The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I'm thinking you are getting a little too close to making the word "treason" impossible to apply.

To some extent, I agree. But, I can't bring myself to draw a bright line in an ambiguous idea simply to allow myself to apply the word. Too result-oriented.

Galloway took money for his personal account and then hurt his country's interests. What's-his-name-the-spy did the same here. I can easily call them traitors. Not so sure about someone who thinks America would do better under Saddam. "Dumb", maybe, but "treason"? Dunno.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think any of this happened.

It all happened. Frist suggested that Murtha was part of the "Michael Moore wing" of the Democratic Party. I forget the name of the asshwipe congresswoman from Ohio who called him a coward, but I remember her shouting it above Denny Hastert's voice as he called for order on the floor of the House. The next day, when the press and the polls excoriated the R's for their smear of Murtha, they backpedalled so hard they nearly tripped over the ghost of John Kerry.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It all happened. Frist suggested that Murtha was part of the "Michael Moore wing" of the Democratic Party. I forget the name of the asshwipe congresswoman from Ohio who called him a coward, but I remember her shouting it above Denny Hastert's voice as he called for order on the floor of the House. The next day, when the press and the polls excoriated the R's for their smear of Murtha, they backpedalled so hard they nearly tripped over the ghost of John Kerry.

STP, dear.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
You're missing the difference. The message read was "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." I saw that as, if we do this bad thing that Murtha is (again) calling for, we'd be cowards. She never called Murtha a coward.

Your spin would have a bit more substance if it weren't for the fact that Murtha is a decorated Marine vet.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's not an accusation of cowardice or treason - that's an accusation of stupidity, and a rightful one. Go back to the statements of the war generals of the NVA concerning our anti-war movement - tremendously helpful to them.

Yep. That's it. It was all public relations. That's why our Hamlet project worked so well in the South. That and all the other press and public relations work.

It really had very little to do with the fact that the Viet Cong knew the territory and they were far more committed to winning or dying than we were.

And naturally, the NVA generals would be the first to admit that the propganda war was a lot of bullshit on both sides.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
STP, dear.

It's just not my style, Old Man. You should know that by now.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Your spin would have a bit more substance if it weren't for the fact that Murtha is a decorated Marine vet.

Has nothing to do with it. Yeah, he did his three in VN, and then 27 years of reserves, but the point was, what he was suggesting strikes many as a cowardly route.

(BTW, this is all sounding like the whole "reporting for duty" thing. How many times can you repeat "he was a DECORATED 37-YEAR MARINE!!" and use that as the basis for your "it's not a bad strategy" argument? I have friends who were decorated VN vets who I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn.)

[bilmore]

Coincidently, in the news today is another veteran of merit. The "eight-term Congressman and decorated Vietnam War veteran" (wow!, huh?) Duke Cunningham is goin' to prison!

(ETA - it's getting so you can't swing a stick without hitting a decorated VN veteran of distinction. Which doesn't sound like a bad idea for some of them, BTW.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yep. That's it. It was all public relations. That's why our Hamlet project worked so well in the South. That and all the other press and public relations work.

It really had very little to do with the fact that the Viet Cong knew the territory and they were far more committed to winning or dying than we were.

And naturally, the NVA generals would be the first to admit that the propganda war was a lot of bullshit on both sides.

Wilfull blindness?

Of course they were more committed. They had no huge violent public dissent, and no media actively making up shit to hurt our chances.

All PR? Didn't say that. But the NVA say it was to a BIG extent PR. How else could they, a small, relatively poor and backwards country, defeat a megacountry like ours? By making and encouraging us to fight ourselves, and by enjoying the fruits of it when we did. Our withdrawals did more than their battles ever did. We won most of the battles (not so you could ever tell listening to Walter, of course. Remember Tet?)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Has nothing to do with it. Yeah, he did his three in VN, and then 27 years of reserves, but the point was, what he was suggesting strikes many as a cowardly route.

(BTW, this is all sounding like the whole "reporting for duty" thing. How many times can you repeat "he was a DECORATED 37-YEAR MARINE!!" and use that as the basis for your "it's not a bad strategy" argument? I have friends who were decorated VN vets who I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn.)

Now you're reversing yourself. I said that her comment about "cowards" running and "marines" staying and fighting was a direct slur on Murtha, that's all. You said that her comment was a general comment, not directed at Murtha, who just happened to be a former marine. Now you're saying that, yeah, it was directed at Murtha, and who cares if he's a marine, a lot of people think he's a coward.

I never endorsed Murtha's plan. I just differed with your defense of Mean Jean. You don't know how I feel about Murtha's call for a withdrawal because I haven't said and you didn't ask.

As it happens, I think we need to start working on an exit strategy, but I don't agree with Murtha that we should start withdrawing now. Iraq isn't ready to stand on its own yet, and it would be sheer folly to let the whole escapade fail now without at least giving them a fighting chance.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wilfull blindness?

Of course they were more committed. They had no huge violent public dissent, and no media actively making up shit to hurt our chances.

All PR? Didn't say that. But the NVA say it was to a BIG extent PR. How else could they, a small, relatively poor and backwards country, defeat a megacountry like ours? By making and encouraging us to fight ourselves, and by enjoying the fruits of it when we did. Our withdrawals did more than their battles ever did. We won most of the battles (not so you could ever tell listening to Walter, of course. Remember Tet?)

They beat us for one simple reason. They were fighting for their future and they were willing to fight and die forever until they won.

That's the same reason we beat the Brits, the Algerians beat the French, and the Isrealis continue to beat all comers, except the Palestinians. It's also the reason the Isreal will never beat the Palestinians. They both have the same skin in the game.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Republicans secretly selling arms to rogue states in the Middle East to fund facist paramilitaries in Central America, however, were.

You see, Balt, this is where you leapt the hyperbole track in a way that harms your credibility.

The contras were quite a mixed bag -- and the little group operating along the border of Costa Rica were run by someone who was darn near a democrat. Only a few of the Contras were _actually_ fascists.


S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by bilmore
To some extent, I agree. But, I can't bring myself to draw a bright line in an ambiguous idea simply to allow myself to apply the word. Too result-oriented.

Galloway took money for his personal account and then hurt his country's interests. What's-his-name-the-spy did the same here. I can easily call them traitors. Not so sure about someone who thinks America would do better under Saddam. "Dumb", maybe, but "treason"? Dunno.

I can't speak for Coulter (nor would I want to) but I think her references to "traitors" were those who (1) for politically advantageous reasons, *say* they are against the war and want the troops home, but (2) really do not, evidenced by their failure to vote "troops come home now", and therefore, their anti-war stance is not supported by any personal reason (however wild) and it is irresponsible to bluff like this at a time when our troops are getting shellacked.

That said, I am with you in finding it hard to label speech as treasonous. Maybe because I'm a social liberal (you can't get any more pro-first amendment than me). But... I have nothing against forcing these idiots to shit or get off the pot. One of the few victories I saw on the Bush side of the second debate was that he drove home how Kerry also supported going to war. This seemed like a big deal to me b/c most people I know voted for Kerry b/c they thought he was against the war. (This perception still amazes me). Same stuff with politicians who claim we should "get out of Iraq". Fine, give them the opportunity to vote on it, rather than bluff. I think it was a slimy tactic, but I kind of liked it. If, at the end of the day, the majority view the war as a total mistake, the Dems will have to share some of the blame for letting it go on.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I can't speak for Coulter (nor would I want to) but I think her references to "traitors" were those who (1) for politically advantageous reasons, *say* they are against the war and want the troops home, but (2) really do not, evidenced by their failure to vote "troops come home now", and therefore, their anti-war stance is not supported by any personal reason (however wild) and it is irresponsible to bluff like this at a time when our troops are getting shellacked.

That said, I am with you in finding it hard to label speech as treasonous. Maybe because I'm a social liberal (you can't get any more pro-first amendment than me). But... I have nothing against forcing these idiots to shit or get off the pot. One of the few victories I saw on the Bush side of the second debate was that he drove home how Kerry also supported going to war. This seemed like a big deal to me b/c most people I know voted for Kerry b/c they thought he was against the war. (This perception still amazes me). Same stuff with politicians who claim we should "get out of Iraq". Fine, give them the opportunity to vote on it, rather than bluff. I think it was a slimy tactic, but I kind of liked it. If, at the end of the day, the majority view the war as a total mistake, the Dems will have to share some of the blame for letting it go on.

The Republican resolution was an absurd ploy that was completely transparent. Anyone who can't understand how a person might feel that it's time to start trying to extricate ourselves from Iraq and still vote against a resolution that says "We all go home right now" is a fucking moron.

Yes, I say that realizing that there is a good chance a majority of Americans fall within that definition of moron.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Now you're reversing yourself. I said that her comment about "cowards" running and "marines" staying and fighting was a direct slur on Murtha, that's all. You said that her comment was a general comment, not directed at Murtha, who just happened to be a former marine. Now you're saying that, yeah, it was directed at Murtha, and who cares if he's a marine, a lot of people think he's a coward.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I will defend the guy's honor and cred right along with you. But, in the past week, you'd think he was Audie Murphy. The D's pointedly did NOT talk about his proposal, but zeroed in on his credentials to make the proposal, and made up that R's were calling him a coward.

(Most posters are going "who?")

I never endorsed Murtha's plan. I just differed with your defense of Mean Jean. You don't know how I feel about Murtha's call for a withdrawal because I haven't said and you didn't ask.

I know. Problem is, you wanted to personalize comments on the plan to Murtha himself. I can say that your war strategy is stoopid, while respecting your intelligence. I can also call it cowardly, without calling you a coward. I think Mean Jean was going for that, and treaded over a line grammatically. No more, no less. But you guys are jumpin' all over dat . . .

As it happens, I think we need to start working on an exit strategy, but I don't agree with Murtha that we should start withdrawing now. Iraq isn't ready to stand on its own yet, and it would be sheer folly to let the whole escapade fail now without at least giving them a fighting chance.

Every time we hand over a province and a village and a line to the Iraqis, we ARE working on our exit strategy, and we're doing that every day. Remember back when the MS made such a big deal about "only three units are fully vetted"? Well, it's a lot more now, and so they don't want to talk about it.