Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
According to the White House, the President was "disappointed" that the DOJ selectively declassified these documents and posted them on its web site, and this was communicated to DOJ. "The president does not believe we ought to be pointing fingers during this time period. We ought to be working together to help the commission complete its work. This is very important work that they are doing that will help us in our efforts to carry out the president's most solemn responsibility, which is to protect the American people."

Josh Marshall has the excerpts from the press briefing.

What a sucker you are. GWB and Ashcroft are doing the good cop/bad cop routine. Moreover, the DOJ released those documents at the request of several Senators.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by Not Me
What a sucker you are. GWB and Ashcroft are doing the good cop/bad cop routine. Moreover, the DOJ released those documents at the request of several Senators.

You mean Bush is lying? Heaven forbid.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Agreed that the argument for the FDR approach is pretty compelling, but I don't think my view is so much paternalistic as it acknowledges that part of warfare is counterintelligence and disinformation (particularly so when your enemy's only real weapon is psychological pressure and their only real defense evasion), and that affects what is said in the domestic press (i.e.: explaining your strategy to the public involves explaining your strategy to your enemy, which is sometimes a really bad idea - something Rummy was pretty nonpaternalistically honest about right at the very start).

I guess I would separate tactics from strategy. I don't think the "why" of our pre-emptive strike has much value in a counterintel situation.

And frankly hiding the real casus belli ball creates such big legitimacy problems that the strategic arguments for disinformation have to be pretty strong for me to say, OK that is a better solution on the whole. But I see your point.

Well, Libya had a combination of WMD/international sanctions that brought some pressure to bear by analogy (with Iraq but not Afgh.), though I think arguments that Iraq made Libya decide to hang it up are overstated, to say the least.

I agree with you that sanctions played a part with Libya (and in fact the major part, the prez's pronouncements to the contrary notwithstanding). But I think you are wrong to limit the influence of our military muscle to those countries nearby to the one(s) we occupy.

The amount of pressure we can really bring to bear from our Iraq base is limited by the amount of resources we have to spend in Iraq. If we occupied Afgh with what would presumably only need to be a smaller force and retained some reserve capacity for a strike elsewhere, I would argue that we would be better situated to influence these other nations with our muscle. But as Rummy says "we'll never know now" so this is armchair quarterbacking from a guy who always loses at Risk.

ObL isn't peripheral, but neither is Saudi Arabia (or Pakistan, or Iran, or Syria, or possibly Sudan and Ethiopia). One is simple [comparatively] to attack directly while others for now are better dealt with indirectly. Anybody who thinks this is a one-front war is an idiot.

And yet we spend a vastly disproportionate amount of our military resources on one front. That to me is just as idiotic.

But here's some nuance for ya: now that we're in there I feel compelled to argue for more troops to be deployed to get the security situation right. This is why I disagree that this was such a good idea: without the proper planning (or the proper assumptions about the tasks required, take your pick) for the what-happens-after stage, we're stuck with a bad set of options. As Gen. Zinni has said, we've been as confused as the dog who catches the car.

It's just a shame they are doing all that deft maneuovering in response to problems created by their constant screwups rather than applying it toward avoiding some of the problems in the first place.

Agreed, but I'm not so sure the maneuvering is deft. I think it's plugging holes in dikes. Eventually we aren't going to have enough fingers.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
You mean Bush is lying? Heaven forbid.

Nope, just spinning. There is a difference.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by Not Me
Nope, just spinning. There is a difference.

Please. If I tell you that I am disappointed that you did something, and I am not disappointed, that is a lie.

In this instance, I am happy to take the President at his word, since the AG is picking a fight with the commission that makes the administration look bad.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
does it maybe make the point that the ONLY purpose of the commission is grandstanding for the cameras?

Not given that we're talking about 2 members out of how many 10-15 (and two of the more productive and less partisan members at that).

Much as I appreciate your effort to celebrate Cinqo de Mayo, Hank, you're off-base here.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
Please. If I tell you that I am disappointed that you did something, and I am not disappointed, that is a lie.

Do you live in the real world? That is so de minimus that it isn't even worth discussing.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Not given that we're talking about 2 members out of how many 10-15 (and two of the more productive and less partisan members at that).

Much as I appreciate your effort to celebrate Cinqo de Mayo, Hank, you're off-base here.

S_A_M

Kerrey left to do some lobbying. Guess lobbying is more important than getting facts from the CIC (unless of course it is on TV).

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Are you fucking kidding me? The Dems make the biggest fucking deal out of GWB and Cheney testifying together and then they don't even bother to stay for the full amount of time they are given to interview them?

Were they the only two Dems on the Panel? What do you know that I don't which suggests that it is critical that THOSE TWO PEOPLE be there for the whole hearing?

Remember something, also: despite the awe that you or I might feel at merely being in the physical presence of our President and Vice-President, which would hardly enable us to twitch, much less stand and walk, these guys have been there and done that plenty of times with plenty of Presidents.

I sincerely doubt that Bush or Cheney were offended.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Were they the only two Dems on the Panel? What do you know that I don't which suggests that it is critical that THOSE TWO PEOPLE be there for the whole hearing?

Remember something, also: despite the awe that you or I might feel at merely being in the physical presence of our President and Vice-President, which would hardly enable us to twitch, much less stand and walk, these guys have been there and done that plenty of times with plenty of Presidents.

I sincerely doubt that Bush or Cheney were offended.

S_A_M

It has nothing to do with being in awe or being offended. They signed onto the commission to do a job. They ask for the Prez and VP to testify and then 2 of them take off early, one to go lobby. Please. Guess it just wasn't that important.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Were they the only two Dems on the Panel? What do you know that I don't which suggests that it is critical that THOSE TWO PEOPLE be there for the whole hearing?

I sincerely doubt that Bush or Cheney were offended.

S_A_M

This is only a big deal given all of the partisan posturing that has gone on the last month. It also, IMHO, shows disrespect for the office of the presidency, but I agree with you that Bush and Cheney were not offended.

Put it this way, if this was 1945, do you think they would have walked out on FDR? I don't think so.*

*And yes, I know, Bush is no FDR.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
*And yes, I know, Bush is no FDR.

Thank god.

[Not Me]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0430/p06s01-woiq.html

• The US and local leaders agreed to allow a new force, called the Fallujah Protective Army, to provide security starting Friday.
  
  FALLUJAH, IRAQ – After lengthy negotiations and steady violence in Fallujah, US Marines Thursday struck a deal aimed at ending their siege of the city and permitting a new Iraqi force to assume control. The force, to be called the Fallujah Protective Army, will be led by a Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi general.
  
  US commanders have been seeking a compromise after finding themselves caught between their desire to swiftly wrap up the insurgency and awareness that an all-out offensive on the city would inflame anti-US sentiments. Already across Iraq, Fallujah has become a rallying cry for anti-US elements, as April became the bloodiest month yet for the US occupation.
  
  Observers and American commanders alike are cautious about the prospects that the new Iraqi force will be able - or willing - to quell the insurgency here. Past efforts to turn security over to Iraqis have met with little success. The June 30 handover of sovereignty is a looming deadline.
  
  "We're now trying to find a middle way ... so we can return to Fallujah six weeks from now, without being shot at," says a senior US officer. "It's not about conquering Fallujah. It's about restoring law and order."
  
  "Destroying a city to save it, is not an option," says the officer.
  
  Joint US-Iraqi patrols were meant to begin Friday, and commanders suggested that some forward US Marine positions may be pulled back starting Friday from the flashpoint northwest sector, scene of most recent fighting against insurgents.
  
  The force may number up to 1,100, many of them former Iraqi army soldiers. The deal Thursday - agreed in a heavily protected compound on the outskirts of town, dubbed "the Alamo" - was sealed at a meeting between US Lt. Gen. James Conway and a group of Iraqis that included four former Iraqi generals.
  
  "The plan is that the whole of Fallujah will be under the control of the FPA," Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne told reporters. He said the force would be led by a General Saleh, who he identified as a former division commander in Hussein's military.
  
  It is not clear how much control former military chiefs may have over the insurgents, a sticking point that has undermined past talks.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put it this way, if this was 1945, do you think they would have walked out on FDR? I don't think so.

In 1945, do you think all of the commissioners read all of FDR's papers?

eta: (FDR was dead, and they had his secretary go through his papers and sort out the pertinent stuff.)

[Not Me]

Ty, the pink eye really bums me out. Not as much as the chartreuse sloth or even the fact that Atticus exists, but still. And I think this androgenous "beauTy" sock is a rip off of PLF's schtick.

How about these avatars: