Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You're arguing that Bush said during the campaign that he wouldn't do nation-building except for a couple of narrow exceptions, and that as a result of 9/11, one of those exceptions was fulfilled, so the resulting invasion of Iraq was consistent with his attitude toward nation-building. The problem is that, as even he has admitted, there's absolutely no link between Iraq and those who flew the planes into the Towers. So the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq was consistent with his original view of nation building is unsupported.

Actually, if you buy into the theory that the Administration wanted to re-do Iraq even before 9-11, then it makes sense that Iraq was what was kinda intended by "narrow exception" and the post 9-11 stuff just gave him a lot more popular support than he might have anticipated.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Actually, if you buy into the theory that the Administration wanted to re-do Iraq even before 9-11, then it makes sense that Iraq was what was kinda intended by "narrow exception" and the post 9-11 stuff just gave him a lot more popular support than he might have anticipated.

There is that, but then again the prospect of Cheney/Wolfowitz winning out doesn't argue in favor of the "9/11 created the narrow self-interest" justification that now has Bush waxing rhapsodic about spreading democracy to Riyadh and Cairo.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I imagine you were giggling as you typed that.

actually, i think Ty admitted earlier that he's usually rubbing at himself when he types about Clinton.......

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Actually, if you buy into the theory that the Administration wanted to re-do Iraq even before 9-11, then it makes sense that Iraq was what was kinda intended by "narrow exception" and the post 9-11 stuff just gave him a lot more popular support than he might have anticipated.

confidential to fringe:
keep the faith, not all guys are as picky as Baltassoc

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
have you ever heard Governor Bush (the presidential candidate) debate President Bush on The Daily Show? The clearly ran on a anti-nation building platform.

Of course I haven't been following this argument (you people have such long posts on the PB, my tiny brain cannot keep up with it...), but I assume this helps Ty's point whatever it was. Go Ty.

sound bytes out of context, butthanks for playing

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think he's trying to say that Bush (and the WSJ, GOP, etc.) never realized what a fantastic idea nation-building was, in terms of promoting national security, all the time that the Clinton Admininistration was trying it out in Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.

see. i knew you could work through this, and i knew I wouldn't always be there to help. That's why i gave you hints and let you get to this on your own. Haiti, bosnia Somalia and whatever else you mean by etc, (there shouldn't be etc. when you're talking about wars Ty) did not present any risk to the US. we went there because Clinton felt it would make us righteous.

Do you think we should have gone into Afghanistan? if yes, continue. if no, go directly to Berkley coffee shop for some non-corporate free range beans.
Having gone into Afghanistan to blow up the existing government, shouldn't we try and fix whats left?

okay. bush believed Iraq presented a threat. you didn't. But bush is the president. having identified Iraq as a threat how is it different from Afghanistan? blow it up then try and build something there.

see what Bush was talking about before were feel-good operations to make the world better for people in god forsaken places. what bush is doing now is about wiping out governments he perceives as a threat to us. or was Haiti a time bomb at our doorstep?

They were blinded by their ................ general dislike of blowjobs,

let me assure you I have been closer to roman orgy type lifestyle than the average lawyer, not as close as I'd like, but the above is manisfestly false.

to sum up. you were nation building to help the 3rd world. bush is building because he just got done blowing some stufff up.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
butthanks

Doesn't this need a hyphen?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
There is that, but then again the prospect of Cheney/Wolfowitz winning out doesn't argue in favor of the "9/11 created the narrow self-interest" justification that now has Bush waxing rhapsodic about spreading democracy to Riyadh and Cairo.

It's justification and rhetoric. If we assume that my theory is correct, they are just substituting that for whatever other (less compelling and sales-worthy) reason they would have used had 9/11 never happened.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
see. i knew you could work through this, and i knew I wouldn't always be there to help. That's why i gave you hints and let you get to this on your own. Haiti, bosnia Somalia and whatever else you mean by etc, (there shouldn't be etc. when you're talking about wars Ty) did not present any risk to the US. we went there because Clinton felt it would make us righteous.

You make more sense now, but let's not pretend that you're speaking for the President. You're saying that there's nothing wrong with nation building, but that there's no reason to incur the costs when a Third World country is failing (passing Bosnia for the moment) unless it threatens us (in an imminent way, as opposed to the various ways that we're harmed by Haitian instability). That's cogent, if possibly short-sighted, but it's not anything W. said.

I'm not familiar with the grammar rule about "etc." and wars; I'll have to look it up.

Do you think we should have gone into Afghanistan? if yes, continue. if no, go directly to Berkley coffee shop for some non-corporate free range beans.

Tee hee, but I never said anything contra what we did in Afghanistan. I tend to think we pulled out too much too soon, and haven't finished the job.

Having gone into Afghanistan to blow up the existing government, shouldn't we try and fix whats left?

OK.

okay. bush believed Iraq presented a threat. you didn't. But bush is the president. having identified Iraq as a threat how is it different from Afghanistan? blow it up then try and build something there.

Again, you're now defending what Bush did in a way that does not even bother to make sense of his 180 on nation building.

It's now pretty clear that Iraq wasn't a threat in any way that containment couldn't address. Bush clearly was jonesing to wipe out the regime, which necessarily entails putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. It's an odd task to take on if you believe what he said in '00. Obvious conclusion: He didn't really believe it.

see what Bush was talking about before were feel-good operations to make the world better for people in god forsaken places. what bush is doing now is about wiping out governments he perceives as a threat to us. or was Haiti a time bomb at our doorstep?

It depends on what you mean by a threat. E.g., the situation in Bosnia was a real threat to European stability.

Also, you seem to reject (hard-nosed realism, I suppose) the idea of using the U.S. military to save the lives of foreigners, but would give the government a blank check if it does something in the name of our own security. I tend to think you're too narrow-minded in the first instance, and gullible in the second. But maybe it's just Bush. Or did you support Clinton's Tomahawk strikes on Somalia and Afghanistan?

let me assure you I have been closer to roman orgy type lifestyle than the average lawyer, not as close as I'd like, but the above is manisfestly false.

Well, I'm glad we're on the same page about the blow jobs.

to sum up. you were nation building to help the 3rd world. bush is building because he just got done blowing some stufff up.

Would that it were so simple. His decision to blow stuff up surely was informed by his view of how easy it would be to build it back up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hey Hank --

Here's what the polls are saying about the country I live in. What's CBS reporting where you are?

• Asked if the results of the war were "worth it," 40 percent of respondents said yes, while 51 percent said the results of the war were "not worth it." That's down from 46 percent who said yes in August and up from 45 percent who said no three months ago.
  
  And half of Americans now say the reconstruction of Iraq is going "badly," the highest number who gave that assessment since Bush declared an end to "major combat operations" on May 1. Forty-seven percent said the reconstruction is going "well."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Hey Hank --

Here's what the polls are saying about the country I live in. What's CBS reporting where you are?

• Asked if the results of the war were "worth it," 40 percent of respondents said yes, while 51 percent said the results of the war were "not worth it." That's down from 46 percent who said yes in August and up from 45 percent who said no three months ago.
  
  And half of Americans now say the reconstruction of Iraq is going "badly," the highest number who gave that assessment since Bush declared an end to "major combat operations" on May 1. Forty-seven percent said the reconstruction is going "well."

let's bet right now on 2004 election. loser pays for Lawtalkers Dec 2004 operation.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

I wish I could buy stock in the administration labeling every non-ally military person killed from here on out an "insurgent".

And I thought terrorists attacked civilians, not armies.

[Atticus Grinch]

QuickTime movie with sound.

[bridge of love]

I just tried to post the following on infirm:

Subject: Re: The Iraqi Occupation & Invasion: Veterans' Day is every day in AmeriKa

"Did you compose that in prison, Pete?"
-- Guy Smiley, November 14, 2003 .

no offense, but I invented asking a Petey poster about Mexican jail.

it wouldn't go through and referred me to TOS para. 6.

Can anyone tell me what is possibly violating TOS in this post?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bridge of love
I just tried to post the following on infirm:



it wouldn't go through and referred me to TOS para. 6.

Can anyone tell me what is possibly violating TOS in this post?

"Mexican jail" is clearly pornographic. And "Petey" is a well-known euphemism for "penis."