A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

Better check the expiration date.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Better check the expiration date.

S_A_M

Try and make him say something sensible .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Any reactions to Bush's speech last night? Just in terms of style, I thought he did much better than he usually does, in that his style usually really bugs me -- I hear him as talking down to his audience, and preaching at them. I thought he was much more down to earth last night. (But where was the "God bless America" at the end?)

In contrast, Howard Fineman thought he was terrible:

• "George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war."

On substance, I'm underwhelmed. It's more of the same, in a fancier bag. I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as (former war supporter) Spencer Ackerman:

• The lies on display tonight begin from the basic premise that what Bush has proposed is in any sense new. Consider for instance the claim that this time in Baghdad there will be sufficient forces to "hold" territory. We have been told this at every stage -- most recently in the November 2005 "National Strategy for Victory" and the subsequent "Clear, Hold, Build" sales pitch by Condi Rice. This is nothing new. But it is cynical in its expectation that you won't know the difference. Bush proved tonight he will never stop lying to you, and the lies will only compound the worse it gets.
  
  The biggest lie is this: Bush is escalating the war while claiming, again and again, that the U.S. mission is a "support" mission. An additional U.S. force of 21,500 is portrayed to us as a "change (in) our strategy to support" the Maliki government -- a force of Shiite Iraq that Bush repeatedly claims is a "unity government." It doesn't matter if Bush believes that Maliki will lend his 18 Army and national-police brigades to every Iraqi neighborhood, regardless of sect. In Operation Together Forward, Maliki proved that he won't. Indeed, that's why Bush is playing footsie with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a different Iran-backed Shiite cleric masquerading as a unifying figure. Everyone who has served, has friends or family who have served, or who can open a newspaper on a consistent basis knows that when the Iraqi security forces are competent, they are an instrument of sectarian repression. This will not change as long as each sect believes it has more to gain from war than through negotiation, and nothing Bush has said or can do will change that. As a result, U.S. forces are not engaging in a "support" mission -- unless "support" means only that they are the life support for the U.S.-backed political process.
  
  Two years ago, I argued that the only hope of bringing Iraq together and saying that politics, not war, tangibly improved Iraqis' lives was to withdraw. Bush refused to do that, and the window for withdrawal to benefit Iraqis has closed. Now withdrawal will not have any positive consequences for Iraqis. But it will have less-bad consequences for the U.S. national interest, allowing us to mitigate the effects of a failed war and denying al-Qaeda the growth potential it requires by miring it, and not us, in an Iraqi civil war. Am I certain about this, Jason? No. But an assessment of the situation suggests it is the best strategy on offer for our interests, and the one most likely to yield its intended effects.
  
  What we have as an alternative is an escalation of the war in the guise -- as Bush put it -- of bringing it to an end. In short, we must fight the war so we can cease fighting the war. These are the only two options on offer. If you care about this country, you, dear reader, must choose, and have the courage to stand with your choice -- for the 3,018 so far and the more, the many more, that Bush plans to send to their deaths for the sake of his vanity.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Any reactions to Bush's speech last night?

I didn't see the speech. I disagree with Ackerman. I also disagree with Fineman about whether this is any kind of real "escalation" or "surge."

An increase in troop levels of about 20K soldiers (one division, more or less) takes us back to the troop levels of early 2005.
It is an increase of about 13% over current levels. Not much of a surge. [Holy crap, am I agreeing with Ollie North?]

If this strategy is to be successful, it will be as much because of the non-military pieces (which I think are underfunded and may be too late) as because of any temporary troop increase -- though the latter is important because security is critical.

I am afraid we've reached the point where both sides are playing politics with this issue now.

That is part of why, aside from sheer personal glee over the extent of the GOP defeat, I was really hoping the GOP would narrowly hold the Senate. A Dem House would have been a useful check and comeuppance. I think a Dem Congress may push things too far in the wrong direction.

[I sound like Hank in reverse now, don't I?]

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was actually talking about the trend over the last couple of years where uninsured patients were suing hospitals for the size of their medical bills. Frankly, I thought that was a pretty lousy way of fixing the health care system (via lawsuit instead of policy).

I'm not sure what you mean by "payless" system, but I'm all for incentives for better health.

Incidently, the HMO concept was originally designed with the thought that a member would stick with his or her healthplan for decades. The PCP physicians, then would have incentives to educate patients on health, do screenings, get cholesterol down, etc. because they got to pocket the difference between the premiums and what actually went to the patient's healthcare over the course of the patient's lifetime. They had incentives to keep the patient's healty. What ended up happening, though, was that patients would move around from plan to plan and there wouldn't be any real incentive on the physician or the patient side to stay healthy. The HMOs now don't really look, in practice, like the models.

Is that because people chose to move from plan to plan? Or is it because they had to -- either because they changed jobs, their employers changed providers, or (as has happened to me countless times) mergers among HMOs led to the plan effectively being changed on them?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Any reactions to Bush's speech last night? Just in terms of style, I thought he did much better than he usually does, in that his style usually really bugs me -- I hear him as talking down to his audience, and preaching at them. I thought he was much more down to earth last night. (But where was the "God bless America" at the end?)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I didn't see the speech. I disagree with Ackerman. I also disagree with Fineman about whether this is any kind of real "escalation" or "surge."

An increase in troop levels of about 20K soldiers (one division, more or less) takes us back to the troop levels of early 2005.
It is an increase of about 13% over current levels. Not much of a surge. [Holy crap, am I agreeing with Ollie North?]

If this strategy is to be successful, it will be as much because of the non-military pieces (which I think are underfunded and may be too late) as because of any temporary troop increase -- though the latter is important because security is critical.

I am afraid we've reached the point where both sides are playing politics with this issue now.

That is part of why, aside from sheer personal glee over the extent of the GOP defeat, I was really hoping the GOP would narrowly hold the Senate. A Dem House would have been a useful check and comeuppance. I think a Dem Congress may push things too far in the wrong direction.

[I sound like Hank in reverse now, don't I?]

S_A_M

I view the surge as more PR than substance. It's within the range of troop fluctations that have been occuring. Everyone's making too big a deal out of it, because they've got nothing else.

We can initiate a surge in activity with the troops we have now, plus or minus 10% won't matter much in our ability to do so. If our troops get ordered out of the barracks more often, there will be a surge. What a real surge in troop levels, to say double the troops, would do is let us surge activity with more cover and thus fewer casualties and more sustainability.

I am assuming that Bush will initiate a surge in activity, and the question is can it be successful or is it a bunch of casualties incurred without a discernable, achievable objective. The answer has more to do with whether we think there is a coalition capable of and committed to governing Iraq as a multi-ethnic, religiously diverse democratic capitalist state, or whether we think that the issues that speak most dearly to Iraqis have more to do with ethnicity and religion or with democracy and capitalism.

What does this mean I thought of his little chat last night? It's more of the same - a PR smokescreen that avoids engaging in the substantive issues. He's not going to deal with those in public; let's hope he's dealing with them in private and in discussion with the Congressional leadership. But because he's not dealing with them in public, we still don't have what we most need: a clear set of accomplishable goals to fight for.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I view the surge as more PR than substance.

Indeed. It's the White House's answer to the domestic political problem that the public has turned against the war and wants to see something different.

I'm not sure what S_A_M's issue is about "playing politics" with the war. The war is by far and away the most important to voters right now. If you check the polls, it comes in at 40-something%, and the next issue is in the single digits. Since Congress is expressing itself on policy but not tying the President's hands, what's the problem? How can they "push it too far"?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Indeed. It's the White House's answer to the domestic political problem that the public has turned against the war and wants to see something different.

I'm not sure what S_A_M's issue is about "playing politics" with the war. The war is by far and away the most important to voters right now. If you check the polls, it comes in at 40-something%, and the next issue is in the single digits. Since Congress is expressing itself on policy but not tying the President's hands, what's the problem? How can they "push it too far"?

The hard part is exactly how the White House can think that the American public will take sending a few more troops to be "something different."

But then again, I didn't see last night's performance. Thankfully, as I can't stand listening to that man (try to) speak.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Maybe someone can read this and explain to me the nature and significance of the Rice/Zelikow split. I don't quite follow.

Quite an account of the last few months.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe someone can read this and explain to me the nature and significance of the Rice/Zelikow split. I don't quite follow.

Quite an account of the last few months.

have you not read it because it is populated with DU-like people, and you are above thaT?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
have you not read it because it is populated with DU-like people, and you are above thaT?

I read it and did not get that paragraph.

If you're trying to bait me into defending Brad DeLong, whatever.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I read it and did not get that paragraph.

If you're trying to bait me into defending Brad DeLong, whatever.

i was reading the comments

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i was reading the comments

I find most comments on most blogs to be a waste of time, and rarely read them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I find most comments on most blogs to be a waste of time, and rarely read them.

nothing give you a better sense of how unbiased the blog is. ALL blogs sound rational but if all the people commenting have the GGG intellectual firepower and extreme slant, you can know to ignore the blog.

like here's a liberal slanted blog I trust http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot.com./

why do i trust it? well there is a well reasoned frequent commentator named Hank there.