Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let me get this straight. Allawi is a puppet, but Araphat is leader worthy of respect, the undivided attention of the American president for several weeks at Camp David, and the Nobel Peace Price.

This is why the DEMs have become a minority party.

Non-response. No detour granted. And its worth noting that, as far as attempt at diversion go, this one was really pathetic.

Match point - Wonk.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I thought the plan was to stabilize the country to the point where elections could be held. Then nobody would need a puppet.

If by puppet you mean we had a hand in picking him, our troops are necessary for his government's survival and he can't do too much we disagree with, then he is a puppet. But he is a puppet of the US government, not Bush. If Kerry wins the Iraq government will still be as much his puppet for the forseeable future. Kerry ridiculed someone/something he'll need.

What makes it worse is that he didn't have to attack Allawi, he could have said something Allawi-neutral which still makes his point. I'm willing to bet he would have been better off if he had. In the debates he will claim to have great diplomatic chops. If I were Bush the attacks on the UK/Australia and now this would be my first response to that horseshit. We'll see.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Cite please. Wasn't Allawi blessed by the UN? Or is the UN now a puppet of the US as well.

Suddenly the UN carries the imprimatur of legitimacy? Oh, how the neo-cons have fallen!

More seriously, I don't really get your point. The choice of Allawi came out of the Iraqi governing council, to the apparent surprise of everyone outside of it. The US' agreeing to go along with it, in light of the fact that we've got 100k soldiers in country and the keys to the joint, strikes me as important. If we weren't very comfortable with Allawi, I think we'd have said so.

The UN's acquescence came in the context where not only were they not on the field, they're hardly even on the sidelines. I'm not sure they were even in the stadium. Their agreement was nice and all, but let's not pretend that they had either significant involvement in, or impact on, the outcome.

Regardless, that is not the point. The point is that Kerry's/Lockhart's choice of words was, and this is an understatement, extremely undiplomatic.

I don't disagree. He could've made his point less graphically.

But what's getting my back up is the insistence by those on this board that it's treasonous to say anything negative surrounding his visit. That's horseshit. If you guys believe that's the case, then don't invite the comments by using the man as a goddamn GOP campaign prop.

Joe Biden, BTW, was similarly upset during the Sunday talk show circuit. Here on FNC:

• Look, this guy's [Allawi's] in a tough, tough, tough spot. John Kerry wasn't criticizing him. John Kerry was pointing out — why is it you guys — I mean, here the president of the United States of America stands up there and sends this signal to the entire world that our intelligence community isn't worth a damn, all it does is guess. And you guys say when he says, "Well, he really meant to say estimate," you say, "well, OK."
  
  Kerry says something, you know what he means, and you make it sound like he's indicting Allawi. That's malarkey, pure malarkey. He wasn't indicting Allawi. He was saying, "Level with the American people, Mr. President, for god's sake.
  
  And the last thing I want to make this point: I find the way the opposition is dealing with this is really, really dangerous. They're telling everybody that basically if Kerry becomes president of the United States, he's not going to stick with Iraq.
  
  I personally was authorized by Kerry in front of all my colleagues to say the first thing in a private meeting, I said, "Mr. President, you know me." And he said, "Yes, I do." I said, "I guarantee you that John Kerry as president — you will continue to have the full support of the United States of America in order to be able to establish a representative republic. He said, "Thank you, and I know it."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Actually, I think the only people who really are capable of believing this way are those who have never been put in harm's way. I've known enough vets personally and have talked with them enough about their experiences to know that very few, except for the most gung ho of them, are eager to see this country enter into war, unless it's absolutely necessary. Now, there are some (relatively few, from my admittedly small sample) who still believe that the action in Iraq was justified, but I consider that something a little different from what you're talking about.

This is hardly scientific, but I recall in the ramp up to Gulf II, the folks brandishing the most rigid hard-ons for trampling Iraq were the people I'd least want getting my back in a bar fight. I would routinely ask "Why the hatred for Iraq? Even pre-Gulf I, the nation had done nothing to the US. It attacked Kuwait and we retaliated from the "world police" perspective. Why all the vitriol now?" They'd call me a fucking liberal. I'd usually say "Well, no... I agree with trying to create democracy over there and moving the war from our shores, but I don't really have any reason to hate Iraq or even its leaders." Then they'd tell me about how Saddam put people in woodchippers. I'd usually smile and say "Well, he only did that AFTER we stopped supporting him against Iran, right? You are aware that we were his piggy bank for a healthy portion of his rule, right?" Usually, the reply to that was for the opponent to throw his hands in the air and call me a "goddamned liberal", despite the fact that I was a registered Republican.

Beating the right in any argument is like beating your wife in an argument. Even when you win, you lose. When facts don't work for them, they jump to policy; when policy fails them, they leap to emotion/patriotism. Its like negotiating with a five year old. All they know is that they want what they want, and they don't care how intellectually dishonest they look in the process of demanding it. Its really quite brilliant - just like the 10 year old demanding the new video game at the mall can wear his parents down, so does the right wing wear down anyone who disagrees with it.

But being an effective idiot makes you no less an idiot.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


Beating the right in any argument is like beating your wife in an argument. Even when you win, you lose. When facts don't work for them, they jump to policy; when policy fails them, they leap to emotion/patriotism. Its like negotiating with a five year old. All they know is that they want what they want, and they don't care how intellectually dishonest they look in the process of demanding it. Its really quite brilliant - just like the 10 year old demanding the new video game at the mall can wear his parents down, so does the right wing wear down anyone who disagrees with it.

But being an effective idiot makes you no less an idiot.

Beeyoutefull. I am the Right. And I note that almost every post you've made here in the past week has included some form of the brilliant intellectual argument that "only an idiot wouldn't agree blah blah blah".

Not that I have a long memory or anything. What were you just saying about 10 year olds and idiots in making your case about how the Right argues like children?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If by puppet you mean we had a hand in picking him, our troops are necessary for his government's survival and he can't do too much we disagree with, then he is a puppet. But he is a puppet of the US government, not Bush. If Kerry wins the Iraq government will still be as much his puppet for the forseeable future. Kerry ridiculed someone/something he'll need.

What makes it worse is that he didn't have to attack Allawi, he could have said something Allawi-neutral which still makes his point. I'm willing to bet he would have been better off if he had. In the debates he will claim to have great diplomatic chops. If I were Bush the attacks on the UK/Australia and now this would be my first response to that horseshit. We'll see.

Oh, hanging breaking ball...

"But he is a puppet of the US government, not Bush."

I see the distinction, and the difference is?

"If Kerry wins the Iraq government will still be as much his puppet for the forseeable future. Kerry ridiculed someone/something he'll need."

The idea of a puppet is that you control the puppet, entirely. Allawi has no leverage.

"What makes it worse is that he didn't have to attack Allawi, he could have said something Allawi-neutral which still makes his point."

Of course, so everyone could again whipsaw him for making obtuse comments. Damned if he does...

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
3. To stifle legitimate criticism by calling it unpatriotic is about as treasonous as it gets. Perhaps you've forgotten that this nation was built on people registering dissatisfaction and airing impolite truths. Allawi is a puppet - that's a fact. It deserves air, and to argue that it puts soldiers in harm's way, even though it clearly does not, is pretty damn shitty and low.

1) You're the only one on here saying the criticism was "unpatriotic". The truth of the matter is that the comments were wholly irresponsible and politically unjustifiable.

2) What the people say in the streets and what the would-be leader of the US say and do are 2 separate things. If you see no distinction, you're insane.

3) To argue the truth is shitty and low? As you may say, so fucking what?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Beeyoutefull. I am the Right. And I note that almost every post you've made here in the past week has included some form of the brilliant intellectual argument that "only an idiot wouldn't agree blah blah blah".

Not that I have a long memory or anything. What were you just saying about 10 year olds and idiots in making your case about how the Right argues like children?

I think the left and the populists need to get their hands dirty. I'm not above getting into the dirt - the difference is I'm backing my arguments with substance. The right can't articulate any reason for the fury about Iraq other than the need for people to be stupidly unified in anger in order to move into any war. We were cheerlead into a "war" based on lies, and "the right" was the chief instigator of the mob mentality behind it all. I may get on board for other reasons, but I'm going to let you know just how fucking stupidly transparant your whole charade is. Somebody needs to keep the right honest. Consider me your alluy who thinks you're a horse's ass. But keep doing what you're doing - I like my tax break. Just don't expect my kid in your next idiot war. I'll have him mailed to Ireland before I'll play that fucking game.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
More seriously, I don't really get your point. The choice of Allawi came out of the Iraqi governing council, to the apparent surprise of everyone outside of it. The US' agreeing to go along with it, in light of the fact that we've got 100k soldiers in country and the keys to the joint, strikes me as important. If we weren't very comfortable with Allawi, I think we'd have said so.

But he's our puppet? Right, got it.

Joe Biden, BTW, was similarly upset during the Sunday talk show circuit. Here on FNC:

• I personally was authorized by Kerry in front of all my colleagues to say the first thing in a private meeting

As noted elsewhere, this was the most important thing that Biden said. He's trying to take the inside track on the Sec'y of State appointment.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
I'm backing my arguments with substance.

Cite please.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'll probably still vote for W for purely financial self-interest.

I will leave it to those more macroeconically inclined than me to flesh this out, but I would suggest you consider the long-term impact of the runaway deficit on your financial self-interest. I suspect you will end up losing far more than the few bucks you're saving from the novelty tax cuts.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But he's our puppet? Right, got it.

Say you've inherited a car. Sure, you didn't pick it out, but you've got the keys there in your hand.

Just because you didn't pick it off of the lot, does that make it any less yours?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) You're the only one on here saying the criticism was "unpatriotic". The truth of the matter is that the comments were wholly irresponsible and politically unjustifiable.

I will concede this if you first concede that trotting out Allawi and having him mouth administration talking points for the benefit of W's reelection campaign was irresponsible and politically unjustifiable.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I will leave it to those more macroeconically inclined than me to flesh this out, but I would suggest you consider the long-term impact of the runaway deficit on your financial self-interest. I suspect you will end up losing far more than the few bucks you're saving from the novelty tax cuts.

False choice, lizard. In the longer term, Sebby will be fabulously wealthy and will have the ability to sneeze at the higher future tax burden and/or eroded social benefit system, even if the net present value of those costs exceeds the tax cuts he gets today.*

This belief, such as it is, resides at the core of Bushian fiscal policy and domestic re-election strategy.

Gattigap

* Or, we'll all be dead. Though possibly counter to the short term planks of Bushian strategy (vote for me or you'll be dead tomorrow), this corollary to Bushian policy and strategy has actually been forwarded by the President himself. Bonus!

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Gattigap


Vote for me or you'll be dead tomorrow)

Being dead tomorrow would make Bush's tax cuts highly successful. So, in order to ensure Bush's fiscal legacy, vote for Kerry so we'll all be dead and won't have to deal with the shitty long-term effects of Bush's fiscal policy. Well done.