Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

[triple post

Honesty Dies! - News at Eleven!
 

Just for context:

Rep Guv and Dem AG feuding. Campaign contribution issue gets hashed out in the press - discussed in leg - no action, because nothing there.

AG hires friend - local small-time crim atty/party hack - to "prosecute". Takes case to bumfuck little county down on the iowa border - NO connection to case - none at all - but, coincidently, highest proportion of Dem voters in state - has five people testify for his case - Surprise! - he gets indictment.

This will die a diseased toad's death, but then the Dems will get to use the word "indicted" in their next campaign.

Sleazeballs, one and all.

board motto
 

we do need the board motto back, though. "creepy, misleading and undisciplined"
fringe and I created it together, its our bizarro love child sort of

There was no substnce to argue, and I went for a cheap shot, taking yet anothert chance to mock a media personality whom I have despised for 15+ yeears.

Your post was about the survey results on 'misperceptions' among people who report getting their news predominantly from one source -- grouped by that source. You said "maybe the misperceptions are on the part of NPR/PBS, et al." In context that tatement is meaningless, but I get your point -- that the results of the survey are only as good as the questions framed and what the survey -takers define as a 'misperception". I think that the question thta got most Fox viewers was the one on whether there were "substantial" links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I'm sure that the 'correct" answer was "No" -- which seems to be the consensus of informed observers -- but it is a squishy question.

BTW -- On tht subject, "The Economist" has characterised the U.S. administration as having "wilfully overplayed the little evidence hey have."

Yes, but they also still support the war, don't they? Which raises a question in my mind that I've been meaning to ask you, Ty and the like. We've been debating this stuff for weeks, and I'm wondering if you are now of the opinion that the war was wrong. That is, if you knew then what you know now, would you have supported the war?

Novak Must be Mad
 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20031004.shtml

[Novak hit piece on the Wilsons]

[edited to correct punctuation]

No. Containment was working. The war was (is) too expensive, in lives, money and opportunity costs, and we haven't seen the end of it yet. Which is not to say that the war has had no benefits, just that they don't outweigh the costs.

So you are essentially doing a cost/benefit analysis, correct? If so, isn't to early to calculate the benefits? Meaning, aren't the costs coming up front with the benefits to be realized in the next 5, 10 or 30 years?

Unless we make dramatic progress really soon in finding a way to incubate democracy in Iraq, the long-term costs will exceed the long-term benefits. At least, that's my view (and I think it is a conservative one, in the Burkean sense).

Would your opinion in this regard be affected if you became convinced that we were presently making excellent progress in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, economy, and political institutions, and "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis?

Absolutely. But I would hope that someone close to me would intervene and take away my fairy dust before I operated heavy machinery.

You and I have had this exchange before. I don't doubt that we are making some progress, but I think we're doing a better job with the infrastructure than we are with winning hearts and minds and rebuilding political institutions. Who really knows? It's a big country, and it's difficult for Western journalists to report this story. On this one, I'd much rather be wrong. I've posted links here of coverage that seemed particularly well-done, and you should, too.

No, I understand that we disagree on that point, but just wanted to nail down that that truly is your basis for thinking we shouldn't be there right now.

I'm thinking that the news that we start to hear over the next four or six months leans far more heavily towards the scenario I am positing than the negative one that seems prevelant now, but that's just my idea of an educated guess. Time will tell.

We can probably agree that some things will go well, and some things will go less well. Without regard to the specific facts on the ground in Iraq in 6 months, or 5 or 10 years, all else equal I think the war was a mistake because I think we have made the international system less stable. We have weakened international institutions, and encouraged other countries to see us as a threat. Also, the precedent that you can invade another country because it seems like a good idea is not a good one. The Treaty of Westphalia was not such a bad thing.

I guess I disagree with your first premise (loss of stability) and disagree that there is negative effect for us in #2.

I think, if anything, we have made the international system more stable. I say that because what we did was align the perception of placement in the world order with the reality. What we had prior to going in to Afghanistan, and then Iraq, was a perception that we were a weak superpower - i.e., we did indeed have the power, but no will to exercise it. The effect of that combination was to take us out of play as something to take into account when strategizing. Now, the world views us in a way that is much more accurate - and I think that the spread of an accurate information set vis-a-vis what a power will do, and how that power will react, is always a good thing. Now, we may have conflicts with which we can deal - but we have ended that period in which we were seen as a paper tiger that could be prodded and shot at at will. If anything, I think this enhances stability. It does not enhance the day-to-day gnat bites of the disaffected - but those would have always been there anyway. The stabilty comes from France, Libya, Syrai, Russia, China, and all the others now knowing that we can and will exercise what power we have. That can only help. Patronizing as it may sound, everybody tested the substitute teachers until we learned what they would do to enforce order. Then, the strong ones conducted class, and the weak ones tried to maintain some semblance of order.

As far as causing other countries to see us as a threat, I am quite sure that France, England, Bolivia, Mexico, and the like - those countries who wish us no active harm, and who do not seek to hurt us beyond words at times - do not see us as any more of a threat than they did before. We have done nothing that would make a reasonable representative of those countries worry in the least about our intentions towards them. We have caused worry in some countries, though - and I would argue that that is a good thing. Syria SHOULD worry. Iran SHOULD worry. Again, this is only allowing perception to catch up to reality. As Bush said, basically, if you wish us no harm, and do us no harm, we are not a threat to you. Do otherwise, and live (or not) with the results. I am quite comfortable with these changes to the world order.

On stability, what you say only makes sense if you forget (a) 9/11, (b) that we invaded Afghanistan, and (c) that Iraq had zippo to do with terrorism and wasn't threatening us. This notion that the rest of the world saw us as a pushover does fit well with my take on Bush's thinking, though, in that it projects insecurity that others will think you are weak unless you act like a tough guy. And like our President, your post is blind to the benefits of international agreements and institutions that we enjoyed for most of the 20th century.

And you're missing the point about threats entirely. I would hope Syria sees us as a threat. But so do a lot of countries that we're not going to invade.