Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Note the source (New York magazine).

This is nothing more than a Hamptons personal ad.

Unfortunately for JFK, he has lost his ability to get dates a ride on the presidential yacht, and I don't see it coming back.

[Gattigap]

*That's the real Rumsfeld, not the oddly bible-quoting, love-not-sex sock.

Look, I know that April and May have not been good for you, but you need to avoid using D-Day memorials as an opportunity to draw the parallels to Iraq, and whine about your press coverage. Even your boss managed to avoid this temptation, and you should too.

Appearing to take a shot at Iraq news coverage, Rumsfeld said such reporting might have had a similar result during the invasion of Normandy in World War II, led by U.S. Army General Dwight Eisenhower.

"I have often wondered as we approach Normandy and D Day, how that might have been reported if we had had 24-hour news, seven days a week and the folks were being killed as they approached the beach. And the gliders were being spewed across the countryside -- many missing their landing targets -- and our forces were trapped below Point du Hoc and not able to get up," he said.

"I suppose they would have called General Eisenhower back for congressional hearings."

I'm sure it's bittersweet to remember the halcyon days of the Afghanistan campaign, where the press corps swooned over your every utterance, and there are legitimate observations about how the world is different in a 24/7 cable news environment, but it's neither the time nor the place to make this comparison. D-Day is different in many ways, and you're not doing yourself any favors here.

And the martyr thing doesn't wear well on you. My advice is to cease and desist this shit, before you too suddenly find yourself deciding to leave for "personal reasons."

A Concerned Citizen,
Gattigap

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
And the martyr thing doesn't wear well on you. My advice is to cease and desist this shit, before you too suddenly find yourself deciding to leave for "personal reasons."

A Concerned Citizen,
Gattigap

I will miss him.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am not convinced yet one way or another, but my gut tells me that there was a connection at some level. The evidence of a connection, at this point, although circumstantial, is more substantial than you suggest.

I'd be interested in seeing the substantial evidence. I haven't seen it yet. The Zarqawi leg-amputation-in-Baghdad connection story might have seemed substantial too, until the Berg video showed Zarqawi with two legs.

But my prior question stands. Why trumpet these links when there are much clearer connections to SA? Why is there not more outrage at the SA govt's links if people like you are spending the energy to argue that Iraq had similar, if less-clear, links? If your answer is that we need their oil, then I am quite disappointed that we could be bought so cheaply.

Your point on ass-covering is a fair one, though I'm not sure what cover Woolsey actually needs.

I'd say it's institutional ass-covering, since a portion of the evidence cited comes from Woolsey's time. But anyway, Woolsey hasn't really proven to be much of a Dem apologist, so my comment was just to point out a countervailing view of him besides "Dem appointee".

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This schtick of calling non-conservative views of the world "conspiracy theories" is really, really tired. What's the conspiracy? I think a bunch of ideologues with preconceptions about how the world works took control of the federal government and saw their job as one of building public support for a war that in their hearts they knew was right. (Barry Goldwater reference intended.) As it happens, they were wrong, and we are all now stuck with the mess they created. Where's the conspiracy?

That is not the conspiracy. The conspiracy is the ill intent you associate with these policy decisions (see, e.g., your repeated posting of "Bush Lied" shit). In order to believe your point of view, you would have to believe that Bush et al believed that this war, which, like any war, if very risky business, was going to benefit him politically (more than not going to war), and that was its only purpose. I submit that the better move, politically, would have been not to invade Iraq and ride high on the 90% or so support he enjoyed after Aphganistan and focus more on domestic issues.

But he didn't. He did what he thought was right, not what was politically convenient. Perhaps your problem is that you've got Billy Boy Hangover, where nothing is what it seems, and everything has a political motive. Luckily, there is a cure for that - watch any Al Gore speech. You see, Al is Billy without the smarts, timing, luck and je ne se qua, so you can see the political hack down to the core.

When they found those trailers used to make artillery spotting balloons, you were posting articles about it as if they'd found the Lost Ark of the Covenant with conclusive evidence inside it of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden butt-fucking each other on top of missiles pointed at Houston with warheads full of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

You have me confused with SEF.

The media on which you are relying appears to see its job as furthering the conservative movement, not as weighing and reporting the evidence. Which is fine -- there's a place for that -- but don't mistake it for something it's not.

This is laughable. Nearly the entire US media has been focused on destroying Bush's presidency for some time now. It is rare that we get a story of all the good that the US has done in Iraq over the last 14 months. Rather, it is one calamity after another. Take the electricity problems, as just one example. We heard for months about these problems, but do we hear that electricity levels are now far better than pre-war? Or the schools, or the oil production, or . . .

Yet, only the media I rely on is focused on influencing a political agenda. Wake the fuck up man.

You don't show any signs of thinking critically about what you are posting.

Pot/kettle. I routinely take positions on this board that are based on principle rather than party - that requires critical thinking. For example:

1. I supported "Clinton's War" in Europe
2. I have been highly critical of the Bush deficits
3. I have been highly critical of the Bush FCC
4. I have been highly critcial of the anti-gay marriage agenda (though, did not support the circumvention of process by Gavin).

On what issues do you break from the party line? My guess is that you'd have trouble coming up with 2. But I'm the one that doesn't think critically. What a fucking joke.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
your conspiracy theory view of the world.

Not trying to fight Ty's battles here, but I have wanted to point out for a while that the liberal-media-doesn't-report-the-real-story stuff you righties have been throwing around here of late, while entertaining to an extent, is very much a "conspiracy theory view of the world."

But I'm guessing you already know that. [eta and you posted a few seconds before I did to prove it. well done.]

[Gattigap]

A flat-broke, Pakistani-British gambling addict who gambled away a bunch of Al-Quaeda cash told the FBI back in April 2000 about AQ preparing to hijack airliners.

Fearful that he had blown al-Qaida’s cash, and aware that his terrorist trainers had copied his passport information and easily knew how to find him, Khan turned himself in and confessed. “I’ve been to Pakistan," he said. "I know about this hijacking, something going on.”

Khan said his trainers never told him exactly what his terrorist mission in the United States would be. He said he was told he would learn more details from a half dozen other trained terrorists who, he was told, already were in the U.S.

For three weeks, FBI counter-terrorist agents in Newark, N.J. interrogated Khan, created composite drawings of his terrorist trainer and a fellow student and then wired Khan up and took him back to JFK airport, hoping to smoke out other conspirators. But they had no luck.

So they sent him home! Why, Gorelick, why?

With the conservatives on this board obviously either billing, drunk or asleep, I offer this package, all wrapped in a pretty bow, as a bipartisan offering. If this doesn't prove that Clinton knew everything and did nothing, I don't know what does.

Gattigap

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I'd be interested in seeing the substantial evidence. I haven't seen it yet. The Zarqawi leg-amputation-in-Baghdad connection story might have seemed substantial too, until the Berg video showed Zarqawi with two legs.

But my prior question stands. Why trumpet these links when there are much clearer connections to SA? Why is there not more outrage at the SA govt's links if people like you are spending the energy to argue that Iraq had similar, if less-clear, links? If your answer is that we need their oil, then I am quite disappointed that we could be bought so cheaply.

I hadn't seen the leg stuff before, and I don't claim the evidence yet rised to the level of being "substantial," just more substantial than you suggest. The articles I've posted from NRO are admittedly tenuous, but that is the nature of spook work, or so I'm told. There's also the fact that Czech intelligence still stands by their story of the meeting in Prague, even though the US has discounted that. My guess is that the administration is so shell shocked that it will not come forward with anything until it has a very high level of substantiation

You may say that we shouldn't go to war on such tenuous information, and that is a fair point. If it were the only rationale, I would tend to agree with you. By I tend to look at this stuff more holistically - call it a pnumbra, if you will.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is not the conspiracy. The conspiracy is the ill intent you associate with these policy decisions (see, e.g., your repeated posting of "Bush Lied" shit). In order to believe your point of view, you would have to believe that Bush et al believed that this war, which, like any war, if very risky business, was going to benefit him politically (more than not going to war), and that was its only purpose. I submit that the better move, politically, would have been not to invade Iraq and ride high on the 90% or so support he enjoyed after Aphganistan and focus more on domestic issues.

But he didn't. He did what he thought was right, not what was politically convenient. Perhaps your problem is that you've got Billy Boy Hangover, where nothing is what it seems, and everything has a political motive. Luckily, there is a cure for that - watch any Al Gore speech. You see, Al is Billy without the smarts, timing, luck and je ne se qua, so you can see the political hack down to the core.

No. I don't think he went to war for political gain, though it probably didn't hurt. And even what you describe is not a "conspiracy theory," but a rather simple explanation of Bush's motivations.

It's beyond clear that Bush and other senior officials said things that were not true. I tend to believe they did this because they are ideologues, and believed -- even without evidence -- that they would be proved right. In other words, to them, the end justified the means -- or, as you put it, he did what he thought was right. You and I agree on that much.

You have me confused with SEF.

Fair enough. When they found the trailers and the administration's defenders claimed vindication, you linked to the stories but didn't add your own comments.

Like you link to stories about job creation, but don't bother to link to people noting that we would have to create 850,000 jobs a month for the next two months to catch up to the administration's February forecast.

This is laughable. Nearly the entire US media has been focused on destroying Bush's presidency for some time now. It is rare that we get a story of all the good that the US has done in Iraq over the last 14 months. Rather, it is one calamity after another. Take the electricity problems, as just one example. We heard for months about these problems, but do we hear that electricity levels are now far better than pre-war? Or the schools, or the oil production, or . . .

Yet, only the media I rely on is focused on influencing a political agenda. Wake the fuck up man.

I wasn't describing the mainstream media, I was describing stuff like the NRO.

"Nearly the entire US media has been focused on destroying Bush's presidency for some time now."

Our problems in Iraq are the result of failed policies, not bad press coverage. The press runs in a pack -- when things are good, it's all good, and when they're bad, it's all bad. Maybe there's less coverage of the power supply in Iraq because reporters aren't safe on the streets. No -- it must be because they're trying to destroy Bush. All bad news is evidence that the media is trying to destroy Bush. Maybe later you can tell me why, e.g., General Electric, which owns NBC, wants to destroy Bush. Or Disney, which owns ABC, wants to destroy Bush. I'm curious.

Pot/kettle. I routinely take positions on this board that are based on principle rather than party - that requires critical thinking. For example:

1. I supported "Clinton's War" in Europe
2. I have been highly critical of the Bush deficits
3. I have been highly critical of the Bush FCC
4. I have been highly critcial of the anti-gay marriage agenda (though, did not support the circumvention of process by Gavin).

On what issues do you break from the party line? My guess is that you'd have trouble coming up with 2. But I'm the one that doesn't think critically. What a fucking joke.

You are absolutely right about your positions. I wasn't thinking about anything other than Iraq.

As for my "party line," I'd break it all the time if I knew what it was. [Insert Will Rogers quote here.] You are the consummate libertarian, and I respect that on some level, but I am generally suspicious of grand principles and ideologies, and am more of a small-p pragmatist. I wasn't opposed to the war because I thought it was wrong with a capital W -- I was opposed because I thought it would be a mess and a waste, and would make us less safe. And here we are.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And even what you describe is not a "conspiracy theory," but a rather simple explanation of Bush's motivations.

Rich. So Teddy's claim that this war was "hatch" down in Texas is not a conspiracy theory?

It's beyond clear that Bush and other senior officials said things that were not true. I tend to believe they did this because they are ideologues, and believed -- even without evidence -- that they would be proved right. In other words, to them, the end justified the means -- or, as you put it, he did what he thought was right. You and I agree on that much.

I don't disagree that some of the things said turned out to be untrue. Where I think we disagree is that I don't believe they thought these things were untrue at the time they said them. You seem to suggest that you do. So in other words, they lied, right?

Like you link to stories about job creation, but don't bother to link to people noting that we would have to create 850,000 jobs a month for the next two months to catch up to the administration's February forecast.

I didn't link to them because I didn't see them. You can spin this all you want, and I'm sure you will, because it's the only bullet in the "It's the Economy Stupid" talking points that remains a problem for the administration. The simple point is that the recession started between 1/01 and 3/01, depending on who you talked to. After that, we had (1) a complete bursting of the bubble, (2) 9/11, (3) Enron, Worldcom, etc., and (4) 2 Wars. Frankly, it is amazing that the recession was as mild as it was. So now the economy is booming, and I mean booming, inflation is low, home ownership is high, etc., yet jobs, like they always do, are lagging a bit, so the DEMS pounce on jobs. Oh, but wait, jobs are coming back now too - 1.2 million created this year alone. So now the spin turns back to "bush lied."

I'm starting to see how this moving target game works.

Maybe later you can tell me why, e.g., General Electric, which owns NBC, wants to destroy Bush. Or Disney, which owns ABC, wants to destroy Bush. I'm curious.

Do you really believe that GE has editorial control over NBC? That Disney has editorial control over ABC? Do you really? Who is failing to think cricially now? Take that Michael Moore logic back to Ontario.

As for my "party line," I'd break it all the time if I knew what it was. [Insert Will Rogers quote here.]

That's what I suspected.

edited for links and to add "Do you really? Who is failing to think cricially now? Take that Michael Moore logic back to Ontario."

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I was opposed because I thought it would be a mess and a waste, and would make us less safe. And here we are.

1) "Mess" is subjective term. As Club said, all of the good is being buried. You see "mess". I see political gamesmanship and progress.

2) "Waste" is a term that is not yet ripe. Not to sound grandiose, but neither Germany and Japan were economic powerhouses one year after a war. The "jury is still Waaaay out" on this.

3) "Less Safe"? Perhaps time and tide has lessened the fear, but this guy who was watching the burning WTC from Church Street on 9/11 is not nearly as spooked by low flying helicopters as I was a year ago.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) "Mess" is subjective term. As Club said, all of the good is being buried. You see "mess". I see political gamesmanship and progress.

2) "Waste" is a term that is not yet ripe. Not to sound grandiose, but neither Germany and Japan were economic powerhouses one year after a war. The "jury is still Waaaay out" on this.

3) "Less Safe"? Perhaps time and tide has lessened the fear, but this guy who was watching the burning WTC from Church Street on 9/11 is not nearly as spooked by low flying helicopters as I was a year ago.

For the record, the NYT was calling this a quagmire since 4/03.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you really believe that GE has editorial control over NBC? That Disney has editorial control over ABC? Do you really?

Or that Murdoch has editorial control over FNC?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Rich. So Teddy's claim that this war was "hatch" down in Texas is not a conspiracy theory?

I do not understand how you could confuse me with Teddy. Nor do I even know what you are talking about. I get most of my news about Teddy and Al and Hillary from the conservatives on this board.

I don't disagree that some of the things said turned out to be untrue. Where I think we disagree is that I don't believe they thought these things were untrue at the time they said them. You seem to suggest that you do. So in other words, they lied, right?

"Lied" is a poor shorthand for reckless disregard for the truth. Go back to those quotes I posted from the Woodward book. On Friday, General Myers tells Bush that they've been looking for WMD in Iraq for 10 years and they haven't found any. On Sunday, Bush stands in front of reporters and says, "Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." What was he thinking? I don't rightly know. One of Bush's strengths as a leader is his ability to simplify and distill issues. I think he thought that after the invasion, WMD would be found, and he was more interested in making his case convincing than he was in being accurate. Is it fair to call this lying? I guess it depends on your definition of "lying." There is no doubt that he was representing as fact something that he did not know. He was trying to convince people that Iraq had WMD to gain support for a war. If you did this to sell a product, it would be fraud.

When Cheney said "there is no doubt" that Hussein has WMD, and there was doubt, that was a lie. What Bush said is better only by shades.

I didn't link to them because I didn't see them.

If you didn't realize that job growth isn't living up to the Administration's predictions, then that's a good reason for having failed to post about it.

Do you really believe that GE has editorial control over NBC? That Disney has editorial control over ABC? Do you really? Who is failing to think cricially now? Take that Michael Moore logic back to Ontario.

Editorial control? It depends on what you mean. But you are the one positing a conspiracy of the major media to destroy the President, so maybe you should explain how it is that all of these various corporations get together to pursue their nefarious plan. I'm no great fan of the media, as I've made clear on this board and the other. What I can't understand at all is how conservatives who otherwise seem to grasp how markets work go stupid when they start to discuss large corporations that are in the business of selling advertising with their programming. It's like the normal rules of reason and logic are suspended when you start talking about the liberal media.

That's what I suspected.

What's what you suspected? I don't think there is a Dem party line, but if there was one I wouldn't toe it.

etfs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) "Mess" is subjective term. As Club said, all of the good is being buried. You see "mess". I see political gamesmanship and progress.

As I said, most of the Titanic was well built, and most of it is intact on the floor of the North Atlantic.

2) "Waste" is a term that is not yet ripe. Not to sound grandiose, but neither Germany and Japan were economic powerhouses one year after a war. The "jury is still Waaaay out" on this.

Things may still go well. Let's hope they do. Fallujah and Najaf are big signs of trouble, though.

3) "Less Safe"? Perhaps time and tide has lessened the fear, but this guy who was watching the burning WTC from Church Street on 9/11 is not nearly as spooked by low flying helicopters as I was a year ago.

I'm not going to say that being in SF on 9/11 was the same, but I'm bothered less by driving across the Golden Gate Bridge now than I was on 9/12. Nevertheless, it looks to me like we have squandered tremendous resources in Iraq and have only made ourselves less safe. Saddam Hussein did not blow up the WTC, and what we have done in Iraq is strengthening those who did.