Politics: J'accuse!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Who cares about Kerry? Why is it only "minority groups" insisting he apologize?

As newly appointed chairman of the organization "White Chicks Who Don't Tolerate Bullshit," I demand that Pete apologize for making such a stupid-ass remark.

BR(though, as I recall, CO has a very, very strong split between the Libertarian (pioneer "we don't give a shit who you are or what you do so long as you pull your weight" types) and Jesus-Freak (Focus on the Family, Promise Keepers, umpteen embarrasing CU Boulder football coaches) wings of the Republican party, and the Coors family is usually on the Jesus-Freak side of the divide, so to the extent this weakens them I am perfectly happy to see Pete go hang)C

I must have missed something. I thought some flunky of Coors jokingly said, after the NYT posted Coors' pic in place of the KKK guy, that "at least they didn't say he was Kerry!" Like, funny political shit aimed at the NYT. Why the uproar?

[Beauty]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't remember the date of the quote, but he's stated that he will go, hat in hand, back to the UN on the day he is elected and "re-join the international community".

Far as I can tell, the only thing Bush has done to warrant Kerry's characterization that we have left that community is that Bush would not allow the UN to veto our national decisions.

It amazes me that you can create leaping arguments like "Bush lied" out of "but we all thought that he meant something else", but you can't connect Kerry's statements unless the exact words are repeated. It's either willful, or, when the sign said "Drink Me", you did.

You are part of the black helicopter crowd if you think that talking about "re-joining the international community" means giving the UN a veto on national decisions. Both Kerry and Bush would sometimes do things differently at our allies' request. The Woodward book makes pretty clear that Bush went back to the UN a second time because Blair said he needed it. That's not giving Blair a veto -- it's recognizing that it was in our national interest from a longer perspective to do something we didn't want to do from a shorter perspective. The difference between Bush and Kerry on this score is that Kerry would be more willing to do this sort of thing, and would be more willing to acknowledge it publicly. Bush obviously was fine with telling Woodward, but his public statements weren't exactly striking that note.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Beauty
You are part of the black helicopter crowd if you think that talking about "re-joining the international community" means giving the UN a veto on national decisions.

I feel very comfortable saying that, had Kerry been prez, and had the UN taken the same course as it took pre-invasion, we would not have invaded. Are you arguing that this is an incorrect assumption?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/po...ex=1083816000&

• WASHINGTON, April 28 — A Pentagon intelligence report has concluded that many bombings against Americans and their allies in Iraq, and the more sophisticated of the guerrilla attacks in Falluja, are organized and often carried out by members of Saddam Hussein's secret service, who planned for the insurgency even before the fall of Baghdad.
  
  The report states that Iraqi officers of the "Special Operations and Antiterrorism Branch," known within Mr. Hussein's government as M-14, are responsible for planning roadway improvised explosive devices and some of the larger car bombs that have killed Iraqis, Americans and other foreigners. The attacks have sown chaos and fear across Iraq.

Um, fuckin' duh. Seriously, did anyone, pre-invasion, not list "Retreat in the Face of Superior Forces and Undermine New Regime with Guerrilla Actions" as "likely Baathist strategy no. 1 because it is really the only viable alternative anyway"?

If the point is to highlight this obvious point to distract from the fact that there are also significant al Qaeda-backed actions going on in Iraq (usually identifiable by the "suicide" element rather than the "sophisticated guerrilla" element), then this "conclusion" makes sense. But if they really only just sussed this out, or think anybody else hasn't figured this out, then I will stop vaguely disapproving whenever someone makes that "military intelligence oxymoron" joke.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by bilmore
I feel very comfortable saying that, had Kerry been prez, and had the UN taken the same course as it took pre-invasion, we would not have invaded. Are you arguing that this is an incorrect assumption?

I don't think Kerry would have invaded, but I also don't think this has much to do with a UN "veto."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now is not the time for this partisan bullshit when our country is at war.

So you agree with the statement by Rep. Johnson (R) of Texas on the House floor last week that John Kerry's criticisms of the Iraq war and the administration's post-war efforts are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So you agree with the statement by Rep. Johnson (R) of Texas on the House floor last week that John Kerry's criticisms of the Iraq war and the administration's post-war efforts are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

S_A_M

I am certain that our enemies would prefer a Kerry presidency to a GWB second term.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am certain that our enemies would prefer a Kerry presidency to a GWB second term.

Other than France, you mean.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So you agree with the statement by Rep. Johnson (R) of Texas on the House floor last week that John Kerry's criticisms of the Iraq war and the administration's post-war efforts are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

S_A_M

SAM, don't be obtuse.

Yes, we have a grand tradition here of freedom of speech. We say what we want, we criticize our government, and we don't use governmental powers to shut down such speech.

At the same time, we have an enemy who is largely informed by our Viet Nam performance - i.e., if they can dismay our public outlook on fighting, we will bug out. The more they see of public speech that says we're in a quagmire, losing "too many" soldiers, the more they are encouraged, and strengthened, and the longer this lasts, and the more of our soldiers will die.

So, how do you deal with that dichotomy? Do you simply, mindlessly, continue to assert that everyone, Teddy included, should keep saying what they're saying, to the press and then directly to the enemy? Do you counsel shutting off the press? Or, do you maybe speak of "restraint", and judgment, and maybe not fanning the flames for the sake of a partisan speech?

Stop making these Ty-like pronouncements that imply that there is one, and only one, valid issue to be discussed.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I feel very comfortable saying that, had Kerry been prez, and had the UN taken the same course as it took pre-invasion, we would not have invaded. Are you arguing that this is an incorrect assumption?

I think you can probably omit the clause in the middle -- so this is not a good example.

If Kerry had been Prez. we would have had an entirely different civilian Defense establishment, as well as a largely different national security apparatus, and I don't think there is a chance in hell that we would have even proposed invading Iraq. At this point, I'm not sure that this would have been a bad thing (except for 90% of Iraqis). But we'll have a better idea in a couple of years.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think you can probably omit the clause in the middle -- so this is not a good example.

If Kerry had been Prez. we would have had an entirely different civilian Defense establishment, as well as a largely different national security apparatus, and I don't think there is a chance in hell that we would have even proposed invading Iraq. At this point, I'm not sure that this would have been a bad thing (except for 90% of Iraqis). But we'll have a better idea in a couple of years.

S_A_M

You like to fight the hypo, don't you?

ASSUME that Kerry has gone to the UN, as did Bush, with plans to invade.

'Cuz, the discussion here was about, would Kerry follow the UN decision over ours, and I think you're ducking it.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
I must have missed something. I thought some flunky of Coors jokingly said, after the NYT posted Coors' pic in place of the KKK guy, that "at least they didn't say he was Kerry!" Like, funny political shit aimed at the NYT. Why the uproar?

Because it's not funny, and the jerkoff should take responsibility (or at least action) when his staff goofs. At least he should fire someone and say "I take that mistake very seriously indeed exactly because it is so inappropriate to compare a politician and a KKK killer, and therefore I will now sue the shit out of the NYT."

Then, if the groups currently criticizing him don't back him up, everyone can and should ask "um, if it isn't that serious then why'd you raise the uproar in the first place?"

But as I implied before, I don't credit a Coors with sufficient brains to either respond to or deal with something like that effectively.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by bilmore
At the same time, we have an enemy who is largely informed by our Viet Nam performance - i.e., if they can dismay our public outlook on fighting, we will bug out. The more they see of public speech that says we're in a quagmire, losing "too many" soldiers, the more they are encouraged, and strengthened, and the longer this lasts, and the more of our soldiers will die.

Cite, please. We have soldiers in Iraq. Iraq does not have soldiers here. They care more about what happens to their country than we do. They also know this. Of all the things that give Iraqis the will to go on doing whatever they are doing, seeing dissent in this country has to be well down the list.

I am aware of a lot of speculation by conservatives that speech in this country will have pernicious effects on the war effort, but have never seen one iota of evidence that this matters over there. OTOH, the nexus between these arguments and GOP re-election efforts is beyond obvious.

Stop making these Ty-like pronouncements that imply that there is one, and only one, valid issue to be discussed.

When you can't handle the heat, you leave the kitchen. I dig.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
At the same time, we have an enemy who is largely informed by our Viet Nam performance - i.e., if they can dismay our public outlook on fighting, we will bug out. The more they see of public speech that says we're in a quagmire, losing "too many" soldiers, the more they are encouraged, and strengthened, and the longer this lasts, and the more of our soldiers will die.

So, you do agree with him. OK.

Originally posted by bilmore
So, how do you deal with that dichotomy? Do you simply, mindlessly, continue to assert that everyone, Teddy included, should keep saying what they're saying, to the press and then directly to the enemy? Do you counsel shutting off the press? Or, do you maybe speak of "restraint", and judgment, and maybe not fanning the flames for the sake of a partisan speech?

See Bilmore, speeches like that wouldn't generate my post in response. Gosh, of course we should counsel restraint and good judgment. At the same time, however, the GOP is milking the war and the anti-terrosim fight for all its worth on their side, and there is still an election to be won.

Why do you think that Johnson was part of a parade of GOP Reps. that came to the House floor to denounce Kerry on this issue and on his Vietnam-era protests, if not for the sake of a partisan speech? Restraint and judgment don't have a goddamn thing to do with it. John McCain is one of the few grown-ups on this issue, if only because he won't compromise his integrity even to support the President.

Originally posted by bilmore
Stop making these Ty-like pronouncements that imply that there is one, and only one, valid issue to be discussed.

Once again, I am befuddled. Not sure what you're talking about.

But let's just all keep our mouth shut about whether we think the administration could or should be doing things better or differently. Don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy. [BTW -- Nice restrained phrase that shows good judgment, No?]

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
You like to fight the hypo, don't you?

ASSUME that Kerry has gone to the UN, as did Bush, with plans to invade.

'Cuz, the discussion here was about, would Kerry follow the UN decision over ours, and I think you're ducking it.

OK. if you want to get all that counter-factual. I disagree.

I think that if Kerry had thought that we needed to invade Iraq, we'd do it regardless of the opinion of the Security Council.

S_A_M