Politics: A new beginning

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm going to charitably let you reconsider, and maybe re-phrase, this one. You can't have meant what the plain words say. "Nuance" doesn't mean "it's opposite day".

I think Ty's point --- no, I guess I'll take ownership of this one --- was that a WH spokesperson who thinks "I won't dignify that with a response" is an acceptable answer to Question A had better think about the effect of giving a substantive response to Question B.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Can't. Like I said, don't know enough about the issue. But, you have made this sound like a good business decision, and thus explained the Republican vote to me.

Calling the President's only education policy "ludicrous"? Y'all have a funny way of showing the love.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Calling the President's only education policy "ludicrous"? Y'all have a funny way of showing the love.

If it doesn't fit their needs, they shouldn't participate. I applaud people who chose not to spend my money simply to say they used the money up. I'm guessing that there are districts for whom it works much better. (But, again, only guessing.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

This provision, and specifically the ban on providing "expert advice and assistance" to organizations designated as terrorist, has been ruled unconstitutional. Go figure.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm going to charitably let you reconsider, and maybe re-phrase, this one. You can't have meant what the plain words say. "Nuance" doesn't mean "it's opposite day".

I really don't understand what you mean here. In your prior post, you seemed to be suggesting that if a newpaper articles prints a denial from an administration source that anyone is panicking, that should be accepted at face value. I'm saying that when a newspaper article says such a thing, it's a sign that things are approaching panic level. There were many articles in the SF Chronicle this morning that said nothing about whether anyone was panicking or not.

Kudos, though, on continuing to write only about Drum's use of the word "panic," and avoiding the substantive issues raised by the underlying WaPo article.

[bilmore]

You know, you always try to pull something like this.

I say something like "Story mostly driven by the internal Iraqi controversy about mechanism for formation of new Iraqi government. Many mullahs in Iraq are calling for full elections now, as opposed to Bush's ideas for coalition govenrment as a warm-up."

"So, Bush is taking proposals. He's open to people's ideas. But, he's not willing to go with an idea that leads to a longer presence that what he was planning."

And then you say "Kudos, though, on continuing to write only about Drum's use of the word "panic," and avoiding the substantive issues raised by the underlying WaPo article."

Maybe I need to use bold and underline more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You know, you always try to pull something like this.

I say something like "Story mostly driven by the internal Iraqi controversy about mechanism for formation of new Iraqi government. Many mullahs in Iraq are calling for full elections now, as opposed to Bush's ideas for coalition govenrment as a warm-up."

"So, Bush is taking proposals. He's open to people's ideas. But, he's not willing to go with an idea that leads to a longer presence that what he was planning."

But why is Bush ruling out a longer presence? Doesn't that concern you? It concerns me. I don't see realistic signs that the Iraqis will be ready to run the country by the deadline, and that is the $64,000 question. If you blow the transition, haven't you pissed away the entire opportunity that the war was (really) about? Now that we're there, we need to do the job right, and that may mean staying until it's going to work.

Maybe I need to use bold and underline more.

Maybe you ought to read your posts to make sure that they contain the substance you mean. Someone appears to be inserting a lot of petty crap about "spin."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But why is Bush ruling out a longer presence? Doesn't that concern you? It concerns me. I don't see realistic signs that the Iraqis will be ready to run the country by the deadline, and that is the $64,000 question. If you blow the transition, haven't you pissed away the entire opportunity that the war was (really) about? Now that we're there, we need to do the job right, and that may mean staying until it's going to work.

I agree with all of this, other than the premise. I don't believe that is what is going to happen. Rather, now that we are bringing in the UN to decide the feasibility of elections in June, it gives us cover for delaying them (because the UN will likely not bless them in June).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with all of this, other than the premise. I don't believe that is what is going to happen. Rather, now that we are bringing in the UN to decide the feasibility of elections in June, it gives us cover for delaying them (because the UN will likely not bless them in June).

I hope you are right, but according to the WaPo article, the Administration is willing to talk on everything except pushing back the date.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I hope you are right, but according to the WaPo article, the Administration is willing to talk on everything except pushing back the date.

If we cut and run for political purposes, I will have a hard time voting for Bush. Anybody know if Larue is running this year?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But why is Bush ruling out a longer presence? Doesn't that concern you? It concerns me. I don't see realistic signs that the Iraqis will be ready to run the country by the deadline, and that is the $64,000 question. If you blow the transition, haven't you pissed away the entire opportunity that the war was (really) about? Now that we're there, we need to do the job right, and that may mean staying until it's going to work.

Yes, the arbitrary deadline does concern me, but I think it might go away at some point soon. It's there, I think, because of pressures on Bush not to be there at all, and I half think that, if he can get to the point where the doom-and-gloomers say "you can't leave so soon", he'll readily agree, chuckling.

At least I hope so. I'd rather stay for five years and accomplish something than leave it as a tribal squabbling-ground like Afghanistan.

Maybe you ought to read your posts to make sure that they contain the substance you mean. Someone appears to be inserting a lot of petty crap about "spin."

It contained the substance that I meant. No question. I was telling you the substance of the article that you seemed to have missed. And, c'mon, if the admin tells the WaPo that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, it's a clear indication that the world is ending tonight?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yes, the arbitrary deadline does concern me, but I think it might go away at some point soon. It's there, I think, because of pressures on Bush not to be there at all, and I half think that, if he can get to the point where the doom-and-gloomers say "you can't leave so soon", he'll readily agree, chuckling.

At least I hope so. I'd rather stay for five years and accomplish something than leave it as a tribal squabbling-ground like Afghanistan.

What pressures on Bush to leave? Other than Karl Rove, I mean?

And, c'mon, if the admin tells the WaPo that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, it's a clear indication that the world is ending tonight?

Seriously. No one needs be told that the sun will rise tomorrow. Here, the Administration wanted to reassure someone that it wasn't panicking. Which is good, because people who really are panicking often aren't in a position to reassure others.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What pressures on Bush to leave?

Go read DU, or listen to a few of the Dem candidates. Bush does the most good right now reassuring people that we won't be there forever. People being people, they are going to feel better if we have a specific out date.

Seriously. No one needs be told that the sun will rise tomorrow. Here, the Administration wanted to reassure someone that it wasn't panicking. Which is good, because people who really are panicking often aren't in a position to reassure others.

I think maybe you take this too far. I suspect that, while one might want to answer the reporter's question of "are you guys panicking?" with "oh, you stupid son of a . . . ", people in high positions tend to be more diplomatic than I, and so, probably, sigh, and say "no, we're not panicking".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Go read DU, or listen to a few of the Dem candidates. Bush does the most good right now reassuring people that we won't be there forever. People being people, they are going to feel better if we have a specific out date.

What's DU, and which Dem candidates? As I recall, all the major ones except Dean are attacking Bush for his war, but they aren't saying, bring the boys home. Besides, if he was leader enough to get us into Iraq, he needs to be leader enough to take the heat when people complain that we're still there. People may want an out date, but if you think we need to be there longer, we ought to be making the case for that, not deceiving them. I know deception is SOP for the Administration's Iraq policy, but just once it would be nice to see Bush take a political risk for something he believes in.

In short, if you were going to draw up a cut-and-run scenario, it would look just like what they're doing. But let's keep hoping he's secretly a man of principle . . . .

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What's DU, and which Dem candidates?

I think he means Democratic Underground, which is perversely where Bilmore goes to ascertain what the Democratic mainstream is thinking. You and I simply take Bilmore at his word on the zeitgeist of the Patch cloth-coat crowd, and then turn to Slave for the lunatic angle.