Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I'm not sure. I think the Brits are sort of unique in this. There aren't that many of our "allies" (or Atlantic allies, to translate Kerry-speak) who still have troops with significant experience in colonial occupation (which is, let's be frank, what we are talking about, though we may hope it is not as long term as that characterization would imply), though some have decent urban pacification experience from Bosnia, etc. This isn't some peace-keeping bullshit.

Now, if the Russians approve sending troops (as they have been freaking out the French by openly considering), that will be helpful. Until the US is considered responsible for their methods, at least. Turkey would also probably have some relevant experience, but their participation is politically impossible for the obvious reasons.

The French and, in a radically smaller number of countries, the Italians, have continued to play a military role in many of their former colonies.

The other set of countries accustomed to serving as occupiers are the military forces of any number of third world countries, who effectively occupy their own country. These are the folks we've trained, and some of them (from Central America, for example) are indeed being used, though in very small numbers and from a very limited subset of countries.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Now, if the Russians approve sending troops (as they have been freaking out the French by openly considering), that will be helpful.

That would be . . . unsettling, I think. The Russian model of quieting the natives is a bit more aggressive than what we're used to.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Geraghty:

Blogger Wizbang notes that John Kerry's latest attack on Bush, charging that the President has admitted he would "privatize" Social Security, is based on some shoddy New York Times reporting. (I can hear the jokes now — "is there any other kind?")

Suskind did not attend the event he got the quote from. Further, it was not televised, it was a private event and there were no transcripts available. Yet he reports the quote as fact.
Suskind does not explain how he got the controversial quote so accurate but does say about an earlier quote "According to notes provided to me, and according to several guests at the lunch who agreed to speak..."

So Suskind got "notes provided to him" and that was good enough to run such an important quote. I hope Bill Burkett was not the source. Is this what passes for reporting at the Times today?

Your beef is the weakest thing ever. Please.

— Oh, and who is Ron Suskind that the New York Times is having write a 10 (web) page story on Bush just days before the election? He is the author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill.''"

What do you think the odds are that the NY Times would let John O'Neill write a piece on John Kerry next Sunday?

Suskind is a journalist. O'Neill is a partisan hit man. The fact that Suskind has previously reported facts unfavorable to the White House does not make him biased. The NYT still runs Judith Miller's work, notwithstanding her WMD-related work before and during the war.

[Replaced_Texan]

Bryan-College Station, despite a high concentration of college professors (ag and engineering types, mostly), is not the liberal part of Texas, and this isn't some podunk paper like the Iconoclast in Crawford.

http://www.theeagle.com/opinions/edi...4president.php

October 17, 2004

The Eagle can make no recommendation for president

Seven times since 1980 The Eagle has recommended George Bush, father or son, for high government office. We did so because each time we felt that particular Bush was the better candidate.

George W. Bush is on the ballot again this year and, although we recommended him for president four years ago, we cannot do so again this year.

Nor can we recommend John Kerry.

Neither candidate has been able to articulate a clear and concise plan to deal with any number of issues critical to the voters of Central Texas and, indeed, the entire country, issues such as the war in Iraq, Social Security, the economy, jobs, education, the ever-mounting deficit, health care, immigration, energy, the environment and on and on.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The French and, in a radically smaller number of countries, the Italians, have continued to play a military role in many of their former colonies.

I know. I'm saying that's not enough to be useful. 20-30+ years ago, with Algeria and Veitnam still relatively fresh, maybe the French would have been helpful in this situation, but not anymore. I'm not sure the Italians have been militarily useful to anyone since the fall of Rome, though they have had great uniforms.

I share your discomfort vis a vis the Ruskies' likely tactics, Bilmore. But, while I still think occupying Iraq was the right thing to do, I try not to have any illusions about what we are doing there, or the degree to which the execution has sucked, or what is necessary to do it right. Russia's involvement would give us (i) effective help, (ii) (mutual) significant international support in our (respective) combat situations and (iii) some plausible deniability.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Bryan-College Station, despite a high concentration of college professors (ag and engineering types, mostly), is not the liberal part of Texas, and this isn't some podunk paper like the Iconoclast in Crawford.

http://www.theeagle.com/opinions/edi...4president.php [they both suck]

2. Except about supporting Bushes past.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Suskind is a journalist. O'Neill is a partisan hit man.

Are you daring to suggest that being a "journalist" makes Suskind any less the partisan hit man?

I assume you're trying to be funny.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Are you daring to suggest that being a "journalist" makes Suskind any less the partisan hit man?

I assume you're trying to be funny.

Reporting facts that you don't like doesn't make someone a partisan hit man. (See, e.g., Judith Miller.) Suskind has been around for a while. Writing a book with the GOP Secretary of Treasury doesn't make him a partisan Democrat, even if O'Neill had things to say that don't reflect favorably on Bush.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I share your discomfort vis a vis the Ruskies' likely tactics, Bilmore. But, while I still think occupying Iraq was the right thing to do, I try not to have any illusions about what we are doing there, or the degree to which the execution has sucked, or what is necessary to do it right. Russia's involvement would give us (i) effective help, (ii) (mutual) significant international support in our (respective) combat situations and (iii) some plausible deniability.

Could be. They just have no tradition of walking softly. Maybe the best use of their future participation comes as a talking point - sort of a "wait until your father gets home, young man" threat.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Could be. They just have no tradition of walking softly. Maybe the best use of their future participation comes as a talking point - sort of a "wait until your father gets home, young man" threat.

Apropos of very little, perhaps Russian involvement would trigger a boom in the brick business, as has happened in Kabul.



[Pic of the booming brick business in Kabul, from the LA Times article Hello liked so. Who says the Russians did no good there?]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Could be. They just have no tradition of walking softly. Maybe the best use of their future participation comes as a talking point - sort of a "wait until your father gets home, young man" threat.

They're a double edged sword, since they have no tradition of clearly separating police from military and we have to do that if we're going to have a stable, non-dictatorial Iraq. But I'd be hoping we not use them to train the Iraqi forces but instead to play distinctly military roles in the country.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
That would be . . . unsettling, I think. The Russian model of quieting the natives is a bit more aggressive than what we're used to.

Has anyone figured out what the Kerry plan is? A summit plus the Bush plan done better?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Geraghty:
The Kerry/Edwards/NYTimes campaign has decided they can't convince voters with ringing endorsements so they'll scare old people to death.

Speaking of this concept (can you say "follow talking points"?), this Yahoo/AP headline Bush Faults Kerry for Scare Tactics (link to a Yahoo AP story) has got to win the coveted "you've got to be kidding me!" award.

Oh, and some baseball haiku:

Rivera blows save!?!?!?
Ortiz: "Sox not quite dead yet."
A sweep avoided.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap

[Pic of the booming brick business in Kabul, from the LA Times article Hello liked so. Who says the Russians did no good there?]

I'm most impressed by the description of road-building efforts. Its been discussed on these boards (this and *other* politics boards) several times over the last few years, but it just makes too much sense to me for economic development in a dry land.

Oh, and water supply. I'm thinking that Water for People program could probably do a world of good in places like that for these poor formerly-oppressed people. As a people, I'm rooting for Afghans like no other ethnic group in the world.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Reporting facts that you don't like doesn't make someone a partisan hit man. (See, e.g., Judith Miller.) Suskind has been around for a while. Writing a book with the GOP Secretary of Treasury doesn't make him a partisan Democrat, even if O'Neill had things to say that don't reflect favorably on Bush.

Not directly on point to your post, but . . . .

Here's an example of how Suskind's conclusions can be directly opposite conclusions reached with the same info by others, even within the same source:

--------------------

. Ron Suskind, who created a bit of a stir sometime back with his book airing erstwhile Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill's grievances against the president, says the administration is too rigid:

"The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision--often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position--he expects complete faith in its rightness. "

Then the Times' David Sanger, writing in the Week in Review section, says the administration is too fractious:

"Mr. Bush, more than most recent presidents, has tolerated--even encouraged--a constant battle in his administration over how to shape its approach to the world."