Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
He has directly engaged the enemy in combat. Among other things, I believe this gives him a healthier respect for who knows how to accomplish particular missions in the military and where deferral to the brass is advisable.

"I have personally emptied bedpans, while my opponent saw fit to evade that duty when the call came, and therefore I believe I am more qualified to deal with the health care issues that face our great nation . . . "

Like I've said before, I simply don't get this "engaged the enemy" stuff. I have friends and acquaintances who killed tons of people in VN, and, in some cases, who led parts of the organization far more substantial than Kerry led, and I would never consider that experience to have any bearing on how I thought they were fit (or not) to be president. There's simply no correlation.

[Replaced_Texan]

Richard Morrison was endorsed over Tom DeLay by the Houston Chronicle.

(As was Nick Lampson. This is one of the hotly contested redistricting races in Texas, and it's getting nasty. There've been a few anti-gay ads put up by the opposition, implying that Lampson doesn't share his district's "values." He's not gay, but he voted against DOMA and the Federal Marraige Amendment and HRC does support him. Apparently the Poe campaign thinks that bigotry is a value that the good people of Beaumont and the rest of Texas District 2 embrace.)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...torial/2850084

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Rummy sucks and needs to go so that our soldiers are allowed to fight the way they were trained.

How about, the soldiers need to be trained in the new way? Rumsfeld's ideas about reorg make a great deal of sense to me. Problem is, this is the transition army - trained in the old way while the leaders are already looking to the new. I'm thinking we need to catch the training up to the new paradigm of world operations.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is there a "not" missing in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of your post? Or am I still germ-infested, and missing something?

Yes. I will amend.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
They just stop short of endorsing Kerry, but they certainly reference him:

Only if you think that (a), Bush caused the recession, and (b) Kerry would fix the recession.

Their conclusions were every bit as far-reaching as saying that increasing poverty results in more crime. Of course it does. Duh. But that fails to address anything deeper, like causation.

[Replaced_Texan]

Michael Fjetland adds a whole new dimension to the race in District 22. He's running as an independent, but he's run in the past in the Republican primary agasints DeLay (got 16 and 20 percent of the vote in the last two primaries). It's possible that he could take some votes from DeLay. The sort of people who can't stand DeLay but can't bring themselves to vote for Richard Morrison because of his party affiliation. I'm hoping Fjetland becomes the Nader/Perot of District 22.

Charlie Kuffman interviewed him. http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archive...20.html#004320

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
How about, the soldiers need to be trained in the new way? Rumsfeld's ideas about reorg make a great deal of sense to me. Problem is, this is the transition army - trained in the old way while the leaders are already looking to the new. I'm thinking we need to catch the training up to the new paradigm of world operations.

Not being sarcastic, but OK, so they get (re)trained. The new way of light infantry/special ops, heavy air power, and (Reagan's) idea of leveraging our allies worked great in Afghanistan. But there is no way in hell that any credible tactition would justify what has happened in Iraq. Great example: Fallujah. THe marines say, you send us in, don't pull us out til we are done. Don't give us a 3-day or 6 month cease-fire. You want to send a message, don't waver or flip-flop. By all accounts, this was not any new tactic. This was pure political interference at the tactical level, and it is entirely improper.

So sure, we don't need so much heavy armor. We need something though, including reserves. Right now, as Kerry has indicated, 9 of 10 divisions are coming from, going to or in Iraq. And Rummy says we don't need more available. It falls flat on its face. Enlistment goals aren't being met. The army hates, hates, hates Rummy's interference. And if the new paradigm is saying "Mission Accomplished" before you've lost 9 out of 10 troops you are going to lose, than I think someone might need to formulate and explaim the new paradigm. Right now it looks like its little more than declare victory early, whether its been achieved or not.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Great example: Fallujah. THe marines say, you send us in, don't pull us out til we are done. Don't give us a 3-day or 6 month cease-fire. You want to send a message, don't waver or flip-flop. By all accounts, this was not any new tactic. This was pure political interference at the tactical level, and it is entirely improper.

Okay, you've hit the nail, but (I think) called it a screw. I'm guessing that the political interference didn't originate with Rummy. Our best and earliest hope for getting out is a built-up and accomplished Iraqi force, and I'm guessing that we were pushing for them to fix this problem, too early and without enough notice.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Only if you think that (a), Bush caused the recession, and (b) Kerry would fix the recession.

Their conclusions were every bit as far-reaching as saying that increasing poverty results in more crime. Of course it does. Duh. But that fails to address anything deeper, like causation.

I was thinking more in terms of the "deed not word" verbage that they used. Kerry has used that quite a bit lately.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Like I've said before, I simply don't get this "engaged the enemy" stuff. I have friends and acquaintances who killed tons of people in VN, and, in some cases, who led parts of the organization far more substantial than Kerry led, and I would never consider that experience to have any bearing on how I thought they were fit (or not) to be president. There's simply no correlation.

I tied it in specifically to the attitude that Bush and Co. seem to have that they are in a position to tell the generals the best way to wage war. I think Kerry had it more effectively beaten into his head that a lot of these Generals know what they are doing, and is more likely to listen to them.

Folks like Wolfowitz are just full of the arrogance only arm chair warriors seem to be able to muster, yet they are making our military policy today. I will admit that you are right, and service on the front lines wouldn't necessarily set Wolfowitz straight. But it is worth a try.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, you've hit the nail, but (I think) called it a screw. I'm guessing that the political interference didn't originate with Rummy. Our best and earliest hope for getting out is a built-up and accomplished Iraqi force, and I'm guessing that we were pushing for them to fix this problem, too early and without enough notice.

Note that a problem right now in Iraq is still the Rumsfeld doctrine, which keeps us emphasizing light forces. Light forces are wonderful in their place, and it has long been recognized that they have a place, but they are being overemphasized today and in the wrong place light forces are a disaster (cf. the charge of the light brigade). Fallujah is a classic heavy force location (and if you want to compare military learning, watch the Israeli approach fighting in old Arabic cities, where they use lots of armor).

Part of the political interferance issue is a refusal to learn from mistakes, because, hey, Bush can't have been wrong. So today we are not going to shift tactics.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was thinking more in terms of the "deed not word" verbage that they used. Kerry has used that quite a bit lately.

They both have. It's a dangerous statement for both of them - glass houses and all.

BR(vote Badnarik '04)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Re: 2. Did the regulators take the position that the drugs won't be allowed at all in their jurisdictions, or just that the drugs will be provided in an extra-legal manner? This is really my fundamental question here... did someone threaten to violate patents of the U.S. pharamaceutical industry as a nation?

Re: 3. Interesting (your comment on generics). Hadn't heard that before.

Re: Bottom line. Exactly. I'm told the same thing, and it offends me to no end that the risk/reward tends to overwhelmingly favor Amermican risk-taking companies, but at the expense of American consumers. Some of these countries have per-capita incomes almost equal to ours. It sounds entirely like a free-rider/strong-arm theft problem.

Hello

The risk/reward calculus is heavily skewed by the US R&D tax credit, which requires that both the bulk of R&D spending be allocated to the US and profits in the US be sufficiently high to justify the distorted allocation of development costs.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
point of clarification.
I edited my post that this quotes due to seeing GGG had addressed the issue, and in his way made clear that he thinks the guy Ty quoted is an idiot, and implicedly that GGG believes Ty is an idiot. I was responding to a Taxwonk-like misuse of Orwellian.

and demonstrating yet again your lack of depth in using the English language.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So today we are not going to shift tactics.

There is a bigger picture here, and this is not the base problem. The base problem is we are not going to allow our military commanders to shift tactics.

The rest is to Bilmore:
W/R/T Fallujah and political interference, I simply find it inconceivable that there is any way Rummy gets a pass on this stuff. The buck stops there. The marine commanders say they didn't want in, and didn't want out after they were in. Someone ordered them out. And its not like the state department is in charge of fighting (and if they are, that's another complete fuck-up). Either way, Rummy and the Pentagon civilians shaped and ran this operation. If the military is misused politically, there is no way to give them a pass. And Fallujah was just one example.

Hello

PS: Back to Greedy, you are entirely 100% correct about the Israeli tactics, and I think the even heavier recent use of armor in these cities is partly a reaction to what happened in Jenin 18 months ago or so (infantry lured into a trap where walls were exploded onth them). Those tactics would be pretty much perfect in a place like Fallujah, where you don't really want any exposed troops doing foot patrols.