Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I can disagree with almost every sentence.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this is the "wishful thinking" part of your post. the American public believes we needed to be preemptive.

To an extent, the American people also thinks Saddam Hussein was fornicating with Osama bid Laden on a nightly basis in a bunker underneath the WMD. But people are slowly figuring out that the Administration (or, Dick Cheney) was totally wrong about the facts. As they figure this out, they will be increasingly skeptical about a pre-emption doctrine. Pre-emption only works if you take the CIA seriously. Instead, our foreign policy is dedicated to pre-empting the scary thoughts in Cheney's shiny, Hobbesian head.

While I feel its a bit unfair to blame Clinton for not doing more (until 9/11 it would have been hard to get support for invading Afghanistan), a huge percentage of the public does blame Clinton.

No, GOP sympathizers routinely blame Clinton for sport, and to cover up that Bush was asleep at this switch before 9/11. No one defends the previous administration because there's no money in it, but that doesn't mean this mud sticks.

Certainly, it would be quite fair to blame Bush or future presidents for not taking out terrorists states.

There are not that many Afghanistans. And if your mission is to take out terrorist states, why not start with one instead of Iraq?

What you have are Democratic presidential candidates trying to create a political issue out of clear choices made for national security. Why do they do this? not because they believe what thet are saying needs to happen*, but simply because they want to be president and they don't know what else to do to achieve the only thing that matters to them.

It is a political issue because politics is about how we organize ourselves, and how we deal with the major issues of the day, and this is one of them. And because many of us believe Bush is making the country and the world a more dangerous place.

the Dems are believed and supported by the 30% of the public that was against the war to begin with.

Check some more recent polls.

The republicans aren't the ones with the house of cards, bub. You guys lost the senate a year ago, just lost 2 governorships, your presidentials candidates just alienated the entire south, etc...

All Dean (or Clark, or . . . .) has to do is win the states where more people tried to vote for Gore.

in the end, the only meaningful question is, did it made sense to go in. If the answer is yes, it still makes to be there. servicemen die. they die in training and they die when we are in war. its screwed up that it happens, but its not surprising.

The longer this slogs on, and the farther we go without getting to the light at the end of the tunnel, the worse the decision looks. Everyone loved the war when it was all about wall-to-wall coverage of sexy munitions on FOX, but -- surprisingly -- we're not seeing that wall-to-wall coverage of planes landing at Dover.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I do note that most don't but at least one does, and I happen to agree with him (at least on this point).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGO12SD961.DTL
"Every American should understand: Early exit means retreat or defeat. We can have neither."

From the article, W. Clark says:

>>"I would not hesitate to act preemptively if the U.S. was in imminent danger," <<

This statement is representative of the meaningless drivel that we are hearing from him more and more these days. It makes me wonder if he has one stance that wasn't designed by Clinton's pollsters.

Hello

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hello
On the other hand, Fallujah? Shades of my Pinochet posts, but they need to have a shoot-to-kill order in that region for every-fucking-thing. Demonstrations? Dead. Openly carrying weapons on the street? Dead. Throwing rocks? Dead. The towns that don't buckle (and it seems like we keep hearing the same 2 or 3 names most of the time) need to feel the heel.

I agreed with the most of the points in your post, which, aside from making me question my leftist credentials, brings to mind a question I have asked myself a few times. I kind of go back and forth on this: if instead of stopping in Baghdad the main body of US forces had continued northward to really lay the smack down on Tikrit and the Sunni triangle, would we be in better shape today?

Clearly that course of action could have created a lot of icky situations, house-to-house fighting, anger from the populace, all the stuff that we were worried about happening in Baghdad. And maybe that would have made our task in rebuilding the place all the harder. However, as Hank's post points out, perhaps Americans would have been more prepared for the casualties at that time in pulling out these weeds by the roots rather than the dribs and drabs of casualties we have seen from them in the time since the end of major combat.

Please note: this is not a second-guess or admin criticism. Just some thoughts about how the tenor of the occupation would have been changed... which of course may interest only me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I wonder, if I had had an opportunity to answer this question, and had said "the British have learned that there would be less than 1000 GI's dead", would Bilmore still have a problem with you calling me a liar?

I stared at this for 3 minutes trying to figure where all the analogy is twisted wrong, but I'm sorry I can't untwist it for you. I can say only this.... my calling out liar was trying to dramatically show a point of argument with what I estimate most people's fears were pre-war. You had a number is mind, it either was/wasn't higher. But I wasn't really calling you a liar, cuz you hadn't answered (see?). So anyway, I was trying to make a point.
Saying the President "lied", implies he knew and accepted the alleged failings in whatever report you were referring to. You have a foundation problem there.

I could be wrong here, but I am pretty sure you are missing my point. The question was not whether we should have invaded (or, insert less prickly euphemism here) in the first place. You'd like to simplify it to that, and I suppose based on the possibility that Saddam could have developed some nasty weapons programs and delivered the fruits of those programs to the US, most americans would agree with you. However, the point I was really getting at was, now that the preemption die has been cast, should we really be picking now as the time to leave based on the fact that body bags are messy things during a presidential campaign.

I'm sorry, I really didn't get this as your point. Who says we're leaving? There is no way we will leave without a lot more progress, absent some 5 year quagmire Vietnam type thing. We certainly aren't leaving next month, or probably before the election (not because of the election).

The "house of cards" to me was the possibility that this could become all too clear even before the election if the seemingly benign government we put in place either gives way or morphs into some "evil" regime that we'd want to preemptively invade, all other things being equal. But perhaps the huge percentage of Americans would still blame Clinton, so maybe there isn't a risk here. You've convinced me.

if you think, after all the political investment, and shitstorm of protest, that Bush put into the decision, we'll sneak out halfway, then you have seriously underestimated Bush. Don't worry about that, your entire party does it all the time.

I do note that most don't but at least one does, and I happen to agree with him (at least on this point).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGO12SD961.DTL
"Every American should understand: Early exit means retreat or defeat. We can have neither."

can't open it and it actually locked up my computer. who said what?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I can disagree with almost every sentence.

top that shit club. Even Fluffy never achieved this. I am the anti-Tyrone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
top that shit club. Even Fluffy never achieved this. I am the anti-Tyrone.

Actually, I just deleted the stuff I agreed with. No one wants to read one of those namby-pamby, I-wuv-you conversations.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I can disagree with almost every sentence.
All Dean (or Clark, or . . . .) has to do is win the states where more people tried to vote for Gore.

Ty, absent CNN telling the Fla. panhandle to stay home at 7, Fla. wouldn't have been close. But if you think Gore would still win the popular vote, let's just agree to disagree.

As to everything else you say, I really think you are too stuck in the most liberal part of the country to know what people are thinking and you thus have a very skewed outlook. I'm going to table this till next November.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Actually, I just deleted the stuff I agreed with. No one wants to read one of those namby-pamby, I-wuv-you conversations.

Is that why nobody ever talks to me?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank
You have a foundation problem there.

No, I have a not-as-funny-as-I-think-I-am problem. That wasn't a thoughtful analogy, I was just poking fun at you calling me a liar. (tap, tap) Is this thing on?

Who says we're leaving?...We certainly aren't leaving next month, or probably before the election (not because of the election).

We are already planning to reduce troop levels by 25-30,000 by May. I have seen on Lehrer several mentions of the admin's plan to accelerate the pullout due to the strain on our troops and the bad PR. But I don't have any links to give you, so you can feel free to dismiss this as leftist speculation. And on this one I'd be happy to agree, if that were the case.

if you think, after all the political investment, and shitstorm of protest, that Bush put into the decision, we'll sneak out halfway, then you have seriously underestimated Bush.

No, I think I am estimating him just right, in that at the same time the economy is finally giving him some numbers to crow about (except jobs) his approval rating is still dipping. The man's a good politician. Seems like a natural move to me. But feel free to assert that only dems play politics with this sort of thing.

By the way, if you couldn't tell from Hello's post, the article I posted was about Wes Clark.

FWIW, Hello, I'm not sure why opposing preventive war while supporting "imminent danger" war is meaningless drivel, but I suppose that is attributable to the side of the fence one is spitting from. See, I'm talking to ya.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

FWIW, Hello, I'm not sure why opposing preventive war while supporting "imminent danger" war is meaningless drivel, but I suppose that is attributable to the side of the fence one is spitting from. See, I'm talking to ya.

I was hoping nobody would ask this one. Its a softball. For a presidential candidate, supporting a "theoretical" war in the face of "imminent danger" is the intellectual equivalent of supporting a chicken in every pot. Will any candidate say that he'd rather we take the hits than be the first to pull the trigger, even in the event of "imminent danger"?

That was all I'm saying. It makes sense to debate the "preemption" strategy, but the "imminent danger" thingy is pandering of a sort that should embarrass even his supporters.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, absent CNN telling the Fla. panhandle to stay home at 7, Fla. wouldn't have been close. But if you think Gore would still win the popular vote, let's just agree to disagree.

Horsepuckey. That is a myth. Who the hell is sitting around at home at 7 pm, trying to decide whether to vote, and then decides not to vote because they see something on CNN? And I thought the Republican line re Florida is that the stupid voters trended Democrat? Anyway, I didn't mean that Gore would win again -- I don't know about you, but I'm tired of him -- but that it's pretty clear he would have won if all those people who thought they were voting for him hadn't punched for Buchanan instead.

As to everything else you say, I really think you are too stuck in the most liberal part of the country to know what people are thinking and you thus have a very skewed outlook. I'm going to table this till next November.

I'm really quite mobile.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Trying to stir up some debate:

Please see the op/ed page of yesterday's WSJ for an article about how major media publications portray liberal and conservative senators. Conclusion: newspapers use pejorative adjectives to describe conservative senators, but honorific ones to describe liberal senators. DAvid Brady and some research assistant wrote it.

I'd link, but those capitalist fuckers require a sign-in.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
No, I have a not-as-funny-as-I-think-I-am problem.

others have said this but the moniker certainly shows comic creativity

I think I am estimating him just right,

No, you're not.
Bush's greatest strength, or potentially scariest weakness, depending on your perspective, is he actually believes in things and wouldn't let polls deter him. I think this won't seem unusual in a decade or so, once we've gotten some other president's in. The presidency ishould not be about responding to polls. I guarentee Bush won't make Iraq decisions based upon Polls.

You're a little confused now because you and the media are still used to a President who made every choice based upon popularity polls. You'll come out of it by second term.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
it's pretty clear he would have won if all those people who thought they were voting for him hadn't punched for Buchanan instead.

why are you so sure buchanan didn't pull most of those votes? I mean Fla. Has lots of Rednecks, and Pat had to appeal to lots of them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
why are you so sure buchanan didn't pull most of those votes? I mean Fla. Has lots of Rednecks, and Pat had to appeal to lots of them.

And just what part of the country do you live in?