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

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by 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?

Think about how nuts they'd go if Coughlin took his team to the wrong stadium, only played 5 players, and punted on first down.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by 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?

Stated otherwise, a lot of people who vote probably shouldn't be allowed to, because they don't understand what they're voting about, and couldn't hope to, because they haven't the native intelligence to grasp the full picture (hence the need for things like the WMD story, which creates a "scandal" among people who either suspend disbelief or are actually deluded enough to believe the thing wasn't a pretext for another worthwhile agenda which couldn't be nakedly sold to the idiot public in this country).*

You can't say it out loud, but we all know most of this country shouldn't be allowed to vote for its local school board.

When you own a football team, you can tell Monday morning qbs to fuck off. The devil in our system is that we can't tell the fools to fuck off. And sometimes, like this election, we shouldn't, because every once and a while, those fools are right.

* That said, the failure to plan for an occupation is inexcusable.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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.

What were the main goals of the occupation. To secure some ammo dumps? The main goal of the occupation was to conquer Iraq as quickly as possible and to keep allied casualties to a minimun. Do you disagree that those were the main objectives of the invasion? Do you disagree that both those objectives were obtained above almost anyone's expectations?

The occupation is another subject. But how can you critisize the invasion?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Think about how nuts they'd go if Coughlin took his team to the wrong stadium, only played 5 players, and punted on first down.

The way I look at it, we won the first three games in ten minutes each. We didn't have to run out the clock on these games because the enemy got so demoralized they left the field in the first ten minutes.

Now in the fourth game, we are winning, but we are now in the third quarter, and the enemy has scored one field goal but because of expectations set by the earlier victories, this is viewed as an absolute disaster.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
What were the main goals of the occupation. To secure some ammo dumps? The main goal of the occupation was to conquer Iraq as quickly as possible and to keep allied casualties to a minimun. Do you disagree that those were the main objectives of the invasion? Do you disagree that both those objectives were obtained above almost anyone's expectations?

The occupation is another subject. But how can you critisize the invasion?

You have learned nothing from posts here. It's nice to write history through rose-colored glasses, but you need a few reality checks here and there.

The invasion and occupation are inseparable. The critical debate within the military over manpower and timing related as much or more to how to deploy troops in a manner that would achieve pacification and permit occupation of the country. Part of the goal was to secure all weapons that could be used in any subsequent insurrection. Indeed, the big reason why the invading forces failed to secure weapons was that they anticipated greater resistence (which would have meant weapons staying put for longer and the need to do fewer things at one time) and, when that didn't materialize, didn't have the necessary troop strength available to adjust their strategy. The troops that were to do things like secure prisoners and weapons were needed instead to occupy and pacify Baghdad proper, because things had moved fast and we had inadequate redundancy (redundancy is a big and very positive word in military circles).

Another key factor in failing to meet some of these specific military objectives on invasion was the administration's diplomatic failures in Turkey. One of my relatives kept getting sent to the Mediteranean so that he could go in through the North, and sent back for redeployment later when diplomatic initiatives failed.

The invasion was successful in achieving some of its key short term objectives, but failed in other identified and important objectives.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
The way I look at it, we won the first three games in ten minutes each. We didn't have to run out the clock on these games because the enemy got so demoralized they left the field in the first ten minutes.

Now in the fourth game, we are winning, but we are now in the third quarter, and the enemy has scored one field goal but because of expectations set by the earlier victories, this is viewed as an absolute disaster.

That's nice. I think Rumsfeld shares your Rosy perspective. Or did, until last week. Bush may, though Cheney is brighter than that.

But I don't think there's another person in the country beyond that group.

Oh, and the guys who sent out those talking points from the RNC? They were laughing when they wrote them.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
BTW, How'd they pick 2010 as the tax cut sunset? Seems awfully strategically placed to help the GOP.

It relates to the budget rules and the overall "cost" of the tax cuts. I forget the precise calculus, but it's something like a 10 year time-horizon, and if the cuts had gone beyond that, then the cost would have made them harder to pass. The Rs for sure would have made them permanent otherwise.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

I would be comforted if I thought Bush was worrying about how to prevail in Iraq rather than how to prevail in the political battles here over who lost Iraq.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It relates to the budget rules and the overall "cost" of the tax cuts. I forget the precise calculus, but it's something like a 10 year time-horizon, and if the cuts had gone beyond that, then the cost would have made them harder to pass. The Rs for sure would have made them permanent otherwise.

I think they are required to show what the cost is for 10 years out. No requirement to project further (or further projections aren't taken into account under revenue neutrality rules, or whatever is out there). The cost of the cuts, esp. when you extend the ones that were to expire in the middle of the 10-year period, explodes in 2011. I can't remember why. Google EGTRRA and explode and 2011.

ETA per Wikipedia: One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA is that its provisions are designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed. EGTRRA will sunset on January 1, 2011 unless further legislation is enacted to make its changes permanent. The sunset provision sidesteps the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that allows Senators to effectively block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten year term.

Not familiar with the Byrd rule.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
The way I look at it, we won the first three games in ten minutes each. We didn't have to run out the clock on these games because the enemy got so demoralized they left the field in the first ten minutes.

Now in the fourth game, we are winning, but we are now in the third quarter, and the enemy has scored one field goal but because of expectations set by the earlier victories, this is viewed as an absolute disaster.

Or:

They declared victory shortly after opening kickoff, because that is all they planned for. Since then, they've left too few players on the field, with no game plan, inadequate equipment, and fired the coaches who suggested different tactics.

And they tortured the other team's waterboy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


Not familiar with the Byrd rule.

Well, if you do the research, you'll realize it's what I said.

If the bill were brought to the floor under normal rules, they would need 60 votes to stop fillibuster. So, instead they use the budget reconcilliation process, which is not subject to fillibuster. But it is subject to the Byrd Rule. The budget reconcilliation bill was for 10 years, so to avoid objection under the Byrd Rule, the cuts had to be limited to that ten year period.



more

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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.

And the development of an irregular war, which then became an insurgency, in virtually every non-Kurdish area almost immediately after our troops moved through (Fedayeen, anyone?)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The way I look at it, we won the first three games in ten minutes each. We didn't have to run out the clock on these games because the enemy got so demoralized they left the field in the first ten minutes.

Now in the fourth game, we are winning, but we are now in the third quarter, and the enemy has scored one field goal but because of expectations set by the earlier victories, this is viewed as an absolute disaster.

So, if we immediately pulled out troops and Iraq melted into civil war and a terrorist haven, you would believe that we had a winning (3-1) record in Iraq?

[Spanky]

[Spanky]