Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
See? His service to Reagan and Bush I* can be disregarded with impunity.

This is nearly as entertaining as predicting chef's defenses of sunnybunny on the old fashion board was.

*I'm sure that there is a lot of other stuff that would mark him as a conservative/REPUBLICAN, but I'm not an expert on Clarke's bio.

Cool. Sarcasm overcomes substance!

Say something that indicates some knowledge. Or that you saw the interview. Or that you understand that I was quoting him.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Careful Hank, your troll roots are showing.

(a) So -- you think the Camp David peace accords aren't worthy of praise? The one peaceful border Israel has had over the past 20 years?

Aren't there tunnels where weapons etc. are brought in? Egypt/Israel being "friends" is certainly a good thing, but I credit Egypt/Israel more than anyone. I'm sure Clinton did as much/more to get Pali/Israel peace, and failed. I don't think it was Clinton who failed, but the parties not wanting to be done, but whatever

(b) "Oversaw the start of Iran"? WTF? If Carter could and should have done something different vis a vis "Iran" and the Iranian Revolution as a whole, (aside from looking weak and ineffectual throughout the hostage crisis") why didn't your hero RR set it straight? He could have knocked the place over like a matchbox and F--ck the Russians.

Jimmy Carter let a friend of the US be thrown out. By the time Reagan got in, "knocking the place over" would have meant invading an established country.

Maybe Carter's vision of a nice peaceful world where his daughter doesn't fear the bomb made him think the Iranian revolution would be good. However, with over 20 years to see the reality, and to see how we finally made a world where his daughter doesn't have to worry about global nuclear war (ie Ron's solution, not J's) I would just think that Carter would realize he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and he should shut up. Maybe a failure to learn from being clearly wrong in the past, and to continue believing in fantasy, and to continue mouthing fantasy is just something that goes hand in hand with voting Democratic.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. Sarcasm overcomes substance!

Say something that indicates some knowledge. Or that you saw the interview. Or that you understand that I was quoting him.

(a) you talking about sarcasm is ludicrous. (b) I only saw like the last 5 or maybe 10 min of the interview. (c) I indicated that I am unfamiliar with his biography.

Yeah, he was pissed. I think that it would be super-excellent for every single administration if every single person working there who became pissed off at a policy decision were to go to the press immediately and publicize their pissed-ness, immediately before quitting. In fact, I think that would be good in all job situations. Don't like that your firm decided to hire yet another frat boy? Quit! Not pleased with one of the 500 clients your firm works for? Quit! Pronto! It's not like things don't kinda build up. And it couldn't be that he is so upset with how things have been handled that he wanted to maximize the impact of his statements/actions in hopes of actually having an effect.

Which is not to say that Clarke didn't hold it back until he could profit from the book etc. But, like many many conservatives I know, he may not be pleased with Bush and may not feel he is the best thing for the country. Like them, he may feel that this time around, the "lesser of two evils" part of deciding who one wants to be president is a particularly difficult decision this time around. I know a lot of people who reaaaaaaally are not into Kerry but who also cannot stomach Bush, despite having voted R their entire lives.

Chef used to get pissy about the sb predictions too, so don't feel too bad.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Counting Down, that would now be...two down; three to go.

Just a quick note. I think this was immediately precipitated by last week's suicide bombings at the Port of Ashdod. There was at least speculation that the two bombers tried accessing a chemical storage area at the port. The damage would supposedly have been far greater.

I think Israel saw that as the escalation which needed to be addressed immediately.

Hello

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Was that a pre-emptive strike, knowing that Clarke was a holdover Clinton guy who got demoted by Bush and Rice, and explained on 60 Minutes that he was super-pissed at the time, but not quite pissed enough to quit? (Probably wanted to wait for book day, huh?)

No, not a preemptive strike. I had in mind the fact that Clarke "came up" through the ranks in the Reagan and Bush I White Houses.

Given how well our national security planning process has gone for the past few years, I'm not so sure him being demoted reflects poorly on him.

I have no desire to discuss these issues here because: (a) none of us have read the book yet, (b) any news reports will be incomplete and selective, (c) any critics of Bush will see Clarke as a vindication of all their criticisms, (d) supporters of Bush will find reason to dismiss everything Clarke says without acknowledging any substance or merit; and (e) none of our discussion of these issues will be particularly new or enlightening.

I'm just expressing the hope that Bush and his people will have to focus on this (or, per Hank, go after Jimmy Carter, for gosh sakes) and thus damage his campaign.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think that it would be super-excellent for every single administration if every single person working there who became pissed off at a policy decision were to go to the press immediately and publicize their pissed-ness, immediately before quitting.

Go read Leiberman, Biden, and a slough of other Democrats speaking about this today, and you'll see that what he's pissed about isn't that Bush has screwed anything up, but that Bush didn't value Clarke enough.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Just a quick note. I think this was immediately precipitated by last week's suicide bombings at the Port of Ashdod. There was at least speculation that the two bombers tried accessing a chemical storage area at the port. The damage would supposedly have been far greater.

I think Israel saw that as the escalation which needed to be addressed immediately.

I don't dispute the legitimacy of what Israel has done. But will it achieve any goals other than revenge? I am having a hard time seeing that it will.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I have no desire to discuss these issues here because: (a) none of us have read the book yet, (b) any news reports will be incomplete and selective, (c) any critics of Bush will see Clarke as a vindication of all their criticisms, (d) supporters of Bush will find reason to dismiss everything Clarke says without acknowledging any substance or merit; and (e) none of our discussion of these issues will be particularly new or enlightening.

All excellent points, as usual, SAM. I'm out on the topic for all those reasons. Pointless bickering always draws me in but then ends up making me pissy and frustrated. Thanks for the reality check.

Note that I did not comment on his substantive stuff re: Clarke when agreeing with SAM. I solely commented on SAM's list of reasons why it is pointless to discuss the issues.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Given how well our national security planning process has gone for the past few years, I'm not so sure him being demoted reflects poorly on him.

I understand Bush knew 9/11 was coming, but let it happen to bolster his presidency.

(If he didn't plan the whole thing out himself!)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Jimmy Carter let a friend of the US be thrown out. By the time Reagan got in, "knocking the place over" would have meant invading an established country.

Yep. But I fail to see the scenario where supporting the Shah, and continuing to prop up his authoritarian government and almost KGB-esqe security services in the face of a true popular rebellion, would have led to a better result in the long run.

P.S. This assumes, of course, that we could have helped the Shah crush the revolution with Saddam-like efficiency. Point is -- it would heve taken lots of U.S. help, because a lot of Iran's military favored the overthrow.

P.P.S. Who knows, after that, maybe we could have convinced the Shah to turn Iran into a true parliamentary democracy, and all those former regime opponents could have run for election?

Democratization in the Middle East had to start somewhere. Either Iran was it, or Iran is a real good example of why we should encourage democratization.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22282866.htm

JERUSALEM, March 22 (Reuters) - Israel's assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was meant to decapitate Hamas but could end up drawing a wave of new recruits to the Islamic militant movement and broadening its hardline appeal.

While losing its charismatic spiritual leader may cause Hamas organisational setbacks, a surge of sympathy among even moderate Palestinians will lend popular legitimacy to its fight against the Jewish state, Middle East experts said on Monday.

"This is a great recruiting opportunity for Hamas," said Azzam al-Tamimi of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London.

"Hamas is a movement that is horizontally and vertically integrated in the very fabric of Palestinian society," said Magnus Ranstorp of St. Andrew's University. "This will unite everyone in confrontation with the Israelis, on all quarters."

"The worst scenario, as far as Hamas is concerned, is that the halo effect of Ahmed Yassin might diminish with his death and then the people who are left behind will spell out their real positions, which are radically different," said Jawad al-Anani, a Dubai-based political analyst.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I understand Bush knew 9/11 was coming, but let it happen to bolster his presidency.

(If he didn't plan the whole thing out himself!)

Nope. I think that was just one of the unintended consequences.

(Besides, I refuse to believe Bush could have pulled it off. Now, Cheney and his Halliburton buddies . . . hmmm.)

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.P.S. Who knows, after that, maybe we could have convinced the Shah to turn Iran into a true parliamentary democracy, and all those former regime opponents could have run for election?

That is the thought. That we could have prevented the establishment of a militant Islamic regime and that we would have forced the Shah to implement democratic reforms in return.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By people you mean you and your friends? Cite please.

The job market and economic growth are connected. You cannot have less risk in the job market without economic growth, unless everybody is employed by the state. Oh, wait a minute. I see where you are going with this . . .

I have real work to do and don't have time to dig up a cite, so I'll go from memory in answwering this one.

The people Skek is talking about are the vast majority of American workers who are living from paycheck to paycheck, with no opportunity for saving, because they have no health insurance, they have minimal benefits if any, many of them cannot now and never will be able to own a home. These people live constantly on the edge of pvoerty and homelessness. They would actually rather know that their jobs are safe, even at a bare subsistence level, than feel like their jobs are in jeopardy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The people Skek is talking about are the vast majority of American workers who are living from paycheck to paycheck, with no opportunity for saving, because they have no health insurance, they have minimal benefits if any, many of them cannot now and never will be able to own a home. These people live constantly on the edge of pvoerty and homelessness. They would actually rather know that their jobs are safe, even at a bare subsistence level, than feel like their jobs are in jeopardy.

Strangely enough, many of those types don't vote.

I dispute that this is how the "vast majority" of American workers live. The vast majority of American workers own their homes.