Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Do you believe that there was a possibility that Bush would have said "OK, no WMDs, Iraq must stay disarmed, but we can bring our boys home"?

I believe it would have been politically impossible to begin a war if the inspectors were given clear and unobstructed access and allowed to do their job. Over a ten year period, however, they were never allowed to.

Responding to Ty: Sure--he could vote "no" on the resolution if he thought it bad, or insufficiently limited. He didn't. And I don't recall a contemporaneous explanation that his vote was between two bad choices, where a middle ground would have been better. Or he could have introduced an amendment, such as: authorization for war after a six-month (e.g.) period for continued inspections. Did he? Given SH's history, and frutrated inspections being one of Bush's clear issues (unlike conversion to baptism) as compared to the UN (give 'em one more chance), Congress might well have considered a specific limitation on this issue.

Post hoc rationalization is pretty sorry. He jumped on the bandwagon and now wishes he didn't.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is it not obvious from what he told Imus that he supported continued containment? I.e., hold Hussein accountable, but don't invade. Why don't you try to find statements of his that you disagree with instead of attacking him for the positions you hypothesize you hold? It's surely easier to do it your way, but it has a difficulty rating of 0.2.

And while you're asking for Kerry's positions on things, what's Bush's position on Iraq? What's his plan to fix things? 'Cause "more of the same" ain't working.

I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
John F. Kerry, May 3, 2003
Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.
December 16, 2003

Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively.
August 9, 2004

Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
September 6, 2004



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

We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing.
John F. Kerry, September 4, 2003

If it requires more troops . . . that's what you have to do.
April 18, 2004

I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops.
August 1, 2004

We're going to get our troops home where they belong.
August 6, 2004



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

We should increase funding [for the war in Iraq] by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win.
John F. Kerry, August 31, 2003

$200 billion [for Iraq] that we're not investing in education and health care, and job creation here at home. . . . That's the wrong choice.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/607wudfl.asp

This is a repost from earlier this week or last.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I believe it would have been politically impossible to begin a war if the inspectors were given clear and unobstructed access and allowed to do their job. Over a ten year period, however, they were never allowed to.

I'm clear on the ten year period, thanks. It just seems strange to hear all of these other justifications for the war now that we haven't found WMDs, but those same justifications for the war would not have been politically sufficient to justify going in if the inspections had told us there were no WMDs before the war.

Responding to Ty: Sure--he could vote "no" on the resolution if he thought it bad, or insufficiently limited. He didn't. And I don't recall a contemporaneous explanation that his vote was between two bad choices, where a middle ground would have been better. Or he could have introduced an amendment, such as: authorization for war after a six-month (e.g.) period for continued inspections. Did he? Given SH's history, and frutrated inspections being one of Bush's clear issues (unlike conversion to baptism) as compared to the UN (give 'em one more chance), Congress might well have considered a specific limitation on this issue.

Post hoc rationalization is pretty sorry. He jumped on the bandwagon and now wishes he didn't.

I did look up the text of the Congressional reso. I found this bit interesting:

PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

This seems like a congressional limitation to me. Why couldn't a congressperson argue with a straight face that the admin could have relied on further peaceful means to enforce the UN resos without jeopardizing our safety, and therefore what Bush did with the authority was not what was meant when they voted on it?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

This seems like a congressional limitation to me. Why couldn't a congressperson argue with a straight face that the admin could have relied on further peaceful means to enforce the UN resos without jeopardizing our safety, and therefore what Bush did with the authority was not what was meant when they voted on it?

Because they expressly left that judgement call to his determination. They could argue that he made the judgement call in bad faith, but that one would be difficult to pass the straight face test. I note further that they didn't qualify that the determination be reasonable, which is what I would have expected.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought you were essentially conceding that you were making shit up, so I wasn't bothering to respond. Do you really think that's what Blix thought on day one of the war? I don't think so. eta: See, e.g., this review of Blix's book.

Will someone pls. google this. I know I saw it.

[sgtclub]

Russian officials said the government in Moscow has agreed to increase security cooperation with Israel and focus on counter-insurgency. The officials said the cooperation would include Israeli training and instruction on a range of issues, including aviation security and civil defense.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because they expressly left that judgement call to his determination.

Ah, the business judgment rule rears its ugly head. Is that really your argument, that Kerry is contradicting his prior vote because the requirement of the president to report back as to how he used the authority means nothing? Where I come from, words have meaning, esp in a fairly short piece of legislation like this one. At the very least it shows someone among the drafters was interested in making sure the discretion was used in the right way, contrary to Burger's post about how nothing was done to fetter the authority.

They could argue that he made the judgement call in bad faith, but that one would be difficult to pass the straight face test.

Why? We cut short the inspections and once we got in there we never found the WMDs. I'm sure someone who was listening to GWB's speeches about how SH had the most evil weapons ever devised might be able to make a straight face argument that the authority was used for reasons other than those stated at the time. Not saying they'd win, mind you, so spare me the Bush lied crapola. I realize the war could be justified on humanitarian grounds if you are so inclined, but I don't find much of that in the reso.

I note further that they didn't qualify that the determination be reasonable, which is what I would have expected.

So we have to explicitly direct the president to be reasonable in determining whether to go to war? I like your style, man.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub

Aviation security in Russia? go to FB and read Less' post from CNN about how the suicide bombers got onboard.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Ah, the business judgment rule rears its ugly head. Is that really your argument, that Kerry is contradicting his prior vote because the requirement of the president to report back as to how he used the authority means nothing? Where I come from, words have meaning, esp in a fairly short piece of legislation like this one. At the very least it shows someone among the drafters was interested in making sure the discretion was used in the right way, contrary to Burger's post about how nothing was done to fetter the authority.

As you say, words have meaning. If they wanted something more they should have included it in the resolution. All the resolution requires is for him to "make available" his "determination," whatever that means.

Incidently, I'm sure you realize that this garbaly goop is not unusual in an exercise that needs to be carefully drafted in order to garner the necessary support. Happens all the time in the UN.

Why? We cut short the inspections and once we got in there we never found the WMDs. I'm sure someone who was listening to GWB's speeches about how SH had the most evil weapons ever devised might be able to make a straight face argument that the authority was used for reasons other than those stated at the time. Not saying they'd win, mind you, so spare me the Bush lied crapola. I realize the war could be justified on humanitarian grounds if you are so inclined, but I don't find much of that in the reso.

I disagree, but not worth arguing about. You advise someone to go make that argument and see how far it gets. Essentially it would be a Bush Lied argument.

So we have to explicitly direct the president to be reasonable in determining whether to go to war? I like your style, man.

No, but to say that he went outside of his authority you would have to argue he was unreasonable.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And while you're asking for Kerry's positions on things, what's Bush's position on Iraq? What's his plan to fix things? 'Cause "more of the same" ain't working.

Bush's operations have some tactical problems. Some big ones. Strategically, though, I'm still buying what he's doing.

I have no conception at all of what Kerry's strategy might be.

I think that a good strategy means a defined goal, and a goal that is valid, achievable, and desirable. Tactics are just the operational steps you use to get there. Kerry hasn't even told us what his goal would be, except to tell us that it's not Bush's. I suspect that his goal encompasses merely trying to find some international cover, and then bugging out. But, as I said, I can't know that. He won't tell us - maybe because he hasn't decided yet. More polling to do, ya' know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bush's operations have some tactical problems. Some big ones. Strategically, though, I'm still buying what he's doing.

I have no conception at all of what Kerry's strategy might be.

I think that a good strategy means a defined goal, and a goal that is valid, achievable, and desirable. Tactics are just the operational steps you use to get there. Kerry hasn't even told us what his goal would be, except to tell us that it's not Bush's. I suspect that his goal encompasses merely trying to find some international cover, and then bugging out. But, as I said, I can't know that. He won't tell us - maybe because he hasn't decided yet. More polling to do, ya' know.

Bilmore: I repeat, what is his plan? I don't see it in the 20 words it took you to get back to bitching about Kerry.

Hank: If I had the facts you grasp, I'd be voting for Bush too.

Burger: Congress might have considered a different resolution, but it didn't. With the help of the GOP leadership, Bush presented legislators with the vote he did. Your complaint seems to be that the choices posed were inadequate, but what I can't fathom is why you think that's a criticism of Kerry.

Club: In a world where you're either with us or against us, I can understand why you want to see contradictions in those statements. In the former set, he supported the war at the time, and then began to see things differently as he found out the premises for it were false, still agreeing, as we all do, that it's a good thing that Hussein is not in power. On the number of troops, I suspect that there's context missing -- I'd like to see more, but you didn't post a link. In any event, I'm not defending the whole of Kerry's Iraq policy. My original point was that what he said on Imus was perfectly consistent with his earlier positions, notwithstanding your fervent desire to find hypocrisy in everything he does.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club: In a world where you're either with us or against us, I can understand why you want to see contradictions in those statements. In the former set, he supported the war at the time, and then began to see things differently as he found out the premises for it were false,

Or, alternatively, he supported the war because he thought it was right and consistent what he had been saying since 1998. Then he started to tact for political purposes.

On the number of troops, I suspect that there's context missing --

I suspect not. It has been in most of his recent speeches. It's the new new thing. He said yesterday in a speech that it is wrong that we are building firehouses in Iraq and closing them here. His new tact seems to be to argue that the money for the war is better spent in the US. That is a legitimate position to have, but not given his prior statements. And if he has that position, then he should just come out and say that he is against the Bush policy of "staying the course."

In any event, I'm not defending the whole of Kerry's Iraq policy.

Which one?

My original point was that what he said on Imus was perfectly consistent with his earlier positions, notwithstanding your fervent desire to find hypocrisy in everything he does.

And as I said in my PM, we can agree to disagree. It's very hard to convince anyone of anything on these board. In that regard, do you still believe the NG documents are real?

eft

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or, alternatively, he supported the war because he thought it was right and consistent what he had been saying since 1998. Then he started to tact for political purposes.

The more usual criticism of him is that he didn't support the war, but voted for it to maintain his political viability.

I wasn't trying to persuade you that he was right. My point was that it's logically consistent.

I suspect not. It has been in most of his recent speeches. It's the new new thing. He said yesterday in a speech that it is wrong that we are building firehouses in Iraq and closing them here. His new tact seems to be to argue that the money for the war is better spent in the US. That is a legitimate position to have, but not given his prior statements. And if he has that position, then he should just come out and say that he is against the Bush policy of "staying the course."

Please recall that the party line before the war was that it wouldn't cost this much. Remember how Iraqi oil was going to pay for it all?

You seem to think that he wants to cut and run. I don't see any sign of that. I think he's trying to get elected without making promises that he'll regret later. The sad truth is that we're going to be stuck there for a while, trying to make it work.

It is, however, a crying shame that Bush is asking National Guardsmen and Reservists to make sacrifices that he will not ask the rich (or as he calls them, his base) to make.

Which one?

We've been arguing about whether there's more than one, but instead of backing it up, you're back to a cute two-word answer.

And as I said in my PM, we can agree to disagree. It's very hard to convince anyone of anything on these board. In that regard, do you still believe the NG documents are real?

I tend to doubt it, but I haven't followed it closely the last few days so I don't know the latest details, and I heard on the radio tonight (NPR -- either All Things Considered or Marketplace) that CBS still stands by its reporting, which I don't get and makes me thinks there's still something going on I don't understand.

On the broader question of Bush's service and deriliction thereof, there was a damaging new document released in the last few days -- something else the White House hadn't released! Imagine! -- that the conservative bloggers I've checked have been studiously ignoring. Kevin Drum does a nice recap of the state of play:

BUSH AND THE MEMOS....One of the reasons I'm annoyed by the whole Killian memo fiasco is that even if they're real they don't really add much to the story. After all, here's what we already know:

• [1]Former Texas Speaker of the House Ben Barnes pulled strings in 1968 to get George Bush into the National Guard so that he could avoid the draft. This isn't something Barnes just cooked up recently for Dan Rather, either. He testified under oath about it five years ago.
  
  [2]In early 1972, with two years still left on Bush's Guard commitment, something happened. Nobody knows what happened, but for some reason he started flying again in training jets that he had graduated from two years previously; he began putting in simulator time; he had trouble making landings; and in April 1972 he made his last flight. He then refused to take his required annual physical and was subsequently grounded.
  
  [3]In May 1972, Bush left for Alabama and disappeared from the Guard. He showed up for no drills for the next five months, and, contrary to White House statements, he never made up these missed drills.
  
  [4]Bush returned to Texas in late 1972, but in May 1973 his superior officers in Houston (one of whom was the now famous Jerry Killian) refused to rate Bush, saying he "has not been observed at this unit" for the past 12 months.
  
  Oddly, though, official payroll records show that Bush was getting paid for attending drills during this period. The problem is that the payroll records documenting his attendance are completely screwy: Bush is credited for the wrong kind of attendance on some dates, he's given the wrong number of points for others, and weekday duty is frequently confused with weekend duty. What's more, even when you add it all up, Bush's attendance still didn't meet minimum National Guard standards.
  
  The combination of these two things bears all the marks of someone backdating payroll records but doing a sloppy job. The likeliest explanation is that in mid-1973, after his superiors refused to rate him, someone pulled some strings and a bunch of payroll records were submitted for the previous year. However, the person who did it just checked off a few days for each month, instead of carefully making sure that the dates and duty types actually matched up the way they would if they were real.
  
  [5]In October 1973 Bush was discharged from the Texas ANG and moved to Boston to attend Harvard Business School. Although the Bush campaign said in 1999 that Bush transferred to a unit in Boston to finish up his service, they now admit that isn't true. Bush never signed up with a unit in Boston and never again attended drills.

There are plenty more reasons to be skeptical about Bush's National Guard service, but leave those aside for the moment. What we know for sure is that Bush began having problems flying in 1972; refused his physical; was grounded; disappeared for five months; probably disappeared for an entire year; failed to sign up with a unit in Boston for his final year of service; and got an honorable discharge anyway.

And he's never come clean about it. We don't need CBS's memos to remind us of that. We already knew it.

Political Animal (several links omitted)

For all the fuss about the forgeries, the White House has already said they had every reason to consider them authentic -- i.e., their content didn't raise any flags.

• Q Scott, on the National Guard documents on "60 Minutes," the First Lady says she believes these are forgeries. The RNC has accused the Democratic Party of being the source of these documents. Knowing then what you know now, would you still have released those documents when you did?
  
  MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's a hypothetical question, John. We received those documents from a major news organization. We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time.

Atrios, by way of DeLong

As Tim Noah has said, it appears someone framed a guilty man.

I've never seen a conservative attempt a good explanation for why Bush started blowing off his service in 1972.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've never seen a conservative attempt a good explanation for why Bush started blowing off his service in 1972.

As the war ended, and experienced military types started coming back home in droves, the reserves had way more people than they needed or wanted. They were letting people out left and right, blowing off contractual terms in order to thin their swollen and unneeded ranks. Usually, it wasn't an official "here's your discharge" - it was with a wink and a nod, an "okay, I'll look over there for a minute, and, when I look back, well, if you're not here, it won't bother me." I had two friends out early that way, and, later, when their terms ended, their discharge papers showed up. That's how the clerks handled too many soldiers. Everything I've seen about the Bush saga fits that scenario.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
As the war ended, and experienced military types started coming back home in droves, the reserves had way more people than they needed or wanted. They were letting people out left and right, blowing off contractual terms in order to thin their swollen and unneeded ranks. Usually, it wasn't an official "here's your discharge" - it was with a wink and a nod, an "okay, I'll look over there for a minute, and, when I look back, well, if you're not here, it won't bother me." I had two friends out early that way, and, later, when their terms ended, their discharge papers showed up. That's how the clerks handled too many soldiers. Everything I've seen about the Bush saga fits that scenario.

That's a nice stab, but it doesn't explain any of the facts in Drum's paragraph #2 above, or the statements made today by Killian's secretary. Nor does it explain why Bush lied about it later, stating that he served longer than he did (and that he served in the Air Force, but that's another story).

eta: In all seriousness, I give you credit for acknowledging what so many conservatives haven't been able to -- that Bush blew off his service.

What's odd to me is that Bush defenders are so ready to give him a free pass on this stuff as not reflecting anything important about their character even as they try to explain why the Swift Boat crap should be devastating to the way people see Kerry.