Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. - Page 122

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-07-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We've been there a year and a half. Less casualties than Pearl Harbor or - say - 9/11 attacks.

And you call it a quagmire.

You see, it's stupidity like this comment of yours that cause people to scroll past you.

So scroll, boy, scroll!

It is a quagmire because we do not have a clear strategy for settling the place down and exiting, and, indeed, every indication is that control over the country by central authorities is weakening, not strengthening. Ty won't embrace the word quagmire, but he also hasn't had, that I know of, relatives under fire there and in Afghanistan.

The fact that we have a major commitment in Afghanistan, on the front lines against terror, and are fielding just 17,000 troops there is horrendous, and it is a result of getting tied up in a quagmire in Iraq.

Gattigap · 10-07-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Doesn't your thesis obviate any difference between "bipartisan" and "nonpartisan"?

Why would it? As I'm reading this, "nonpartisan" connotes issues about which there's no real disagreement between the parties. "bipartisan" would cover those about which there is disagreement, but give and take occurs to reach a compromise.

bilmore · 10-07-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Why would it? As I'm reading this, "nonpartisan" connotes issues about which there's no real disagreement between the parties. "bipartisan" would cover those about which there is disagreement, but give and take occurs to reach a compromise.

But he's using it to suggest that a truly bipartisan result can only occur with an absence of partisanship. I think bipartisanship isn't a digital question - it's measured on a continuum.

eta - Binary. Not digital - binary. Words are failing me.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-07-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So scroll, boy, scroll!

It is a quagmire because we do not have a clear strategy for settling the place down and exiting, and, indeed, every indication is that control over the country by central authorities is weakening, not strengthening. Ty won't embrace the word quagmire, but he also hasn't had, that I know of, relatives under fire there and in Afghanistan.

The fact that we have a major commitment in Afghanistan, on the front lines against terror, and are fielding just 17,000 troops there is horrendous, and it is a result of getting tied up in a quagmire in Iraq.

Seymour Hersh's use of the word during the war was, in retrospect, dead wrong. I just read his book, and he's big enough to acknowledge it now. It's clear from his book that he has very, very good sources in the military who feed him juicy stuff, but that for whatever reason -- perhaps because he's writing magazine articles on deadline, perhaps because the material is so sensitive -- he has a hard time of putting it in context and fleshing it out. It's no secret that many in the military resisted Rumsfeld's desire to fight the war with fewer forces, and conveyed their concerns to Hersh at a time when our advance appeared to be bogging down. (For the record, I posted at the outset that the war would last four weeks, and I was just about right.)

But Hersh also points out that the insistence that we commit fewer troops has handicapped us ever since we took Baghdad, and this week Paul Bremer admitted the same thing in public. Iraq certainly looks like a mess now with no attractive prospects.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-07-2004, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
But he's using it to suggest that a truly bipartisan result can only occur with an absence of partisanship. I think bipartisanship isn't a digital question - it's measured on a continuum.

eta - Binary. Not digital - binary. Words are failing me.

Bipartisanship involves a recognition that the parties disagree and a commitment to bridging the differences and working together. So maybe pork bills aren't truly bipartisan, and are called that for political cover.

etfs

SlaveNoMore · 10-07-2004, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter
Not if we include our coalition partners, the Iraqis.

Ours is a "unilateral" operation, remember?

According to Kerry, we have no coalition partners.

ltl/fb · 10-07-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Ours is a "unilateral" operation, remember?

According to Kerry, we have no coalition partners.

Did you actually read his post? About including Iraqi casualties because they are our coalition partner? I think it was intended to be funny. I thought it was funny.

dtb · 10-07-2004, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Not if we include our coalition partners, the Iraqis.

OOooooh. Burn.

bilmore · 10-07-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
OOooooh. Burn.

Wrong word usage. "Burn" is what several million did in Iraq under Saddam.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-07-2004, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Wrong word usage. "Burn" is what several million did in Iraq under Saddam.

Did you actually read his post? About including Iraqi casualties because they are our coalition partner? I think it was intended to be funny. I thought it was funny.

Shape Shifter · 10-07-2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Wrong word usage. "Burn" is what several million did in Iraq under Saddam.

I think we may have burned some of our coalition partners when we invaded them. Get off your high horse.

Not Bob · 10-07-2004, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Wrong word usage. "Burn" is what several million did in Iraq under Saddam.

And in China under the Commies who still run the place, but I don't see you advocating that we "unleash Chiang."

bilmore · 10-07-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you actually read his post? About including Iraqi casualties because they are our coalition partner? I think it was intended to be funny. I thought it was funny.

I understand what was said, and meant, and made the connection right away. Having done that, with a dark chuckle, I then tried to interject my own thoughts regarding the true meaning of christmas, as it were.

Or is that too cryptic?

bilmore · 10-07-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
And in China under the Commies who still run the place, but I don't see you advocating that we "unleash Chiang."

One step at a time.

SlaveNoMore · 10-07-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

ltl/fb
Did you actually read his post? About including Iraqi casualties because they are our coalition partner? I think it was intended to be funny. I thought it was funny.

True. That Kerry insists our actions were unilateral and that he constantly insults our coalition partners is rather funny, albeit, in a tragic sort of way.