quote:Anti-Republican sentiment is rising to a fever pitch here as the dog days tick down to the dreaded affair. A poll cited by the local ABC affiliate shows 83 percent of New Yorkers don't want their city to host the RNC. And many of them are planning to do something about it.
Rejecting ex-mayor Ed Koch's call to "make nice" with the party that used the deaths of 2,801 New Yorkers--most of them Democrats--for everything from tax cuts for the rich to building concentration camps at Guant�namo and Abu Ghraib to invading Iraq to enrich Dick Cheney and his fellow Halliburton execs, some groups are encouraging liberal-minded New Yorkers to volunteer for the city's squad of official greeters. Creatively altered maps of streets and subways will be handed out to button-clad stupid white men. Other saboteurs wearing fake RNC T-shirts will direct them to parts of town where Bush's policies have hit hardest. Rumor has it that prostitutes suffering from sexually transmitted diseases will discourage the use of condoms with Republican customers.
Ouch.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I'd hate to be a GOP member visiting NYC when that goes down.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Most of the 9/11 victims were Democrats?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, they mostly lived in New York so it's a statistical liklihood.
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
Has there ever been civil war between democrats and republicans in any nation? Because I think the relations between them in the US have never been worse, or have they?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I hope you mean "liberals and conservatives". As far as I know, there aren't any other countries who use those names for political parties. Or if they do, they probably don't mean the same thing.
"Other saboteurs wearing fake RNC T-shirts will direct them to parts of town where Bush's policies have hit hardest."
"No, see, that's 'Haarlem'. It's a Dutch neighborhood, really."
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim the Plentiful: Has there ever been civil war between democrats and republicans in any nation? Because I think the relations between them in the US have never been worse, or have they?
U.S. history circa 1861-1865 may have been a touch worse than now.
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
Oh. I didn't know the North and South were distinctly divided into Dem/Rep in that war, I thought it was simply the states themselves who fought.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
As I recall, the South was predominantly Democratic whereas the North was a mixture.
But it wasn�t a party thing as much as it was a North South thing.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Hmm - Looking forward to watching Repubs get egged. just hope one of the news channels covers it.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:Rumor has it that prostitutes suffering from sexually transmitted diseases will discourage the use of condoms with Republican customers.
Heh. Maybe a year or so from now Congress will finally throw AIDS research a bone.
Marian
Random sig quote courtesy of Brian Daley: "I prefer to shoot first. As opposed to shooting second." --Han Solo, Han Solo At Star's End (1979)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
MOre likely, the infected republicans would have to hide their disease or be shunned. After all, how could they claim to be morally superior with a fatal STD?
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
What,you mean like:
"Morally superior Republicans, and other citizens of the USA"?
Hahahahaha.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As opposed to what? Morally inferior rest of the world?
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
It appears that my subtle impersonation of Gul Dukat was a little too subtle.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:I hope you mean "liberals and conservatives". As far as I know, there aren't any other countries who use those names for political parties.
They do sort of mean the same thing. Although liberal is not a dirty word here. And our consevatives seem to be more like your Democrats on some issues. Like Republicans on others. Our Liberals seem to be a moving target when it comes to policies. They are described as campaigning like New Democrats and ruling like Conservatives.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah. Subtlety is sometimes lost on my Gorn-like mind. I hiss a lot too.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Why are the websites Red, White and Blue when they're from Canada?
Wannabe Americans. Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
The Conservatives, yes they seem to be wannabe Americans. Also these partys have old roots, from when our flag used to red white and blue colour. Kind of like the US has red white and blue because they are wannabe Frenchmen.
Posted by Pensive's Left testes for mayor... (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca: The Conservatives, yes they seem to be wannabe Americans. Also these partys have old roots, from when our flag used to red white and blue colour. Kind of like the US has red white and blue because they are wannabe Frenchmen.
oh please, Grokca, go fuck a rabid dog instead. "wannabe Frenchman". i'd first wipe my ass with 80 grit sand paper dipped in rubbing alcohol *snickers*
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
You're actually wannabe Englishmen.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
That's curious. Why would they base the Union flag off the one from the East India company? East India was the Halburton of its day. The colonists hated those guys. Boston Tea Party, remember? I can't deny the resemblence is uncanny, though.
Marian
Today's random sig quote is brought to you by Van Helsing In Fifteen Minutes: VAN HELSING: I can't believe you got laid before I did. CARL: What can I say? Chicks dig the frock, man.
[ August 23, 2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: MarianLH ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: That's curious. Why would they base the Union flag off the one from the East India company? East India was the Halburton of its day. The colonists hated those guys.
Well, not really. What the (rich, merchant) colonists hated was the fact that they couldn't trade outside the Empire and that the HEIC had a monopoly on trade with India (although not for much longer IIRC). And remember, it's estimated that only around a third of those in the lower 13 colonies actually supported the rebels anyway (about the same as supported continued British rule, with a third not having any especial allegiance).
While we're on the subject of national colours, how did green and yellow become the Australian colours?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:While we're on the subject of national colours, how did green and yellow become the Australian colours?
Only colours of cloth they could steal at the time?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:oh please, Grokca, go fuck a rabid dog instead. "wannabe Frenchman". i'd first wipe my ass with 80 grit sand paper dipped in rubbing alcohol *snickers*
Wow, rude, and into kinky sex. Seems pretty French to me. Admit the truth, it will set you free.
Posted by ulTRS magDOS (Member # 239) on :
Who the fuck is this "Pensive's" shithead?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca:
quote:While we're on the subject of national colours, how did green and yellow become the Australian colours?
Only colours of cloth they could steal at the time?
(snicker) Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Yes, Australias colours were obviously stolen from England. I think its frontal lobotomy time.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Every country that's had a revolution has a red, white, and blue flag. Although Russia adopted its RWB flag a little late.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"They do sort of mean the same thing. Although liberal is not a dirty word here. And our consevatives seem to be more like your Democrats on some issues. Like Republicans on others. Our Liberals seem to be a moving target when it comes to policies. They are described as campaigning like New Democrats and ruling like Conservatives."
Okay, except, your conservatives aren't called "Republicans" and your liberals aren't called "Democrats". So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: Every country that's had a revolution has a red, white, and blue flag. Although Russia adopted its RWB flag a little late.
Um... we (UK) didn't. 1688 doesn't really count as a proper revolution after all. And it's debatable the degree to which the American War of Independance can be called a revolution.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yeah, it's strange. The American Revolution was more of a civil war, and the English Civil War was more of a revolution.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, it certainly was a political revolution as evidenced by the Constitution that was adopted a few years after the end of combat.
And I think we're still working on the revolutionary social/cultural aspects of the whole experiment in freedom/democracy thing.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Hope everyone is doing well (if feeling especially angry with Republicans lately). I thought I would add a few comments from reading the string.
Grokca: actually there is a Conservative Party in the United States, but they are confined, to my best knowledge, to the state of New York. It is a reaction against the Republican Party of that state which was dominated for so long by the "Rockafeller Republicans." (Well, still kind of is with Pataki and Bloomberg.) This variety of Republican tends toward a brand of mercantilism, i.e., governmental support of corporations and a much higher degree of comfort with intervention in social issues. The most famous Conservative Party member was Christopher Buckley, who served one term in the U.S. Senate in the late Sixties/early Seventies. He is also the brother of the founder of The National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr.
Wraith: I was wondering the same thing about Australia watching the Olympics. I was hoping some of you all might have known.
TSN: one think I consistently heard through school starting in elementary school was that the Revolution was a "conservative revolution." The idea was that the deeper tradition in English constitutionalism was that commoners would have a hand in the governance and monitoring of the executive (i.e., the king) before economic policy was approved. From an ocean away, it was next to impossible for Americans to exert the kind of citizen control over government that had been developing since the English Parliament of 1265.
Nim: I would say there is no real chance of open conflict between the parties in America. The Civil War was uniquely geographical in its dynamics and I don't see the same contiguity necessary for pieces of the country to start breaking off. Without getting too deep into the issue, that war was a result of different economics systems working better in different locations in the nation. The core features of those systems were on a collision course. That why it was states fighting each other, and not populations.
Jay: yes, the North was a mixture of parties. However, from what I remember, the South was almost exclusively Democratic. (There were still some Whigs left from John Tyler's administration.) I'm not even sure that Lincoln appeared on the ballot in most of those states.
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
Well I heard on the news that the New York assembly thingie took place, but I heard no mention of those "anti" gestures touted in the beginning of this internet message thread. All the newsbit said was that the spin doctors are trying to tone down Bush's conservative side, to appeal to the other voters, and that anti-abortion and gay marriage speakers were not to bother coming.
If this is a last attempt at trying to win over voters for the coming election, I suspect it's "too little too late".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Though it requires the near-demonic Realplayer, I would recommend the following two radio programs, one about the Democratic Convention and the other the Republican Convention, from 1996, which is in some ways so long ago that listening to quirky documentaries from that time is like digging through your grandparents' garage, but aside from generating the eerie sense of having outlived yourself, they are neat insights into what goes on at American national political conventions.
"All the newsbit said was that the spin doctors are trying to tone down Bush's conservative side..."
The GOP is pulling out all the stops for this one, though, with Schwarzenegger and I-don't-know-what-other Republican bigshots all slated to make an appearance hailing Bush in every way they can think of as if he was The Holy Planetary Overlord or something and the only one fit to lead the Free World and the only one capable of restoring the glory of the US of A and blablablabla. And people probably buy into that self-promotional crap, too.
It's like any other personality cult, just a dangerously large and well-funded one.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, uh, disagreement with this particular Overlord aside, that is sort of what these conventions are for, regardless of party.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, yes, but it's just the intensity of the thing that seems so off-the-scale this year, even for the Republican party.
(I haven't had much exposure to previous R-convention coverage, but even the one from 2000, when they had the Lewinsky scandal to feast upon, wasn't, to my recollection at least, THIS ferocious.)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
For anyone that still thinks there's some "libera; bias" to the media, turn on CNN. All they can report for the past 48 hours is how far behind Kerris, how there's *rumors* that SOMEONE in his campaign said they *probably* SHOULD restructure the campaign IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING!
You'd think Kerry threw in the towel from their attitudes.
Just shows that the press are vultures and that all liberal pretense aside, they'll pounce on anyone they can hype as "weak" to make ratings.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
So, here�s how I see the Republican National Convention going so far...
Wrap yourself as tight as you can in the memory of 9/11. In fact, hold your convention in New York just days before the 3rd anniversary of those attacks.
No one will notice or think it�s crass or inappropriate or anything.
And if someone asks what about how to fund education, remind them that everything changed that day in 2001 and that George W. Bush is a war president who makes decisions.
Say you�re going to be optimistic and then don�t be...use the old tried and true bait and switch tactic. You�re getting good at it.
In fact, be downright angry at the podium.
Wild-eyed is even better!
Republicans need learn how to embrace their inner John Kerry hatred. How dare he challenge Mr. Bush in this election?!?!
Attack John Kerry.
Attack, attack, attack.
Only wimps run on their record.
Avoid discussing policy.
In fact, avoid even the slightest hint of policy discussion. If someone asks about an actual policy, remind the questioner of 9/11 and the president�s steely resolve.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Jay - The problem with this race is that the Republicans are going to have a big problem running their campaign on their policies (because they are idiotic) or personalities (GWB doesn't have one) so you have to stick to the only thing they have, scaring the shit out of dumb America.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Tha sad thing is, it's gonna work.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
OK, because Jay was nice enough to post his comments in numbered paragraphs (ever think about a career as a paralegal?) I thought I would make some passing comments.
1. It depends on how you think it should be remembered. I don't remember who first said it, but I think it's telling that when Democrats thought about it at their convention, a hush of respect came over the room. When Zell Miller talked about it at the Republican convention, there were hollers of defiance. It's a question of personality. Different strokes for different folks (even if I think some strokes are better than others). (BTW, I wish Gary Coleman would keep pursuing politics. He would make a great person to have in an executive branch...) I for one think that the war on Islamofascism is the most important issue of this election. Because I think it should be prosecuted with vigor, I have no problem it being brought up as a reason to vote for the incumbant. Both parties have done it before, e.g., FDR and Lincoln.
1.a. Depending on what you think the proper role of the national government is vis-a-vis the states, opinions tend to run one way or the other on the issue of education. Just because Bush doesn't want to finance schools using national funds doesn't mean he wants to see kids intellectually malnourished. He believes it is an issue of the states, which is traditionally where it has been lodged. If you have a problem with funding, (I hate to sound trite, but I really don't know another way to do this, but) take it up with your local school board. Or better yet (at the risk of going off topic), vote for candidates that would enact laws for vouchers or charter schools.
2. and 3. (Together.) These are actually one in the same issue. Let me give you the key passage from Jonathan Last's piece from earlier today on the Weekley Standard online:
quote: THE BULK of tonight's prime-time speeches were attacks against Kerry. What does that mean? It means that Republicans are running a campaign of contrast--they are running on ideological division--at least tonight. How to square this with Monday night's outreach to Democrats and undecideds?
Part of the answer is that Republicans want to have it both ways: They want to reach out, and go very, very negative on their opponent. There is some precedent for this. In 1988 George H.W. Bush ran a campaign which said, essentially, (1) I'm kinder and gentler and, (2) Dukakis is a nut. This mixed message worked for Bush 41. Still, the mixed message is not what a strong incumbent typically strives for.
So what is Team Bush trying to do? Their message is unified on a basic level. The one universally coherent message this week is that Republicans believe the only topic which matters is the war on terrorism. If that is your strategy, then both tacks--the trumpeting of Bush's record and the attacking of Kerry's--are part of the same whole.
3.a. Just wait until we see some confrontation on Kerry's testimony in 1971 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his voting record as the junior senator from Massachusetts. It's going to get a lot more negative before it's over. They're not wimps for not bringing it up yet, only saving their best arguments for last (not unlike a good high school essay).
4. This is a phenomenon I've seen elsewhere. No one who actually knows anything about how politics work think that policy is supposed to be the centerpiece of conventions. (Hell, I recall reading an extended essay on William McKinley talking about how his administration's policies were determined months before his election.) The idea that conventions are where we hammer out our differences died in the nineteenth century (with a very few notable exceptions). These days, a lot of policy (I don't know enough to say most) has been given to the experts at think tanks. On the right you have the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. On the left you have ones like the Brookings Institution and the Ford Foundation. This doesn't answer the question of whether it ought to be that way, but realistically, I don't see an alternative that is possible. Conventions have become sales pitches. And, to make a final point, isn't that the first priority of politics? Selling your policies as best for the people?
4.a. I'll give everyone the same answer I gave my brother (who is nuts about science and policy): some issues are just more important than others. (Warning: peroration approaching.) I disagree with Bush a lot of issues, but none of those is going to matter a damn bit if we get blown to smitherines because Kerry is willing to soft pedal Iran and not prevent a regime that honest-to-God thinks we are the Great Satan from getting enriched uranium it can give to any organization who agrees we should be fried to a crisp because of who we are.
I would be genuinely surprised if this changed anyone's mind, but I thought I would do my part.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Looking at people's signitures reveals fascinating information about their mind-set.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Indeed. David - Reality check?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
People's signatures can also reveal fascinating things about other peoples' mind-sets.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Without going too deep into it tonight (I might respond with a larger post in 24 hours), I would respond that Sun Tzu was in his deepest insights a radically compassionate warrior in the model of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas. I guess I've been outed as firmly in the "just war" camp. Simply because someone ponders war and considers in historical implications (like in the first quote) wouldn't make someone a warmonger (not that any one of you has implied such, I want to be clear on that). I would just point out that we are all by virtue of this string pondering it.
The second quote of his could be read two ways at two extremes: (1) make war unnecessary by some degree of pacifism, thereby ceasing to be a threat to potential enemies, or, alternatively (2) make war unnecessary by removing the conditions in adversaries' situations such that they no longer are compelled (by whatever intrinsic or extrinsic reason) to wage war upon you.
There is a middle ground on this, yes, I know, but I thought I would illustrate the extremes and let the chips fall somewhere in between.
Last night I had actually started a very long response to another post on this section of Flare along these lines, but it became too unwieldy a topic to do in one post and I abandoned it. I just didn't feel like trying to defend the war according to the just war tradition in a single post when I probably wasn't going to change any minds or even merit responses by my fellow Flare-ites. However, if anyone would like to engage in a dialogue, I'm willing to have a go at it in the interest of helping others understand the another side.
Sorry this post doesn't get deeper, and I certainly would have more to say if it was 12 noon and not 12 midnight, but forgive my fatigue from a long day behind me and a long day ahead of me. I promise more if anyone wants to talk more. I just thought you all might like to hear from someone who would probably count as "from the other side."
(On one final note, the signature was a bit inadvertant. I had forgotten about it from when I had made it years ago [have I been on this board for years?] when I was still an undergraduate. Funny how these things come back to you. No regrets, but certainly new insights on what I've learned in the interim.)
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I have more, but two things stike me as worth replying to quickly.
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: (ever think about a career as a paralegal?)
Yes, actually. The professional historian thing didn't work out and I'm surrounded by lawyers.
But then some bright person suggested I try to get a MLS and then UCLA was negative on the admissions status so now I'm back to looking elsewhere.
Stupid UCLA.
quote:I disagree with Bush a lot of issues, but none of those is going to matter a damn bit if we get blown to smitherines because Kerry is willing to soft pedal Iran and not prevent a regime that honest-to-God thinks we are the Great Satan from getting enriched uranium it can give to any organization who agrees we should be fried to a crisp because of who we are.
If you're suggesting that Mr. Kerry is going to be worse in dealing with a nuclear threats from Axis of Evil countries, you need to seriously ask yourself where Mr. Bush has been these 3 years.
Especially as regards North Korea.
How's that stepping away from the Agreed Framework going? Feel any safer?
So, thinking of words to describe the foreign policy of Mr. Bush's Administration...I'm going with muddled and incoherent.
And, yes, I think John Kerry can do better.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I don't think anyone here would disagree that a war can be just. And I'm sure you'll find no quibblers over the idea that if anywhere needed to be invaded and rid of a cruel despot, it was Iraq. But the undeniable fact remains, the President couldn't care less about the plight of the people in Iraq. He invaded for his own selfish personal motives (and those of the people who pull his strings) and lied about his reasons for doing so. And as a result has not made the problems facing America better but in fact worse and added to the sum total of people actively wanting to see your nation come to harm, and alienated the rest of the world in the process.
And no ah-so, chop-socky, Confucius-he-say bullcrap is going to excuse that. I mean, for fuck's sake, Sun-Tzu? That's something you read when you're a student trying to appear deep and mysterious; then you put it away and grow the fuck up. The alternative leads to shite Wesley Snipes movies.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Lee, I would respond with a more eloquent post, but I am running out the door. However, I found these two articles helpful on the issue of Bush's motive.
As for alienating the rest of the world, I will have to leave that one for later. Ditto for Sun Tzu, though I definitely have a response on that coming in the next day or two.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I for one think that the war on Islamofascism is the most important issue of this election. Because I think it should be prosecuted with vigor, I have no problem it being brought up as a reason to vote for the incumbant."
Then I am interested to know why you think The War is a more important issue than, say, foreign relations, when anyone whose view of reality isn't obstructed by a billion-barrel oil stain can see that global-scale terrorism cannot be fought (let alone defeated) without first addressing the question of why "Islamofascism" is running so rampant out there and that formulating the right answer to its popularity will require international input instead of MOABs, or why you think The Incumbant has prosecuted The War well at all and can be trusted to do so again in the future given what his little stint in Iraq or his fantastically diplomatic attitude re: North Korea have so far done to promote Peace & Love & Understanding worldwide.
And sorry, no numbered list this time.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: 1. It depends on how you think it should be remembered.
I believe that that day should be remembered. It can certainly challenge one, should one need such inspiration, to prosecute the War On Terror�.
However, I think the way the Republicans used the memory in the course of their convention is best summed up by Chris Suellentrop of Slate when he described New York Gov. George Pataki�s speech as:
quote:...a repugnant politicization of Sept. 11.
One can argue that the day is indeed political, and still think the Republicans have crossed the line and have moved into crass exploitation.
Remember, they were only in New York just days before the 3rd anniversary because of the fine convention facilities.
quote:I don't remember who first said it, but I think it's telling that when Democrats thought about it at their convention, a hush of respect came over the room. When Zell Miller talked about it at the Republican convention, there were hollers of defiance.
I, for one, don't necessarily equate a convention inspired barbaric yalp with successful or coherent policy to deal with world terror.
quote:I for one think that the war on Islamofascism is the most important issue of this election.
It is indeed an important issue. And it is indeed not the only issue.
The the military may well be an important factor in this generalized conflict. I do, however, think the United States, through force of arms only, is not going to defeat Islamofascism.
The idea of a Perma-War on Terror� has little currency with me.
The real conflict is within Islam itself. The conflict is between modernizing forces and those who feel left behind. And until mainstream Islam is ready to put an end to Islamic radicalism, we�re pretty much digging a hole is loose sand thinking that military force is the way to go.
It helps to avoid other issues and wrap yourself in the memory of 9/11 when you pretty much have two main policies:
Tax cuts
Attacking Iraq
quote:1.a. Depending on what you think the proper role of the national government is vis-a-vis the states, opinions tend to run one way or the other on the issue of education.
Education policy was simply a McGuffin. I could have mentioned the Administration discussing a proposed Constitutional amendment to promote rural pencil sharpening, and they�ll link it to 9/11 and the War On Terror.�
quote:"Isn't that the ultimate homeland security? To defend the sanctity of marriage?" - Senator Rick Santorum, equating his campaign against marriage rights for gays with the war on terror.
quote:Or better yet (at the risk of going off topic), vote for candidates that would enact laws for vouchers or charter schools.
Yeah. Or don't.
quote:4. This is a phenomenon I've seen elsewhere. No one who actually knows anything about how politics work think that policy is supposed to be the centerpiece of conventions.
Mr. Bush assiduously avoids policy.
At all times. In convention or not. He doesn't do policy.
As I�ve heard said, if this election is about issues, the John Kerry wins. So it�s in Mr. Bush�s self interest to pound the War President� theme and for his surrogates to keep saying how steely and resolved he was on 9/11 and in the aftermath.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:NEW YORK�For $2.4 trillion, guess what word�other than "a," "and," and "the"�occurs most frequently in the acceptance speech George W. Bush delivered tonight.
The word is "will." It appears 76 times. This was a speech all about what Bush will do, and what will happen, if he becomes president.
Except he already is president. He already ran this campaign. He promised great things. They haven't happened. So, he's trying to go back in time. He wants you to see in him the potential you saw four years ago. He can't show you the things he promised, so he asks you to envision them. He asks you to be "optimistic." He asks you to have faith.
"Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb and found the strength to climb them," said Bush. "Now, because we have made the hard journey, we can see the valley below. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach and greatness in our future."
Recession. Unemployment. Corporate fraud. A war based on false premises that has cost us $200 billion and nearly a thousand American lives. They're all hills we've "been given to climb." It's as though Bush wasn't president. As though he didn't get the tax cuts he wanted. As though he didn't bring about postwar Iraq and authorize the planning for it. All this was "given," and now Bush can show up, three and a half years into his term, and start solving the problems some other president left behind.
Via Atrios at Eschaton.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Jay, I'm sorry to hear that your efforts to become a professional historian failed. I'm also sorry UCLA didn't work. I know a little bit about not getting in the first time, so I can imagine some of the frustration you feel. Good luck on whichever path you choose. (If this is all old news, forgive me: I've been out of the loop with law school for three years.)
Regarding your immediate comment about what Bush has been doing about Iran, I think we both understand something has to be done. But the reason I don't think Bush has been delinquent on Iran is that we would never have been able to fight both Iraq and Iran at the same time. People complain about an overstretched military. This is where that overstretching hurts. We can't fight all our battles at once. I noticed the other day that Kerry came out with an initial take on the Iran situation, allowing them to keep their reactors but with some kind of locks on their spent fuel. (I think they did the same in North Korea for a while with satalite links. Someone correct me if I have remembered incorrectly.) I'm really uncomfortable leaving that kind of infrastructure, especially in a nation that energy rich. It really stretches "dual-use" pretty thin. But give me a few days to catch up on Kerry's Iran policy and I will have more to say.
As for North Korea, I honestly don't know what to say because I haven't followed that theater of conflict well. I don't know enough to give a sophisticated opinion on what to do with them. So on this, I really can't give you a meaty response. However, if desperate for a snapshot answer on what very little I know, I think there's huge potential for failure no matter what course of action either candidate would take. So on that vote, neither candidate has an advantage in my view.
Lee, on making lots more people ready to kill us, I think a rational case can be made either way. And because we don't really have polling that I know of on who is willing to do what to US interests, I won't try to argue over that point using the only available tool left: rhetoric.
However, alienating the rest of the world is relative to me. The starting point for me is Lord Palmerston's axiom: nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. What that idea gets at is that there is no "ratchet" of concordance with nations' aims. Just because someone once shared our aims does not mean that they will also work to help us achieve our aims in the future. I suspect that what most people who say we are alienating the world mean is that we no longer abide the objections of the Rhineland countries, Russia, and China as to invading Iraq. However, there are a lot of other nations that do support us. Here is a list from list from the Heritage Foundation as of March 2003 along with summaries of what their support entails:
quote: Afghanistan: Afghanistan has pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. May open airspace to U.S. and allied military flights. Albania: Offered to send troops. Approved U.S. use of airspace and bases. Angola:* Australia: Sent 2,000-strong force of elite SAS troops, fighter jets and warships to the Gulf. Azerbaijan:* Bahrain: Headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Bulgaria: Offered use of airspace, base and refueling for U.S. warplanes; sent 150 non-combat troops specializing in chemical and biological warfare decontamination. Canada:* Sent military planners to join U.S. counterparts at their command post in Qatar. A destroyer and two frigates sent to the region could protect U.S. ships. Colombia:* Croatia: Airspace and airports open to civilian transport planes from the coalition. Czech Republic: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to U.S. request. Denmark: The government decided to take part in the military action with submarine, surface ships, and a medical team comprised of 70 elite Jaegerkorps soldiers. Dominican Republic:* El Salvador* Eritrea* Estonia* Ethiopia: Ethiopia has publicly pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. Georgia: Georgia has expressed strong support for the U.S. attack on Iraq, and has offered both its airspace and military bases to support the campaign.3 Greece: U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. sixth fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Honduras:* Hungary: Hosts a U.S. base where Iraqi exiles are trained for possible post-war administrative roles. NATO can use the country�s roads, railways and airspace to carry military support for Turkey�s defense. May open airspace for U.S. military flights. Iceland: * Italy: Offered logistical help and use of military bases and ports under longstanding NATO commitments. Japan: Japan expressed unequivocal support for U.S. plans to forcibly disarm Iraq. Will provide post-conflict assistance. Jordan: Opened its airspace to coalition planes; hosts U.S. troops carrying out search and rescue operations in western Iraq and manning a Patriot anti-missile defense system. Kuwait: Hosts coalition forces massed for an invasion. Latvia: Government has decided to ask parliament to authorize the deployment of a small number of troops. Lithuania: Authorized use of airspace for U.S. backed mission to disarm Iraq. Macedonia* Marshall Islands:* Micronesia:* Mongolia:* Netherlands: A few hundred Dutch troops are stationed in Turkey to operate three Patriot missile defense systems, allowing movement of U.S. troops and supplies from Germany through the Netherlands en route to the Persian Gulf. Nicaragua* Norway: Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfare suits to Turkey. Philippines: The Philippine National Security Council offered political support for a U.S. led war to disarm Iraq. Poland: To deploy up to 200 troops in the Gulf region, which will perform an unspecified non-combat role, supporting the U.S.-led offensive. A few dozen Grom elite commando troops and transport ship already stationed in the Gulf area, as part of the Afghanistan campaign, could be enlisted. Portugal: Made available NATO air bases and an air base in the Azores. Qatar: Hosts a mobile HQ for U.S. Central Command; allowed Washington to expand an airfield to handle more combat jets. Romania: Airspace and a base open to U.S. warplanes; sent non-combat specialists in chemical decontamination, medics, engineers and military police in response to a U.S. request. Will make available Black Sea air and naval bases. Rwanda:* Saudi Arabia: U.S. and British planes use its Prince Sultan Air Base to enforce a "no-fly zone" over southern Iraq. Singapore:* Slovakia: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to a U.S. request. Has approved U.S. flyovers and use of its bases. Slovenia: Signed the Vilnius 10 declaration supporting the United States Solomon Islands: South Korea: Seoul will dispatch some 500 army engineers to support a U.S. led war on Iraq, in addition to post-war assistance. Spain: Strongest ally of the United States and Britain. Promised use of its NATO bases for a strike on Iraq. Spain will send a medical support vessel equipped with nuclear, biological and chemical treatment facilities. A frigate and 900 troops will accompany the support vessel in the event of a conflict. Taiwan: Taipei opened its airspace to U.S. military aircraft. Turkey: Hosts U.S. planes enforcing "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq. Turkey has granted the United States the use of its airspace.) Uganda:* Ukraine: Agreed to U.S. request that it send chemical warfare and nuclear decontamination experts United Arab Emirates: Base for U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and refueling; host to an estimated 3,000 western troops. Has pledged 4,000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missile boat and a frigate to defend Kuwait in case of war in Iraq. United Kingdom: Washington's chief ally on Iraq has sent or committed 45,000 military personnel, planes and warships. Uzbekistan*
* Countries mentioned by Secretary Powell.
Information was taken from here. (Spain has pulled out, but I thought it was useful to list that it supported us until 3/11.)
While it is true that some of those nations have comparatively little to offer the US while fighting in Iraq, some do: Poland ended up sending the Grom commandos. Denmark, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands all sent top notch forces.
Now, listing all those countries doesn't really answer the question of whether that is sufficient support since Russia, France, Germany, and China don't approve. But my short answer to that objection is that the history of the UN Security Council acting as an affirmative agent of collective standards which might otherwise demand response is slim. Other than the Korean War, the Gulf War, and the bombing of Serbia, it has never been able to mediate conflicting Great Powers who have stakes in conflicts. Though it was envisioned as such by men like FDR and Churchill, most scholars of international studies generally agree that the arrangement of the voting power of the Security Council is not representative of what ought to happen, but merely what the parties want to happen.
I also don't think it's much of an objectiont to say we should have waited to get French and German troops. Military commentators around the globe have remarked on the sorry states of those militaries relative to the expertise of the US, UK, and Australian troops. I doubt that adding them into the equation would make a marked difference in the peacibleness of the Baathist fighters trying to blow everything apart.
As for Sun Tzu, I'll admit I was disappointed to see that movie steal such a great title. But, then again, Hollywood has recycled lots of names for movies before. (Just type "Gladiator" into IMDB.) But to respond to your substantive point, I would say that Sun Tzu is still taught at all the military academies, as well as at the advanced academies like the US Army War College. And Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung also used it to win their wars. I must disagree with you. He is still relevant. And certainly more useful as a system of warfare than Clausewitz or the distant third, Jomini.
Cartman: I think the war is foreign relations. You stated, "global-scale terrorism cannot be fought (let alone defeated) without first addressing the question of why 'Islamofascism' is running so rampant out there and that formulating the right answer to its popularity will require international input." I fail to see why we must address whatever econo-political problems yielded Islamofascism first. Waiting around to try diplomatic and cultural transformation of the underlying conditions would not stop those already hell-bent on killing now. It's not a matter of choosing one theater to the exclusion of others until you find a silver bullet answer to the problem. I don't think anyone in the national security establishment, be they Ds or Rs, really thinks just trying one method of engagement is going to suffice. Granted, some will think some forms will be more effective than others, but saying we have to look to underlying causes first has never been a winning strategy in any war. The most effective multi-pronged way of warfare similar to the way we are fighting right now is the Philippine insurrections of the very early twentieth century. While the US Army fought the rebels in the mountains, engineers followed after and built infrastructure like roads and schools that eliminated many of the conditions the rebels had been complaining about. It worked then. It can work again.
Back to Jay: I don't really see how a verbal showing of solidarity behind defeating our enemies qualifies as "barbaric."
What I was trying to get at with that vignette was that the responses of the delegates indicates the general mindset of the parties who are represented by the candidates. I think the appropriateness of the image of 9/11 is linked to what you think the appropriate response is. I for one don't want to sit, grouse, and examine the sociological implications of acts like 9/11 in the hopes of some collaberative understanding and harmonious consensus. I want to get even, prevent them from doing this to other nations, and thereby increase by some degree what justice is found in the world. That's a feeling of aroused anger, not pensive sorrow.
To both Jay and Cartman: I don't know if this would represent some kind of middle ground, but read this and tell me if this is what you had in mind.
Back once again to Jay: I will freely admit, I used to think like you that a president who didn't do policy ought not to be as worthy of respect as one who does. However, I learned a few things in law school working at the side of one of the top lobbyists in Washington who was nice enough to commute down to Alabama every week to teach us. Reagan (I think) observed that the people you choose are the policy. No effective president does policy. What some of my MBA friends were telling me of why they thought Clinton wasn't as effective as he could have been was because he tried to do too much himself. Intellectuals loved it that he wined and dined them, but his White House was regarded by many to be one of the most ineffective ones of this half-century. I would also point out that even most members of Congress don't read everything. Remember the scene in Farenheit 9/11 where John Conyers told Michael Moore that no one there read everything? If you want to read more on this, try the last chapter of this book. (The author is very liberal. Even he says presidents just don't have the time to sit and think about issues and indefinitely as people like us do periodically throughout the day.) So ulimtately, the response to "Bush doesn't do policy" is, so what? No president who gets things done ever does. They provide the basic direction they want and tell their subordinates to implement it. Bush has his priorities set. He has chosen the people he wants to make his vision happen. So whatever relative lack of wonkishness he has really isn't as consequential as most people think.
OK, and to respond lastly to the Slate piece in simple declarative sentences... Economic health is not merely a measure of jobs. Corporate fraud is not something that really could have been prevented by Bush. (Sorry, still looking for the best of only a thousand anti-Sarbanes-Oxley articles to link here; give me time.) Not all reasons for the war were based on false premises. It will take decades to sort out which groups Saddam was working with (we know Abu Nidal for sure). We needed to deliver humanitarian support. And we needed to stop someone who had tortured thousands of people. For the aforementioned reasons, I just don't see Saletan's article as demonstrating a dearth of accomplishments.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Back to Jay: I don't really see how a verbal showing of solidarity behind defeating our enemies qualifies as "barbaric."
Did you actually watch Zell Miller's speech?
I'm sticking with barbaric yalp.
It was quite the angry and mendacious public face the Republicans put on their convention with his keynote address.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.
Andrew Sullivan on Miller. That Marine got a smack down from a fag. Go Sullivan!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I want to get even..."
Your basic, typical, human reaction. Sure. But a guy who has been trusted with the charge of the most powerful military force in the world should not let such a thing even enter the least bit into his decision whether or not to use that force.
That, and all those Iraqis we killed never actually did anything to us.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, there's just too much and I don't want to sit at the keyboard for 2 hours typing a response to it all.
So, as much as I would prefer to write long, artful paragraphs full of intricate arguments to rebut various thing, I'm going with the old Omega Pull-Quote argumentation technique.
quote:But the reason I don't think Bush has been delinquent on Iran is that we would never have been able to fight both Iraq and Iran at the same time.
So, here we have two countries on the verge of becoming nuclear powers and I don�t see the Administration doing all that much diplomatically as regards either one.
Sort of makes our preemptive invasion of Iraq and our resulting overextended military even more problematic doesn�t it.
quote:I fail to see why we must address whatever econo-political problems yielded Islamofascism first.
That one nearly made my eyes bug out.
You have no reason to present the situation as an either/or argument.
We must, absolutely must, deal with social, cultural, economic and political issues in the Muslim world...or do what we can to help them deal with the situation and change it for the better.
If, to boil it down to a simplistic point, young men are trained at Madrasas to hate the West and all that we stand for you can:
A) Try to kill them all when they 'graduate' which will pretty much land you in a perpetual state of violence.... B) Try to help the young men find other means to educate themselves and encourage states to democratize through diplomatic and economic means....
Or...
C)Kill terrorists when they pop up AND actively work to help countries modernize and democratize.
I don't see Mr. Bush doing much of the second.
quote:Granted, some will think some forms will be more effective than others, but saying we have to look to underlying causes first has never been a winning strategy in any war.
We're not at war Honduras here, so the nation/state warfare scheme doesn't seem to apply in total.
This is an conflict deeply rooted in ideology and the United States and Great Britian can't destroy all of Islam. So while it is important to be guarded and use military force when necessary, you have to find the roots of the ideology as quick as possible and find ways to deal with that.
They are massively out-gunned and they know it, so if you have to ask yourself at some point, hopefully early in the process, why they keep coming and getting killed.
quote:No effective president does policy.
Well, I'd challenge that just on it's face. Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ, all did policy. And they were all, in their own way, effective.
I can't think of a president of the last half century so unable to communicate his Administration's policy and so seemingly uninterested in finding out what it should be.
If Mr. Bush is the CEO president he touts himself as, then he's certainly of the new breed, which apparently counts former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney as a member. These are CEO's who are unaware of the corporate direction and when presented with malfeasance from subordinates, they disclaim all responsibility due to lack of knowledge.
Mr. Bush seems to me to be quite a bad CEO.
I, for one, have no problem wanting more from a president.
quote:They provide the basic direction they want and tell their subordinates to implement it. Bush has his priorities set. He has chosen the people he wants to make his vision happen.
That, to my way of thinking, given the incoherent foreign and domestic policy of this Administration, is an excellent reason not to vote for Mr. Bush.
quote:Economic health is not merely a measure of jobs.
Since I don't presently have one, and I'm looking, and I'm not finding one, it sure means a great deal to me.
Then again, I've seen quite a few Ferrari's lately, so someone's doing well.
quote:Corporate fraud is not something that really could have been prevented by Bush.
I lay the deregulatory climate and the stepping away of government oversight squarely at the feet of Republicans just like Mr. Bush.
quote:Not all reasons for the war were based on false premises.
Yes, I remember, was it in the 2002 State of the Union or the 2003, that he justified the preemptive invasion of Iraq on the grounds we needed to promote democracy in the Middle East?
The Administration certainly came up with post-invasion reasons to justify what we did...and some of them are perfectly right and good.
Saddam Hussein was indeed a bad man. The women of Afghanistan did need our assistance.
But it Mr. Bush purposfully avoided public debate on those issues prior to the invasion and chose instead more disingenious arguments.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Re: coalition members: Afghanistan, as a nation, really doesn't exist, for any reasonable definition of nation. Just something that caught my eye. It's the textbook definition of a failed state.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I was worried till I saw we had the Marshall Islands on our side.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:I fail to see why we must address whatever econo-political problems yielded Islamofascism first.
Because, if you don't, every terrorist you kill will just inspire ten more to strap on a belt of explosives and blow themselves up for their greater cause.
quote:Waiting around to try diplomatic and cultural transformation of the underlying conditions would not stop those already hell-bent on killing now.
No, but it would stop those that might become hell-bent on killing in the future.
quote:It's not a matter of choosing one theater to the exclusion of others until you find a silver bullet answer to the problem. I don't think anyone in the national security establishment, be they Ds or Rs, really thinks just trying one method of engagement is going to suffice. Granted, some will think some forms will be more effective than others, but saying we have to look to underlying causes first has never been a winning strategy in any war.
But this war isn't like any other war. It cannot be won with strategies of the past, so new ones have to be drawn up. And that hasn't been done. Combating terrorism isn't about bombing training camps and arresting cell leaders, which are reactionary stopgap measures, but about long-term investments in improving the social/cultural/economic conditions in those countries where it is originating from. There's your silver bullet on a silver platter, you just have to be willing to fire it.
quote:The most effective multi-pronged way of warfare similar to the way we are fighting right now is the Philippine insurrections of the very early twentieth century. While the US Army fought the rebels in the mountains, engineers followed after and built infrastructure like roads and schools that eliminated many of the conditions the rebels had been complaining about. It worked then. It can work again.
While I do not know to what extent the Philippian situation can be considered a microcosm of terrorism in all its facets today, eliminating the problems that spawn Islamic fundamentalism is going to take more than building a few roads and schools, and is absolutely not something that can be completed in the sort of timeframe that this administration appears to have in mind for, say, Iraq (which it criminally underestimated the task of rebuilding of). And just like it's naive (at best) to think you can transplant a set of Western ideas and ideals which needed centuries to mature to a country/region of the world with a totally different history and expect everyone there to accept them as gospel, thinking that terrorism will "go away" if you kill enough extremists is equally devoid of any sense of reality.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Matthew Yglesias reminds me of one serious bit of foreign policy in the news in recent days.
quote:Nonproliferation Notes
Readers may recall that about a month ago I was dumbfounded by reports that the Bush administration was scuttling the verification component of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The Treaty would, if properly enforced, damage US interests not at all while making it harder for terrorists and rogue states to acquire nuclear weapons. The administration's official line on why they'd done this -- that it was too expensive -- seemed to seriously call into question their sanity. Verification may be expensive, but it could hardly be too expensive to reduce the single greatest security threat facing the nation.
The current issue of the Economist has a seriously buried lede explaining that the main motivation was, in fact, "the worries of Israel and Pakistan, two allies that want to keep the option of adding to their stockpiles." We scuttled a treaty that will keep bombs out of the hands of terrorists so that Israel and Pakistan (!) can build bigger arsenals? Israel and Pakistan! The same Pakistan whose chief nuclear scientist was operating a global proliferation market. The same Pakistan whose intelligence services built the Taliban and nurtured al-Qaeda in its early days. The same Pakistan whose military runs terrorist training camps. That Pakistan? Apparently so.
In a significant shift of US policy, the Bush Administration has announced that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty to ban production of nuclear weapons materials.
For several years the US and others have been pursuing the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons.
At an arms control meeting in Geneva last week the US told other countries it supported a treaty, but not verification.
US officials, who have demonstrated scepticism in the past about the effectiveness of international weapons inspections, said they made the decision after concluding such a system would cost too much, require overly intrusive inspections and would not guarantee compliance with the treaty.
However, they declined to explain in detail how they believed US security would be undermined by creating a plan to monitor the treaty.
Arms control specialists said the change in the US position would greatly weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. They said the US move virtually killed a 10-year international effort to persuade countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan to accept some oversight of their nuclear production programs.
Matthew links to Laura Rozen's thoughts on the issue:
quote:----
This administration is insane. I have no words.
Hard right conservatives and neocons have always disdained arms control treaties saying "Why bother? They can't be verified." But by killing the verification component of this treaty which would ban production of nuclear materials, they have surely made that a fait accompli. To what end? It surely couldn't hurt, and it's not like the US has such a good track record of intelligence on WMD issues in India, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, or Libya.
And, in one of those moments where movies speak volums about real life, Matthew links to Brad DeLong:
quote:Kurtz: "What did they tell you?"
Willard: "They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound."
Kurtz: "Are my methods unsound?"
Willard: "I don't see any method, at all, sir."
Foreign policy, Bush Administration style.
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
What's the current standing between Bush/Kerry? 51/49? 50/50?
If you elect that clown again I have some real estate I want to show you.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Now, at the traditional Labor Day start of the presidential campaign homestretch, Kerry must once again fight back from a deficit. And even though running for president is many degrees more difficult than competing for the Democratic nomination or running for the US Senate in Massachusetts, no one is counting him out. Even Republicans acknowledge Bush's lead - 11 points in Time and Newsweek polls taken during the GOP convention last week - will settle down.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I really think people are making too big a deal out of the Time and Newsweek polls that show Bush ahead 11-12 points. There's obviously something wrong there. No way could that joke of a convention have given him such an extreme push.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You give people more credit than they are actually, historically, due.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I try not to. But, a jump of that much would imply that a very large number of Kerry supporters started supporting Bush during the RNC. The number of undecided voters hasn't really changed, and there weren't that many of them, anyway. So, essentially, the poll numbers are showing that the convention caused a full fifth of Kerry's supporters to switch sides. That seems unlikely, no matter how much stupidity you assign people.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Time and Newsweek both registered massive bounces for Bush during the Republican National Convention. Rasmussen says he would be showing Bush with a five point bounce (and, therefore, a four point lead) except his Saturday sample was terrible for Bush, giving him a slight 1.2 percent lead in the three day moving average. Now Gallup is showing a two point bounce based on a weekend poll that's moved Bush from one point behind to one point ahead (and now we're in the territory where sampling error matters, so it's not entirely clear than anything changed at all). Obviously, something a bit nutty is going on with polls taken on, say, Friday showing dramatically different results from polls taken over the weekend. Is this "faster public opinion" where people love Bush after seeing his speak and then forget all about it after 36 hours of hurricane coverage? As I recall something similarly screwy happened with Kerry -- he got a big bounce on Friday and then by the following Monday it was gone.
It's hard for me to understand the psychology of folks who would let their votes be swung by a speech -- we've had four years to watch Bush and his performance in office seems like an infinitely better guide to what you should do than is a speech -- so from my point of view there's really no telling.
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
Well my morning newspaper said 52/48 in Bush's favor, two hours ago. Grr. Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Returning to the thread topic, we are looking at 1000 dead this week. Today, CNN reported in the last twenty-four hours 12 soldiers have died in fighting in Iraq bringing the number of dead to 998. And, from what I am reading and hearing, our government is conceding cities and the surrounding lands to the anti-American forces in Fallujah, Sadr City, Najaf, and so on. I am not in favor of abandoning Iraq which is one of the reasons my support of Senator Kerry is waning. Our country created this mess and we should damn well fix it, or the anti-American, anti-Israeli elements of the Muslim world will have a second major victory in their pocket. The first was the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.
I thought I was writing for the casualties thread. I wasn't. However, this makes no difference. I agree with President Bush on staying the course in Iraq. I just wish this administration would do a better job.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Speaking of casulities in Iraq, wasn't the capture of Saddam Hussein supposed to make America safer?
Thomas F. Schaller over at The Gadflyer notes that this has not been the case.
quote:Today Marks the Pre-/Post Hussein Capture Period Cutoff
Well, here we are: Today � September 7th � is the official inflection date marking an identical period both before Saddam Hussein was captured and after he was captured.
That�s right: There were a total of 269 days from the war�s start date of March 19, 2003, and Hussein�s capture on December 13, 2003; there have been 269 days since then, including today. If you doubt me, double-check my numbers at Lunaville.org�s incomparable site.
I realize I must sound like a broken record on this site about the American fatalities rates during these two periods. But, now that we have experienced exactly the same number of days in Iraq both before and after that purported turning point, allow me to report the final numbers for the two periods:
Before capture: 459 American fatalities (1.71/day) After capture: 539 American fatalities (2.00/day)
This is not a matter of "he said, she said" wherein FOX News can bring somebody in from both sides to debate what, exactly, constitutes a cardinal number, and thus whether, in our postmodern world, 539 might somehow actually be lower than 459. No, it's a ineluctable fact: The number of fatalities and, thus, the average daily rate of casualties is higher post-capture than pre-capture.
Any response Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Rove, Mrs. Hughes, Mr. Mehlman, Mr. Dowd, Mr. McClellan, or Ms. Devenish?
quote:The latest hope -- that the transfer of soveignty would fix things -- has also proven empty. There were 42 casualties in June, followed by the transfer and 54 casualties in July, followed by 66 casualties in August. We're about 23 percent of the way through the month of September and already 20 American soldiers have been killed. That projects to around 85 deaths for the month.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I agree with President Bush on staying the course in Iraq."
You would re-elect a man who would destroy this country just so that he doesn't have to admit that he screwed up in Iraq?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Israel invaded Lebanon in the 1980's and for many years afterwards the conflict was a drawn on lives and money. This became an issue in the national election for prime minister. The winning candidate promised a withdrawal of troops from Lebanon. Troops were withdrawn from Lebanon. Hezbollah, based in Lebanon and supported by the Iranina government, proclaimed this a victory against the Israeli government and people. This reactionary organization stepped up its terrorism against the Israeli nation by providing additional support to the Palestinians and made a proclamation that war wouldn't end until all Jews were in the sea. After suffering many casualties on both sides and the building of a wall to prevent further incursions, the Israelis and the Palestinians are living in a surreal world where both are entrapped by their own anger and hatred.
My point-if we abandon Iraq, as Kerry has suggested to the UN or NATO, the leaders of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations will proclaim this a victory. They believe Americans are incapable of facing death and will do whatever it takes to preserve the lives of our children from death. When faced by an enemy who believes this, and is willing to sacrifice their young, showing weakness is not the option available to us.
I don't agree with the handling of the Iraqi situation for we are conceding cities to the theocrats and the reactionaries as has happened in Fallujah and Najaf. I feel, however, that Senator Kerry's stance is not the correct solution either and his position at times has mirrored the president's on occasions.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:My point-if we abandon Iraq, as Kerry has suggested to the UN or NATO
Please cite where Kerry said this and when he addressed NATO or the UN assembly.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
He's just missing a comma.
It should read:
My point-if we abandon Iraq, as Kerry has suggested, to the UN or NATO, the leaders of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations will proclaim this a victory.
I think he means we let them take over...abandoning our position to them.
I don't agree with that assessment because:
Mr. Kerry is not suggesting we abandon anything.
Mr. Bush took the country where it should not be. To just up and leave now would be impossible. But we must do more to internationalize the security forces.
If Iraq was a threat to international peace and security as Mr. Bush has argued, then the international community should be helping to take care of it.
It turns out the Texas sheriff styled diplomacy might not have been the way to go. And when you insult those who might assist you, they might be so ready to help out like they might have otherwise.
It's not in the best interest of the United States to give Mr. Bush another try at it. It's not like taking a mulligan in golf.
He's had 3� years.
He has a track record.
And it's bad.
[ September 07, 2004, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I don't agree with the handling of the Iraqi situation for we are conceding cities to the theocrats and the reactionaries as has happened in Fallujah and Najaf."
So... what? We should just nuke the cities into ash? You're essentially saying that you believe we should pursue a military solution to the situation in Iraq. So, either you're suggesting that we just wipe out all the Iraqi fighters at once (which can only be accomplished by taking most of the Iraqi population with them), or you're suggesting that we should continue on our current course: one of escalating casualties on both sides and no end in sight.
So, which is it? Bomb the desert into glass, or sink deeper into the quagmire?
[ September 08, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I never predict things and I never will, but internationalization of Iraq (to the level that its sovereignty ((which, of course, is a paper fantasy)) permits, anyway) will not happen until Bush is gone.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:I don't agree with the handling of the Iraqi situation for we are conceding cities to the theocrats and the reactionaries as has happened in Fallujah and Najaf
Well, exactly what are they supposed to do? Far better to temporarily withdraw to consider your strategy for returning to towns to a peaceful state and to gather the resources to do that than to leave troops in there for days, weeks or even months, trying to fight a guerilla war against an enemy with at least some local sympathy, not to mention the advantages of local knowledge and being defenders. The only thing that would do is increase the casualties among US forces and civilians and destroy substantial sections of local infrastructure. Far better to go in prepared and ready to take them out in a quick fight or (where possible) negotiate a settlement.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I count Cartman's nested parentheses as a victory for the Sol System Flare Style Guide.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Conflation made easy.
As if to prove that 9/11 everything is with this Administration, today, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Postwrites writes about White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan conflating the 1000th death in Iraq with 9/11.
quote:Conflation Watch
Here's how Scott McClellan handled the questions about the milestone yesterday:
"Q Senator Kerry is calling it a tragic milestone, reaching 1,000 deaths in Iraq.
"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we remember, honor and mourn the loss of all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom. And we also remember those who lost their lives on September 11th. The best way to honor all those who have lost their life in the war on terrorism is to continue to wage a broad war and spread freedom throughout a dangerous part of the world so that we can transform that region of the world and make the world a safer place, and make America more secure.
"Q And you're convinced each one of those lives is worth it, Scott?
"MR. McCLELLAN: Each one -- well, let me say, when I say we remember, honor, mourn the loss of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we do so for those in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also remember those who lost their lives on September 11th, nearly three years ago today. And that's why I said it's important that we continue to wage a broad war on terrorism and that we work to spread freedom throughout the Middle East and transform that region so that we defeat the ideologies of hatred and tyranny.
"Q But the question is, for -- each of those families lost someone, a loved one, and each one of those is worth it -- that's the question.
"MR. McCLELLAN: Mark, I think -- I think of the cost we paid on September 11th, and September 11th changed the equation, as you've heard the President say."
"...New Rule: You can't run on a mistake. Franklin Roosevelt didn't run for re-election claiming Pearl Harbor was his finest hour. Abe Lincoln was a great president, but the high point of his second term wasn't theater security. 9/11 wasn't a triumph of the human spirit. It was a fuck-up by a guy on vacation.
"Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President. I'm not blaming you for 9/11. We have blue-ribbon commissions to do that. And I'm not saying there was anything improper about your immediate response to the attacks. Someone had to stay in that classroom and protect those kids from Chechen rebels.
"But by the looks of your convention, you'd think that the worst thing that ever happened to us was the best thing that ever happened to you. You just can't keep celebrating the deadliest attack ever as if it's your personal rendezvous with greatness. You don't see old men who were shot down during World War II jumping out of a plane every year. I mean, other than your dad.
"But even your dad didn't run for re-election based on a recession and his propensity to barf on the Japanese. Now, I know you'd like us all to get swept away with emotionalism and stop sweating the small stuff like the deficit and the environment, and focus on what's really important: how you look in a fireman's hat. But crying during your speech? I mean, come on! There's no crying in politics! It's not fair! That's a trick chicks use. How are we supposed to discuss this rationally if you're going to cry?! There's a name for people who exploit their participation in historical events for political gain. They're called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
"So I say, if you absolutely must win an election on the backs of dead people, do it like they do in Chicago, and have them actually vote for you."
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
Did anyone see John McCain's visit to David Letterman? It aired last night in Sweden, I'm sure it's old news to you americans, but I have to say something.
Apparently, he had been flinging feces at Michael Moore behind his back, at the republican convention, not knowing that Moore was inside the hall, watching. He bawled over "Fahrenheit 9/11" and a couple of scenes in it, despite not having seen the film himself, then IIRC he had said something like "if I see him I'll punch him in the face" or something like that.
Before he went up on Letterman, Letterman had a talk with Michael Moore through a video feed covering the convention, where Moore very humbly and politely explained that McCain was free to explain his unprofessional attacks on him at any time he wished, or just go see the movie with him before saying anything else about it, then he could give him a pummeling if he still wanted to.
I thought "Ok, maybe McCain is a gentleman deep down, I wonder what he'll say". After all, Letterman had praised McCain a lot before he entered, saying how he wanted him for president and all that. Then the guy comes up and counters Moore's response with the shrewd comment that "what Moore is good at is making money and he should be able to afford a shave and a haircut now!". Later, his ad hominems led him to call Moore fat (well he's a big, big guy). Letterman just snickered (I don't blame him) and said it would be nice with a president who's not afraid to kick some ass. McCain: "I like the term 'emperor' personally, I like it very much." To top things off, now that he had set the bar, he explained that if he was president, the first thing he would do as to foreign affairs... "You know, Mr. Chirac? (makes a punching motion in the air) *BOOM!* Hahaha!!"
I believe this is what the scientists would call a "jackass". At least Letterman got him to condemn the GOP's mudflinging on Kerry and Vietnam, but DAMN! I thought senators were like the step below being President and VP, how is it that McCain can still hold office, being so diplomatically and rhetorically challenged???
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, McCain is one of the few American politicians with a sense of humor.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I guess it doesn't translate well.
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
Sol: "Uh, McCain is one of the few American politicians with a sense of humor."
Not about the 'wah', it seemed.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Sorry this post is coming so late relative to the replies you were all nice enough to write to my previous posts. Between a funeral, a wake, interviews for jobs, and applying to more jobs (yep, I�ve got one offer, I guess the economy is doing well!) I didn�t have time last week to respond to you all.
TSN: a lot of those Iraqi troops might never have done anything to us, but I�d bet hard currency some of them had done stuff to Iraq�s people. Just in case we forget what we were ending by toppling Saddam, try this link and watch the movies. On a note regarding a later post of yours, yes, the Newsweek poll wasn�t appropriately timed, so it�s sample was a bit off. But some polls released today and yesterday in some of the battleground states clearly show a measureable bounce from the convention. For a good daily update of this according to electoral college results (which is all that really matters anyway) go here.
As for presidents doing policy, I overspoke. What I was thinking was that you can still be an effective president without doing policy. I would say that Bush does as much policy as his dad, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Eisenhower. And I don�t think the comparison to Washington and Lincoln is very applicable. The executive did not have the same volume of work to do at their time. I remember reading that when Adams moved into the White House, the entire executive branch had 6 crates of documents to move. Today, the vast amounts of information that a president would have to assimilate to have the kind of involvement that a Washington would have would be sheer overload. (Have you ever tried reading the Federal Register? Because that�s what presidents 100 years ago could afford to do. Not so today.) I have yet to see a substantive critique involving data that demonstrates Bush�s style can�t work as well as Clinton�s. I think there are sufficient examples of presidents in similar sui generic moments who do as much policy as Bush and succeeded along with presidents who are more involved in detail and who fail. However, in the spirit of compromise, could we all agree with Don Kettl who said, �This one will either end with huge success or spectacular failure.�? (Taken from here.)
As for disingenuous arguments, the issue is not what his motives were, the issue was whether there was adequate justification to go to Iraq. There were plenty:
1. End the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq transition to democratic self-rule 2. Find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 3. Collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 4. End sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support 5. Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources
These are all taken straight from wikipedia. Pay close attention to who wanted to emphasize WMDs. Let me add a few more justifications I saw beforehand:
6. Prevent further assassination attempts against the leaders of our country 7. Enforce more than 10 UN resolutions condemning Iraq�s flouting of internationally dictated conduct after the first Gulf War 8. Prevent further assistance to terrorist groups (e.g., Abu Nidal) 9. Frighten wavering states into stopping support of terrorists and abandoning their WMD programs (e.g., Libya)
All of these were good justifications. His motives were irrelevant and I have seen no evidence that he affirmatively avoided debate. He simply made up his mind and went with it. That he made up his mind faster than anyone doesn�t per se mean the decision was wrong or even ill-advised.
This will be the last post on this thread I do. Since I have more interviews to do next week and applications to send, I know I am not going to be able to respond to any more replies. It has been fun though! Thanks all for an invigorating exchange.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"1. End the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq transition to democratic self-rule 2. Find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 3. Collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 4. End sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support 5. Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources"
1. That's not Bush's decision to make. 2. Oops. There weren't any. 3. Since when do we conquer a country to get intelligence? 4. Ending sanctions has nothing to do with invasion. And I don't think killing all those thousands of Iraqis would be considered "humanitarian". 5. While I certainly won't claim that this wasn't a (the?) reason for the war, I do claim that it isn't a valid one. It's like shooting a man to "secure" his wallet.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
This one...
quote:9. Frighten wavering states into stopping support of terrorists and abandoning their WMD programs (e.g., Libya)
Like much of what the Bush Administration says, it's one of those stories that sounds good, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And another thing...like it has really frightened Iran and North Korea and made them waver in their pursuit of nuclear capacity.
If anything, Mr. Bush's policy has made them want nukes more because then they will be too strong to attack.
Worst. Administration. Ever.
[ September 10, 2004, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: This one...
quote:9. Frighten wavering states into stopping support of terrorists and abandoning their WMD programs (e.g., Libya)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
