Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
So what happens to the other justifications for invasion (humanitarian crisis, forward strategy of democracy, etc)? Do they just get ignored?

Yep. See, Sudan, Eritrea, Congo, Tibet, North Korea, Cuba....

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
It's not usually fair to knock on first ladies (or wannabe's) but this woman gives me the creeps.

It seems fair if she injects herself into the political debate, which generally she has. Her problem is that she appears to have a tin political ear. Her point on prioritization of needs is probably right, but she put it in a rather undiplomatic way.

[taxwonk]

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.

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 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.



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

Are we talking about the Prudent Man standard? THat argument could and has been made.

[taxwonk]

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.

If that was the case, it would have been easy enough to just say so. The problem is that his people keep offering up explanations that can't be objectively backed up, then they change their story to something that, again, can't be backed up.

The Republicans are trying to make big political hay with the Swiftboat shit, but they have the same stink in their own house. And none of it really matters nearly so much as what the two men are likely to do if we put them in the White House for the next four years.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by 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.

Bilmore, when you start quoting Ann Coulter, you're in trouble. Even more so when you start quoting her on ethics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sometimes you are drawing a distinction between the two and sometimes the one is part of the other.

Look, there's no question that Iraq is going to have a huge effect on the so-called war on terror. That's not looking like a good thing.

I know math is hard, but think of it as a venn diagram. The WOT is the big circle and Iraq is a circle subsumed within it.

The accounts I've see suggest that those elections will leave the country far short of anything that could fairly be called "democracy." But it's important to the Bush folks that we hold the elections before November, odd as that may seem.

For someone who is so offended when Kerry appears to introduce politics into his policy statements, you are incredibly resistant to the notion that the Bush folks subordinate foreign policy to their political needs. And yet that is exactly what seems to be happening with the Afghan elections.

From what I've read, over 7.5 million people will vote in the elections. Moving from a totalitarian state to a democracy or quasi democracy does not happen overnight, as much as the DEMs would like us to believe. You must be PATIENT.

As for the politics of this, the election date has been blessed by the UN, which I'm told by many on this board, at gives it legitimacy.

Just so long as you understand that the sacrifices we make in our Russia policy are one more set of costs of invading Iraq.

No, the sacrifices we make in our Russia policy are one of the costs of the WOT. We would be taking the same tact had we never invaded Iraq.

eft

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Bilmore, when you start quoting Ann Coulter, you're in trouble. Even more so when you start quoting her on ethics.

Taxwonk, she's smart, she's funny as hell, and she shares my opinion of the LA Times. I'll quote her until the cows come home, and feel good about it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I know math is hard, but think of it as a venn diagram. The WOT is the big circle and Iraq is a circle subsumed within it.

Among the points of contention from last night's thread, the above has devolved to a particularly silly one. Ty is agreeing with you that Iraq is part of the WOT now. Today Iraq has more terrorists than missing "g"''s in a Bush stump speech.*

The argument is one of timing, and venn diagrams, nifty as they are, skip that minor detail. And, as Ty observed earlier, in your venn diagram the WOT probably takes up the entire whiteboard, and also subsumes little circles off to the edges like:

• Russia -- clamp-down on democracy
• China - see Russia
• North Korea -- something bad. Remember to ask Cheney
• Iran -- ask UN to help?
• Crush Kerry Campaign
• Brush and Floss

And BTW, when you say that "no one could've anticipated the infusion of foreign fighters," I suppose that's true in the same sense that noone could've anticipated, you know, an insurgency.

When we invaded and took over the place, I'm sure there was someone in the vast bureaucracy in charge of securing the borders of this nifty new nation we bought. Presumably, this person was told that we were undertaking a mission of democracy to become a beacon of light in a dark, hate-filled, cesspool of Islamists, and being on guard was probably a good idea. Unfortunately, based on results, I'm guessing that person was Douglas Feith.

Gattigap

* And speaking of, some new estimates are that the number of Iraqis in the Sunni insurgency, including fighters, messengers and people who provide logistical, housing and other assistance to them exceed 100,000. Now that's a lot of hearts and minds to win (or alternatively, cities to flatten with Bilmore's smart bombs).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Taxwonk, she's smart, she's funny as hell, and she shares my opinion of the LA Times. I'll quote her until the cows come home, and feel good about it.

Back off, cowpoke. I was just being facetious.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Back off, cowpoke. I was just being facetious.

Good. You can't imagine the number of people who recoil in horror at any mention of her - why, she's MEAN and HORRID and . . . and . . . just AWFUL - but then it turns out they've never read any of her writings, they've just read ABOUT her. In Salon, or the NYT.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Good. You can't imagine the number of people who recoil in horror at any mention of her - why, she's MEAN and HORRID and . . . and . . . just AWFUL - but then it turns out they've never read any of her writings, they've just read ABOUT her. In Salon, or the NYT.

Not at all . She's full of good material, and we all enjoy reading her stuff.

(Pakistanis might not, but their place in the book-buying caste system probably isn't very high anyway, so the loss is bearable.)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Good. You can't imagine the number of people who recoil in horror at any mention of her - why, she's MEAN and HORRID and . . . and . . . just AWFUL - but then it turns out they've never read any of her writings, they've just read ABOUT her. In Salon, or the NYT.

I've read her. I AT LEAST expected her to be funny, in a shock jock way. She wasn't. And I'm not anti-shock jock humor. She reminds me of ManCow here in Chicago -- both try REALLY hard to be outrageous, but neither of them are very entertaining or creative.

Don't ask me how Stern pulls it off. He has a gift.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I've read her. I AT LEAST expected her to be funny, in a shock jock way. She wasn't. And I'm not anti-shock jock humor. She reminds me of ManCow here in Chicago -- both try REALLY hard to be outrageous, but neither of them are very entertaining or creative.

Don't ask me how Stern pulls it off. He has a gift.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I hate Stern.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Not at all . She's full of good material, and we all enjoy reading her stuff.

(Pakistanis might not, but their place in the book-buying caste system probably isn't very high anyway, so the loss is bearable.)

Did you notice how her line that you point to ("Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims") was used, word for word, by a very high-ranking Muslim leader last week in his article that was basically apologizing for all of the terrorism conducted in the name of Islam? And I bet he hates Stern, too.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Good. You can't imagine the number of people who recoil in horror at any mention of her - why, she's MEAN and HORRID and . . . and . . . just AWFUL - but then it turns out they've never read any of her writings, they've just read ABOUT her. In Salon, or the NYT.

I have read her and she is MEAN and HORRID and just AWFUL. She is also CARELESS, DISINGENUOUS, and DISHONEST. And she is quite likely CRAZY. I will admit that she is occasionally FUNNY, but not funny enough to make it worth reading through all the vitriol. For conservative humor, I'll stick with the collected works of the collective penskes.