The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Fascinating how the right is trying so desperately to rewrite recent history. About the only issue the administration was willing to discuss at the time was the WMD one.

Wrong again. Early in the process, the administration had a list of 6 or so justifications and was roundly chided by the NYT, among others, because it was "unclear" which ofv the 6 was the cause belle (sp?). Eventually, WMD moved to the forefront, primarily because it was the only one that the media could understand/market.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wrong again. Early in the process, the administration had a list of 6 or so justifications and was roundly chided by the NYT, among others, because it was "unclear" which ofv the 6 was the cause belle (sp?). Eventually, WMD moved to the forefront, primarily because it was the only one that the media could understand/market.

Ha! So it's the media's fault now?


Everything's perfect!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
Believe it or not, my Ox is the debate and the level of it.

I listed some of the issues that militated towards going in to Iraq, and our national discussions of those issues. You dealt with not a one, but merely said that most people now think it was a stupid decision. I do not feel as if you have led here by example, if hieghtened debate is your true goal..

You did two things here: first, you once again made the discussion about the people, not the issues.

This part of the discussion was about what individuals have done, and the effects of those actions. How does one discuss that without resort to individuals?

Second, you misread his statement.

He said that American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqis late at night. His words, not mine. I stretched to use "terrorist", but that's not that much of a leap, especially in a context where a press secretary can say "hee's a great guy and an honorable one, and we're puzzled why he would go for a plan that seems to have come from the Michael Moore wing", and people here then claim that he attacked Murtha's patriotism and said that Murtha was just like Moore.

Of course, the misreading follows from and is motivated by the desire to make the people the issue. Yes, you like to "stretch".

No, I could care less about "the people." I care about the actions of the people. And we cannot discuss this stuff without including that topic.

Once you break the world up into teams and all the reds are right and all the blues are wrong (or all the blues are right and all the reds are wrong), you've pretty much lost the game. And that is why I objected to the partisan attacks on Murtha.

But the "partisan attacks" on Murtha by anyone who counts were . . . where? It's just as egregious of a thing for you to make these unsupported generalized statements. Yes, you like to "stretch."

Who defines "red" and "blue"? Is it D v R? Pro-invasion v. anti-invasion? Liberals v. conservatives? There's lots of mismatchinhg depending on which definition you choose. But, if the definition is directly related to where one falls in these particular discussions, how can you NOT break down the "sides" in that way? If I think that withdrawal now would be a huge mistake, and "red v blue" is defined as "withdraw now v. not", then, yes, there are going to be lines drawn, and teams formed, and generalizations made, and they will all be valid. I think you're just using this chain of thought as a way to mask how you chose to define r v.b, and how you treat each team.

By the way, when I first mentioned Murtha, I combined it with praise for McCain, who has spoken frankly and honestly throughout this debate. It was you and others who decided to make the discussion about Murtha.

Who the heck was talking about McCain? Not me. I'd rather speak of Lieberman.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
How about this: we went in unprepared, and we still do not have sufficient troops on the ground to fully control the situation, apparently the result of the misguided notion of our leadership that we would be welcomed with open arms and that everyone would just be cool once we got there and rolled through. Our troops have suffiecient strength to defend themselves and westerners within enclaves, but they have not projected enough control in Iraq to actually establish stability in the countryside.

Cool. All without "we lost!", or that other stuff. And, I'd buy a fair amount of what you just said. I'd argue some, especially about how we were and are welcomed, but not the main themes.

If we were to pull out now, we would leave Iraq a chaotic mess. However, there appears to be no concrete plan to change that fact, such that when we pull out in five years the country will be stable. We haven't lost, but we sure as hell haven't won. Indeed, if Saddam is not executed or otherwise dead before the US pulls out, I'm not sure that even your first criteria of a win (toppling Saddam) has been satisfied long term.

I have friends over there who tell me that we have far more control, and far more Iraqi cooperation and goodwill, and far more of a remade society than what we're presented with in our normal information delivery process here, so I end up with a more optimistic feeling about it all than do you. I'd argue that we DO have a concrete plan, and it's the one we've been using for some time, and it's working. I guess only time will tell on that, though.

Additionally, our leadership has approved interogation techniques that I believe are immoral and violate the basic tenents upon which this country were founded, although I think they are doing so under the (mistaken) belief that this will somehow be to America's advantage. Look, I'd like to figure out some way of raising this issue without sounding like I'm saying US troops are torturing people, but US troops are torturing people.

I can't address this entire topic. I just don't know enough about it to speak with any authority.

As for the ranting and making shit up, where did Democrats learn that? "From you, alright. [We] got it by watching you."

Yes, son. Now hand over that joint and go to bed.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wrong again. Early in the process, the administration had a list of 6 or so justifications and was roundly chided by the NYT, among others, because it was "unclear" which ofv the 6 was the cause belle (sp?). Eventually, WMD moved to the forefront, primarily because it was the only one that the media could understand/market.

So the administration, so famous for steadfastly pursuing its goals in the face of any and all opposition, floated a list of six justifications, then said OK and caved when the NYT whined that a) there had to be a single causus belli, and b) it was unclear which one of the six was the cb?

The administration then said to the media, Pick whichever one you want, pick the easiest one to market, that's fine with us?

The media then picked WMDs because it couldn't understand or market the ideas that SH was a ruthless killer, or that he supported terrorists, or that he was a destabilizing influence in the ME ?

Is that how it went ?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You keep telling me you have a strong sense of right and wrong. Yet you freely support the notion of killing people because they don't have the same idea as you about who it's okay to kill.

I never said such an absurd thing and I don't think anyone on this board has ever said such an absurd thing.

Originally posted by taxwonk Note that once you say it's okay to kill the insurgents, Saddam, terrorists, etc., you lose the ability to claim that you are morally opposed to killing. Therefore, the best you can argue is whether you or someone else gets to decide who will die.

I understand that in some cases killing is morally wrong in some cases it is Ok and in some circumstances it is a moral imperative. Like if the only way you can stop someone from killing an innocent child is to kill them, then you must kill them. I have pretty well thought through my moral structure and I am comfortable with it.

For some reason you think that morals have to be simple. Like all killing is wrong. Why do you think that? It is more intricate than that and I don't understand why anyone would think it has to be simple. Just because I support free speech does not mean I think it should be legal to yell fire in a crowded theater or that libel and slander should be legal.

Originally posted by taxwonk You also say that it's bad to lie under oath, but you defend Sccoter Libby and Karl Rove.
]

I have never even entered into that conversation. I don't know anything about what Libby did. What I did say is that lying under oath should be prosecuted by the full extent of the law.

Originally posted by taxwonk You also say that it's okay for us to spread democracy by planting propaganda. However, a free and accurate press is one of the strongest cornerstones of democracy.
]

Where is the contradiction? Yes a free press is important for a democracy, and I have no problem with the US planting propaganda to help establish democracies inother countries. There is not contradiction there. Why is that a contradiction?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by taxwonk You claim that we are not engaging in torture, but you defended the existence and maintenance of undeclared prisons and prisoners.

I never claimed that we were not engaged in torture. I have never discussed those prisons on this board but I do defend them. What is wrong with them?

Originally posted by taxwonk I'd suggest you worry less about my moral compass and try to find yours; it's obviously lost.

I have got one that I have thought through. You clearly have not thought yours through or you would not throw out mindless phrases that mean nothing. I think if you read my posts you will see that I have a consistent moral philosophy. I don't see any consistency in yours.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
So the administration, so famous for steadfastly pursuing its goals in the face of any and all opposition, floated a list of six justifications, then said OK and caved when the NYT whined that a) there had to be a causus belli, and b) it was unclear which one of the six was the cb?

The administration then said to the media, Pick whichever one you want, pick the easiest one to market, that's fine with us?

The media then picked WMDs because it couldn't understand or market the ideas that SH was a ruthless killer, or that he supported terrorists, or that he was a destabilizing influence in the ME ?

Is that how it went ?

You forgot the {sarcasm} html.

I think what he meant was that the admin listed quite a few reasons why we should invade Iraq - I listed some of them earlier today, and, if you were here way back then, you should remember all of us debating all of those points - but that apparently confused the poor media, and they, in their reporting, seemed to cover only the WMD reason with any great effort or breadth, and so the national conversation centered on that. And Powell centered on that in his presentation, I think because, at that point in the discussion, that was the main argument that people were focusing on. (I wish he had been more broad in his approach, but that's hindsight.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
since his entire argument on the war is based upon his incorrect assertion that it is his adherence to the universal moral code that compels the killing of Iraqi insurgents, because otherwise they would kill Americans?

When did I say this? I never said this. It is Ok to kill insurgents to stop them from killing our soliders and innocent poeple. It would be better to arrest them, but if we can't arrest them, or we can't arrest them without allied casualties we should kill them. Is there anyone on this board that think it is not morally OK to kill insurgents?

It would be a moral imperative to kill an insurgent if you had a gun and you saw an insurgent running towards a school strapped to the nines with bombs. If you didn't shoot to stop him that would be immoral.

Why do you find those concepts so heinous. Why are my moral positions so offensive. You say you are a moral relativst - well then. What is wrong with the terrorist attacks on 9-11? If Al Queada thought they were moral, then who are you to critisize them for what they did.

I believe the intentional killing of innocents that serves no purpose other than to instill terror is a universal moral wrong. As a relativist you can't say that. I have a moral compass and you don't.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Troops are out in the field, fighting, helping rebuild Iraq, meeting and helping the people, risking their lives daily, re-enlisting in a cause in which they believe.

The national chairman of one of our two major political parties has just announced that they're wasting their time - that they've already lost, that it's useless.

The past failed presidential candidate has just announced that they're the new terrorists in Iraq.

A "hawk" Dem senator has just announced that they're bloodied and whipped and really want to bug out, and should, "immediately."

So, how's their morale? How enthused can they stay, how hyped up for the work will they be? isn't it easier to stay motivated when you see yourself as a the good guy, and not the terrorist? Don't you do more inspired work if you think you're winning, as opposed to having already lost? How motivated will the terrorists and bombers be, now that they're seeing concrete indications that their killings might yield the desired result?

Any chance some of these factors might have performance issues associated with them?

That's how Dean and Kerry and Murtha have harmed the troops.

Give me a break. The troops who think they are doing good work aren't going to have anything but scorn for Dean and the ones who don't think they're fighting the good fight are going to have morale problems no matter what some old man back home is saying.

The terrorists and bombers have no morale problem either. The insurgents are fighting because they beleive they have no other choice. The terrorists are fighting because they believe they are in a holy war against the forces of evil and they will be many times blessed if they die a martyr in the struggle against the infidel.

The troops whose hearts are in the fight understand that they are fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy. I am sure they would feel no more common cause with those back home who are fighting harder to suppress dissent than they do with the enemy abroad. Both are anti-freedom.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
cause belle (sp?).

I've never seen the phrase in French. The Latin is causus belli.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain


And both Mr. Spanky and you have pushed the point today that people who speak against the war are undermining our troops.

Mr. Spanky? As I said before undeserved respect.

I have always said is OK to critisize the war strategy, even the decision to go to war, but to say we don't have a chance is undermining our troops. I think it is clear that Saddam was evil, and that the insurgents are evil and want to do evil things. As long as people acknowledge that, but say this may not be in our strategic interest, we are fighting the war the wrong way, or we should get out now even though it will leave a problem fine. But to say that we are losing, or that we can never win undermines confidence. If those statement were true it would be another thing, but no one could possibly know whether or not we can really win, so to say that we cannot undermines moral and emboldens our enemies.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
You forgot the {sarcasm} html.

I think what he meant was that the admin listed quite a few reasons why we should invade Iraq - I listed some of them earlier today, and, if you were here way back then, you should remember all of us debating all of those points - but that apparently confused the poor media, and they, in their reporting, seemed to cover only the WMD reason with any great effort or breadth, and so the national conversation centered on that. And Powell centered on that in his presentation, I think because, at that point in the discussion, that was the main argument that people were focusing on. (I wish he had been more broad in his approach, but that's hindsight.)

I disagree that the MSM was so powerful, or the bush administration was so inept at communications, that the message was dictated by the MSM's inability to grasp more than a single cb. It's hard to believe they were calling the tune and the bush administration had to dance to it, especially if you posit that they were too dumb to figure out how to sell newspapers on the idea that SH was a ruthless sociopathic mass murderer who had the capability and intent to do us harm too. It also flies in the face of the well-documented fact that the neocons had great concerns about Iraq leading up to the war, and also bush, cheney and rumsfeld's - I'll be charitable here - great interest in Iraq even before 9/11.

This incidentally illustrates what I believe to be an error in viewing the MSM as liberal or conservative. They are neither - that gives them too much credit for actually having an ideology and sticking with it. They are, plain and simple, whores to whoever is in power at that moment. They will crawl across 20 miles of hot broken glass to lick the tire tracks of the trucks carrying the laundry of someone who will give them a WH inside tip, no matter how small or insignificant, be it Democrat or Republican.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Mr. Spanky? As I said before undeserved respect.

I have always said is OK to critisize the war strategy, even the decision to go to war, but to say we don't have a chance is undermining our troops. I think it is clear that Saddam was evil, and that the insurgents are evil and want to do evil things. As long as people acknowledge that, but say this may not be in our strategic interest, we are fighting the war the wrong way, or we should get out now even though it will leave a problem fine. But to say that we are losing, or that we can never win undermines confidence. If those statement were true it would be another thing, but no one could possibly know whether or not we can really win, so to say that we cannot undermines moral and emboldens our enemies.

I suspect most of the men and women in the field have a much better idea of how the war is going that any civilian on Capital Hill. They don't need to be fed rosy scenarios - they won't believe them anyways.

And, I suspect not all the insurgents are "evil and want to do evil things." Some of the Iraqis have deep seated animosities between them, and the fact that the Kurds and Shi'ites are ascendant is going to result in bloodshed with the Sunnis. We need to be careful not to make ourselves an ally in a war on the Sunnis, and not to turn ethnic discord into widespread Sunni alliance with al Quaida.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I never said such an absurd thing and I don't think anyone on this board has ever said such an absurd thing.

I understand that in some cases killing is morally wrong in some cases it is Ok and in some circumstances it is a moral imperative. Like if the only way you can stop someone from killing an innocent child is to kill them, then you must kill them. I have pretty well thought through my moral structure and I am comfortable with it.

We aren't debating saving helpless children here. We're debating the propriety of killing adults, based upon their politics and religion. Explain, if you can, and I submit you can't, why your support of the war in Iraq is anything more than a decision on your part that it's okay to kill the insurgents because we are trying to enforce a social order that you deem superior.

You may be comfortable with your choice, but you can't deny that it is a choice, and nothing more.

For some reason you think that morals have to be simple. Like all killing is wrong. Why do you think that? It is more intricate than that and I don't understand why anyone would think it has to be simple.

I never said it was simple. I said that they represented a choice between competing philosophies. You can claim the moral high ground, but you can't defend it in objective terms. That's my point. You're the one who is suggesting that it should be simple. You claim that the US invasion of Iraq, and our continuing occupation of Iraq, is the moral thing, and that anyone who isn't supportive of that is stupid and morally wrong, because dissent or criticism are urting the war effort.

If it isn's so simple, then why are you so afraid of allowing debate on the issue? Why do you insist on calling people who don't agree with you stupid? Why do you suggest that noone should express dissent because it hurts the war effort?

Where is the contradiction? Yes a free press is important for a democracy, and I have no problem with the US planting propaganda to help establish democracies inother countries. There is not contradiction there. Why is that a contradiction?

A free press is essential to democracy, but it's okay to corrupt the press by planting false stories or using money or coercion to distort the stories reported by the press? You really don't see that as a contradiction?

You agree that freedom of the press is important but you have supported censorship and suggested that it was immoral for the LA Times to report on the DoD planting stories in the Iraqi press. If you don't see the contradiction, then I can't explain it to you.

I have got one that I have thought through. You clearly have not thought yours through or you would not throw out mindless phrases that mean nothing. I think if you read my posts you will see that I have a consistent moral philosophy. I don't see any consistency in yours.

What I see in your posts is nothing but a host of contradictions. There is little consistency in your statements on a logical or rhetorical basis. The only consistent theme is that you are clearly supportive of the current adminstration's actions in prosecuting the war.

I don't see that as a consistent moral philosophy.

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
I listed some of the issues that militated towards going in to Iraq, and our national discussions of those issues. You dealt with not a one, but merely said that most people now think it was a stupid decision. I do not feel as if you have led here by example, if hieghtened debate is your true goal..

This part of the discussion was about what individuals have done, and the effects of those actions. How does one discuss that without resort to individuals?

He said that American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqis late at night. His words, not mine. I stretched to use "terrorist", but that's not that much of a leap, especially in a context where a press secretary can say "hee's a great guy and an honorable one, and we're puzzled why he would go for a plan that seems to have come from the Michael Moore wing", and people here then claim that he attacked Murtha's patriotism and said that Murtha was just like Moore.

No, I could care less about "the people." I care about the actions of the people. And we cannot discuss this stuff without including that topic.

But the "partisan attacks" on Murtha by anyone who counts were . . . where? It's just as egregious of a thing for you to make these unsupported generalized statements. Yes, you like to "stretch."

Who defines "red" and "blue"? Is it D v R? Pro-invasion v. anti-invasion? Liberals v. conservatives? There's lots of mismatchinhg depending on which definition you choose. But, if the definition is directly related to where one falls in these particular discussions, how can you NOT break down the "sides" in that way? If I think that withdrawal now would be a huge mistake, and "red v blue" is defined as "withdraw now v. not", then, yes, there are going to be lines drawn, and teams formed, and generalizations made, and they will all be valid. I think you're just using this chain of thought as a way to mask how you chose to define r v.b, and how you treat each team.

Who the heck was talking about McCain? Not me. I'd rather speak of Lieberman.

Wow. I'm afraid it is time for me to talk to Dr. Spanks. He has much better reading comprehension. Please feel free to continue whatever it is you are doing.