Interesting Debate

FrontPageMag has an interesting debate between Greg Bates, David Lindorff (of the Bush wore a wire" fame), Jed Babbin, and Clifford May.
(Sorry that Bates and Lindorff's links aren't as good as Babbin's amd May's, but Counterpunch does not seem to have an "author archive."

The discussion is essentially about whether we need to stay in Iraq or leeave it.
Three points seem to stand out to me:

For one thing, Mr. Lindorff seems to suggest that the killing in Vietnam was reduced greatly after we left. It may well have been reduced after the North won in 1975, but I was under the impression that a lot of people were killed in the North's final offensive, and that that occurred after we left.

Secondly, it is obvious that Jed Babbin doesn't care about liberation and is intent on conquering the Middle East. (I'll try to expand on this in a future post by referencing specific National Review Online (NRO) commentaries by him). While he gives the implication that we will only build military bases in Iraq if the Iraqi government okays it:

"Yes, many [note that he implies that the majority of Iraqis want permanent US bases - a point he also hints at in this article, although does anyone really believe that he would care if not "many" but "most" Iraqis were against it? - Glaivester] Iraqis may object to our building military bases there, but unless their government decides we cannot, we must press on."

the fact that the government has essentially been selected by us means that what he is really saying is that we will have bases whatever the majority of Iraqis want. And he also boldly states htat he wants regime change in Syria, Iran, and Sauid Arabia, and it seems pretty clear to me that he isn't thinking just through covert ops like Michael "Faster, Please" Ledeen claims to be. (His writings on this at NRO are somewhat mixed, I'll try to give a deeper analysis later here is his archive if you'd like to read some of his stuff yourself). He is also a pompous twit:

"First, Lindorff, from you to me it's 'Mr. Babbin.' I do not choose to allow evasion of the honorific by those such as you."

Finally, Jamie Glazov, who is referenced here as "FP" for FrontPage, is not a good moderator. This symposium, for all intents and purposes, is a debate, and it seems rather unsporting or the moderator to officially take sides, and then to take offense at Mr. Lindorff for seeing this as unfair bias:

"And before we move on Mr. Lindorff, please, the next time, don’t be so incredulous if I decide to make a few comments in my own symposium. This is the style of these symposiums and if I talk the world still turns and life goes on, ok?"

The moderator should challenge the statements of the guests, but there is a difference between bringing up facts that the guests seem to be ignoring (but isn't it true?) and explicitly taking one side (you are lying like a typical leftist!)

Oh, and one more point:

Mr. Glazov asks:
"I wonder what leftist journals (i.e. the Nation, Counterpunch etc) will ever invite someone like David Horowitz to voice his views in their pages for the sake of dialogue, as we are doing here."
Well, I'm not certain that it entirely counts, as it is not done as a debate, but Counterpunch has run a fairly Bush-friendly piece by Amir Taheri, who is a member of the neoconservative Benador Associates.