A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
just as Bill Clinton was a more effective spokesperson for the radical left than Nancy Pelosi will be, Blue Triangle posited the agenda better as leader here than you do.

You and Blue Triangle are perfect for each other. Get a room, already.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is you most substantive post every. Well done!

Pot, meet Kettle.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You totally dodged my question.

These are the same people that were able to defeat the Taliban in a matter of weeks. The Soviet Union sent umpteen division and spent nine years and could not get their proxies in control of the country, and yet our proxies took over the country in a couple of weeks and now run the country.

These same people also conquered Iraq in just a few weeks. They have occupied this massive country for three years, with an ongoing insurgency, and they have only lost 3,000 soliders.

They are not outsourcing policy. This James Baker commission is purely a political animal aimed at gaining political support for their next move. But unfortunately, as I said, now that the Democrats control congress, moving more soldiers into Iraq has been taken of the table.

And limiting an army's strategic and tactical options is never a good thing.

You're saying that for the last several years, sending more troops has been off the table because Bush did not want to pay the political price, but that he will now try to blame the Democrats?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
James Baker is one of the most influential, powerful, and respected diplomats in the world over the last half century. If you think that he is just there to give Bush and Co. cover, you are sorely mistaken. He is there to effect an agenda, and I wouldn't bet against him.

If his opinion was being sought for policy purposes it would be done behind closed doors. The fact that it is being done publicly shows that this maneuver is being done for political reasons. He is being used to create support for whatever move the Bush administration is going to make next. He will pretend to listen to all sorts of people (including the Democrats) to make them feel good and to make it look like their opinions matters in an effort to get bipartisan support for whatever happens next. Everyone will feel vested in the solution, and therefore will be less likely to criticize it or to try and screw it up, and in addition, if it goes south the Dems won't be able to use it as effectively as a political weapon in 08.

This commission will in no way effect Bush's policy decisions, but it will effect the perception. And as the old saying goes, perception is reality in politics (but not in policy). Either the commission will create bipartisan support or it won't, but Bush's policy for the next two years has already been decided (and if it changes it will be because of events in Iraq, not because of some opinion floated out in the media).

Bush didn't pretend to include the Dems before because he wanted to take all the political credit when things went well. If everything went picture perfect, and with the Dems complaining all the time, it was a perfect political tool. Now that things are taking longer than expected, he doesn't want it to mess up the 2008 elections. This commission is all about that.

Pelosi is no idiot, she knows exactly what is happening, but I don't think she has figured out how to handle it. The commission is a great political maneuver because it makes everyone feel like they are involved in what is happening. People on this chatroom and everywhere else (newspapers, magazines) will all talk about the Iraq situation and therefore feel like their opinions matter. People want their opinions to matter, and the key in politics is making people feel like their opinion matters (if you ever raised money you know that) and that is what this commission is all about. When people feel like their opinion doesn't matter they get angry and oppose whatever is being done.

When the commission reports comes out there will be a "national dialogue" and Slate, the pundits and bloggers will go crazy talking about it and thinking they are making a contribution to a national consensus and decision. Everyone will be seduced into thinking they are part of the game, thinking their opinion mattered, when the important decisions will already have been made.

Policy is all about getting opinions from people who know about the subject. There are 300,000 million opinions in this country but very few opinions are actually helpful. And as Carville said, the important opinions are rarely expressed in or noticed by the media. Politics is about building consensus and getting reelected. In politics, the opinions in the media, and the opinion of the 300,000 is everything. The mistake is to think the two are related.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

That's fascinating. How does the Trilateral Commission fit in?

I never cease to marvel at how a man with such an obvious flair for politics can have approval ratings in the low 30s and is being blamed for causing the defeat of Republican Senators in Missouri and Montana, but I guess Bush is just a misunderstood genius.

But then, perception is reality.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're saying that for the last several years, sending more troops has been off the table because Bush did not want to pay the political price, but that he will now try to blame the Democrats?

I don't know for sure, but I think it is possible that Bush has avoided sending more troops because he didn't think it was a political option. Country wouldn't stand for it. It may also be that the Generals have been telling him they don't need more troops because they know how tough that would be to ask for and have been trying to do it without them. You don't get to be a top general or admiral without having a strong political sense. However, these are all just guesses.

What I am sure of is no one really knows what the administration is or was thinking, and what they plan for the future. We won't know for years until after Bush is out of office, and Woodward’s books, like the ones he produced during the Clinton administration, will prove apocryphal. What I suspect is that the Bush administration has formulated a plan for the next two years and is using Baker to help him generate the political support.

It may involve more troops. I don't know. He may say that we need more troops just to have the Democrats turn it down. That would be good political cover. What I am pretty sure of is that the Bush administration is planning on using the "national dialogue" instead of being influenced by it (although he is going to try and pretend he is being influenced by it). Up till now the strategy has been to publicly show that they are ignoring the "national dialogue" because that appeals to the base.

It is important to note that for the people that are really invested in the national dialogue (the media and pundits) it is important for them to show that they know what is going on behind close doors and that their opinoins influence what is going on behind closed doors. Because if both those statements are not true, then they are just blowing hot air. But that is exactly what is happening, they are blowing hot air.

Bush is now going to throw them a big juicy bone to help the continue the charade.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Why do you feel that way?

S_A_M

I dislike the moderating tone he brought to the Reagan administration and I HATE GHWBush. Baker helped Bush I become VP and Pres.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I never cease to marvel at how a man with such an obvious flair for politics can have approval ratings in the low 30s and is being blamed for causing the defeat of Republican Senators in Missouri and Montana, but I guess Bush is just a misunderstood genius.

Seems to me that these folks may be confusing correlation and causation. Bush went out to stump late for candidates in trouble -- those who needed help. They lost. Bush's fault for visiting?

Voters undecided in the final stages tend to break against the incumbent when they vote. If they liked the guy, they would not have been undecided.

In sum, seems like sour grapes and internal bickering, but I'm glad to see it happening on that side of the aisle.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't know for sure, but I think it is possible that Bush has avoided sending more troops because he didn't think it was a political option. Country wouldn't stand for it. It may also be that the Generals have been telling him they don't need more troops because they know how tough that would be to ask for and have been trying to do it without them. You don't get to be a top general or admiral without having a strong political sense. However, these are all just guesses.

What I am sure of is no one really knows what the administration is or was thinking, and what they plan for the future. We won't know for years until after Bush is out of office, and Woodward’s books, like the ones he produced during the Clinton administration, will prove apocryphal. What I suspect is that the Bush administration has formulated a plan for the next two years and is using Baker to help him generate the political support.

It may involve more troops. I don't know. He may say that we need more troops just to have the Democrats turn it down. That would be good political cover. What I am pretty sure of is that the Bush administration is planning on using the "national dialogue" instead of being influenced by it (although he is going to try and pretend he is being influenced by it). Up till now the strategy has been to publicly show that they are ignoring the "national dialogue" because that appeals to the base.

It is important to note that for the people that are really invested in the national dialogue (the media and pundits) it is important for them to show that they know what is going on behind close doors and that their opinoins influence what is going on behind closed doors. Because if both those statements are not true, then they are just blowing hot air. But that is exactly what is happening, they are blowing hot air.

Bush is now going to throw them a big juicy bone to help the continue the charade.

Do you understand the irony of you arguing on the one hand that more troops are now off the table because of the election when he's had years to seek more troops and has never done so, apparently, based on your characterization, because he's a wimp?

Bush's attitude has been, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course. He hasn't sought more troops because the course was to keep doing it with those we had. Whatever options he once had, he has frittered away himself.

There is a unique opportunity right now to revisit the situation on make some decisions based on a thorough and long overdue reassessment of the situation. No options are off the table, but patience is wearing thin. Let's hope he doesn't blow it. Again.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I dislike the moderating tone he brought to the Reagan administration and I HATE GHWBush. Baker helped Bush I become VP and Pres.

I see.

Thanks for confirming how little political common ground we have. So, you despise Baker because he is an effective, pragmatic politician and policy-maker?

I will refrain from engaging in the PoPD.

Wackjob. :biggrin:

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I see.

Thanks for confirming how little political common ground we have. So, you despise Baker because he is an effective, pragmatic politician and policy-maker?

I will refrain from engaging in the PoPD.

Wackjob. :biggrin:

S_A_M

Reagan was pragmatic in his own right but he had a vision and core principles. Baker was strictly pragmatic. Guys like him don't believe in anything but rule by pragmatic elitist beltway insiders.

Reagan, with or without Baker, is no W, he understood compromise to get ahead.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Do you understand the irony of you arguing on the one hand that more troops are now off the table because of the election when he's had years to seek more troops and has never done so, apparently, based on your characterization, because he's a wimp?

Bush's attitude has been, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course. He hasn't sought more troops because the course was to keep doing it with those we had. Whatever options he once had, he has frittered away himself.

There is a unique opportunity right now to revisit the situation on make some decisions based on a thorough and long overdue reassessment of the situation. No options are off the table, but patience is wearing thin. Let's hope he doesn't blow it. Again.

I was making guesses. Bush's decision up till now, rightly or wrongly, has been not to increase troop strength. The irony here is that if that was a mistake, now that the Dems are in control the option of increasing troop strenght is off the table.

How can you say all options are on the table? On what planet? Mars. Do you really think the Dems are in a position to support more troops? The left wing of the party would lose their minds. The party would explode into a full scale civil war.

You can't separate political discourse from reality. "Stay the course" is a political line, not a policy decision. Bush's policy in Iraq has changed and has been reviewed countless times since its inseption. When he has said "stay the course", that has been to contrast to the Democrats who he was trying to paint as "cut and run".

A unique opportunity to "revisit the situation"? A long overdue "reassessment"? Do realize how much Iraq has been analysed and reanalysed? At any bookstore you can buy thirty books on the subject. Those are hollow words. Those words are political hyperbole but have no real meaning. Who is going to do the reassessment and analyzation?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So you are counting on the last two years of a Republican administration going badly as a way of regaining support?

Like I think Spanky said earlier, it ain't a "Republican" anything anymore. You're going to hear "lame duck" a lot, and W's going to be a martyr. The Blame Game just became The Only Game. The GOP is going to relentlessly work the media to ride the Dems hard. The media will play along because they want 2008 to be close. The Rovians have 24 months to pin everything on the Dems. And the voting public has a very short memory. My guess is the first party to get tax raising pinned on it gets creamed in 2008. That won't be the GOP.

[Spanky]

The "national dialogue" reminds me of the dialogue that surrounds a professional sports team. Everyone is an expert on how the Giants should develop their strategy and what they need to do to have a winning season. And when they lose everyone knows what went wrong and why they are losing. All the sportswriters write articles second guessing the coaches decisions etc. Of course everyone disagrees but everyone is sure their own opinion is right.

The invasion of Iraq went almost perfectly. But now that the occupation has not been up to everyone's expectation everyone knows what went wrong and why. All of a sudden everyone is an expert on the Middle East and military strategy.

If you are the coach of the Giants how much attention do you pay to the opinions of random fans and sportswriters? If your team is not doing well do you turn to random fans with opinions, fans that write editorials about the team or to the sportswriters? Do these people have access to even ten percent of the knowledge they need to make a prudent assessment?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
The invasion of Iraq went almost perfectly. ...

Except, of course, for a few unsecured ammo dumps, some missing equipment, the inability to identify any weapons of Mass Destruction, an inability to effectively police the country once occupied and a few smiliar immaterial items....

By the way, weren't some of those thing the items Gen'l Franks thought we needed more troops to accomplish?

Just correcting a misstatement, since you insist on continuing to make it. Carry on.