Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
[/i]Okay.

Holey moley. If I'd known that "permanent bases" was the phrase to use to get you to show up, I'd have posted it a while back. Howdy, stranger.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Holey moley. If I'd known that "permanent bases" was the phrase to use to get you to show up, I'd have posted it a while back. Howdy, stranger.

Mornin'. I was reading this other blog, wondering if I should comment on people who write articles about how wonderful and freeing burquas are, and just decided to go whole hog.

Can I still say "hog" here?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Mornin'. I was reading this other blog, wondering if I should comment on people who write articles about how wonderful and freeing burquas are, and just decided to go whole hog.

Can I still say "hog" here?

Hell, you can probably say it on Islamofascist-loving blogs like that, too.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hell, you can probably say it on Islamofascist-loving blogs like that, too.

No, it'd be like going to a costume party where you know everyone and they know you but you have to pretend not to know who they are and be like polite and so you can't just dive into your normal rudeness and insult without some foreplay so that bystanders don't automatically think you're being rude and all that right off the bat as a stranger wandering in, and that's just a lot of pressure for someone as naturally overpolite as me.

Okay, off to breakfast. But, I finally got my capslock unstuck, so I can type again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
For years, the Bush administration has specifically - explicitly - stated that it would be improper and, well, dumb, to set some specific time for withdrawal.

I think you misapprehend the issue. There is a difference between saying that it may take a while to leave and planning to stay. If all they were doing is better supporting forces in their current mission, that would be one thing, but I read Ackerman to be suggesting that the military is planning to maintain a military presence to project force in the region, and not just to stabilize or support the Iraqi regime.

eta: BTW, the watchword isn't "stay the course" anymore. Bush says so.

We're not, contrary to CW, taking the entire fight overseas; we're acting as though that's the case, while allowing the enemy to fight over here on a different front, with willing backers. Aside from a few instances, I think Bush has remained far too naive and complacent about the motives of The Loyal Opposition.

It's never too early to blame Bush's defeat on the Democrats, eh? This was Bush's war. He got what he wanted. The choice to enter it was his, and the botched execution of it was his.

[bilmore]

.

[Spanky]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you misapprehend the issue. There is a difference between saying that it may take a while to leave and planning to stay.

Ever had out-of-town relatives just sort of show up? I'm guessing not.

If all they were doing is better supporting forces in their current mission, that would be one thing, but I read Ackerman to be suggesting that the military is planning to maintain a military presence to project force in the region, and not just to stabilize or support the Iraqi regime.

Again, "empire!", or "bases in a bad part of the world!"? I highly doubt the first, I'm not too terribly concerned if the second happens (as long as the purpose isn't to keep propping up a non-working Iraq.)

eta: BTW, the watchword isn't "stay the course" anymore. Bush says so.

Semantics. No, we're not staying the course in the sense that we're going to keep trying things that don't work. Yes, we're staying the course (unless, of course, we become Pelosiland) in the sense that we've not yet accomplished that long, hard goal.

It's never too early to blame Bush's defeat on the Democrats, eh? This was Bush's war. He got what he wanted. The choice to enter it was his, and the botched execution of it was his.

It was my war, too, along with an awful lot of Repubs and Dems. If you're speaking on behalf of the party that voted for the war seven minutes before condemning the war, using phrases like "it's never too early to blame" is . . . . well . . . funny.

And, no, not "funny, ha ha." Funny like "honor? - what's honor compared to votes?"

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky

One hopes Mr. Stayskal never sees a practical demo of Chinese SAT-based MIRV targeting, although chances of that are higher now, thanks to NORKOR.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
.

Welcome back, Bilmore.

Maybe you can explain the apparent collapse of the Rs - I think this blank post is emblamatic - the R's problem is a lack of accomplishments. It's not what they've done wrong - the American public has become fairly complacent about endless scandals in Washington, so all the Abramhoffs, Foleys, Neys, DeLays and other crooks and sick-os have had a relatively minor cost (a cost they could have dealt with if they were otherwise strong). It's the fact that all they have to point to is a war in Iraq that is increasingly difficult to defend in a consistent manner, an economy that is in the never-never-land between up and down and a budget that shows constant and increasing deficits.
If in this mess they had one bright light to point to, one signature accomplishment (say, on education), I suspect it would all be different today.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ever had out-of-town relatives just sort of show up? I'm guessing not.

You're taking the Iraqi side of this argument now?

It was my war, too, along with an awful lot of Repubs and Dems. If you're speaking on behalf of the party that voted for the war seven minutes before condemning the war, using phrases like "it's never too early to blame" is . . . . well . . . funny.

Are you speaking on behalf of the GOP when you insinuate that Democrats are terrorist-supporting traitors and suggest that we're responsible for the terrible situation in Iraq? Certainly sounded like it. Get that "stab in the back" meme going now.

eta: Many Republicans are under the impression that parties vote, but the Constitution actually refers to Congressmen and Senators. So bipartisanship is technically possible, if presently unlikely.

And, no, not "funny, ha ha." Funny like "honor? - what's honor compared to votes?"

Bush's "stay the course" nonsense makes me wonder the same thing.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
[/i]Okay.

For years, the Bush administration has specifically - explicitly - stated that it would be improper and, well, dumb, to set some specific time for withdrawal. Bush has made the point repeatedly, since before the invasion, that this would be a long, slogging battle, and its end-point was not definable by time, but rather by result. That desired result, which I think has remained unchanged in spite of obtuse poli-cries to the contrary, is a stable Iraqi government, able to control not through raw power but through societal accord. (Attainable? Don't know, but that's another subject.) So, Bush said it would be long and hard, and Ackerman's complaint now seems to be that Bush never told us it would be long and hard. And, no, I'm not watching a Johnny Holmes movie as I type this.

It was my understanding that these are bases to be turned over to the Iraqi army when that becomes feasible. Is Ackerman crying "Empire!", or "quagmire!", or just "waste!"? I can't tell.

[/i]The mission, I think, remains as it was, described above. The duration remains as it was, described above. Bush said "long and hard", and, surprise, it's long and hard. And, yes, the rabidly right-wing MSM has, at every juncture, coddled and protected Bush. It's disgusting.

What I think is really disturbing the military is the lack of success with the plan at this point, and the seeming lack of nimble evolution of strategy and tactics. It's a tiring, wasting, costly process, and small numbers of determined fanatics can disrupt any society. We need to move into more tactics that don't depend so much on temporarily taking territory and killing the extant Islamicists and work more towards the training and turnover that doesn't allow for the CNN-like propaganda that the Iraqis are occupied. In addition, Bush has given short shrift to the serious effort within our country to impede this process for a combination of political gain and raw BDS. We're not, contrary to CW, taking the entire fight overseas; we're acting as though that's the case, while allowing the enemy to fight over here on a different front, with willing backers. Aside from a few instances, I think Bush has remained far too naive and complacent about the motives of The Loyal Opposition.

I thought you just whacked the bee hive a couple of times and after a while they flew away.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
What did I answer incorrectly?

To my mind, your economic justifications for tax-cut policy are entirely lacking, and don't withstand careful analysis. You disagree--that's fine, but it's not worth debating any more.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
To my mind, your economic justifications for tax-cut policy are entirely lacking, and don't withstand careful analysis. You disagree--that's fine, but it's not worth debating any more.

Tax cuts lead to growth which lead to increased government revenues. What is it you don't understand?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Tax cuts lead to growth which lead to increased government revenues. What is it you don't understand?

So I can have my cake and eat it, too?

Mmmm, aristocratic cake.