Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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?

Assume that Bush gives everyone a pony, free. Would I not have to agree that he is a great president? Of course.

By your reasoning, the fact that Iraq is a clusterfuck heading in the wrong direction means that we are losing the war on terror, right?

I agree that it would be wonderful if Iraq were a democracy, and peaceful, and rich, and a beneficent calming influence on its neighbors, and a force for spreading moderate Islam and the rule of law in the Middle East. Back here in the real world, though, we've spent $200 billion, lost upwards of 1,000 U.S. soldiers, many more casualties from various nation's, and destabilized Iraq such that some of the people who supported the war are now thinking that if things turn out well, we'll have another Lebanon on our hands. We're praying for law and order -- democracy is a pipe dream.

In the last couple of days, Russia and China have taken steps away from democracy. Thanks to his foreign policy and focus on Iraq, Bush is not in much a position to do much about either, even if he were so inclined. (Cheney's reaction to Putin's post-Beslan power grab was to sympathize with the threat they face from fundamentalist Islam, which strikes me as ignorant and counterproductive.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Assume that Bush gives everyone a pony, free. Would I not have to agree that he is a great president? Of course.

Is this an admission? Is what you are saying that whether it is part of the war on terror is dependent on whether or not we are successful?

By your reasoning, the fact that Iraq is a clusterfuck heading in the wrong direction means that we are losing the war on terror, right?

I don't agree with that characterization, but if it were true I would say we are losing a portion of the war on terror.

In the last couple of days, Russia and China have taken steps away from democracy. Thanks to his foreign policy and focus on Iraq, Bush is not in much a position to do much about either, even if he were so inclined. (Cheney's reaction to Putin's post-Beslan power grab was to sympathize with the threat they face from fundamentalist Islam, which strikes me as ignorant and counterproductive.)

I am familar with Russia, but what happened in China?

Iraq has nothing to do with it. And what would you have him do about it? Issue a strong statement? Perhaps, but my guess is that he's weighed this against having a fully engaged Russia in the WOT and has decided that, while not optimal, it is better for America give Putin some slack.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If he'd gotten up there and listed a bunch of policies he wanted to enact, the smears would have been even more successful.

(Only enough time for this.)

Is this your explanation for an entire world wondering "where's Kerry?"? That, if he listed his ideas, he'd be attacked for them?

Maybe that is his explanation, though. It was only a few days ago he said that he has some wonderful ideas for gaining world approval and support in Iraq, but he can't tell us what they are until he's elected.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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.

(Sigh.) Okay. One more.

From the ANG website:

"Although the Air National Guard was not established as a separate component of the U.S. Air Force until 1947, National Guard aviators have played significant roles in all of America's wars and most of its major contingencies since the beginning of the 20th Century."

If you look at the org charts, it's considered a part of the Air Force. Always has been. (Well, since 1947.)

As to the Green Beret example, you're trying to go the wrong way on the charts. I'm in one particular unit of my company. I'm also in the company. But that doesn't mean I'm in another particular unit of my company.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you really this stupid? He voted to give the President discretion. This is Congress's role. If the President used the discretion to make stupid decisions, you hold the President accountable, not the Congress.

First rule of Slaveclub: Excesses of the GOP are the Dems' fault for not being courageous, principled or numerous enough to stop them.

Second rule of Slaveclub: Except for the tax cut, it's all excess.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is this an admission? Is what you are saying that whether it is part of the war on terror is dependent on whether or not we are successful?

In the sense that you suggest, there is scarcely a part of our foreign policy that is not "part" of the war on terror.

I don't think that for Bush, personally, terrorism was the reason to invade Iraq. For some of his aides, the answer is different.

I don't agree with that characterization, but if it were true I would say we are losing a portion of the war on terror.

Read more of the CSIS report about what's actually going on there -- I think I am fairly representing their findings, albeit very generally so -- and less of the Wall St Journal's puff pieces about all the happy press releases issued there recently.

I am familar with Russia, but what happened in China?

Elections in Hong Kong, in which the pro-democracy forces won clear majorities of the vote but not of the seats, due to the way the elections are structured. China gave a big "FU" to all concerned.

Iraq has nothing to do with it. And what would you have him do about it? Issue a strong statement? Perhaps, but my guess is that he's weighed this against having a fully engaged Russia in the WOT and has decided that, while not optimal, it is better for America give Putin some slack.

Bush has used his capital in Iraq that he doesn't have much left.

You ask a good question about what to do about it. Certainly there are things that we might do that would go unseen. But doesn't Cheney's comment set the wrong tone. Ought we not say something publicly? More fundamentally, can you think of anything Bush has done to strengthen democracy, outside of invading Iraq? You've said in the past that you think it's an important part of his foreign policy -- don't the results leave you feeling let down? Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Venezuela -- think about it.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given the important constitutional check that Congress is supposed to play in declarations of war, it strikes me as a bit rich to say "all I was doing was letting the president make a decision". Come on--Congress was making a decision in letting the president begin hostilities. It was not a vote give away its power. The vote had a substantive component to it. And Kerry, at the time, believed war was appropriate.

You people used to say the 9/12 resolution was enough to invade Iraq. That was when we thought several things were true, when none of them were. Barbara Lee is getting the last laugh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Only enough time for this.)

Is this your explanation for an entire world wondering "where's Kerry?"? That, if he listed his ideas, he'd be attacked for them?

No.

And you've had this conversation with S_A_M, or maybe it was Gattigap. You're the only one wondering that. The rest of us are wondering whether the "ownership society" is a slogan cooked up for his speech or wingnut code for flat taxes and privatization of Social Security.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If Kerry really thought that he was conditioning that discretion on the existence of WMD, the resolution should have said exactly that. It didn't and now he is trying to get out of his responsibilities.

I'm imagining what congressional declarations of war will look like on your island nation.

"IF yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which may turn out to live in infamy — the United States of American really was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan . . . "

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
edited to change Iraq to Iran

By turning it into a theocracy by democracy? Too funny!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Israel thanks you for your concern.

We went to war to protect Israel? Somebody better tell Arkansas and Missouri. Do you want to, or shall I?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You people used to say the 9/12 resolution was enough to invade Iraq. That was when we thought several things were true, when none of them were. Barbara Lee is getting the last laugh.

9/10 was enough for me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Sigh.) Okay. One more.

From the ANG website:

"Although the Air National Guard was not established as a separate component of the U.S. Air Force until 1947, National Guard aviators have played significant roles in all of America's wars and most of its major contingencies since the beginning of the 20th Century."

If you look at the org charts, it's considered a part of the Air Force. Always has been. (Well, since 1947.)

As to the Green Beret example, you're trying to go the wrong way on the charts. I'm in one particular unit of my company. I'm also in the company. But that doesn't mean I'm in another particular unit of my company.

If all of that's true, it wouldn't explain why Bush claimed that he served in the Air Force and the National Guard:

• The Air Force claim arose in 1978, when Bush ran unsuccessfully for the House of Representatives from west Texas. During the campaign he produced literature in which he said he had served in the Air Force as well as the Texas Air National Guard. Pressed by the Associated Press about the claim two decades later in 1999, Bush's spokeswoman, handler and biographer, Karen Hughes, insisted the assertion was accurate. Her explanation: As part of his 1968 training to become a Guard pilot, Bush served 120 days of active duty; therefore he served in the Air Force.
  
  * * * * *
  
  The signed document Drudge posted is titled "Statement of Understanding" and dated May 27, 1968, the day Bush joined the Guard. Among the stipulations Bush agreed to was entering "active duty for training for 120 days," bolstering Bush's later assertion about the Air Force. But a Pentagon spokesperson told the A.P. in 1999 that despite their four-month training, Air National Guard members are not counted as members of the active-duty Air Force.
  
  Bush's 1978 assertion that he served in the Air Force is "an embellishment, but not a lie," one former Air Force pilot says. Yet the story soon disappeared from Bush's official biography -- perhaps the best indication of his camp's recognition that the Air Force claim stretched credulity.

Salon

Like I said, puffery.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In the sense that you suggest, there is scarcely a part of our foreign policy that is not "part" of the war on terror.

Anything which attempts to move the needle in the middle east is part of it in my book.

I don't think that for Bush, personally, terrorism was the reason to invade Iraq. For some of his aides, the answer is different.

I do. What, are you going to go with the "avenging the old man routine"?

Read more of the CSIS report about what's actually going on there -- I think I am fairly representing their findings, albeit very generally so -- and less of the Wall St Journal's puff pieces about all the happy press releases issued there recently.

I did read it. And don't think I buy into the opinionjournal shit. Most of it is partisan nonsense, but occassionally there are nuggests in there that you don't find other places.

Bush has used his capital in Iraq that he doesn't have much left.

What does this mean?

More fundamentally, can you think of anything Bush has done to strengthen democracy, outside of invading Iraq? You've said in the past that you think it's an important part of his foreign policy -- don't the results leave you feeling let down? Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Venezuela -- think about it.

How about Aphganistan?

How about the support of HK (although I agree that this is autopilot for the US)

But you have a point. Again, I think he's traded the support for the WOT.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm imagining what congressional declarations of war will look like on your island nation.

"IF yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which may turn out to live in infamy — the United States of American really was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan . . . "

Funny, in AG's world, we just guess what the law is. Everyone knows what's intended so we don't need to document it properly.