Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Uh huh.

I was about to respond with an observation re: Fallujah (would Administration intervention in the attack on the city be a "brass" problem?), but then I realized that your nifty conceit manages to exculpate the Bush Administration for almost everything that's happened after March 2003.

We can continue to float in the ether, exclaiming about the inherent thirst of all peoples to be free, and Saddam's evils, and relegate the multitudes of fuckups since we crossed the border to the Pentagon! We'll pretend that the buck stops with, say, Rumsfeld, who obviously has been seriously reprimanded by Bush, that tough personnel taskmaster, and who we fully expect Bush to let go by 2008 or so.

Brilliant, I tell you! Genius, I say!

I have no idea what you are talking about, but my construct puts blame where it is due. Bush is not a general and does not craft battle plans, military strategy, etc.

Here's an example. If Bush is making the call to keep moving in and out of Fallujah, then he deserves blame and credit for that policy. WRT OBL, my guess is that Bush did not tell the generals to use the warlords (if that is indeed the reason OBL got away, if indeed he did). That was a tactical decision by the Brass (and for all I know, the right decision).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Rebut what? That Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad, man?

No. I agree with that.

If this what you think we've all been arguing about for the last couple of years now, it's profoundly disappointing, but it would explain much.

We've been arguing about a lot of things, and this is one of them (i.e., whether we should have gone to Iraq). The moral case for going is pretty clear. This writer's claim is that there is no moral case for NOT going, and I'm wondering whether anybody cares to make the argument.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Got that motherf, er, talk to you November 3 buddy!

Got it.

FWIW, I think you're going to be a busy, angry Republican post Election Day. After all, let's look at the enemy list starting on November 3.

1. All Democratic lawyers and activists conducting the post-Election fight
2. Terrorist Fuckheads
3. The dogs of all of the 49% or so of American voters pulling the lever for Kerry
4. Terrorist Fuckheads
5. Apparently, the entire city of Chicago, and the majority of the State of Illinois
6. Let's not forget the Terrorist Fuckheads
7. The Bad Guys in the Upcoming GOP Civil War (TBD)
8. People on this Board who are not Right (i.e., pretty much everyone else)
9. Terrorist Fuckheads
10. TBD

Now, I gotta admit, that's a To-Do list. I admire that kind of ambition. Let's remember to have a strong breakfast and get that day off to a good start!

Your friend,
Gattigap

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The moral case for going is pretty clear. This writer's claim is that there is no moral case for NOT going, and I'm wondering whether anybody cares to make the argument.

The writer's argument strips away any other consideration than whether Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and in the absence of any declaration that murderous tyrants are not really bad at all and there's no reason for removing same, declares victory.

And a hearty congratulations to him, FWIW.

I think your invitation is the opening move to the dance on this board where:

• The Dems find themselves arguing Realpolitik
• Many of the Republicans, who've danced the Realpolitik two-step for decades, suddenly recognize that their dancing partners are wearing different costumes, and wander over to the other side of the floor, where the drunken neoconservatives are trying to figure out why (1) we're not also in [any number of other countries where bad shit happens] and (2) how we justify our conduct in this first expedition, as obviously it's gone soooo well.

We've had this argument before, and that's why I don't see the point in reprising it here.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
...
7. The Bad Guys in the Upcoming GOP Civil War (TBD)
...
Your friend,
Gattigap

Never mind

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The writer's argument strips away any other consideration than whether Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and in the absence of any declaration that murderous tyrants are not really bad at all and there's no reason for removing same, declares victory.

And a hearty congratulations to him, FWIW.

I think your invitation is the opening move to the dance on this board where:

• The Dems find themselves arguing Realpolitik
• Many of the Republicans, who've danced the Realpolitik two-step for decades, suddenly recognize that their dancing partners are wearing different costumes, and wander over to the other side of the floor, where the drunken neoconservatives are trying to figure out why (1) we're not also in [any number of other countries where bad shit happens] and (2) how we justify our conduct in this first expedition, as obviously it's gone soooo well.

We've had this argument before, and that's why I don't see the point in reprising it here.

Translation: there aren't any

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
OK, first of all, you should have warned us that its a page for the "Decembrist". Despite this insane name, I read the first few pages. He characterizes people as "serious conservatives" etc. etc. etc. in order to use their words of desparation to send up the signal.

He also acknowledges that most conservative commentators like Will are not sounding an alarm. My guess is that Will, like most Americans, is trying to make sure we are all alive next year to debate social programs (and hopefully end or limit most of them).

He also acknowledges that there is no concept of liberalism left after it was destroyed in the mid-90's. In fact, the irony that Bush & Co. have taken up where Conservatives made the liberals get off might be his central point in one of his pieces.

Who did you guys run for President again? Among the other reasons I'd tolerate Dean over our current contenders, is because you know exactly where he's coming from (straight Liberal). The choice we are left with without him is this current horrible, but easy, choice. We don't know where either of these clowns really stands on anything because Bush lies and Kerry promises things domestically that he could never deliver and shouldn't be attempting to deliver. But Bush is just crazy enough to go after our enemies wherever feasible. Amen.

You will be alive... we will all be alive (barring disease or accident) next year no matter who wins. If Kerry wins, more money will be spent domestically on security. If Bush wins, more will be spent on the foreign front lines. Buts its totally diinegnuous to suggest that a Kerry election would invite and somehow make us more vulnerable to attack. Nobody touting this argument has offered any proof other than the opaque "Dems are always weak on security" genralization or the "Kerry voted against defense time and time again" argument. As to the former, its crap. Its a stereotype. As to the latter, Kerry will have no choice but to keep spending on defense if he's elected. Its the only way out of the hole Bush has dug him. Also, he knows he'll never get a second term if there's a terrorist attack during his first, so Kerry will probably be MORE vigilant than Bush on defense. Further, he's got a lot of compensating to do for "looking French." He'll be thinking of 2008, and he will try to put on his best cowboy act to secure a second term.

I think you'll be much safer with Kerry in office, but Kerry can't tell sell that massage well because, well... Kerry can't sell anything well.

BTW, terrorism IS a nuisance, and should be treated as such. The sky isn't falling. We'll be attacked here again, and thousands will die. You can't stop this enemy from eventually slipping one past the goalie. Perpetual war is not the answer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We've been arguing about a lot of things, and this is one of them (i.e., whether we should have gone to Iraq). The moral case for going is pretty clear. This writer's claim is that there is no moral case for NOT going, and I'm wondering whether anybody cares to make the argument.

There's a huge moral case for not going. Iraq never attacked us. And call me an old school conservative, but I don't think we are the world's policeman. I don't care if "Freedom is on th march" elsewhere. I just want it here. Selfish? No, realistic.

But its undisputed that we're not in Iraq for moral reasons anyway, so this debate is pointless. Strategy and morality are two very different concepts. The only way morality enters into the Iraq debate is to provide an after the fact excuse for a strategic move.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Translation: there aren't any

Club, what in your view is the moral case for not invading Zimbabwe, Syria or Burma?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not sure if you read the long paper Bilmore posted 6 or 8 weeks ago, but this is exactly the distinction that Bush is intentionally making. This isn't your daddy's cold war, and its not grandpa's WWII. Bush can't hold his DoD subordinates accountable to save his life, but he does have that vision thing down. If he could do both, we'd be better off. But Kerry is a no-show on the vision thing, and, at best, a "maybe" on leaving tactical decisions up to the Generals.

If Bush had that "vision" thing down, he wouldn't have us bogged down in Iraq right now. He invaded Iraw as a smokescreen to cover the fat that he failed in one of his main objectives in Afghanistan. OBL is still out there and so is a large part of his leadership team. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Bush is recruiting new terrorists every day.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The war on terror is not limited to AQ. The DEMs have, rather successfully, made the argument that going to Iraq hindered the war against AQ, but that is the wrong formulation. The war on terror is against Islamic Facism, and going to Iraq is a long term play to combat this. I don't know how else we can combat the war against Islamic Facism then by giving those who would join it an alternative, and I can't think of a better alternative than freedom and prosperty.

Of course there are no guaranties, but the road to freedom, once started, is a very powerful force. My guess is that 5-10 years from now it will have taken hold and offer the alternative.

What is Kerry's alternative? I understand he back retribution against AG, but what is his long term strategy for combating Islamic Facism?

Actually, the war on terror is a war against TERROR. Not just islamic facism. And Bush doesn't have the integrity to pay for an exercise in nation-building.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We've been arguing about a lot of things, and this is one of them (i.e., whether we should have gone to Iraq). The moral case for going is pretty clear. This writer's claim is that there is no moral case for NOT going, and I'm wondering whether anybody cares to make the argument.

How about the fact that Iraq was a sovereign nation and we can't morally support invading soveriegn nations any time we feel they aren't behaving in accordance with our standards?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We've been arguing about a lot of things, and this is one of them (i.e., whether we should have gone to Iraq).

You really don't see the difference between the questions of whether Saddam was a bad, bad man and whether we should have gone to war in Iraq?

I take it then that you believe we should be invading most of subsaharan Africa? And Burma? etc.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If Bush had that "vision" thing down, he wouldn't have us bogged down in Iraq right now. He invaded Iraw as a smokescreen to cover the fat that he failed in one of his main objectives in Afghanistan. OBL is still out there and so is a large part of his leadership team. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Bush is recruiting new terrorists every day.

It sounds like the problem you have is more of a tactical problem than a vision thing problem. I honestly believe that he has a vision of preemptively confronting our enemies, within reason, wherever they exist, while bringing democracy to the mideast as a way to bring accountability to the leadership there. While I'm pretty sure Kerry does not have that same vision, my bigger problem is that I can't figure out how to describe what he's thinking in one sentence. While, getting OBL is highly important as both a reactive and a preemptive measure, I think the bigger realpolitik is to start working on every threatening regime that harbors a credible threat and a realizable purpose of harming us.

And, of course, it this had been handled better, we might have obtained a much better reaction within Iraq early on. But that's a tactical problem (specifically, we aren't letting the marines use their tactics: see today's LA Times article on what happened in Fallujah, for example), not really the Vision thing.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by taxwonk
How about the fact that Iraq was a sovereign nation and we can't morally support invading soveriegn nations any time we feel they aren't behaving in accordance with our standards?

Rwanda was a sovereign nation too. Under your reasoning, it would be morally unsupportable for a nation to invade Rwanda as the government ordered the slaughter of its own people. And why you say? Because the Rwanda government's proclamation that all members of the minority group, the Tutsi's, must be raped and slaughtered (to the point where the citizens were so exhausted from using their machetes they'd chop the achilles tendons of their victims and then leave them to cry all night while they went and slept and came back in the morning to finish chopping at them) is simply "behavior that is not in accordance with our standards". I wonder how this little guy, one of the survivors who has to take a rest from the food line, feels about your cultural relativism?