Politics As Usual

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How come when I post articles providing some (albeit not conclusive) evidence of a link from, e.g., NRO, you are quick to dismiss it, but you adhere whole heartedly to the articles that are consistent with your world view?

You aren't really expecting an answer to that question, right?

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It only takes one.

Right.

And my belief is this: just as there are people that believe God created the entire universe in 144 hours, there are certain Muslims that have, that do, and that will, want you and me dead.

I'm sure there are.

This war did not change that.

Here's where we part company. Even assuming for a moment that the war and occupation in Iraq have not added to the number of people worldwide that want you and me dead* and are willing to do something about it, the prosecution of the war and the mis-handling of the occupation have certainly radicalized individuals who will now be willing to aid and abet the guys who are foaming at the mouth for blood. When the British Army sent paratroopers to Derry, and they were fired on by idiot IRA "soldiers" with revolvers, and they returned fire and cut down thirteen civil rights marchers, normal people who wouldn't have dreamed of letting the IRA use their outhouse prior to Bloody Sunday lined up to sign on. Every innocent person that's been shot or tortured by our troops in Iraq hardens hearts and creates "favorable conditions" (to coin a phrase) for continued terrorist attacks.

And the prevention of this war would not have changed it either.

How would we be in any more danger had this administration genuinely sought a consensus before going to war? Would Saddam have armed the non-existent Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq with his non-existent WMDs and sent them to Grand Central Station? The case that was made for the clear and present danger that compelled us to attack was bogus. As nice as it is that Saddam, Uday and Qusay have or will meet their just rewards, we are either no safer or less safe than we were before the invasion.

*aside from personal acquaintances that may want you or me dead for non-political reasons

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ask Not Me for an explanation of why cameras should not be allowed in Iraqi prisons.

Because it is a violationof the Geneva Convention to take pictures of POWs. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is that whole thing about suspending logic again. Big corporations own these valuable media (in both senses), and they just let lefty editors/reporters run amok with them? Yeah, right.

How else do you explain why FoxNews (which you characterize as right-slanted) is the only conservative news network, yet its ratings dwarf the competition. If this was truly a free market, don't you think that the other news networks would move toward the consumers?

And are you really arguing that the print media is not left-slanted, even though the country is, at best 50-50 left?

It sounds like you are backing off the suggestion that the media is out to destroy Bush, which is a wise move.

Why do you think this?

I'll answer your questions, and you can answer the questions you've ducked about what Bush was thinking. I gave you a pretty detailed answer about what I mean when I say he "lied."

I'm going to assume for this that Myers actually said that. What you fail to include is the "slam dunk" line, and I'm not sure why, because that is pretty damn telling to me. Or did that happen later in time? Either way, I suspect it wasn't the first assurance Bush had received.

1. Abortion -- pro-choice, like the Dem party line (on this it's clear)
2. Affirmative action -- don't think it violates the Constitution; generally opposed to such legislation
3. Right to die -- in favor of it, but dispute that there is a Dem party line on this
4. Bush tax cuts -- against most of them, unlike the many Dems who voted for them
5. War in Iraq -- against, unlike the many Dems who voted for it
6. Minimum wage increase -- not opposed in principle, but would want to review the economic literature (which I believe cuts both ways) before I voted for them

Where's the party line here? I agree that there is a party line on 1 & 2, but I'm straddling it. On 3, it's not a Dem issue. On 4 & 5, Dems split, big-time. On 6, I get the sense that Dems would vote knee-jerk for minimum-wage increases even if economists say it was harmful overall, and that's not my position.

1&2 - this is the DEM party line. There is no middle ground.

3 - I agree with you, not a party issue

4&5. DEMS may have split at the time of the vote, but they are not split now. These are items 1 and 2 of the talking points.

6. Ty Kerry anyone?

eft

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Because it is a violationof the Geneva Convention to take pictures of POWs. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Slave, I'm taking back my proxy from Not Me on this issue, and giving it to Ironweed. He and I were apparently just reading the same about Bloody Sunday, but I'll be damned if I can remember where that was.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you linked article cites 18000 aQ guys being around. this number comes from an estimate that 20000 were trained in Afghanistan and then we killed 2000. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Given these kind of recruiting numbers, a slight uptick in volunteers ain't such a bid deal, is it?

The estimate does indeed calculate those trained in Afghanistan, but it also notes that "[d]riving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.

And the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaida and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention, the survey said. "

The point being that AQ is much more decentralized than before, and that they may well be benefitting (in relative size) from the activities to date. As I mentioned before, it's too soon to tell what the water level in the bathtub really is these days.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm a little unclear (1) that you don't think the war was justified or (2) the costs outweigh the benefits?

National Geographic came in the mail yesterday. Headline article is on the Shiites of Iraq.

Estimate is that five to seven million of them "disappeared" in the last ten years under Sadaam.

Seeing how quickly this fact gets buried makes it clear that the current cost/benefit analysis of the anti-war effort is limited to the question of "will this help in unelecting Bush?" It is worth millions of lives to them (OPLs, of course) to vote him out. The argument is really no deeper than that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I like how you guys use the UN as a ratchet -- if it's against you, fuck 'em, but if it's for you then it's all kinds of meaningful legal authority and proof of facts.

No, and you're too good a lawyer to really think that. Your type takes the party line that the U.N. was against the war because it knew there were no weapons. In fact, the U.N. either thought there were weapons or it is one of the most vile institutions conceived. It was starving Iraquis with unwarrented sanctions if it really felt there were no weapons.

Our sides, if I might be so modest as to take a shot at this, would say the U.N. took a position that makes it irrelevent to modern times.

The U.N. said Iraq has weapons, and we aren't having sucess with our inspection regime, but we must limit ourselves to the same failed inspections. the US can't afford to follow that path.

party admissions can be used to challenge the other side, you know.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Things are different now. The old rules don't apply....
A good army isn't enough to win this war. That much ought to be clear by now.

So now you're saying "Dead Russians" and "Cold War" was NOT a good analogy?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The estimate does indeed calculate those trained in Afghanistan, but it also notes that "[d]riving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.

Combatting it in Afghanistan made it hard to combat? What does this mean? We should have left them there, but asked them to stop the camps? At a minimum there is no country entirely ran for al Queda where it can freely trains 10's of thousands of fighters.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

How else do you explain why FoxNews (which you characterize as right-slanted) is the only conservative news network, yet its ratings dwarf the competition.

Because the competition is CNN, which was invented the market niche and -- like other companies before it in that position -- forgot that someone else might come along to eat its lunch. Unlike FOX, the other media feign objectivity. FOX has made a lot of money getting rid of that vestige of professionalism.

If this was truly a free market, don't you think that the other news networks would move toward the consumers?


You're suggesting that it's not an efficient market, not that it's not a free one. What you're not suggesting is that it's not like a market, which was my point. Your argument is like saying that the fact that American car companies couldn't compete with the Japanese for years proves that the auto industry wasn't a free market. Dadgummit, I guess we were living in a planned economy and no one knew.


And are you really arguing that the print media is not left-slanted, even though the country is, at best 50-50 left?

I'm pointing out that your assertion that the media has been out to destroy Bush's presidency is a load of steaming crap. There's been a lot of bad news lately because a lot of bad shit has been happening. The liberal media didn't ambush contractors in Fallujah and hang their bodies from a bridge. A certain wacko conservative here attacked the liberal media here for not running those pictures enough, which just proves that you can always blame everything on the liberal media.

Why do you think this?

I thought you were backing off your loony suggestion that the media is on a jihad to destroy the Bush Presidency because the statement I was responding to sounded more modulated than your original remarks.

I'm going to assume for this that Myers actually said that. What you fail to include is the "slam dunk" line, and I'm not sure why, because that is pretty damn telling to me. Or did that happen later in time? Either way, I suspect it wasn't the first assurance Bush had received.


I'm keeping it simple. The "slam dunk" line is in the book, but later. Bush hadn't heard it when he was talking to journalists. It's hard to say what Bush was thinking a lot of the time because we don't know what he'd been told. The nice thing about the events of early September, as related, is that the chronology is very specific. Myers tells Bush what he says on Friday, September 7 (I think it was the 7th -- my earlier post had it right). Bush talks to the journalists two days later.

1&2 - this is the DEM party line. There is no middle ground.

On 1, guilty as charged. On 2, I told you that I don't support most AA.

4&5. DEMS may have split at the time of the vote, but they are not split now. These are items 1 and 2 of the talking points.

So I was split from most Dems then, and they have changed their mind and are agreeing with me now. This is not exactly evidence that I am toeing a party line, my friend.

6. Ty Kerry anyone?

If you mean that Kerry would listen to what economists say is the best policy instead of endorsing policies out of ideological pre-conceptions, sign me up. Jesus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
National Geographic came in the mail yesterday. Headline article is on the Shiites of Iraq.

Estimate is that five to seven million of them "disappeared" in the last ten years under Sadaam.

Seeing how quickly this fact gets buried makes it clear that the current cost/benefit analysis of the anti-war effort is limited to the question of "will this help in unelecting Bush?" It is worth millions of lives to them (OPLs, of course) to vote him out. The argument is really no deeper than that.

It's a pretty impressive feat to sound so principled and cynical in the same breath. Welcome back.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
National Geographic came in the mail yesterday. Headline article is on the Shiites of Iraq.

Estimate is that five to seven million of them "disappeared" in the last ten years under Sadaam.

Seeing how quickly this fact gets buried makes it clear that the current cost/benefit analysis of the anti-war effort is limited to the question of "will this help in unelecting Bush?" It is worth millions of lives to them (OPLs, of course) to vote him out. The argument is really no deeper than that.

You've been a consistent proponent of the argument that Saddam had to go because he murdered his own people, and I respect that.

However, I hope you understand that you're in the minority of Americans who really place that reason as prominently as you do in the cost/benefit analysis.

Though it's an ugly truth, Americans cared less about Saddam's internal evil acts as we did about his potential external evil acts.

* It's how it was sold to us (largely, albeit not exclusively).
* It's how we bought it.
* And it's reflective of the reason why we haven't been as quick to take similar action in Rwanda, Congo, NK, or other godforsaken places where a tyrant massacres his own people.

So, I acknowledge your debating point, but if others don't latch onto it with the same degree of fervor, I'll hope that you'll understand why that's so, instead of reflexively believing that folks ignore it merely because it impedes their overall political goals.

Gattigap

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So now you're saying "Dead Russians" and "Cold War" was NOT a good analogy?

you're deliberately missing Ty's point. He's saying we need a leader who can build the Army so that it can get in, get the job done, and get out in a few months with just a few scrapes. You know, the way Kerry did in Vietnam.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Combatting it in Afghanistan made it hard to combat? What does this mean? We should have left them there, but asked them to stop the camps? At a minimum there is no country entirely ran for al Queda where it can freely trains 10's of thousands of fighters.

My sole, and repeated, point was that AQ has been adding recruits at a rapid pace, and that it's unclear that club's argument that "there are fewer of them today than before" is accurate. I've also said that we'll have to wait and see if the ranks of new recruits are exceeding the ranks of dead ones.

I don't really consider this to be a controversial argument, and I'm a bit perplexed at your dissatisfaction with it.

If you're not really contesting that point, but instead wandering off into the weeds of whether the report is making the argument that we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan, be my guest, but don't expect me to follow you there.

FWIW, I don't think the report makes that argument, but in any event, I'm certainly not, and it's irrelevant to the observation I was trying to make.

Gattigap