Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
see above. sometimes less is more Fringe.

See above. Your avatar is still hideous, Hank.

Edited to change "moniker" to "avatar" because I'm stupid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you argued the article shows he switched. I point out he didn't switch and what the article says he said is consistant with what he did. then you say what the article said was so vague as to be a truism. Well okay, but its your article to support your point which means you're the one without any support. right?

I think it is clear to Michael Kinsley, and to me, and to fringey, but maybe not to you, that Bush's views regarding nation-building have -- I would say evolved, but I don't want to implicate the President's religious views -- changed considerably since the '00 campaign. At best, Kinsley didn't go into the gory details, understandable given the format in which he's writing. It's also clear to Slave, who seems to think that 9/11 somehow caused the President to rethink his principles.


In unrelated news: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Characterizing two conflicting policies as both being "in national interest" or whatever is NOT evidence that he hasn't changed his stance. It's evidence that he's using the same characterization for two totally different stances.

2000: I will paint my bedroom pink because it is the best color ever and no other color will do!

2002: I will paint my bedroom green because it is the best color ever and no other color will do!

You, defending me: In both cases she said it's the best color ever, so she's always going with the best color ever, so how can you say her stance changed?

And your moniker is way, way ugly.

if I ever defend you, you're going to have to accept an insanity pleas.

to use your terms;

2000: I will paint my bedroom pink, I won't paint my bedroom green unless it makes sense to do so,
2002: It now makes sense to paint my bedroom green, so I will.

my moniker is an ugly, but lovable literary charecter. my avatar is a photo of the biggest GP load on two feet, and it makes me smile every time I see it. the only downside is someone thinks I'm sixty because of it, but the upside is too big.
2002

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think it is clear to Michael Kinsley, and to me, and to fringey, but maybe not to you, that Bush's views regarding nation-building have -- I would say evolved, but I don't want to implicate the President's religious views -- changed considerably since the '00 campaign.

No better evidence than TDS's brilliant "Bush Versus Bush" debate using clips from his campaign speeches juxtaposed against more recent public pronouncements of policy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No better evidence than TDS's brilliant "Bush Versus Bush" debate using clips from his campaign speeches juxtaposed against more recent public pronouncements of policy.

exactly. Atticus always supports my points better than I can. The Dems take sound bytes out of context, and spaced around arguably the worst incident to happen to this country in at least 60 years, then make snide observations.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
exactly. Atticus always supports my points better than I can. The Dems take sound bytes out of context, and spaced around arguably the worst incident to happen to this country in at least 60 years, then make snide observations.

OK, you try to explain how 9/11 affected Bush's principles about nation-building. What you seem to be saying is that everything he said in '00 wasn't really principled, but a dispassionate empirical assessment of what happens to work, and that this assessment changed when terrorists started flying jetliners into buildings. I don't get it, so help me out.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Again, I have the sinking feeling that I brought my geometry textbook to chemistry class. Wouldn't what you describe be a "retaliatory" strike?

Well, no. The "retaliation" would be launched approximately 6 minutes before we suffered any damage, and only based on the word of some intelligence wonk at NORAD. Let me turn the issue on its head though. When have we ever refrained from war in the face of "imminent danger"? I'll bet we're just defining the term differently.

First, you have to know or reasonably believe that the U.S. is in "imminent danger". But nobody ever thought we were in Poland circa August 30, 1939 danger. Or did they? If we were, I can't imagine any of our great leaders saying they'd wait til the borders were breached.

Second, you'd actually have to find when we were in imminent danger. In a sense, except when Kennedy almost got us all killed, I'm not sure we ever were. Though I always did like the idea of that nuclear clock that was set at 1 minute to midnight.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

Y'know, combining your hardliner military approach with your occasional cryptic references to past jobs as a "cleaner" or similar employee of the govt, I kind of envision you as being similar to Hannibal Smith from the A-Team. But strangely, the picture in my head while I read your posts is always the shot of Hannibal they showed during the opening theme song when he's dressed up as a tree and smoking a cigar. I have no idea why this is, but it's funny to think of Hannibal the tree belittling Jimmy Carter.

Its hard to describe what I used to do, though I've noted in other forums that I can verify that an "exciting" life is not all its cracked up to be, if for no other reason than the fact that "excitement" just becomes "stress" after awhile. No wonder that Hannibal guy smoked. I'd hint about the ties I share with Mr. T too, but it would probably out me.

But I do like Jimmy Carter as a human being and would love to be his, e.g., neighbor. I hope George Peppard never really made fun of him.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OK, you try to explain how 9/11 affected Bush's principles about nation-building. What you seem to be saying is that everything he said in '00 wasn't really principled, but a dispassionate empirical assessment of what happens to work, and that this assessment changed when terrorists started flying jetliners into buildings. I don't get it, so help me out.

Don't you see, Ty? 9/11 gave Bush permission to do whatever he wanted. Consistent with Bush 2000? "He's a man of his word."* Inconsistent? "The world has changed."** It's brilliant. Don't be a playa-hata.

*Tax cuts; ANWR.

**Compassionate conservatism, i.e., everything else.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What you seem to be saying is that everything he said in '00 wasn't really principled, but a dispassionate empirical assessment of what happens to work, and that this assessment changed when terrorists started flying jetliners into buildings. I don't get it, so help me out.

all I said was that the article YOU cited didn't prove what you said it did. I don't understand half the words in your post here. I am, however, cagey enough not to get caught by your litigator's trick of getting me arguing against ghosts.
if you want to argue the point show some evidence of when he said something about nation building that is contradictory to what he ended up doing. so far you haven't.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by hello
Second, you'd actually have to find when we were in imminent danger. In a sense, except when Kennedy almost got us all killed, I'm not sure we ever were.

There, that's it, that's Clark's meaning. We were not in imminent danger. if we were, he'd support acting (as any red-blooded American, including Jimmy Carter, would). However, Iraq was a different animal, a "preventive war" in which the imminent danger (in the Poland 8/31/39 sense) was not present. No drivel, no softball, just pure chewy goodness.

And didn't you back down from this "Kennedy almost killed us all" proposition a few days ago after a fruitless internet search? What major national calamity in the meantime has allowed you to justify your changed position?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
all I said was that the article YOU cited didn't prove what you said it did. I don't understand half the words in your post here. I am, however, cagey enough not to get caught by your litigator's trick of getting me arguing against ghosts.
if you want to argue the point show some evidence of when he said something about nation building that is contradictory to what he ended up doing. so far you haven't.

have you ever heard Governor Bush (the presidential candidate) debate President Bush on The Daily Show? The clearly ran on a anti-nation building platform.

Of course I haven't been following this argument (you people have such long posts on the PB, my tiny brain cannot keep up with it...), but I assume this helps Ty's point whatever it was. Go Ty.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
There, that's it, that's Clark's meaning. We were not in imminent danger. if we were, he'd support acting (as any red-blooded American, including Jimmy Carter, would). However, Iraq was a different animal, a "preventive war" in which the imminent danger (in the Poland 8/31/39 sense) was not present. No drivel, no softball, just pure chewy goodness.

Au contraire! Let's go with this:
1.) That is Clark's meaning.
2.) We were not in imminent danger.
3.) If we were, he'd support acting (as any red-blooded American, including a Jimmy Carter, would).

So, in light of your admission in #3, why exactly does he need to tell us this? P-A-N-D-E-R-I-N-G

Also, pointing out that Iraq was a different animal than the one we've never seen (see admission #2 above), is a distinction of clintonesque proportions. Summary? "In stark contrast from my views on that situation we've never encountered, and from that situation upon which no --red blooded-- American's opinion would differ, I'm not in favor of Iraq-type preventitive wars". If it was all one big statement, I think it would have been less ridiculous if he just said "I'm not in favor of Iraq-type preventitive wars".

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

And didn't you back down from this "Kennedy almost killed us all" proposition a few days ago after a fruitless internet search? What major national calamity in the meantime has allowed you to justify your changed position?

Nah, I backed down from the "Kennedy almost killed us all and the soviets still kept nuclear missiles in Cuba anyway, so it was for no good reason proposition.

The internet search still allows me to maintain my Kennedy almost killed us all and the soviets still kept nuclear bombs and medium range bombers in Cuba under our noses and without our knowledge, right up to the time that Kruschev determined that Hillary's handler Fidel was a loonie. Two months later. In December 1962.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
have you ever heard Governor Bush (the presidential candidate) debate President Bush on The Daily Show? The clearly ran on a anti-nation building platform.

Of course I haven't been following this argument (you people have such long posts on the PB, my tiny brain cannot keep up with it...), but I assume this helps Ty's point whatever it was. Go Ty.

I think he's trying to say that Bush (and the WSJ, GOP, etc.) never realized what a fantastic idea nation-building was, in terms of promoting national security, all the time that the Clinton Admininistration was trying it out in Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, etc. They realize now that the Clinton Administration had the better policy, and they even feel kinda sorry that they attacked Clinton for this instead of lending a hand. They were blinded by their partisan rage and general dislike of blowjobs, and came to their senses only when swarthy foreigners piloted jets into buildings. They're thinking of giving Clinton a medal for getting out in front of what we're trying to do in Iraq. Imagine the mess Iraq would be if Clinton hadn't gotten the Pentagon thinking about this nation-building business!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if you want to argue the point show some evidence of when he said something about nation building that is contradictory to what he ended up doing. so far you haven't.

You're arguing that Bush said during the campaign that he wouldn't do nation-building except for a couple of narrow exceptions, and that as a result of 9/11, one of those exceptions was fulfilled, so the resulting invasion of Iraq was consistent with his attitude toward nation-building. The problem is that, as even he has admitted, there's absolutely no link between Iraq and those who flew the planes into the Towers. So the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq was consistent with his original view of nation building is unsupported.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
I think he's trying to say that Bush (and the WSJ, GOP, etc.) never realized what a fantastic idea nation-building was, in terms of promoting national security, all the time that the Clinton Admininistration was trying it out in Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, etc. They realize now that the Clinton Administration had the better policy, and they even feel kinda sorry that they attacked Clinton for this instead of lending a hand. They were blinded by their partisan rage and general dislike of blowjobs, and came to their senses only when swarthy foreigners piloted jets into buildings. They're thinking of giving Clinton a medal for getting out in front of what we're trying to do in Iraq. Imagine the mess Iraq would be if Clinton hadn't gotten the Pentagon thinking about this nation-building business!

I imagine you were giggling as you typed that.