Politics: A new beginning

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
[really long post that gave me a cramp in my finger scrolling past it]

For the last time - THEY ARE IN SYRIA!!!!! Don't make me say it again, 'kay?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
1. The judgment of the intelligence community, expressed in a number of written documents, some of which have been made public, was that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear-weapons programs and that he could possibly acquire a nuclear weapon in one to two years if he managed to get fissile material on the black market.

2. The intelligence community felt that it was much more likely that he would not be able to acquire a nuclear weapon for five to seven years. In making the case for war, a number of high-level officials in the Administration stressed the one-to-two year figure, which made the threat from Iraq seem imminent.

I'm not understanding this. I read these as contradictory. "The judgment was . . . . but they felt that . . ."? Does this mean, internal disagreement, or . . . what?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm not understanding this. I read these as contradictory. "The judgment was . . . . but they felt that . . ."? Does this mean, internal disagreement, or . . . what?

I think it means that IF he could get fissle material, then it's 1-2 years.

But apparently, that's quite hard to get. If he can't -- and the community apparently thought he couldn't -- then it's 5-7 years.

The Admin. officials apparently didn't care about the distinction, or concluded that Saddam could get fissle material at the nearest Quickie-Mart.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The Admin. officials apparently didn't care about the distinction, or concluded that Saddam could get fissle material at the nearest Quickie-Mart.

Or they saw it as two different possible and viable sets of interpretations and predictions, and used the one that helped them sell what they wanted to do?

I mean, if he's not saying that one choice was clearly wrong and made up, isn't that the whole point?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

(1) His name is Kenneth, not David.

(2) In Slate last week, there was a very interesting discussion [links to the last day] among liberal hawks like him who opposed the war. Recommended reading.

(3) As I recall, Pollack really doesn't address the fact that Hussein said he didn't have WMD, and let Blix in. Until just before the war, our statements suggested that we knew where the WMD were. But then Blix goes in, and we either can't help him find them, or decide that we'd rather invade.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap The Admin. officials apparently didn't care about the distinction, or concluded that Saddam could get fissle material at the nearest Quickie-Mart.

Or from Libya.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Or they saw it as two different possible and viable sets of interpretations and predictions, and used the one that helped them sell what they wanted to do?

I mean, if he's not saying that one choice was clearly wrong and made up, isn't that the whole point?

If Pollack saw these as two equally valid interpretations, I doubt he'd be pissed that the Administration chose one over the other.

But he was, so I'm guessing he didn't see them as equally valid.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
If Pollack saw these as two equally valid interpretations, I doubt he'd be pissed that the Administration chose one over the other.

But he was, so I'm guessing he didn't see them as equally valid.

Being contrarian, I guess I'd want to know his basis for that belief/decision/choice.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Being contrarian, I guess I'd want to know his basis for that belief/decision/choice.

What you call being contrarian seems to entail presuming that the Administration acted in good faith on information uniquely in its possession. Obviously, they're never going to release the raw data and let us sift through it. While I can understand the psychology that gets you to a near-uniform stance of deference to executive-branch decisions, please don't call it "contrarian."

[Not Me]

But to beat a dead horse. I am pretty sure that that speech last night drove the nail in the coffin of Dean's political career. I know he has another career to fall back on, but I think he would have a hard time getting patients after that speech, too.

On another but similar career-is-over topic, did anyone else see the clips of Martha heading into court today. She looks guilty if you ask me.

[robustpuppy]

Ease up on the Botox! The perpetually arched eyebrows and corresponding surprised expression are not a good look for a politician. Ask your hairdresser to give you some cute sideswept bangs, and then you can relax.

And so can I. Just looking at you made my forehead hurt.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Ease up on the Botox! The perpetually arched eyebrows and corresponding surprised expression are not a good look for a politician. Ask your hairdresser to give you some cute sideswept bangs, and then you can relax.

And so can I. Just looking at you made my forehead hurt.

Wrong board.

Sort of.

Okay, maybe not.

("And Bush's shoes - did you see his shoes?! - to DIE for!")

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What you call being contrarian seems to entail presuming that the Administration acted in good faith on information uniquely in its possession.

Here on the Josh Board, that IS contrarian.

[Say_hello_for_me]

I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say that Clark is your best long-shot, sniping or not.

Edwards is a disaster waiting to happen. Union leadership might not mind trial lawyers, but the plaintiffs bar is a subject of recurring jokes at that level. I get the emails from friends in that category about 5 times a week, and some of them are pretty typical democrats otherwise.

Kerry ain't going to happen. You can see it in his face and hear it in his speech. He's not someone that middle or southern america will buy at all.

The union types and others might not think anything bad about Dean's appearance last night, but we've already seen what the hoity-toity democrats thought about it, and it wasn't good. Its too bad, as I think the guy is at least an interesting and somewhat-ethical person, and I think I like him being in politics at some level.

But Clark is your guy. Figure out a way to address the sniping (and tell him to quit pandering to the left wing) and he's the best shot. Is he ugly? Does he have bags under his eyes? Does he really have anything Clintonesque in his personal background?

Just have him release a few strong position papers about reducing America's overseas (target) profile, reforming governmental largesse that benefits rich farmers and large corporations etc..., make a few indications that his actual economic policies will be somewhat similar to Clintons (and yeah, economic policies under Clinton were pretty good all things considered, though it was at least arguably due to Gingrich and company), and make a few other good moves.

I wouldn't even worry so much about the other nominees. He (and the rest) need to start making substantive non-whiny statements about what they would do different than Bush.

And whatever y'all do, back off the southern white males and company.

All of that said, I still think you could save a bit of money by just conceding the election now. Its pretty much hopeless.


Hello

[bilmore]

Bush is leading both Dean and Kerry.

In California.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs...es/001023.html