Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Bilmore -- You're apparently forgetting some very clear staetments that the administration made while making their case on WMD that have been pretty well determined not to be true.

To wit:

G.W. Bush -- March 17, 2003 -- Address to the Nation:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Hmmm. Really??

yes that was what every government believed and what sadaam's behavior supported. What whacks me out is that within a dozen posts you guys say stuff like this, essentially the President should have known to ignore this evidence from the CIA; Contradicting the posts a few hours earlier about how he should believe CIA evidence form a source that Sadaam wasn't going forward with Al Queda JV.
Some of you guys aren't dumb. You do realize that you propose some all-knowing use of what intelligence is correct and what should be ignored don't you.
I will not re-enter the WMD debate, but let's summarize what has been proven to all who post on this board.

pre-war Bush said:
1 we believe Sadaam has programs to make chemicals/nukes
2 we know he had X tons of weapons, he has a duty to tell us where they are, he hasn't explained it. Sorry, I'm in charge of a country that cannot be attacked by WMD. I can't trust the guy.
3 He has links to OBL

We found proof of #1. We haven't found weapons, but that doesn't mean that #2 was incorrect. As an aside, When Clinton allowed the inspectors to be pulled, knuckling under ot Sadaam, he forced the next real US president to call Bullshit on sadaam for point 2.
#3 is true, although Ty thinks they're the okay kind of forming a joint venture with Al Queda discussions. these kind of meetings were routine in the Mid-East? I bet they become a little less routine now.

As I say, I've won this argument 4 times on this board and won't do-over. I need a challenge.

I'd love for you to point to one shred of evidence that our government understood that this stuff might well happen, and planned for it -- and prepared our citizenry for such an eventuality before launching the war. You'll have to go beyond a few throw-away words about sacrifice. Rumsfeld, e.g., publicly disagreed completely with Gen. Shalikashvili's testimony that it would take troop levels in the six figures for several years to occupy and pacify Iraq. The White House flatly refused to discuss potential costs of the operation with Congress until well after the war began. There was, in my view, no honest, intelligent, and forthright debate over the cost, benefits, and dangers of the course of action on which the administration set our country.

as I've proven previously, if it made sense to go in, it still makes sense even in view of the attacks now. the dead soldiers are a terrible price, but all of us mentally were prepared for more deaths. soldiers die. they die during routine training and they die when we attack a country. I think it safe to say, the day before the invasion began you were all fearful there would be thousands of dead US soldiers. We all hate any of the deaths, but don't act like the deaths change the equation, if it made sense to go in, then it still does.

as to what should/could have been done different, again you don't really say anything other than what is being done is wrong. More troops? for what? more troops equals more non-combat support conveys etc. that is, increase combat troops you increase soft targets. I'm not sure what benefit they would provide- what benefit do you see, other than given 9 morons something to prattle on about beside confederate flags?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone
Benign is your word. Ignatius didn't say the contacts were benign, he said they were par for the course and not worth getting excited about. He also said that the contacts seemed to have happened years before 9/11 -- something you have blurred -- and that the CIA had a good source in Baghdad who told them that Hussein looked into collaborating with OBL and decided not to do so.

I just don't see how past meeting with OBL are something that shouldn't cause concern. Did your pre-war analysis indicate Sadaam to be a rational predictable man?

edited to fix punctuation

Confidential to Ty: I know you mean this as a slam at my poor grammar, and I'm hurt

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You and Blinder are both right. The political impact of what you're saying, IMHO, is that some of the net social benefit created by free trade should be taxed (in the economic sense, but probably also in the usual sense) and used to improve the situation of those who are hurt by free trade. The sad fact, however, is that those who are the strongest advocates of free trade are generally the least interested in identifying ways to make the latter work, and those who have the constituencies who will be hurt by free trade put their energy into trying to block it rather than obtaining this relief.

I don't quite understand. What is this "net social benefit" that you want to tax?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
but I think that you did not squarely and fairly address Ty's rather simple question -- as evidenced by the considerable effort you spent explaining why the administration had good reason to believe that what it said was true and to act as it did. . . . Ty asked if you could concede that they said some things that have proven to be not true, and hw would concede lack of evidence of mens rea for lying.

Actually, I was being responsive, in that I attempted to deal with those issues which Ty and others use as examples of deceit or mistake.

You're apparently forgetting some very clear staetments that the administration made while making their case on WMD that have been pretty well determined not to be true.

To wit:

G.W. Bush -- March 17, 2003 -- Address to the Nation:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Hmmm. Really??

Yeah, really. At that time, the evidence was very strong concerning chemweaps. And, you seem to accept as proven a complete absence of the WMDs at that time, but I don't think you can make that leap. Maybe we will reach a point where this is proven to be the case, and then I will agree that, yes, Bush was wrong, but we're not there yet. It seems very illogical to now assume that SH had none. Were I to make such a leap myself on something, you'd be all over me for assuming that which has yet to be proven.

With further research, I have realized that they were more careful and cautious than I had remembered, and it brings to mind my posts arguing about the "impression" Cheney, et al. sought to create without actually quite saying the words.

Sort of my main point. The mischaracterizations have been so rampant and continuing that they seem to have displaced reality in many minds. Say "liar" enough times and the general public will eventually accept it, true or not. Now, after some research, you're speaking of an "impression". I can tell you what my impression was at the time, and it doesn't seem to mirror your new impression at all. I'm hoping we can someday return to discussing facts.

But -- if you're not willing to admit that the administration said pre-War turned out to be inaccurate or "not true" -- I think you've got some fairly good-sized blinders.

The only one that is possible, but still open to contention, is the "presence of WMDs" issue, and. as I said above, it's not possible to answer that one yet. If there were NONE, and we prove this, then I will agree that what Bush said about intelligence showing otherwise was wrong. As for the rest, no, I don't agree that he was wrong.

As you posted this on December 1, 2003, I'll agree with your statement that "Bush made no secret of how hard it would be months ago" -- but did he make that clear back in mid-May, when he flew out to the aircraft carrier in his spiffy flight suit with his big "Mission Accomplished" Banner?? Did he ever make that clear before launching the war?

I posted the partial text of a Bush speech pre-invasion a week or so ago, in response to a statement that Bush never made this sound like it would be hard. It says exactly what you ask. He said it was going to be a long, costly process. Pre-invasion. In fact, that was the subject of much pre-invasion public discourse - whether we should become involved in something that promised to be such an incredibly hard slog - the remaking of a blasted country. For anyone to now suggest that Bush made them believe it would be easy or cheap is the height of disingenuity. (Is that a word?) I mean, c'mon - is the argument now going to be "but you said it would be eeeeaaaaasssyyyy!"? This would even rival the claim of "but you said it was imminent!"

[sgtclub]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines

[Utah polygamist cites Lawrence in defence]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[Utah polygamist cites Lawrence in defence]

Probably not a wise move. All it's going to get him is a vastly increased public (including inmate) awareness that he's going down for screwing a thirteen-year-old. That's not a good thing to let out in the prison system.

(And it sure as heck won't get him anywhere legally.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't quite understand. What is this "net social benefit" that you want to tax?

If the public is better off as a result of free trade, we ought to capture some of that gain and make sure that it goes to benefit those who are made worse off by the free trade.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If the public is better off as a result of free trade, we ought to capture some of that gain and make sure that it goes to benefit those who are made worse off by the free trade.

Maybe I'm just thinking to concretely about this, but what "gain" would you tax? Generally speaking, the public benefits from free trade by being able to purchase goods at lower prices. Are you suggesting that we keep the prices for such goods artificially high, tax them at that rate, and redistribute to those that have lost jobs?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, see how quickly this got stifled, by the GOP party types, back when The Gen first showed up? What they (apparently) have on him is of the kind and quality such that you don't use it to knock someone out of a primary - you use it later once that person has made it in as the party choice, as a sort of guaranteed killer weapon. Were The Gen to start winning states, the GOP leadership would be buying expensive champagne and ad time right now.

Maybe so. As of now -- it appears unlikely that we'll find out. Too bad, perhaps. I really liked the idea of General Clark.

Originally posted by bilmore
And, SAM, just as a measure of how far apart the two parties are right now on very basic issues - look at how you make a comment about how the Repubs just shouldn't even THINK of trying to use the "character" route, when they have such an ill-conceived character as Bush to uphold, and look at how (most likely) all of the real Dem posters nodded in quick agreement, meaning that you all just automatically have this "Bush is a liar/bad man" paradigm hard-wired. But then, consider that Bush's main strength among his own party lies in issues of trust and character. It's really sort of a scary divide, and tells me that there is such a lack of commonality of values that I wonder if there will be any kind of true consensus about anything in this country ever again.

Look. I don't think Bush lies more than any other politician bends the truth, and I certainly don't think he is a "bad man". In some ways, he is clearly now a "good man" who shares values that I find important. However, it appears that, from what we know, his "character" and "behavior" as a younger man was somewhat deplorable (although quite human and understandable -- especially for a young, rich man). That doesn't speak too much to Bush's trust and character now.

However -- given that record, and (i) given Bush's refusal to answer questions about any drug use pre-1974 (?) because it is "irrelevant", (ii) given the way his compaign released flatly incorrect information about the circumstances of Bush's DUI arrest, and (iii) given the significant evidence that Bush first got a highly coveted slot in the Texas Air National Guard due to his father's influence (to avoid Vietnam) and then simply walked away from his service obligation with about 18 months remaining -- the GOP would be ill-advised to make the campaign into a slugfest about character issues. Bush will have a record of four years in office by them -- make the campaign about the substance of what he's done.

I find it telling that the GOP and Christian right gave Bush such a pass on these various issues after the way that the GOP attack dosg tore into Clinton over Vietnam and marital infidelity (although no evidence has surfaced of the latter with Bush)- they REALLY, REALLY, wanted to win in 2000. I think the reformed sinner aspect -- now "washed in the blood of the Lamb" -- seems to have bought him immunity from all that went before. Too bad Clinton didn't think of that.

If you want to base a race on "character" and "trust" -- the GOP was just damn lucky in 2000 that Al Gore was so stiff and unlikable, while most guys would enjoy a beer with Bush. Speaking of myths and lies, the myth of Al Gore as "serial prevaricator" is one of the worst.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If the public is better off as a result of free trade, we ought to capture some of that gain and make sure that it goes to benefit those who are made worse off by the free trade.

If someone is harmed by free trade, isn't that an admission that their past conduct was subsidized by over-regulation? Why would we want to reward them for that? We're not taxing auto manufacturers and paying off buggy-whip makers, are we?

(I think Blinder misses the boat by speaking short-term only. As barriers decrease, you will see, not only a globalization of wages, but of buying markets, too. Yes, the wages will even out to that $8/hr of which he speaks, but that $8 will be buying more efficiently-produced global goods. It's a net gain for all, really.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
as I've proven previously, if it made sense to go in, it still makes sense even in view of the attacks now. the dead soldiers are a terrible price, but all of us mentally were prepared for more deaths. soldiers die. they die during routine training and they die when we attack a country. I think it safe to say, the day before the invasion began you were all fearful there would be thousands of dead US soldiers. We all hate any of the deaths, but don't act like the deaths change the equation, if it made sense to go in, then it still does.

You ignored all of the hard points in my post, and just rattled on about why it as right to invade. I think so too -- but that doesn't change anything I said above about the lack of any meaningful honest debate from the administration over cost/benefits and preparing the public for what might happen (or any sign that they understood that this might happen. The number of casualties isn't the issue, in my mind.

Go back and try again, Hank. Or, is this another argument where you declare victory and retreat?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
as to what should/could have been done different, again you don't really say anything other than what is being done is wrong. More troops? for what? more troops equals more non-combat support conveys etc. that is, increase combat troops you increase soft targets. I'm not sure what benefit they would provide- what benefit do you see, other than given 9 morons something to prattle on about beside confederate flags?

Again , you ignored the substance. Didn't I answer that in my post, to at least some extent? I'll say it again -- its the right troop mix -- higher numbers of MPs and /or Civil Affairs units., engineers, etc., etc. You need them to police the cities, and do all of the crap that the U.S. has tried to do since the occupation began. As I noted, there weren't many of those at the beginning.

There also weren't enough combat troops to fill in for them after "the Fall" -- because the 4th ID was still in transit through the Suez after the unfortunate diplomatic debacle in Turkey that kept us from having a real Northern Front -- and thus facilitating The retreat to the North by Hussein and his guerilla fighters -- passg to Syria, etc. That failure did cost us -- although it was obscured initially by the quick success in the South.

That's enough. I refuse to talk to myself.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That's enough. I refuse to talk to myself.

And you call yourself a lawyer?

Yeah, right.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

I disgaree with so much of what you said, but I suppose I can't be too excercised by your Rose-colored glasses. Its to be expected given the battle you're fighting.

Originally posted by bilmore
I posted the partial text of a Bush speech pre-invasion a week or so ago, in response to a statement that Bush never made this sound like it would be hard. It says exactly what you ask. He said it was going to be a long, costly process. Pre-invasion. In fact, that was the subject of much pre-invasion public discourse - whether we should become involved in something that promised to be such an incredibly hard slog - the remaking of a blasted country. For anyone to now suggest that Bush made them believe it would be easy or cheap is the height of disingenuity. (Is that a word?)

Ok. But you're sticking with the words that came from Bush's mouth in one or two speeches , and not the words and conduct of the Administration as a whole over the period of months preceding the invasion. You haven't really hit the substance of what I tried to say. I may be incorrect, but I am not being disingenuous.

To pick simple and concrete examples -- (a) What about the Rumsfeld position on the likely troop strength required and the likely time/duration of an occupation? Either they knew what was likely to come, but didn't say, or they were pretty damn surprised at what happened. (b) Was the refusal to discuss anticipated costs, etc. and the down-playing of the troop strength required for pacification all part of the acceptable hard-sell?? To refuse to give even any projections, but just spout truisms such as "We know that the cost of action will be less than the cost of inaction" (paraphrase)?

P.S. All of those truisms were based on the premise that Hussein had all these WMD -- and might just turn them over to terrorists.

Well, even now you say you don't think we'll ever find any WMD -- but require PROOF OF A NEGATIVE (i.e. none existed at all in Iraq in March, 2003) before you'll even grant that the administration seemins to have said something incorect. Oh, come on!

Look -- if your principal points are that Hussein was a bastard who deserved what he got, the world will be better off without him ruling Iraq, the invasion was the right thing to do. I agree with (a) and (c), and (b) seems likely unless things collapse horribly in Iraq. However, that doesn't/shouldn't render the Administration immune from all criticism over what was done, how it was done, and how they "sold" the war. It is not all meaningless partisan carping -- although the administration/GOP strategy at this point is clearly to try to hang on and make it all work out well in the end.

If it does, much of this criticism will fade, and we can get back to discussing GWB the environmentalist and champion fundraiser, who has "seen into [Putin's] heart" and discovered that he is good man dedicated to democracy.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Maybe I'm just thinking to concretely about this,

Yes.

Originally posted by bilmore
If someone is harmed by free trade, isn't that an admission that their past conduct was subsidized by over-regulation? Why would we want to reward them for that? We're not taxing auto manufacturers and paying off buggy-whip makers, are we?

Now you're addressing the normative question of what the baseline is. In a protectionist world, free trade is a subsidy to those who can compete. The Constitution does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.

Baselines aside, it should be possible to gather consensus around moves that benefit everyone. If you can create net welfare gains, the winners should be able to -- in effect -- buy off the losers. That this does not happen may be because the would-be winners are too focused on staking a claim to all of the gains.

(I think Blinder misses the boat by speaking short-term only. As barriers decrease, you will see, not only a globalization of wages, but of buying markets, too. Yes, the wages will even out to that $8/hr of which he speaks, but that $8 will be buying more efficiently-produced global goods. It's a net gain for all, really.)

No doubt, there are some who lose their jobs and can't find new ones because they have the wrong skills, etc.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Well, even now you say you don't think we'll ever find any WMD -- but require PROOF OF A NEGATIVE (i.e. none existed at all in Iraq in March, 2003) before you'll even grant that the administration seemins to have said something incorect. Oh, come on!

One quick point on my way out - If I was unclear, I'm sorry - I actually do think we will find chem stocks, and possibly even nuke precursor material - maybe in Iraq, more likely right over the border in Syria - but I won't be terribly surprised if we don't (I'll be surprised, but not terribly - close point, I know), and a complete lack of success once we have covered a substantial portion of the available hiding spots (we ain't even close, yet) will be enough to prove the negative to me. But, like I said, if we don't, it will be a surprise to me, as everything I know about SH, Iraq, the ME, and life in general strongly supports my belief that he had them, or was working on them right before we got there.

And, from what you say, I guess the new argument really IS "but you said it would be easy!" Lordy. (What other conclusion can I draw from your repeated suggestions that Bush et al kept trying to gloss over the cost of fixing a country? I mean, how stupid of an argument would that be to support? Who would ever believe such a thing? Are you saying that YOU believed that to be the case pre-invasion, or even post-invasion? Bush convinced you, or convinced someone?)