Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I risk repeating myself here, but I've probably voted for more Dems than you, (and maybe even a higher proportion of dems, just to waylay the age jokes) and the "you guys are all so used to being part of an ideological orthodoxy . . ." line just fits Dems to a "t" these days. All in all, I think both "sides" are becoming so equally shrill and illogical as to appear identical.

You say this, but you keep declining the opportunity here to respond to arguments on their merits, and instead take the easy route of dismissing them as partisan carping. (See, e.g., any post where you've used the word "shrill.") S_A_M and Sidd have said it better.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You say this, but you keep declining the opportunity here to respond to arguments on their merits, and instead take the easy route of dismissing them as partisan carping. (See, e.g., any post where you've used the word "shrill.") S_A_M and Sidd have said it better.

Show me an argument that's been made that doesn't ultimately devolve into "yeah, but he's a proven liar/thief/shill-for-big-corps/moron", (like, maybe, someone could suggest some other alternative right now for shutting down the remaining Saddamites instead of just carping about "learned") and I'll pay attention. When half of the submissions contain the word "lie", you do not invite reasoned discourse, especially from someone who never felt lied to - you invite invective and disbelief. You cannot decry the lack of discourse when your language has no intent to convince, but only to cheerlead the believers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Show me an argument that's been made that doesn't ultimately devolve into "yeah, but he's a proven liar/thief/shill-for-big-corps/moron", (like, maybe, someone could suggest some other alternative right now for shutting down the remaining Saddamites instead of just carping about "learned") and I'll pay attention. When half of the submissions contain the word "lie", you do not invite reasoned discourse, especially from someone who never felt lied to - you invite invective and disbelief. You cannot decry the lack of discourse when your language has no intent to convince, but only to cheerlead the believers.

(1) If you'll admit that Bush and other senior officials said things that were not true, I will admit that we don't know enough about their state of mind to know whether they were lying, in the sense that they knew the statements were false, as opposed to reckless.

(2) Whether or not they lied, or the war was wrong, we now have a mess on our hands in Iraq. It ought to be possible to discuss the decision to go to war separately from what we do now. I personally think we need to rebuild the country if we can, and am worried that the Administration (a) has not gone and is not going about the job the right way, and (b) will cut and run for political reasons.

You are the one who keeps bringing up "learned" lately, and as nearly as I can tell, you do it to suggest that legitimate criticism of the Administration is "carping."

(Pointing out that whoever wrote the President's State of the Union speech was trying to mislead people is, apparently, "carping," and therefore is to be disregarded. I get a sense of cognitive dissonance when I see you say these things, so I feel obliged to point this out just to restore my equilibrium.)

[sgtclub]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us_economy_ism

[manufacturing report]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) If you'll admit that Bush and other senior officials said things that were not true, I will admit that we don't know enough about their state of mind to know whether they were lying, in the sense that they knew the statements were false, as opposed to reckless.

I've said earlier that I think Bush & Co. sold their view - hard. I see nothing wrong with doing that. As to WMD's, I read everything as saying that SH had the capability, and was working to rebuild his industries of production. He had chem weaps, (and had used them), and everyone (and I mean everyone, from Clinton to the UN) thought he was further along in ownership that he (apparently) was. A lie? Not to me, especially when Bush & Co. made it clear that waiting for an imminent threat would be foolish. We haven't found the WMD's yet, and I don't think we will, but this doesn't make me think that anyone lied to me, or even said things that weren't true. Closest I can come to that is Powell's UN show, and I doubt very much if anything was faked, or mis-explained, or was wrong - I think Powell would have had to have had a hand in that, and I can't see that happening. The link to terror? Undeniable. If nothing else, look to the Pals - who's been supporting them? A direct connection to OBL? I do see connections, and I also see a bunch of people who want to claim Bush lied because the links we've seen so far "aren't important" in hindsight. What else was there?

(2) Whether or not they lied, or the war was wrong, we now have a mess on our hands in Iraq. It ought to be possible to discuss the decision to go to war separately from what we do now. I personally think we need to rebuild the country if we can, and am worried that the Administration (a) has not gone and is not going about the job the right way, and (b) will cut and run for political reasons.

I agree we have a mess, but disagree with the premise that it is an unexpected mess. I think it is exactly where I expected it to be way back when we first went in, and I think that our current status is entirely understandable. It's a tough thing to do, when such large hordes of thugs have a vested interest in either returning SH to power, or filling the vaccuum themselves. Bush made no secret of how hard it would be months ago. To talk about how this is unexpectedly hard is revisionist cra . . . (OK, less partisan . . .) stuff. I, too, do not want to see us cut and run, but nothing Bush has said so far makes me fear this is a strong possibility. And, what more would you do, or what would you do differently? I don't know the answer - I think we just need to stay where we are, slowly involve Iraquis more and more into running the show, but not bug out until they are self-sustaining in the face of radical Islam.

You are the one who keeps bringing up "learned" lately, and as nearly as I can tell, you do it to suggest that legitimate criticism of the Administration is "carping."

"Legitimate" criticism means, to me, something beyond being stuck in the "he lied" groove for many months after most reading people conclude there were no lies. Talk about how Bremer should have more administrators inside Bagdahd, or how the roads should be patrolled more heavily, and we've got a discussion. Talk about a morass caused by that lying idiot, and we've simply got a pissing contest. Guess which we've been doing for months now?

(Pointing out that whoever wrote the President's State of the Union speech was trying to mislead people is, apparently, "carping," and therefore is to be disregarded. I get a sense of cognitive dissonance when I see you say these things, so I feel obliged to point this out just to restore my equilibrium.)

Pointing it out several times, even when the evidence seems . . . equivocal, at best . . . is criticism. Continuing with the same line for months, in the face of any and every issue, when the evidence doesn't even seem to rise to that equivocal level, is partisan carping. Arbitrary line, maybe, but that's how I see it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I've said earlier that I think Bush & Co. sold their view - hard. I see nothing wrong with doing that.

In the context of commercial speech, few courts would have a hard time with the notion that saying partial truths that have a tendency to create a false impression can create a duty to say more, and can support a fraud claim. They crossed that line repeatedly, and intentionally. Which is not say it's actionable in any way. And that's not even getting to the things that were patently untrue. E.g., Cheney saying there was no doubt that Hussein had WMD.

As to WMD's, I read everything as saying that SH had the capability, and was working to rebuild his industries of production. He had chem weaps, (and had used them), and everyone (and I mean everyone, from Clinton to the UN) thought he was further along in ownership that he (apparently) was.

Depending on what you mean by "capability," I think you are overstating things. He had a nuclear program and chemical weapons in the past. They seem to have decided -- in the apparent absence of any evidence, and occasionally despite the views of the intelligence community -- that he had developed these further, when in fact he had shut them down and abandoned them.

The link to terror? Undeniable. If nothing else, look to the Pals - who's been supporting them?

They didn't make the case for going to war on the ground that Iraq was supporting the Palestinian Authority, but thanks for playing. We'd have to invade a lot of other countries, too, if this was our policy. What they keep playing up is ties to Al Qaeda. But on this point, I don't see misrepresentations so much as an attempt to insinuate ties where there are none.

I agree we have a mess, but disagree with the premise that it is an unexpected mess. . . . Bush made no secret of how hard it would be months ago. To talk about how this is unexpectedly hard is revisionist cra . . . (OK, less partisan . . .) stuff.

Remember that stuff about Iraqis meeting us with flowers? The Pentagon was entirely too optimistic about all of this. They clearly need more soldiers to do the job, at a minimum, but Gen. Shinseki lost his job after he said this before the war.

I, too, do not want to see us cut and run, but nothing Bush has said so far makes me fear this is a strong possibility.

I hope you are right, and am afraid you are wrong. The announced cut-backs in troop levels there are a bad sign, though.

And, what more would you do, or what would you do differently? I don't know the answer - I think we just need to stay where we are, slowly involve Iraquis more and more into running the show, but not bug out until they are self-sustaining in the face of radical Islam.

More troops at a minimum. If this means giving real authority to NATO or the UN so that other countries take on their share, so be it.

"Legitimate" criticism means, to me, something beyond being stuck in the "he lied" groove for many months after most reading people conclude there were no lies. Talk about how Bremer should have more administrators inside Bagdahd, or how the roads should be patrolled more heavily, and we've got a discussion. Talk about a morass caused by that lying idiot, and we've simply got a pissing contest. Guess which we've been doing for months now?

Since we live in a democracy, and the "lying idiot" is going to be asking us to let him keep his job soon, I do not subscribe to the notion that this is all water under the bridge and we should turn to the next problem.

Pointing it out several times, even when the evidence seems . . . equivocal, at best . . . is criticism. Continuing with the same line for months, in the face of any and every issue, when the evidence doesn't even seem to rise to that equivocal level, is partisan carping. Arbitrary line, maybe, but that's how I see it.

I'm sure people thought that talking about the Gulf of Tonkin was "partisan carping" too, but I am confident that historians will see it differently. And the story is not going away before then, because there's a direct line from the lack of evidence of WMD, to the Administration's "hard sell"/misrepresentations before the war, to the coffins coming back to the country through Dover.

[Replaced_Texan]

The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday fired a shot in the fight over non-census year redistricting, stating that the legislature couldn't re-redistrict after the 2000 lines were drawn by a judge. The case, especially if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, could have an impact on similar fights in other states, especially Texas.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...g_Lawsuit.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm sure people thought that talking about the Gulf of Tonkin was "partisan carping" too, but I am confident that historians will see it differently. And the story is not going away before then, because there's a direct line from the lack of evidence of WMD, to the Administration's "hard sell"/misrepresentations before the war, to the coffins coming back to the country through Dover.

Let me put this a different way: If we knew then what we know now -- that Hussein had no WMD and was not a threat to the U.S., imminent or otherwise, and that he had no more connections to terrorism than any other country in the Middle East -- would the Administration have sought to go to war? And would the public have gone along?

On the former question, I would say perhaps. I think the fundamental reasons why they were spoiling for this fight were different -- Bush's conviction that it was the right thing to do, and the neo-cons desire to drain the swamp. But they also recognized that these rationales were not going to carry the day with the public, which is why they pushed the other rationales so hard. Wolfowitz essentially said this to Vanity Fair. And on the latter question, I say no way. Hussein was a bad man, but the public only wanted a war because they felt threatened by WMD and terrorists.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Hussein had no WMD.

We know he had them at one time. The question that needs to be answered is where did they go? Until we can search Syria, you cannot say whether Hussein had WMD or not.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
E.g., Cheney saying there was no doubt that Hussein had WMD.

I think it's pretty universally conceded that, in the interview in which he supposedly said this, he was refering to SH restarting his production facilities. The context of the interview makes this clear. He misspoke. I've read the entire interview, and several conflicting explanations, and I see only this one explanation.

. . . when in fact he had shut them down and abandoned them.

I don't buy this. I'm more likely to buy the theory that he was continuing to try, but had no success (note the recent "Korea screwed him" story), or even the "he thought he actually had them, while his people were lying to him about it" story. I cannot picture SH abandoning that particular quest, ever.

They didn't make the case for going to war on the ground that Iraq was supporting the Palestinian Authority, but thanks for playing.

They made the case that SH was a central figure in the support of worldwide terrorism. In terms of the worldwide impact that seems to emenate from Israel, I'd say his effect there was huge, and was more than enough to satisfy what Bush & Co. were describing. He was a destabilizing force, possibly the most destabilizing in the ME.

Remember that stuff about Iraqis meeting us with flowers? The Pentagon was entirely too optimistic about all of this. They clearly need more soldiers to do the job, at a minimum, but Gen. Shinseki lost his job after he said this before the war.

Read the polls. They are meeting us with flowers. Unfortunately, the .5% that are still rabidly anti-US have all of the weapons and hate left over from the War That Never Was. I think the Pentagon was unprepared for an immediate surrender - they were not prepared for a situation that left SH's army free to walk home with thier guns. This was poor planning, in hindsight. They should have kept them together as much as possible, and put them to work as a group.

More troops at a minimum. If this means giving real authority to NATO or the UN so that other countries take on their share, so be it.

Agreed, but with the proviso that the other members need to wake up and smell the arak, and realize that the bad effect if this fails will only hurt them worse than us. My contempt for the French in this regard (combined with the contempt brought on by reading their arms sales list two days ago) is such that I could never, in good conscience, agree that their needs and desires and philosophies should ever be served by giving them a choice, but if the UN were to agree to meaningfully staff Iraq (not their usual 5% addition on top of our troops, and not on our nickel), I would give them more overall authority, but only operationally, and not insofar as they could determine actual strategy and goals. Hell, we'll be supporting Iraquis forever if we let them establish another Oil for Rapes program.

Since we live in a democracy, and the "lying idiot" is going to be asking us to let him keep his job soon, I do not subscribe to the notion that this is all water under the bridge and we should turn to the next problem.

That's certainly your right. Keep up with the "he's a lying idiot" mode. Saves me money for the Sharpton contributions.

I'm sure people thought that talking about the Gulf of Tonkin was "partisan carping" too, but I am confident that historians will see it differently. And the story is not going away before then, because there's a direct line from the lack of evidence of WMD, to the Administration's "hard sell"/misrepresentations before the war, to the coffins coming back to the country through Dover.

Again with the misrepresentations? See - you can't go one post . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think it's pretty universally conceded that, in the interview in which he supposedly said this, he was refering to SH restarting his production facilities. The context of the interview makes this clear. He misspoke. I've read the entire interview, and several conflicting explanations, and I see only this one explanation.

I never seen such detailed discussions of this. I'm not as interested in parsing individual statements as you might think. I do it because I'm a lawyer. Fundamentally, the Administration told us all that there were WMD, and there weren't. It's really as simple as that. At the time, I assumed that they had intel they couldn't share, and was inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this. Now I feel that my trust was abused.

I'm more likely to buy ... the "he thought he actually had them, while his people were lying to him about it" story. I cannot picture SH abandoning that particular quest, ever.

We can stipulate that he was a bad man, with bad thoughts. That's really not the question.

They made the case that SH was a central figure in the support of worldwide terrorism. In terms of the worldwide impact that seems to emenate from Israel, I'd say his effect there was huge, and was more than enough to satisfy what Bush & Co. were describing. He was a destabilizing force, possibly the most destabilizing in the ME.

I think you are wildly overstating his effect. Note, e.g., that the Palestinians soldier on without him.

Read the polls. They are meeting us with flowers. Unfortunately, the .5% that are still rabidly anti-US have all of the weapons and hate left over from the War That Never Was.

Those teenagers weren't putting flowers on the bodies of the dead Spanish intelligence officers. Must have been some of that .5%. It's funny how such a small proportion of the population gets so much press.

Agreed, but with the proviso that the other members need to wake up and smell the arak, and realize that the bad effect if this fails will only hurt them worse than us.

A nice idea, but it's our baby now, and if it goes south it will hurt us more.

[I]f the UN were to agree to meaningfully staff Iraq (not their usual 5% addition on top of our troops, and not on our nickel), I would give them more overall authority, but only operationally, and not insofar as they could determine actual strategy and goals.

If that works, why don't we tax foreigners to pay for the new Medicare benefits?

Again with the misrepresentations? See - you can't go one post . . .

[acknowledgement of humor]Heh.[/acknowledgement]

[Atticus Grinch]

So it turns out that some of the Guantanamo Bay detainees/political prisoners/what-have-you were actually kidnap victims who were turned over to U.S. authorities for the ransom that was offered for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

Oooooooooooooops.

Seems like maybe due process of law is a pretty good way to get at the truth. The wheels of litigation grind slowly, but these guys spent two years in a chain link cage because our government was too ashamed to admit they'd fallen for the oldest trick in the book.

Edited to add this quotation from Jim Henley's Unqualified Offerings:

We're told today that some colonel fired a gun in the air near a prisoner to scare him and next month that he had the prisoner beaten and put a bullet into the ground by his head. We learn that arresting relatives of suspects "to pressure them to surrender" is a routine policy in Iraq. We're told one month that most of Iraq is not just quiet but friendly and the next month, in one of those quiet friendly parts, crowds drag American bodies through the street. We're told that there's no guerrilla war, then that there is a guerrilla war but we've turned the corner, then we notice that fatal casualties among our soldiers have grown exponentially for seven months and more (but we're turning the corner again). That power will soon be back to normal in Baghdad, then that power will soon be back to normal in Baghdad and then, that power will soon be back to normal in Baghdad. We're told that Iraq's oil will pay for the reconstruction, then that we must spend billions on Iraq's oil industry itself. We preen about our national virtue, then pause to contemplate "politically propitious times" to release the innocent. We excuse sins in ourselves we punish in others.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch Seems like maybe due process of law is a pretty good way to get at the truth. The wheels of litigation grind slowly, but these guys spent two years in a chain link cage because our government was too ashamed to admit they'd fallen for the oldest trick in the book.

The appropriate word is "grind" when people are forced to represent themselves pro se.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So it turns out that some of the Guantanamo Bay detainees/political prisoners/what-have-you were actually kidnap victims who were turned over to U.S. authorities for the ransom that was offered for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

Oooooooooooooops.

Many months ago I posted an article from (I think) the Boston Globe about some of the prisoners. Like the guy who got lobotomized with an anti-tank round such that any neurosurgeon or whatever could state with certainty that he would never present a danger to anyone again. Half his head was missing. There were a few really extreme cases that were noted at the time. Evidence included the statements of some of the intake teams (soldiers) on the ground in Afghanistan who were like "yeah, our rules say "16-40? Check; in custody for any reason? Check; non-Afghan? Check", put em on the plane to Cuba.

In other words, the evaluators on the ground, including intelligence teams, said they opposed sending some of the people as "Al Queda" types, but the rules were followed to the letter. 3 for 7? or was it 3 for 6? Whatever, there has been evidence that this has gone too far for some time.

That said, given that its the intelligence/military people using the word "kidnap", I'd guess they meant "kidnap" in the sense of "innocent, as far as we know, of whatever we charged them with". But if that is the media making up the word "kidnap", I'd imagine some of these "victims" might have been legitimate targets.

Hard to say without quoting and noting the sources. But yeah, there were excesses, no doubt.

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
That said, given that its the intelligence/military people using the word "kidnap", I'd guess they meant "kidnap" in the sense of "innocent, as far as we know, of whatever we charged them with". But if that is the media making up the word "kidnap", I'd imagine some of these "victims" might have been legitimate targets.

I think the military people are not using the term "kidnap" in the sense of "Sorry we kidnapped you"; I think they meant it in the sense of "We took you into custody when some Northern Alliance fighters swore on a stack of Qur'ans that you were a resistance fighter --- keep in mind here that you were a little beat up and wearing a black hood at the time, honest mistake --- and we gave them a check in accordance with our standard reward policy, but it turns out you were merely bonking the wrong chieftan's sister or something and, oh well, long story short, we're out a bunch of reward money and here's your plane ticket; and --- funny story here --- some other time we'll tell you about the unfortunate resonance this has with the way the U.S. obtained large portions of its population of African descent; and we certainly hope there won't be any diplomatic incidents arising from this, which could be messy for everyone involved, right?"

But all I know is what I read in the weblogs.