Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again the liberals were against it because they are against all wars.

Let's turn the Wayback Machine to September 15, 2001:

• WASHINGTON - Voting overwhelmingly, Congress gave President Bush sweeping powers yesterday to use military force to avenge Tuesday's terrorist attacks. But it stopped short of granting the president open-ended authority to prevent future attacks.
  
  The House completed action on the measure late last night, voting 420-1 to back the president's use of force. Congress' authorization - which many legal analysts say is not required by law - is intended to demonstrate congressional support for what the administration has called a global war against terrorism. Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, cast the dissenting vote.

Now, there are two possibilities here. One is that you use the term "liberal" in a way unlike the rest of the population, and that by it you mean someone as far left as Barbara Lee, but not someone who shares the views of -- say -- Dennis Kucinich and the rest of the Democratic representatives in Congress. (This possibility presents the further questions of whether you know that you are using the word in a different sense than everyone else, and why you bother to talk about the fringe of the political spectrum to Dennis Kucinich's left. But we leave those for another post.)

The other possibility is that you have repeated the GOP happy talk for so long that you are no longer capable of distinguishing between it and reality.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Conservatives hate nation building. Neocons support it. George Will and many Republicans (including John McCain) flipped out at Clintons bombing of Serbia, because with Kosovo we were interfering with the internal politics of a sovereign nation and the US has no strategic interest in Serbia. All true, but irrelevant arguments to a Neocon.

Of course the far left didn't like it because to them war is always wrong.

Conservatives rationalize Afghanistan because they supported Al Queda. Neocons didn't need Al Queda as an excuse to go in (the Taliban was the only excuse they needed). Conservatives use oil, the war on terror and WMDs as an excuse to invade Iraq. Neocons don't need an excuse (Saddam provided all the excuse they needed). Many conservatives, like Buckley, Buchanan and others were against Iraq because they didn't believe we had strategic interests.

Again the liberals were against it because they are against all wars.

Do neocons care about any of the following?

-- cost
-- feasibility
-- effective execution
-- results
-- dead American soldiers


I'm just wondering. You talk about being "for" and "against" war like it's a board game.

Getting rid of Saddam is fine. I'm happy to see him gone, will be happier to watch him die (my rabidly anti-death penalty views have an exception for genocide).

Yet, I would not have traded 3000 dead and 10000 maimed American soldiers for that. I wonder if most Americans, if they'd been given a realistic assessment of the costs before the war, would have.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I don't claim any partisan monopoly on my views on the use of force -- I suspect I'd have much in common with any number of people on both sides of the political spectrum. And the notion that neocons have a monopoly of some sort on any theory that would use force for good is simply silly -- the fundamental question of what "good" is, for example, is one where many neocons might disagree with equally hawkish folks on the left.

But, to me, it is wholly self-evident that force has both its uses and its limits, and, regardless of both its utility and its limitations, never exists in a vacuum. Force was useful in accomplishing a wide range of goals in Afghanistan, some strategic, some altruistic. My arguments with the use of force in Afghanistan have mainly to do with not using enough, not engaging at the point when the Taliban could have been more completely contained or eliminated, and not sticking with the program because resources were siphoned off for Iraq.

In Iraq, it's a different story. Today, force is creating long-term instability without achieving any clear goals, social or strategic. The failure to clearly and consistently, from the beginning, articulate goals and the failure to have a vision of an Iraq that was neither under Saddam nor occupied by us meant that force was used and is being used indiscriminately, which is both unwise, ineffective, and immoral. The fact that Bush articulated unfounded (or perhaps even false) goals like fighting terrorism compounds the situation.

The problems with the use of force in Iraq have nothing to do with liberal versus conservative, or neocon versus traditional conservativism, and everything to do with realism versus fantasyland - and the neocons were the prime purveyors of the fantasy that force alone could accomplish social goals in a short time frame. This fantasy fed on the notion that the Iraqi people were just waiting to embrace democracy without significant dissent.

Force for achieving social ends is not in itself an end or a philosophy. Figuring out appropriate and effective levels and uses of force is simply common sense. And such common sense appears beyond the capacity of the practioners of the neocon approach in this administration.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yet, I would not have traded 3000 dead and 10000 maimed American soldiers for that.

Not to mention hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, a new hotbed of terrorism, and a Hobson's choice between a failed state and one ruled by Shi'ites allied with the government of Iran.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When I said, "how so?," I was looking for some sort of amplification, not repetition. In what way did Bush spend political capital on CAFTA?

He got it through didn't he?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Let me give you an alternative hypothesis. Bush and the GOP like free trade as an issue because it is important to big business (read: $$$$) and lets them draw distinctions in this regard with Democrats (read: deny Dems $$$$). So there are advantages on the GOP side to keeping the issue alive and to forcing votes along party lines, rather than with big bipartisan majorities.

Your partisan stripes are showing. You just can't give the Bush administration credit for anything. This is why your judgment is so screwed up because your total hatred of the administration doesn't let you distinguish reality from fantasy.

There has been a big line drawn on free trade but that is because the Dems have abandoned free trade. Their leaders are all against free trade. You just don't want to accept that reality.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop OTOH, there are few advantages to the GOP to making deals that actually promote free trade in a big way, for two reasons. One follows from what i just said -- if they give big business what they want, they lose the issue. Better to keep things simmering.

You leave out the possibility that Bush administration promotes free trade because they believe it is the right thing to do. In addition, there are always more possibilities for free trade deals. Like AFTA. No matter how much the administration passed there would always be room for more. No matter how many deals are passed this issue will always "simmer" until there are no more trade barriers in the world.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop This reason is secondary to the second, which is that entering into free-trade agreements with countries that really matter -- e.g., Doha -- will require the country to make politically unsavory deals -- i.e., to piss Americans off. The majority will benefit, for reasons you and I agree on, but the minority speaks loudly and throws around the $$$$.

In case you hadn't noticed the US doesn't control the Doha round. There are other players. The Business Round Table and the Chamber of Commerce (and the Economist) have given the Bush administration full credit for pushing really hard on the Doha round. I think these guys are little bit more in tune with what is happening than you, so I (and anyone with a brain) would trust their assessment on the administration's commitment to free trade as opposed to your highly partisan, hatred filled, and skewed view of it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Bush and the White House have been utterly unwilling to spend the political capital that it would take to enter into real free trade agreements with major impact, as opposed to a handful of minor Caribbean countries without the clout to demand anything from us. They just won't take the hit.

They got CAFTA through. If you have noticed AFTA has been stalled because of Hugo Chavez etc. The US has been pushing. Doha is held up by the EU. What hit could the administration take? What more are they supposed to do?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop One sign of the White House's disinterest in Doha was replacing the U.S. chief negotiator in the final stages of the talks, and bringing in someone without any pull on the Hill.

Man. What blogs do you read to get this crap? The new US Chief negotiator was pretty much chosen by the BR and the CC. You don't think they know what they are doing? You don't think they are committed to free trade.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No one who follows this issue believes this for a second.

You mean the people who already have an axe to grind with the administration and really have no vested interest in free trade. The people who have consistently shown they care about free trade support the administration.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I'm not saying that it all falls on the U.S., but it's ridiculous simply to blame the Europeans.

The third world blames the Europeans. The third world got screwed in the last round because Europe promised to dismantle the CAP and they haven't. They are not going to be fooled twice. They won't move until the EU commits in writing to reduce the CAP and that is the cause of the stalemate. The US has been scrambling to come up with a solution. It is almost like the US is the only country that cares about continuing the round.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Your perspective on free trade plainly derives from GOP happy talk rather than from experience with the business community's perspective.

You are about as in tune with the Business Community as a Sumo wrestler is with his ass. I talk to the Executive director of the California Chamber of Commerce pretty regularly and the have the cell phone numbers of both the ED and the head of the national chamber of commerce. I am also involved with the Business Round Table. You are going to talk to me about the business community’s perspective? Someone who opposed CAFTA?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you want to open your eyes, try following the coverage of something like Doha from a pro-business perspective of a source like the Financial Times, who's readers are more interested in free-trade policy than in carrying Bush's water.

Me carrying Bush's water? That is ripe. I oppose them all the time. When was the last time the White House told someone not to work with you or face political retribution? You are the one who can never admit they do anything right. Your judgment is much more biased than mine when it comes to the administration. Do I wish they would do more on free trade. Sure. But they are doing a lot, and being in touch with the business community, I know they are getting credit for it.

The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce all give Bush kudos for his consistent committement to free trade, and all agree a Democrat takeover of Congress would be a disaster for free trade.

Why should I take your opinion over theirs?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do neocons care about any of the following?

-- cost
-- feasibility
-- effective execution
-- results
-- dead American soldiers


I'm just wondering. You talk about being "for" and "against" war like it's a board game.

Getting rid of Saddam is fine. I'm happy to see him gone, will be happier to watch him die (my rabidly anti-death penalty views have an exception for genocide).

Yet, I would not have traded 3000 dead and 10000 maimed American soldiers for that. I wonder if most Americans, if they'd been given a realistic assessment of the costs before the war, would have.

And you can also factor into the equation, since we are focused on the use of force to transform Iraq, the half-million Iraqi dead (give or take 100,000). All those dead make it a lot harder to transform the country into whatever it is we're trying to transform it into.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky

Of course the far left didn't like it because to them war is always wrong. ...

Again the liberals were against it because they are against all wars.

Just curious -- any difference between the far left, the liberals and the Democrats? It seems like you think they are all always against all wars? (Psst. - don't tell Lenin, Roosevelt, or Clinton).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's turn the Wayback Machine to September 15, 2001:

• WASHINGTON - Voting overwhelmingly, Congress gave President Bush sweeping powers yesterday to use military force to avenge Tuesday's terrorist attacks. But it stopped short of granting the president open-ended authority to prevent future attacks.
  
  The House completed action on the measure late last night, voting 420-1 to back the president's use of force. Congress' authorization - which many legal analysts say is not required by law - is intended to demonstrate congressional support for what the administration has called a global war against terrorism. Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, cast the dissenting vote.

What gave you the idea that I was only talking about Congressmen. I mentioned Buckly, George Will and Buchanan as conservatives. Are they Republican members of congress? The only congressmen I mentioned was McCain.

In addition, what Democrat would be insane enough to vote against a resolution like that right after 9-11? Except, of course, Barbara Lee. Did it specifically mention Afghanistan? Are you going to tell me that some members of congress did not only vote for this because of the mood at the time? And are you going to tell me that no members of congress critisized the invasion of Afghanistan?


In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations saying that America's air war in Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So what do you think annoys Rove more?

The fact that the Republican's candidate for Gov in Florida doesn't want to be seen with Bush?

Or the fact that Bush is spending his last day on the campaign trail supporting Harris?

In Harris' defense, crazy as she is, she did do George a pretty big one a few years back.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Just curious -- any difference between the far left, the liberals and the Democrats? It seems like you think they are all always against all wars? (Psst. - don't tell Lenin, Roosevelt, or Clinton).

I just had mentioned how Clinton bombed Serbia, and that was a Neocon thing to do.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do neocons care about any of the following?

-- cost
-- feasibility
-- effective execution
-- results
-- dead American soldiers


I'm just wondering. You talk about being "for" and "against" war like it's a board game.

Getting rid of Saddam is fine. I'm happy to see him gone, will be happier to watch him die (my rabidly anti-death penalty views have an exception for genocide).

Yet, I would not have traded 3000 dead and 10000 maimed American soldiers for that. I wonder if most Americans, if they'd been given a realistic assessment of the costs before the war, would have.

I was just pointing out how necons differ from Conservatives and Liberals. Yes they do take those things into account, but obviously some neocons give more weight to that stuff than others.

From my perspective it is really hard to put a price on a regime change. It is worth a lot. From hindsight, how much would you be willing to spend to get rid of Pol Pot prior to his genocide?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
He got it through didn't he?

When you decline to answer the question for the second time, it suggests you don't have an answer.

Your partisan stripes are showing. You just can't give the Bush administration credit for anything. This is why your judgment is so screwed up because your total hatred of the administration doesn't let you distinguish reality from fantasy.

I'm a supporter of free trade. Compared with the expectations we all had six years ago, they've been disappointing at best, milking the issue for campaign donations while failing to do what it takes to get real progress.

There has been a big line drawn on free trade but that is because the Dems have abandoned free trade. Their leaders are all against free trade. You just don't want to accept that reality.

It's too bad that the Democrats and the Europeans have all ganged up on Bush, right? Anything bad that's happened is clearly their fault, but he deserves all the credit for everything good.

You leave out the possibility that Bush administration promotes free trade because they believe it is the right thing to do.

I didn't leave it out, except in the sense that I also left out the first line of War And Peace because I was addressing something else.

I was explaining why they hadn't spent political capital on the issue. If they believe in free trade, fine -- they still haven't spent political capital on the issue.

But if your point is that we should ignore the Administration's record because their hearts are in the right places, I say, if you love something, spend political capital on it to show how much you love it.

In addition, there are always more possibilities for free trade deals.

That's the advantage of failure -- more opportunity in the future for success. And that's why they'll keep going back to business for the $$$$.

In case you hadn't noticed the US doesn't control the Doha round. There are other players. The Business Round Table and the Chamber of Commerce (and the Economist) have given the Bush administration full credit for pushing really hard on the Doha round. I think these guys are little bit more in tune with what is happening than you, so I (and anyone with a brain) would trust their assessment on the administration's commitment to free trade as opposed to your highly partisan, hatred filled, and skewed view of it.

Golly, that's convincing.

Man. What blogs do you read to get this crap? The new US Chief negotiator was pretty much chosen by the BR and the CC. You don't think they know what they are doing? You don't think they are committed to free trade.

As I mentioned, my opinions on this subject are based largely on the Financial Times, which neither a blog, ignorant, partisan, non-conservative, or hate-filled. I acknowledge that the FT is skewed, but since it is skewed towards big business you don't score many points there.

You mean the people who already have an axe to grind with the administration and really have no vested interest in free trade. The people who have consistently shown they care about free trade support the administration.

I would have thought that referring to the FT explicitly in my post would have kept you from stepping on this particular rake, but I guess not.

The third world blames the Europeans. The third world got screwed in the last round because Europe promised to dismantle the CAP and they haven't. They are not going to be fooled twice. They won't move until the EU commits in writing to reduce the CAP and that is the cause of the stalemate. The US has been scrambling to come up with a solution. It is almost like the US is the only country that cares about continuing the round.

It is almost like you think that the rest of the world is full of obstructionists acting out of a narrow self-interest, while the poor beknighted Republicans who in the Administration, acting out of only the noblest principles, have laid everything on the line to try to achieve some progress.

Actually, you do seem think that. What's crazy is that you expect anyone else to believe it.

You are about as in tune with the Business Community as a Sumo wrestler is with his ass. I talk to the Executive director of the California Chamber of Commerce pretty regularly and the have the cell phone numbers of both the ED and the head of the national chamber of commerce. I am also involved with the Business Round Table. You are going to talk to me about the business community’s perspective? Someone who opposed CAFTA?

I suspect that most sumo wrestlers are quite in touch with their asses, but whatever. I was talking about actual businessmen, not lobbyists, though I gather that distinction is perhaps elusive for you.

I don't recall opposing CAFTA. Perhaps you want to go read those posts again. Or, don't bother.

The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce all give Bush kudos for his consistent committement to free trade, and all agree a Democrat takeover of Congress would be a disaster for free trade.

I don't see Republicans who are willing to take the political hits necessary to get real advances on free trade. So progress is going to take a less partisan approach, and will require deal-cutting to get Dems on board. I'm not optomistic that this will happen in the next two years, but it would be for the best.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What gave you the idea that I was only talking about Congressmen.

I didn't think you were. But you said that " the liberals . . . are against all wars." Obviously, every Democrat in Congress save one voted for the war in Afghanistan. Therefore, either by "liberal" you mean "someone to the left of Dennis Kucinich and every other Democrat in Congress except Barbara Lee," or you were regurgitating spin without thinking.

My guess is the latter.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you decline to answer the question for the second time, it suggests you don't have an answer.

No I have answered it twice. I am just sorry you dont like the answer

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm a supporter of free trade. Compared with the expectations we all had six years ago, they've been disappointing at best, milking the issue for campaign donations while failing to do what it takes to get real progress.

Like the Economist article said, a Democrat takeover of Congress would be disastrous for free trade, so a true free trader would not want a Democrat takeover tomorrow.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's too bad that the Democrats and the Europeans have all ganged up on Bush, right? Anything bad that's happened is clearly their fault, but he deserves all the credit for everything good.

Did I say they ganged up on Bush? In case you hadn't noticed Doha is multilateral, if the Europeans and the Africans can't agree on something, what the hell are we supposed to do about it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was explaining why they hadn't spent political capital on the issue. If they believe in free trade, fine -- they still haven't spent political capital on the issue.

They don't need to spend political capital till it is up for a vote. To get CAFTA through Bush had to get almost unanimous support from the Republicans (as the Dems completely abandoned him). He had to get support among many Republican congressmen that voted against NAFTA. He spent all sort of political capital to get unanimity. He got lots of Congressment, from strong Unions states like Michigan, to vote in favor of CAFTA. That didn't come cheap.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop But if your point is that we should ignore the Administration's record because their hearts are in the right places, I say, if you love something, spend political capital on it to show how much you love it.

He got it through.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's the advantage of failure -- more opportunity in the future for success. And that's why they'll keep going back to business for the $$$$.

When there are infinite opportunities for success, you don't need to fail to get more.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I mentioned, my opinions on this subject are based largely on the Financial Times, which neither a blog, ignorant, partisan, non-conservative, or hate-filled. I acknowledge that the FT is skewed, but since it is skewed towards big business you don't score many points there.

I don't read the Financial Times. However, I do read the Economist and I am in touch with the American business community. Reading the Financial times, by the way, does not put you in touch with the business community. Assuming for a second the Financial Times is saying what you allege they are saying ( a big if considering your record), then why should we take their opinion over the Economist, the WSJ (and almost every american business periodicle), and the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable? You don't think the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable know what they are doing. You don't think they can discern fake support from real support?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would have thought that referring to the FT explicitly in my post would have kept you from stepping on this particular rake, but I guess not.

Funny, I would have thought that referring to the leaders of the business community (who you claim I am not in touch with and you are) against one foreign newspaper (and making it ad odds with the periodicle from the same country with the most free trade credibility) would have put it to rest, but I guess not.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It is almost like you think that the rest of the world is full of obstructionists acting out of a narrow self-interest, while the poor beknighted Republicans who in the Administration, acting out of only the noblest principles, have laid everything on the line to try to achieve some progress.

Actually, you do seem think that. What's crazy is that you expect anyone else to believe it.

What is crazy, is that you think you know better how the Bush administration is acting on trade than all the American multinationals who have a strong vested interest in it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I suspect that most sumo wrestlers are quite in touch with their asses, but whatever. I was talking about actual businessmen, not lobbyists, though I gather that distinction is perhaps elusive for you.

Since business is paying the lobbyists I expect them to have the same motifivation. Are you saying the Business Roundtable, Technet, the Manufacturers Association and the Chamber of Commerce do not have American business interests in mind. Are you saying that they do not really support free trade. Give me a break.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I don't recall opposing CAFTA. Perhaps you want to go read those posts again. Or, don't bother.

Obviuosly these are paraphrases but I distinctly remember you saying things about CAFTA like "It doesn't have enough labor provisions", "It isn't really a free trade agreement because it is skewed so Dems can't support it". "Ellen Tauscher was justified in opposing it", 'the Dems that voted against it are not facing a backlash from the business community" etc.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I don't see Republicans who are willing to take the political hits necessary to get real advances on free trade.

What hits should they be taking?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop So progress is going to take a less partisan approach, and will require deal-cutting to get Dems on board. I'm not optomistic that this will happen in the next two years, but it would be for the best.

Best for whom? Free trade? Are you kidding? Does the Financial Times think a Democratic takeover of the Congress would be good for free trade? I really, really, doubt it. No one with any credibility would argue that a Democrat takeover of congress would be good for free trade. Anyone that prioritises free trade wants the Republicans to stay in controll of congress.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't think you were. But you said that " the liberals . . . are against all wars." Obviously, every Democrat in Congress save one voted for the war in Afghanistan. Therefore, either by "liberal" you mean "someone to the left of Dennis Kucinich and every other Democrat in Congress except Barbara Lee," or you were regurgitating spin without thinking.

My guess is the latter.

Most true liberals are against all wars. How many members of Congress would admit to being a liberal? What percentage of those that would admit to being a liberal supported the invasion of Iraq or Clinton's bombing of Serbia?