Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

Those words are in plain English. The provision says he'll report to the Congress that those parameters were met. What more does it need to say to impose a requirement that such a determination and report shall be made?

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.

I think this comment proves too much for you. To garner the necessary support, this language was added. Do you think the people whose support this addition garnered really thought it meant nothing in the larger picture of what authority was given to the President?

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.

Give me the right forum, and it might go pretty far. Either way I think it passes the straight face test.

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

You lost me here. You would have to argue he was unreasonable under the current reso, which doesn't insert the reasonable man standard you porposed?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

A. I don't credit Drum's second paragraph as being anything more than his wish list, cobbled together from some very thin gruel.

B. I think, at some point, Bush denied getting out early, and got himself into a stuck position. Too bad. Everybody from back then would have known exactly what happened, and understood.

C. He did serve in the Air Force. I can't believe that you just repeated that piece of crap meme.

D. No one leads a perfect life. Had Kerry not so completely overwhelmed his real political character with his "reporting for duty" persona, thinking (rather shallowly, I think) that that would be enough, I think his service would be a non-issue today. He'd get the same pass Bush gets. But, he's offered no other reason to vote for him, and so that's what gets attacked.

And, you can start listing all of his positions, and try to argue this point, but, damn, man, even the top Dems are excoriating him now for the shallow, single-issue run.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
A. I don't credit Drum's second paragraph as being anything more than his wish list, cobbled together from some very thin gruel.

You're fooling yourself. You should follow his links.

B. I think, at some point, Bush denied getting out early, and got himself into a stuck position. Too bad.

A parable about Iraq. And yet you guys insist it has nothing to do with his character now.

C. He did serve in the Air Force. I can't believe that you just repeated that piece of crap meme.

And some of my Dad's service in the Army was in the Green Berets, except that it wasn't. Bush was puffing his credentials.

D. No one leads a perfect life. Had Kerry not so completely overwhelmed his real political character with his "reporting for duty" persona, thinking (rather shallowly, I think) that that would be enough, I think his service would be a non-issue today. He'd get the same pass Bush gets. But, he's offered no other reason to vote for him, and so that's what gets attacked.

Tellingly, once again I saw that it shouldn't matter, and you say that it does. You guys have a hard time saying that it should with a straight face, but you love the smear.

And, you can start listing all of his positions, and try to argue this point, but, damn, man, even the top Dems are excoriating him now for the shallow, single-issue run.

(1) Being criticized by your own party only means something when you're a Republican. The Democrats start doing it before they wake up in the morning.

(2) He actually says shit about other things. He just can't make it stick. Yet. I fault his communication skills.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

I don't care to argue blogs back and forth. Let's just say that I have read accounts that refute all of what Drum and the others say. The reason why this isn't getting any play is that NOBODY CARES. Most people I know tend to believe he did blow off some of this service (for bilmore's rationale or otherwise) and probably got special treatment to get into the guard in the first place. However, it's indicative of nothing. We have seen how he handles himself in a time of war for the last 4 years and most people have a very high approval of this. So basically people have concluded that he was probably a fuck up in the 70s, but has been a strong military leader since being president.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
However, it's indicative of nothing. We have seen how he handles himself in a time of war for the last 4 years and most people have a very high approval of this.

He talked tough but used his father's connections to avoid making any sacrifice himself. Instead, he took the easy way out. He started lying about what he'd done, and (as bilmore says) got stuck in the lie and was too stubborn to change course. Now he deals with the problem by avoiding it and trying to change the subject.

If he'd changed when he was born again, that'd be different, but this sounds like Iraq.

Oh, and you're fooling yourself if you think he's got high approval ratings for Iraq. On a good day, if the stars are aligned right and the wind isn't blowing too hard, on some polls he can break 50%.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're fooling yourself. You should follow his links.

I have. You should follow some others.

A parable about Iraq.

Only to the true believers, who, incidently, probably also see "The Night Before Christmas" as a parable about Iraq.

And some of my Dad's service in the Army was in the Green Berets, except that it wasn't. Bush was puffing his credentials.

Nope. Reserves are part of the main force.

Tellingly, once again I saw that it shouldn't matter, and you say that it does. You guys have a hard time saying that it should with a straight face, but you love the smear.

Matter? Matter how? Do I think that, in both of their lives, truth may have been sacrificed at times for personal reasons? Sure. Do I think that either situation disqualifies for the office? Nope. But, Kerry chose his battle issues. He chose to say to us "my character, as defined and shaped and demonstrated by my service in the battlefields of Viet Nam, is what qualifies me to be your leader." Bush said nothing like that. Bush presented us with other criteria by which to judge him. Look at Kerry's silly-ass theme for the convention - he leaves no choice BUT to go after his service-as-qualifier mantra. So, yeah, to that extent, it matters - it is a direct response to his offer of proof.

(1) Being criticized by your own party only means something when you're a Republican. The Democrats start doing it before they wake up in the morning.

You've been using this "we do it all the time because we're so diverse and intelligent" theme to discount the fact that my examples show that it's not just Repubs, saying baseless things for marketing purposes, for quite some time. Sometimes they really mean it.

(2) He actually says shit about other things. He just can't make it stick. Yet. I fault his communication skills.

He has excellent communication skills. Unfortunately, it would hurt his chances to accurately communicate who he really is. He's a hard-core liberal trying to play a moderate on the big stage. So, he needs to redirect attention, to things like "we, who have fought and been bloodied in foreign wars, understand the need for day care subsidies . . ."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Those words are in plain English. The provision says he'll report to the Congress that those parameters were met. What more does it need to say to impose a requirement that such a determination and report shall be made?

The requirement is that "in connection with the exercise of the authority granted" he "make available" "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."

I'm not sure what it means to make a determination "available," but in any event, all he has to do is make a determination in regards to (A) or (B). We don't even need to get to (A) because (B) seems very easy to satisfy. He msut determine that diplomacy will not be likely to lead to the enforcement of the UN resolutions. Do you not think he could meet even that standard?

I think this comment proves too much for you. To garner the necessary support, this language was added. Do you think the people whose support this addition garnered really thought it meant nothing in the larger picture of what authority was given to the President?

I think it was probably a compromise and that the original language was far more specific.

Give me the right forum, and it might go pretty far. Either way I think it passes the straight face test.

What's the right forum, Berkley? Don't quit your day job. If you advised Kerry to do this he'd drop another 3% in the polls.

You lost me here. You would have to argue he was unreasonable under the current reso, which doesn't insert the reasonable man standard you porposed?

The assumption is that he will act reasonably. If you want to say he went outside his authority, you would have to argue that he made his determination in bad faith or that he was not reasonable in his determination. Good luck.

efs

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Oh, and you're fooling yourself if you think he's got high approval ratings for Iraq. On a good day, if the stars are aligned right and the wind isn't blowing too hard, on some polls he can break 50%.

Clinton, one of the most popular and charismatic of presidents, won with something a bit higher than 40%.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He talked tough but used his father's connections to avoid making any sacrifice himself. Instead, he took the easy way out. He started lying about what he'd done, and (as bilmore says) got stuck in the lie and was too stubborn to change course. Now he deals with the problem by avoiding it and trying to change the subject.

If he'd changed when he was born again, that'd be different, but this sounds like Iraq.

Nice try, but this is old news and a stretch.

Oh, and you're fooling yourself if you think he's got high approval ratings for Iraq. On a good day, if the stars are aligned right and the wind isn't blowing too hard, on some polls he can break 50%.

He's got high approvals for CIC and the war on terror, the latter being what this election is about.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If he'd changed when he was born again, that'd be different, but this sounds like Iraq.

T'was the night before Christmas . . . .

[bilmore]

"Even the Los Angeles Times has concluded that the documents are fraudulent -- and when you fail to meet the ethical standards of the L.A. Times, you're in trouble."

A. Coulter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I have. You should follow some others.

Your response is wonderfully representative of the usefulness of many conservative blogs on this story. Lefty one's, too. At least they give you more to work with the CBS, though.

Only to the true believers, who, incidently, probably also see "The Night Before Christmas" as a parable about Iraq.

OK. Good one.

Nope. Reserves are part of the main force.

He was in the Texas Air National Guard.

Matter? Matter how? Do I think that, in both of their lives, truth may have been sacrificed at times for personal reasons? Sure. Do I think that either situation disqualifies for the office? Nope. But, Kerry chose his battle issues. He chose to say to us "my character, as defined and shaped and demonstrated by my service in the battlefields of Viet Nam, is what qualifies me to be your leader." Bush said nothing like that. Bush presented us with other criteria by which to judge him. Look at Kerry's silly-ass theme for the convention - he leaves no choice BUT to go after his service-as-qualifier mantra. So, yeah, to that extent, it matters - it is a direct response to his offer of proof.

What a load of crap. Knowing that the GOP would try to do to him what they did to Clinton and Gore, Kerry spent the convention selling character. If he'd gotten up there and listed a bunch of policies he wanted to enact, the smears would have been even more successful. Stop pretending that the smears have anything to do with what he said. Everyone knew the Swift Crap was coming.

You've been using this "we do it all the time because we're so diverse and intelligent" theme to discount the fact that my examples show that it's not just Repubs, saying baseless things for marketing purposes, for quite some time. Sometimes they really mean it.

And sometimes they're ready to run of a cliff like lemmings because the polls are tied. I wasn't saying it was a good thing.

He has excellent communication skills. Unfortunately, it would hurt his chances to accurately communicate who he really is. He's a hard-core liberal trying to play a moderate on the big stage. So, he needs to redirect attention, to things like "we, who have fought and been bloodied in foreign wars, understand the need for day care subsidies . . ."

He's no hard-core liberal, but pretend that if you want to. If he has excellent communication skills, we haven't seen them lately, but I'm thinking he'll have some mo' again before too long.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Nice try, but this is old news and a stretch.

Don't make me quote Ecclesiastes again. I'll do it. You know I will.

He's got high approvals for CIC and the war on terror, the latter being what this election is about.

At least we are agreed that Iraq is not part of the war on terror, and that the conservatives would rather the election be about the war on terror instead of the war in Iraq. There's always the danger though that people will pay attention to the clusterfuck that is Bush's war on Iraq.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At least we are agreed that Iraq is not part of the war on terror, and that the conservatives would rather the election be about the war on terror instead of the war in Iraq. There's always the danger though that people will pay attention to the clusterfuck that is Bush's war on Iraq.

I knew this was coming. Assuming that we could fast forward to 2014 and Iraq is a democracy in the vicinity of Turkey. Would you still not think it was not part of the war on terror?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Nope. Reserves are part of the main force.

Mebbe as a matter of doctrine -- although most active-duty soldiers don't tend to see it all as equivalent. (Especially before the post-Cold War drawdown of active forces. One weekend a month and two weeks in the summer (mostly for b.s. drill) vs. up at 5:30 for PT every day? Come on.)

Anyways, WTF does this statement have to do with Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard? Just tell me how the National Guard is "part of the main force" (except, perhaps, as a matter of very, very technical doctrine). I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that the Texas Air NG is "the Air Force" or the Ohio Army NG is "the Army"* -- especially not in the 1970s. No way.

S_A_M

* No offense intended to those individuals who got the shocks of their life post-9/11 and have been activated for extended periods. When you're in that situation, you're "in the main force." Bush wasn't.