Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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

I trust you've read his plan on the website, here . I went to Bush's to look for Bush's strategy, but found it oddly silent on the future in Iraq. Indeed, every mention of Iraq I found looked backwards and talked about what had been done, not what was still to be done.

Obviously, Kerry's plan is very high level, and there are links to several speaches that focus in on one element or another of the plan and give more details. But I'd say the fundamental assumption throughout his plan is that he'll have an opportunity to go to allies and say, "OK, look, I want a real partnership, including partnership in reconstruction contracts and the like, and let's talk. We all know the reality, which is that we're there and going to stay there, now let's figure out how we're going to make this work given that reality."

Or, I'm sorry, was this meant to be just a snide one-off and get a response? Is giving you an answer a Wiff?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
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.

Aw, c'mon. Even The Note, not known at all for being pro-Bush, is talking about how Kerry seems to be moving in the direction of false scare tactics, maybe out of desperation.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Aw, c'mon. Even The Note, not known at all for being pro-Bush, is talking about how Kerry seems to be moving in the direction of false scare tactics, maybe out of desperation.

With Cheney running around telling people voting for Kerry is practically inviting terrorists to attack, I'm not sure how pointing out that Bush has been a consistent supporter of privatizing social security and that this threatens social security is out of bounds.

For the latest Cheney escapes, see here , where he says point-blank, "If the wrong man is elected in November, the nation will come under a devastating armed attack of an unimaginable magnitude..."

I mean, get real.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I trust you've read his plan on the website, here . I went to Bush's to look for Bush's strategy, but found it oddly silent on the future in Iraq. Indeed, every mention of Iraq I found looked backwards and talked about what had been done, not what was still to be done.

Obviously, Kerry's plan is very high level, and there are links to several speaches that focus in on one element or another of the plan and give more details. But I'd say the fundamental assumption throughout his plan is that he'll have an opportunity to go to allies and say, "OK, look, I want a real partnership, including partnership in reconstruction contracts and the like, and let's talk. We all know the reality, which is that we're there and going to stay there, now let's figure out how we're going to make this work given that reality."

Or, I'm sorry, was this meant to be just a snide one-off and get a response? Is giving you an answer a Wiff?

29. Three to Get Ready


The Skipper insists a stone found by Gilligan will grant the finder three wishes before sundown. The professor, of course, insists it is just superstition. Two gallons of ice cream later, Gilligan has only one wish left.....and the sun is going down!


b: 17-Apr-1965 pc: 0731 w: David P. Harmon d: Jack Arnold

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Aw, c'mon. Even The Note, not known at all for being pro-Bush, is talking about how Kerry seems to be moving in the direction of false scare tactics, maybe out of desperation.

Coming from an administration that has said* that a terror attack in the US is more likely if Kerry wins?

And the administration does want to privatize Social Security. Calling them on it is not a false scare tactic. (I haven't heard any specific KE 04 comments about the draft, other than the "back-door draft.")

My point was that Bush is not really in a position to complain about scare tactics or false characterizations of his positions. Glass houses, etc.

*Can't remember Cheney's exact words. Etc.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
With Cheney running around telling people voting for Kerry is practically inviting terrorists to attack, I'm not sure how pointing out that Bush has been a consistent supporter of privatizing social security and that this threatens social security is out of bounds.

For the latest Cheney escapes, see here , where he says point-blank, "If the wrong man is elected in November, the nation will come under a devastating armed attack of an unimaginable magnitude..."

I mean, get real.

Kerry keeps saying Bush will start a draft, but in fact Kerry had a mandatory service plan for HS students included on his webpage until the time he realized he wanted to start saying Bush will have a draft. Fair? Don't know, but it sure shows he's one sleazy fuck.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Kerry keeps saying Bush will start a draft, but in fact Kerry had a mandatory service plan for HS students included on his webpage until the time he realized he wanted to start saying Bush will have a draft. Fair? Don't know, but it sure shows he's one sleazy fuck.

OK, you guys explain the math.

We're told that current troop commitments are probably unsustainable, and there are no immediate signs of Terrorist Fuckheads subsiding in Iraq. GWB redux would have several unappetizing choices to make in the coming months.

1. Continue fighting with existing troop allocations. Again, it's unclear how long we can continue to do this with our existing deployments and rotations. Other coalition members are withdrawing troops (albeit in small numbers) and there's no indication that Bush Redux will be getting any additional ones from any OTHER country.

2. Draw down troops quickly and hand everything over to the (untested) Iraqi forces. Given that noone is very optimistic about the Iraqi forces, this does not seem to be a palatable option, and (despite Novak's bleats otherwise) the thought runs counter anyway to Bush's scratching-of-balls-and-killing-terrorists credo. After all, since we've created the terrorist magnet here, why not stay and kill as many as we can?

3. Increase troop strengh to truly solve the fuckin' problem. Though I like bilmore's strategy, I think that the elimination of the moehair subsidy will only go so far to fund this.

Regardless, Bush has said both (1) incredibly, we've got all the troops we need, so we don't need to expand the Army, and (2) We Will Have No Draft.

Seems to me like one of those statements may have to break. That Bush is trying to have it both (every?) ways is why the story has legs. Sure, you don't like Kerry saying this stuff, but don't be playa-hatin', Hank.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Kerry keeps saying Bush will start a draft, but in fact Kerry had a mandatory service plan for HS students included on his webpage until the time he realized he wanted to start saying Bush will have a draft. Fair? Don't know, but it sure shows he's one sleazy fuck.

The fact that you took my post at face value says something much scarier than Dick Cheney has.

Ah, it's nice when you can catch the breeze in the cheap seats.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
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."

The two are not that inconsistent. Suskind is writing about Bush personally. We all know that there have been terrific battles within the Administration over policy, but they've been aimed at the next decision, not what Bush has already done.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
OK, you guys explain the math.

We're told that current troop commitments are probably unsustainable, and there are no immediate signs of Terrorist Fuckheads subsiding in Iraq. GWB redux would have several unappetizing choices to make in the coming months.

1. Continue fighting with existing troop allocations. Again, it's unclear how long we can continue to do this with our existing deployments and rotations. Other coalition members are withdrawing troops (albeit in small numbers) and there's no indication that Bush Redux will be getting any additional ones from any OTHER country.

2. Draw down troops quickly and hand everything over to the (untested) Iraqi forces. Given that noone is very optimistic about the Iraqi forces, this does not seem to be a palatable option, and (despite Novak's bleats otherwise) the thought runs counter anyway to Bush's scratching-of-balls-and-killing-terrorists credo. After all, since we've created the terrorist magnet here, why not stay and kill as many as we can?

3. Increase troop strengh to truly solve the fuckin' problem. Though I like bilmore's strategy, I think that the elimination of the moehair subsidy will only go so far to fund this.

Regardless, Bush has said both (1) incredibly, we've got all the troops we need, so we don't need to expand the Army, and (2) We Will Have No Draft.

Seems to me like one of those statements may have to break. That Bush is trying to have it both (every?) ways is why the story has legs. Sure, you don't like Kerry saying this stuff, but don't be playa-hatin', Hank.

Yes or no, can we add the troops we want through enlistment?

If yes- then no draft.

If no- then how will Kerry build 2 new divisions (batallions-whatever)?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I trust you've read his plan on the website, here . I went to Bush's to look for Bush's strategy, but found it oddly silent on the future in Iraq. Indeed, every mention of Iraq I found looked backwards and talked about what had been done, not what was still to be done.

Obviously, Kerry's plan is very high level, and there are links to several speaches that focus in on one element or another of the plan and give more details. But I'd say the fundamental assumption throughout his plan is that he'll have an opportunity to go to allies and say, "OK, look, I want a real partnership, including partnership in reconstruction contracts and the like, and let's talk. We all know the reality, which is that we're there and going to stay there, now let's figure out how we're going to make this work given that reality."

Or, I'm sorry, was this meant to be just a snide one-off and get a response? Is giving you an answer a Wiff?

So his plan is to beg? Because the French and Germans have already said no, no matter who is president.

Not a whiff, I was serious. I don't get it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Coming from an administration that has said* that a terror attack in the US is more likely if Kerry wins?

Now, read that, and be fair. What he said was, if Kerry is elected, and we're attacked (and we will be attacked), the danger is that Kerry will treat it in the old, failed crime-scene way.

Of course, two weeks later, Kerry said that electing Bush puts us at heightened danger of nuclear attack.

So many glass houses, so little time . . .

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes or no, can we add the troops we want through enlistment?

If yes- then no draft.

If no- then how will Kerry build 2 new divisions (batallions-whatever)?

Kerry has acknowledged that current troop strength is insufficient, and has committed to spending some real money on growing the forces through additional enlistment, and to do so NOW.

Bush is on record saying that it's not necessary, and has indicated that he would not spend big amounts on upping pay, etc, all the while watching (I think) Army and (certainly) Guard enlistments miss their recruiting goals.

If it becomes glaringly apparent that more troops are needed quickly, then it's hard to see how we could afford to wait for a few enlistment cycles for people to sign up, get trained, etc. The enlisted army doesn't grow overnight. The argument is not so much that Bush WANTS a draft, it's that he may end up with few real options to the contrary.

Sounds like your man needs to get off the pot and commit to some more troops, or he's gonna continue to hear about this draft stuff.

So don't hate, Hank. Be part of that Bush Redux Solution, and push your man where he needs to go!

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Oh, and some baseball haiku:

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

I notice you only post your haiku after a Yankee loss (which explains why you've been so quiet recently).

Schilling goes Game 6
But Boston's best battlecry?
"Just wait til next year!"

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So his plan is to beg? Because the French and Germans have already said no, no matter who is president.

Not a whiff, I was serious. I don't get it.

I believe that there are a significant number of foreign countries who cannot commit to play a bigger role in Iraq because they have been basically told by George Bush to go screw. And, because he has made his rigidity an issue at home, Bush is not in a position to act diplomatically.

As an example, when Turkey was debating overflight issues, Bush's response was not to try to negotiate but to bully, and it backfired. Now, I suspect Turkey will have a much easier time coming around if Kerry is in office.

It's diplomacy. A little give and take and a bit of face saving here and there.

When this administration is over, I'm really looking forward to the books comparing and contrasting the diplomatic approaches of the two Bush administrations (but, a good starting point is "War in a Time of Peace", which shows how Dad did it).