider "things will improve" in this light.

You seem to want to defend the President instead of commenting on the purpose of the Billmon post:

"even taking the analogy at face value, the objectives sought by the dominant parties in Iraq are the opposite -- in almost every way -- of those pursued by the majority of the delegates in Philadelphia."

Warren W:

"Iraqi democracy is in an early state. Comparing early Iraqi democracy to mature western democracies is a little unfair. When the US democracy started it wasn't so hot either. Things improve."

Your point seems to be that Iraqi democracy currently exists and its just not "mature" or better yet not "so hot."

I would suggest you reconsider this point, for there are many experts, observers, and pundits who would argue that what we currently have is not democracy, but a failed American attempt to establish a transitional democracy. Just because a flawed vote was held does not mean a democracy resulted. Even more will argue that the draft constitution, when it emerges, will not be the product of a process that in anyway resembles a democratic process. It is, rather the product of an alliance of revenge. Reconsider "things will improve" in this light.

You seem to want to defend the President instead of commenting on the purpose of the Billmon post:

"even taking the analogy at face value, the objectives sought by the dominant parties in Iraq are the opposite -- in almost every way -- of those pursued by the majority of the delegates in Philadelphia."

Very nice site!

http://aa.com
http://www.aab1004.com