Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

More bad news. From the front page of tomorrow's New York Times:

• U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
  
  A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.
  
  The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.
  
  "There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions - included in the document.

What would a good leader do when things turn south?

• As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made.
  
  * * * * *
  
  President Bush, who was briefed on the new intelligence estimate, has not significantly changed the tenor of his public remarks on the war's course over the summer, consistently emphasizing progress while acknowledging the difficulties.

Try to snow the public, at least through the election, I guess. And you guys said the way he handled his TANG service wasn't telling!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If you look at the org charts, it's considered a part of the Air Force. Always has been. (Well, since 1947.)

The Coast Guard used to be part of the Treasury Department. During time of war, it answered to the Department of the Navy. If a Coastie went around saying he'd been in the Navy during WWII, don't you think that would be, um, wrong? (Factually, that is.)* Especially if that Coastie was stationed on Lake Superior?

*No disrespect to the Coasties who served with valor in all of the nation's wars and police actions, especially the ones who piloted LSTs at Normandy. They can be proud enough of their service and sacrifice to speak the truth, wherever they served.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Funny, in AG's world, we just guess what the law is. Everyone knows what's intended so we don't need to document it properly.

I do litigation. There's a rule against the issuance of conditional orders for a reason. Congress should either declare war, or not declare war. None of this "if" bullshit. Since the War Powers Act, it's all been downhill. The Commander in Chief is supposed to win the wars that Congress decides to wage, not decide which wars to wage. If you disagree with this, you should amend the fucking Constitution. It's not like your people are exactly afraid of doing that.

Regrettably, the resolution was poorly drafted. I wonder who drafted it? A Dem? Karl Rove?

I do like how you're trying to pin the decision to go to war in Iraq on 535 people instead of just one. When they voted, I wasn't 100% sure we were definitely going to invade. But the passage of time changes peoples' memory, and now it seems like it was always inevitable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anything which attempts to move the needle in the middle east is part of it in my book.

In your own posts, you bounce back and forth between treating Iraq as part of the war on terror and the opposite. Depending on the context, it makes sense to do this. There's no point in arguing about it in the abstract. I note only that the way in which you think Iraq is part of the War on Terror is not one that Bush has tried to use to sell the war to the American people. When he's talking about it, there are scary links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

I do. What, are you going to go with the "avenging the old man routine"?

No, I think that he was uncomfortable with a policy of low-intensity conflict (i.e., containment) and after 9/11 felt justified in seeing foreign policy in Manichean terms.

I don't credit the father thing at all, though some people whose judgment I usually trust seem to.

What does this mean?

Bush's foreign policy has been so occupied with Iraq that we have had to set other priorities in dealing with other countries on the back burner.

How about Afghanistan?

I don't think we've done much for democracy. The company is a ruled by a hodgpodge of warlords and factions, with Hamid Karzai's authority basically limited to Kabul. Afghanistan is a good example of the Administration's failure to follow through. Instead of committing the resources to really make it stick in Afghanistan, they were on to the next thing: Iraq. Although they denied it at the time, it's now clear (e.g., from Franks' book, I think) that the preparations for Iraq hurt our efforts there.

But you have a point. Again, I think he's traded the support for the WOT.

At the start of your post, you were explaining that supporting democracy was an essential part of the war on terror. By the end, democracy is sacrificed in the war on terror. This strikes me as a fairly fitting summary of this administration's commitment to democracy. They mean well, and give it lip service, but it's not happening.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Regrettably, the resolution was poorly drafted. I wonder who drafted it? A Dem? Karl Rove?

Whoever it was, Burger says it's Kerry's fault it wasn't a perfect expression of his political philosophy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Congress should either declare war, or not declare war. None of this "if" bullshit. Since the War Powers Act, it's all been downhill. The Commander in Chief is supposed to win the wars that Congress decides to wage, not decide which wars to wage. If you disagree with this, you should amend the fucking Constitution.

I agree with all of this.

I do like how you're trying to pin the decision to go to war in Iraq on 535 people instead of just one. When they voted, I wasn't 100% sure we were definitely going to invade. But the passage of time changes peoples' memory, and now it seems like it was always inevitable.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I am just arguing that Bush did not exceed his authority and that Kerry, by parsing as he has, has been doing it for political reasons.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In your own posts, you bounce back and forth between treating Iraq as part of the war on terror and the opposite. Depending on the context, it makes sense to do this. There's no point in arguing about it in the abstract. I note only that the way in which you think Iraq is part of the War on Terror is not one that Bush has tried to use to sell the war to the American people. When he's talking about it, there are scary links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

How so. I think I have been consistent that I think it is part of the WOT, but not like most argue. I am looking big picture. If we don't change the dynamic of the ME, we are screwed. I also by the "fight them over there" theory, but that is backfill. I don't think anyone anticipated the infusion of foreign fighters.

I don't think we've done much for democracy. The company is a ruled by a hodgpodge of warlords and factions, with Hamid Karzai's authority basically limited to Kabul.

We are holding elections there next month. That is something in my book.

At the start of your post, you were explaining that supporting democracy was an essential part of the war on terror. By the end, democracy is sacrificed in the war on terror. This strikes me as a fairly fitting summary of this administration's commitment to democracy. They mean well, and give it lip service, but it's not happening.

Supporting (or more precisely, creating) democracy in the ME is part of the war on terror. That is the long term strategy. Short term is more blocking and tackling. Now in a perfect world we could do both (i.e., slap down Russia and count on their support), but in the real world there are hard choices and I think they are making the right choice. I expect Condi will play a central roll in the back channel, given her background.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am just arguing that Bush did not exceed his authority

John Kerry doesn't disagree with you on this. Isn't it touching that you and he can agree on this, notwithstanding all your other differences?

and that Kerry, by parsing as he has, has been doing it for political reasons.

Shocking! It's like he's running for political office or something!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How so. I think I have been consistent that I think it is part of the WOT, but not like most argue. I am looking big picture. If we don't change the dynamic of the ME, we are screwed. I also by the "fight them over there" theory, but that is backfill. I don't think anyone anticipated the infusion of foreign fighters.

Sometimes you are drawing a distinction between the two and sometimes the one is part of the other.

Look, there's no question that Iraq is going to have a huge effect on the so-called war on terror. That's not looking like a good thing.

We are holding elections there next month. That is something in my book.

The accounts I've see suggest that those elections will leave the country far short of anything that could fairly be called "democracy." But it's important to the Bush folks that we hold the elections before November, odd as that may seem.

For someone who is so offended when Kerry appears to introduce politics into his policy statements, you are incredibly resistant to the notion that the Bush folks subordinate foreign policy to their political needs. And yet that is exactly what seems to be happening with the Afghan elections.

Supporting (or more precisely, creating) democracy in the ME is part of the war on terror. That is the long term strategy. Short term is more blocking and tackling. Now in a perfect world we could do both (i.e., slap down Russia and count on their support), but in the real world there are hard choices and I think they are making the right choice. I expect Condi will play a central roll in the back channel, given her background.

Just so long as you understand that the sacrifices we make in our Russia policy are one more set of costs of invading Iraq.

[Atticus Grinch]

Now that we've all forgotten about 43's youthful indiscretions, anyone curious to see Dick Cheney's?

I want him to make a public announcement about the appropriate punishment for second-offense DUI. Let's see if it's harsher than 43's idea of a reasonable mandatory minimum for cocaine possession.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Burger: Congress might have considered a different resolution, but it didn't. With the help of the GOP leadership, Bush presented legislators with the vote he did. Your complaint seems to be that the choices posed were inadequate, but what I can't fathom is why you think that's a criticism of Kerry.

No, my point is not that the choices were inadequate--perhaps they were. But Kerry now appears to be claiming that his vote was for something other than what the vote was, based only on a retrospective conclusion that war wasn't so good. Then again, what I'm really criticizing is your description of his position, which may be entirely irrelevant.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought you were essentially conceding that you were making shit up, so I wasn't bothering to respond. Do you really think that's what Blix thought on day one of the war? I don't think so. eta: See, e.g., this review of Blix's book.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6939055.story

LA Times:

Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday that until the final days before the war, he and U.S. officials — and perhaps even Saddam Hussein — believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But rather than taking the time to find out for sure, he said, the momentum of war preparations made the Bush administration deaf to evidence that contradicted their conclusions.

If everyone, even Blix believed they were there, how can Kerry's position be sound? And by the way, you can ignore this and go into your 20 posts distinctions arguments with the others, but in the end the question is what did the average person hear. And the average person hearing what you set forth as Kerry's "position" could only say that Kerry is weasly, and afraid to stand up to what he decided to do. You didn't pick your anti-war candidate, so you have a candidate that is stuck with the war and not able to credibly question it.

As to this Board- I'm Pensked.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Just tell me how the National Guard is "part of the main force" (except, perhaps, as a matter of very, very technical doctrine). I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that the Texas Air NG is "the Air Force" or the Ohio Army NG is "the Army"* -- especially not in the 1970s. No way.

S_A_M

* No offense intended to those individuals who got the shocks of their life post-9/11 and have been activated for extended periods. When you're in that situation, you're "in the main force." Bush wasn't.

I'm no expert on the history of national security policy, but I've taken several classes from people who are; according to them, this issue is at the crux of the history of the armed forces for the last 30 years.

During Vietnam, the reserves and the national guard really were the rear guard. A few people were deployed in combat zones here and there, but the basic underlying paradigm was that you throw the main forces at the problem first, and then the reserves are, well, your reserves.

In the post-Vietnam hangover, the armed forces looked at the reserves system, recognized the fact that the system meant that those who got into the reserves essentially minimized their chances of being forced to go into combat, recognized that bred a lot of dissent in society, and even led to a circumstance where, because draftees were more likely to come from disenfranchised parts of society, wars could be entered into without putting the reserve class in harms way. The forces also recognized that many of the functions required in the time of war are not functions that are necessary to the day to day operations of the regular forces (i.e. ramped up logistics), and were therefore perfect candidates to be handled by the reserves instead.

So the armed forces changed their structure so that in times of conflict, reserve units would be integral. While this was smart strategic sourcing of men and materials (don't have to pay for supply folks, or battlefield intelligence analysts to just sit around all year), it was also designed to ensure that the political leaders would have to stop and think twice about taking on a major, Vietnam-style action. One wouldn't be able to fall into it, slowly ramping up. Any kind of siginificant deployment would require calling up reserves, and this would be a political check on the nation's leaders. If the action was warranted, nobody blinks at calling up the reserves. If there isn't national consensus, you get a shitstorm. This second sensitivity also led to efforts to severely curtail the types of exemptions that can be claimed to a draft should one ever be reinitiated. It's a very founding fathers type approach (if you keep a small standing army and therefore have to institute a draft whenever you want to go to war, you better have a national consensus that the war's a good idea).

It is interesting to note that Rumsfeld and Cheney don't like this system at all, and Rumsfeld has declared that he is launching initiatives to change this structure such that reserves are brought back to their more traditional "used only when the regular army is toast" role. This may be a correct view, in that America may be facing a future of always being engaged in a couple of small conflicts or a medium sized conflict all the time, and resources can be better managed with full time soldiers instead of reserves. But it also makes it a hell of a lot easier to fight an unpopular war.

[Diane_Keaton]

It's not usually fair to knock on first ladies (or wannabe's) but this woman gives me the creeps. And it's not just the calling herself "African American" thing (and saying it's ok because she doesn't use a hyphen). She's just plain weird. Today the press reports she told volunteers collecting stuff for Hurricane victims in the Carribean, "Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids." cite

"At least" the kids? Meaning at a bare (heh) minimum children should be running around naked in a Hurricane but preferably, adults too? Yeah I know the press stepped in and noted she was trying to say water and food was more important but.....why not just say that? Especially when she says this stuff in French; she sounds plain sleazy.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You don't even need to call him crazy, something which the MSM does all the time when talking about Arab leaders. He's a secular nationalist dictator.

Nope. Sorry, Ty, but he was a fucking Whackadoo of the highest order. His sons were merely sociopaths, but Saddam was a raving parnoid schizophrenic and rapidly decompensating.