Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
As the guy on the board with family members (actually, down to one family member now, at last) under fire, can I ask what the fuck you're talking about? I think the mind-numbing danger is what your guy is putting other people in.

" . . .the . . ."?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is a bullshit response, because you're both accusing me of trying to have it both ways, while having it both ways yourself. If you're bothered by the (ostensible) use of the word "quagmire" three days into the war, then you ought to have a real problem with the actions -- not statements, but actions -- taken by the Republicans who are actually running the fucking government, like holding up the creation of the Department of Homeland Security so that they could smear Max Cleland. Or the crap they're pulling in the House with intelligence reform. But you don't, as far as I can tell.

I just don't see it that way, but we'll never agree. I don't think it was held up for the election (DOH that is). I think it was held up because they didn't really like the idea, but political pressure got to great and they caved. I admit I haven't had time to follow intelligence reform that closesly, but why does the 9/11 commision recommendations need to be followed whole cloth in order for you not to see nefarious intent. I have a lot of reservations on the recommendations. Not that I wouldn't ultimately agree with them, but I think they deserve serious thought.

If Bush had been running the war in a bipartisan way, then it would have been too cute by half for the Democrats to take their part in running it, and to criticize its prosecution at the same time. But since Bush wasn't willing to proceed in this way, it is quite simply beyond me why you think that anyone was trying to have it both ways.

Here's where I just lose you. The following is not direct at you, but to many DEMs on the Hill, including JFK. I think they are being opportunist in their stance and have been looking for an opportunity to go against Bush since before the war started. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our troops, that window of opportunity was made easy by the inept handling of the post war reconstruction.

I don't recall the Democratic Party using the word "quagmire." In fact, an awful lot of Democrats, like Kerry, voted to authorize the war. Seymour Hersh used the word in a New Yorker article, and it got a lot of play, but your "argument" -- I use the word loosely -- is a little like my accusing you and the rest of the Republican Party of calling Democrats "traitors" because Anne Coulter said it. If this appears to rankle me, perhaps you remember bilmore accusing me of using the word, and then ultimately having to acknowledge that I hadn't.

Many were. I'm not referring to you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
" . . .the . . ."?

I haven't heard anyone else indicate they have family there. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
I have no idea what you are saying. None at all. But I'm sure you mean well.

I knew you wouldn't. It's a pop-culture reference I threw in that makes as much sense as what you just said in the context in which it was used.

Originally posted by bilmore
On that note, I'm told that I now have to go home and rip guts out of small inland game birds.

Have a good dinner.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But yesterday you were just saying... [something about how people can't run like this and complain that they didn't win later... in this case, Dean didn't complain but many of his doe-eyed supporters do]. Any case, on a personal level, I like the guy.

I don't think McCain or Dean complained when they lost. I'm pretty sure they both stuck to their guns and said "Hey, I told the truth and I paid for it." Neither one complained that the rules should be bent to fit them, and neither one said the voters were stupid for not picking them. They made calculated bets that their candor would work. It could be said that those bets were stupid, but in either man's case, I'd have to disagree. Both were fighting their respective parties' machine, and the only way they could have beaten the pre-ordained like Kerry and Bush in the primaries was to take a wild chance and have it pay off. It almost worked for both men, so I'm not sure it was stupid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I just don't see it that way, but we'll never agree. I don't think it was held up for the election (DOH that is). I think it was held up because they didn't really like the idea, but political pressure got to great and they caved.

You've just forgotten the facts. They didn't cave. The bill wasn't enacted before the '02 elections because of the impasse on rolling back the civil-service protections, and the GOP used the issue to paint Max Cleland and other Dems as soft on Osama bin Laden.

I admit I haven't had time to follow intelligence reform that closesly, but why does the 9/11 commision recommendations need to be followed whole cloth in order for you not to see nefarious intent. I have a lot of reservations on the recommendations. Not that I wouldn't ultimately agree with them, but I think they deserve serious thought.

Re-read what I posted from TAPPED. You have a bill that the Senate passed 96-2, but the House leadership won't let it come to a vote. Instead, they're pushing an alternative bill that omits most of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and includes a bunch of other peripheral things.

And I'm sure very few people would support the entire Commission package. I'm sure most Commissioners wouldn't. Some compromise is inevitable, though, if you want to get anything done. And yet the House leadership won't even let it come to a vote.

Here's where I just lose you. The following is not direct at you, but to many DEMs on the Hill, including JFK. I think they are being opportunist in their stance and have been looking for an opportunity to go against Bush since before the war started. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our troops, that window of opportunity was made easy by the inept handling of the post war reconstruction.

Whatever. That has nothing to do with what I was discussing. If Bush had proceeded in a bipartisan way, it would be hypocritical for Democrats to criticize the war they were helping to run. But that never happened.

And again -- you're complaining that the Democrats were opportunistic in what they said, I'm complaining that the GOP was opportunistic in how it governed. Which is worse?

Many were. I'm not referring to you.

Then so what?

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Mispronouncing "Poland" demeans our allies, you know.

Good one.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You forgot Poland.

Spelling is hard work. Being an Admin is hard work.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Spelling is hard work. Being an Admin is hard work.

[FRENCH ACCENT]In the spirit of bipartisanship, 2.[/FRENCH ACCENT]

etft -- t.s.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You've just forgotten the facts. They didn't cave. The bill wasn't enacted before the '02 elections because of the impasse on rolling back the civil-service protections, and the GOP used the issue to paint Max Cleland and other Dems as soft on Osama bin Laden.

Which is it? Was it not enacted because there was an impasse or for political reasons?

Re-read what I posted from TAPPED. You have a bill that the Senate passed 96-2, but the House leadership won't let it come to a vote. Instead, they're pushing an alternative bill that omits most of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and includes a bunch of other peripheral things.

Why does that mean there is bad intent? The two houses often disagree, though usually the dead end is the Senate not the house. Where's the smoking gun?

[sgtclub]

[i]then so what?

Huh? I was making clear that I didn't attribute quagmire to you, as you seem to be sensitive to the issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Which is it? Was it not enacted because there was an impasse or for political reasons?

The White House wanted an impasse they could use to paint Dems as soft on terrorism.

Why does that mean there is bad intent? The two houses often disagree, though usually the dead end is the Senate not the house. Where's the smoking gun?

If the conference committee produces a bill that looks like the House version instead of the Senate version, you'll know that the GOP Senate leadership was doing Karl Rove's bidding.

And can we agree that what the House is doing is, ipso facto, not bipartisan? If they wanted to take a bipartisan approach, they'd let the bill based on the (bipartisan) Commission's work come to a vote. But they won't. And this point, you're only bickering about whether they're principled wingnuts, as opposed to craven.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Indeed.
A guy you support to lead the country:
Has never done a noticeable day of work in the private sector.
Was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Married even wealthier women.
Wants to raise taxes generally, and specifically on those far less wealthy than he.
Is a Democrat.

Except for the part about marrying women weaalthier than he, this is a perfect description of Shrub.

And your proposition is that Republicans slam the door behind them?

Yeah, pretty much. Perhaps it's the way the Republicans are working hard to strip everything other htan wages from the tax base that gives me this impression.

I know this would sound better if I threw a few insults in, but I'm just not up for it today.

Hello

I wasn't suggesting you needed to throw any smack around. I kind of thought you might offer up some policy or factual backup for what you were saying. But I guess you're having a tough day.

Nevermind.

[taxwonk]

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

And what thousands are now doing under the US military. Again, don't read this to say that I'm opposing the war, or trying to undermine our troops there. Wishing we were making more progress instead of geting sucked further in without a way out doesn't make it any less true.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
The third choice - the guy sitting in his safe office who looks at someone who puts himself and his family in huge, mindnumbing danger every day while working his butt off to design and implement a democratic system in a country with no institutional memory of democracy to apply, and ridicules him.

What guy are you talking about here? The guy with the hand up his ass?