Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

You keep reading about the huge amount of money that we're spending on Iraq, but it sounds like the big dollars are going to U.S. companies, and not much is percolating down to average Iraqis. Maybe things would be going a lot better if we'd just given out a couple of billion dollars in Fallujah and Sadr City over the last several months.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So what? If anything, that supports my view that Clinton didn't push to use the weapons he had available and that were best suited for the task at hand.

Wasn't most of that simply an internecine war between General Clarke and all the rest of the military? I thought that the refusal, and delay, were all related to Clarke's seeming coup of that whole theater, and the rest of the military saying "screw you" to Clarke for it, and Clinton's ratification was merely an unknowing following of what his most vocal and frequent military conversationalists were telling him was the proper and agreed-upon thing to do.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's not like we ever disagree, you moron.

This is true. You usually hold that Bush should be shot. Others say, hanged. A few, notably AG, still hold out for the Death of a Thousand Cuts. With deep philosophical divides like that, any pretense at homogeneity is pretty much shot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is true. You usually hold that Bush should be shot. Others say, hanged. A few, notably AG, still hold out for the Death of a Thousand Cuts. With deep philosophical divides like that, any pretense at homogeneity is pretty much shot.

I decided that this was a stupid joke, and tried to edit it away, but alas not before bilmore preserved it for posterity.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You keep reading about the huge amount of money that we're spending on Iraq, but it sounds like the big dollars are going to U.S. companies, and not much is percolating down to average Iraqis. Maybe things would be going a lot better if we'd just given out a couple of billion dollars in Fallujah and Sadr City over the last several months.

Yeah, that worked really well in Detroit.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
That Novak criticizes the Administration on a sensitive topic like this without apparent fear of punishment brings him kudos.

If you read more conservative columnists, you would realize that this is not uncommon for conservatives to do. George Will wrote something similar on Wednesday. O'Reilly and Scarborough are also saying similar things on their TV shows.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't see why you wouldn't suspect that from conservatives. It is not uncommon for conservatives criticize Rep politicians if they don't approve of the job they are doing.

What happened to Reagan's 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, that worked really well in Detroit.

Since recent Canadian administrations have been too smart to make a bid for the place, we have pretty much given up on having an exit strategy for Detroit and are resigned to staying there for a long time, or until some dumb Canadians get elected. Hopefully we will extricate ourselves from Fallujah and Sadr City sooner than that. And I say that as someone who wants to stay and do the job right, if that's possible, which lately I'm doubting.


eta: Like you, I wonder where Hank is today.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is true. You usually hold that Bush should be shot. Others say, hanged. A few, notably AG, still hold out for the Death of a Thousand Cuts. With deep philosophical divides like that, any pretense at homogeneity is pretty much shot.

Exactly!

While I, Gattigap and Larry, as the voices of reason, push the compromise position of "a few swift kicks in the ass, one in the nuts, and a trip to the unemployment line."

The debates can get pretty heated.

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wasn't most of that simply an internecine war between General Clarke and all the rest of the military? I thought that the refusal, and delay, were all related to Clarke's seeming coup of that whole theater, and the rest of the military saying "screw you" to Clarke for it, and Clinton's ratification was merely an unknowing following of what his most vocal and frequent military conversationalists were telling him was the proper and agreed-upon thing to do.

Clinton had the information available to make a reasoned judgment about the problem -- day after day, the press was raising this. Whether his unwillingness to use more force stemmed from his desire to listen to Wes Clark(e?), or from his own sense of what was best for p.r., it was, IMHO, still a very bad decision that stemmed from a view that is fundamentally at odds with the Powell "overwhelming force" doctrine.

The results in Kosovo were still extraordinary -- genocide stopped with minimal loss of life, especially American life (did any US servicemen die in action in Kosovo?). The results of using more force where that was called for could have been more extraordinary still, in the sense that more lives could have been saved.

I used this as an example that I thought illustrated the point. While I recognize the constraints on Clinton that Ty cited (no public support for removing the Taliban from power, no practical means of getting necessary cooperation from Pakistan, etc.), I do believe that, barring an historic, watershed event like 9/11, Clinton's approach to using military force was to use less than he should have.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I used this as an example that I thought illustrated the point. While I recognize the constraints on Clinton that Ty cited (no public support for removing the Taliban from power, no practical means of getting necessary cooperation from Pakistan, etc.), I do believe that, barring an historic, watershed event like 9/11, Clinton's approach to using military force was to use less than he should have.

What more could he and should he have done?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What more could he and should he have done?

My 2 cents: put in ground troops, maybe lost 20-30 American lives, probably saved several thousand others.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
If you read more conservative columnists, you would realize that this is not uncommon for conservatives to do. George Will wrote something similar on Wednesday. O'Reilly and Scarborough are also saying similar things on their TV shows.

I read Will (and earlier have mocked him with unfair glee on this board). He is thoughtful, somber, and occasionally critical of the administration, though I find it difficult to discern his points while hacking through the rest of the column,which is often dedicated to teachimg me (yet again) how erudite the man is.

If you're talking about Bill O'Reilly, I must admit that I do not take the time to read or watch his "work," although occasionally I can hear his screams when I channel surf and get within 5 channels of FNC.

Joe Scarborough I've never watched. What am I missing?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What more could he and should he have done?

What Bilmore said. Plus, those Apaches we've been discussing (which, despite all the difficulties, were eventually in place).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What Bilmore said. Plus, those Apaches we've been discussing (which, despite all the difficulties, were eventually in place).

I don't disagree re Kosovo. I thought you were making a more general point, and was wondering about Al Qaeda.