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

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As Mark Schmitt said in the thing I linked to, asking the question about whether he lied misses the larger point. They made up their mind about what to do, and then cherry-picked facts and evidence to support it. If they lied, it was because they went too far in selling what was a shaky case. But the more fundamental problem was not the misrepresentation -- it's that these clowns settled on an Iraq policy, and a war, without caring about the actual facts. Yielding the mess we have now.

I think it's clear that they wanted to go in pre-9/11, but for the same reasons they proferred post. I believe they honestly believed Saddam was a real threat and needed to be deposed. 9/11 gave them all the momentum they needed to carry it out. But I really can't blame Bush. Per the Woodward book, he was being told by his minions that it was a "slam dunk." Hearing that type of evidence, it would have been gross mismanagement not to do something.

I agree completely. I obviously think it was a mistake to go in, but now that we are there, we need to figure out how best to handle the situation, and I am not convinced -- yet -- that this means withdrawal. OTOH, it's clear that the presence of our troops is aggravating some problems, and the Iraqis may not get as serious about solving their security problems as long as we are there to keep shooting at the insurgents. (The same people who love to talk about the disincentives created by welfare seem to have a very hard time understanding this.)

I agree about the incentives, but that has to be weighed against actual readiness. Pulling out completely would be a catostrophic mistake. Drawing down may give the incentives needed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it's clear that they wanted to go in pre-9/11, but for the same reasons they proferred post. I believe they honestly believed Saddam was a real threat and needed to be deposed. 9/11 gave them all the momentum they needed to carry it out. But I really can't blame Bush. Per the Woodward book, he was being told by his minions that it was a "slam dunk." Hearing that type of evidence, it would have been gross mismanagement not to do something.

Real threat to whom? The suggestion that Hussein was a threat to us was always a joke.

And Tenet clearly told Bush what he wanted to hear. Part of leadership is figuring out how not to make sure that you're not just hearing what you want to hear.

And per the Woodward book, Bush's people were also telling him that they'd been looking for years and had never found any WMD. That he chose to believe Tenet, and not Franks (?), is at the heart of the problem.

I agree about the incentives, but that has to be weighed against actual readiness. Pulling out completely would be a catostrophic mistake. Drawing down may give the incentives needed.

Yes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky

We do not need to figure anything out. For better or for worse the Bush administration is in charge. The only thing the loyal? opposition needs to worry about is are there actions helping or making the situation worse.

At this point I don't hear much of anything come out of any Democrats mouth in Washington that is helping the situation.

when I read spank kicking Ty's butt like this i remember when I signed my son's team up for a b-ball league that was too weak. I thought it would be challenging, but our guys just kicked ass every game by bunches. In the end it made them weaker because they got used to winning without having to work hard. They thought wins were easy to come by.

Anyway, when i see spank dismember Ty I think of that. can't you guys find someone who can at least give Spank a challenge? Maybe you can hire Carville to show up occassionally, I bet he;s available nowadays.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i'm just quoting this to preserve it. I think once you sober up, you'll realize it is hateful to several groups of people, and probably the dumbest thing you've posted to boot.

I know if I didn't quote it, you'd have edited it out once you come down.

You wouldn't call Murtha a coward, but you wouldn't waste anytime trying to understand what he was saying, either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is no doubt whether he lied misses any relevent point at all. It is just something Dems like to focus on to so they can complain when it is completely irrelevent. What makes it even more pathetic is that it is not even true that he did lie.

Just for the moment, assume with me that he did lie. If so, why is it that you think Clinton should have been prosecuted for lying under oath, but that Bush's lies -- albeit not under oath -- are just water under the bridge? Do you just assume that our leaders lie all the time, except when they're under oath? If so, that's pretty pathetic.

Whatever was done before the war does not change the fact of where we are. It is a sunk cost and only morons and irresponsible people focus on why we got in the first place. The point is we are there and what is the next step. That is the discussion for adults. To focus on this other stuff does no one any good.

If the war was a screaming success right now -- I know that's hard to imagine, but try -- I don't think you'd be saying, so Bush won the war, big deal; he still needs to make the case for the rest of his program on its own merits.

If the only question on the table is, what do we do with the Iraq mess, maybe so. But we live in a democracy, and that's not the only question on the table.

We do not need to figure anything out. For better or for worse the Bush administration is in charge. The only thing the loyal? opposition needs to worry about is are there actions helping or making the situation worse.

At this point I don't hear much of anything come out of any Democrats mouth in Washington that is helping the situation.

Please think about the role of the opposition in a democracy. If need be, read Chuck Hagel's most recent speech. (He strikes me as your kind of guy.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You wouldn't call Murtha a coward, but you wouldn't waste anytime trying to understand what he was saying, either.

Huh?

You say we shouldn't just leave. Aren't you disagreeing with him?

And guess what. the fact that someone served in the military, and with honors, does not make them an expert in political decision making or global strategy.

To put it in terms you might understand- would you let one of your slip and fall plaintiff's decide when a major company should settle a toxic tort claim?

sure he has been in court, but he doesn't see the big picture maybe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Huh?

You say we shouldn't just leave. Aren't you disagreeing with him?

And guess what. the fact that someone served in the military, and with honors, does not make them an expert in political decision making or global strategy.

I'd take Murtha's many credentials about things military over yours.

I don't think we should just pull out, but then neither does he, apparently. He wasn't one of the 3 votes on the resolution yesterday.

I disagree with most of the people who are saying we should just get out because I think they're focusing more on our part of it, and not on where that leaves Iraq. But I have about zero confidence at this point that the administration -- and, in particular, Rumsfeld -- has a viable strategy, or could distinguish one from their own asses.

And since this administration is famously disinclined to listen to what anyone else has to say, including the views of Democrats, career government officials, area experts, or anyone who knows anything, I think it's kind of funny that Spanky thinks everyone else should just go on being quietly ignored. If you put the very best people in charge of the situation there, perhaps something could be salvaged.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


And since this administration is famously disinclined to listen to what anyone else has to say, including the views of Democrats, career government officials, area experts, or anyone who knows anything, I think it's kind of funny that Spanky thinks everyone else should just go on being quietly ignored. If you put the very best people in charge of the situation there, perhaps something could be salvaged.

spank seems to be hooked up. What bloggers should he tell Bush to put in charge?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
spank seems to be hooked up. What bloggers should he tell Bush to put in charge?

How about Chuck Hagel, John Warner or John McCain? They're Republican Senators, not bloggers, but they would have a shot at the sort of minimal competence we all should expect.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Just for the moment, assume with me that he did lie. If so, why is it that you think Clinton should have been prosecuted for lying under oath, but that Bush's lies -- albeit not under oath -- are just water under the bridge? Do you just assume that our leaders lie all the time, except when they're under oath? If so, that's pretty pathetic.

Clinton looked straight into the camera and said "I did not have sex with that women". I could care less. Doesn't bother me. There are many things I want out of a president, but being honest, especially when it comes to national security, is not one of them.

What is pathetic is you expect a president to be honest all the time. A president that was obsessed with the truth would be a very bad president, and it shows a shocking lack of sophistication on you part that you don't understand that.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the war was a screaming success right now -- I know that's hard to imagine, but try -- I don't think you'd be saying, so Bush won the war, big deal; he still needs to make the case for the rest of his program on its own merits.

If the only question on the table is, what do we do with the Iraq mess, maybe so. But we live in a democracy, and that's not the only question on the table.

No it is not the only question on the table, but when it comes to the Iraq war, the only question on the table is what should we do now. The fact that the Dems are bringing up other issues about the war shows they are putting their own political agenda above the welfare of the Iraqi people and our soldiers who are in harms way. Their creation of this myth about Bush lying is only helping the enemy.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please think about the role of the opposition in a democracy. If need be, read Chuck Hagel's most recent speech. (He strikes me as your kind of guy.)

The problem here is that I have thought about it and you clearly have not put much thought into it. Hopefully my above comments will make you see the error in your thinking.

P.S. When you make statements like this "Please think about the role of the opposition in a demcracy" I hope you are jokeing around, because if not it shows a shocking combination of ignorance and arrogance. If you are trying to make a point: make it. There are many people whose advice I would entertain on what to think about, but it shocks me to think that you would think you are one of those people.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Clinton looked straight into the camera and said "I did not have sex with that women". I could care less. Doesn't bother me. There are many things I want out of a president, but being honest, especially when it comes to national security, is not one of them.

What is pathetic is you expect a president to be honest all the time. A president that was obsessed with the truth would be a very bad president, and it shows a shocking lack of sophistication on you part that you don't understand that.

If you think it was OK for Bush to lie to the country to lead it into war, why not just say so instead of continuing to talk about Clinton? I'm not defending Clinton.

No it is not the only question on the table, but when it comes to the Iraq war, the only question on the table is what should we do now. The fact that the Dems are bringing up other issues about the war shows they are putting their own political agenda above the welfare of the Iraqi people and our soldiers who are in harms way. Their creation of this myth about Bush lying is only helping the enemy.

No, it shows that we live in a democracy. Those of you who think that those principles are something to be dragged out every two years on Election Day and otherwise ignored are, thankfully, a minority in this country. Most of us expect our leaders to tell the truth, especially when they are asking young men and women to sacrifice their lives for the rest of us.

The problem here is that I have thought about it and you clearly have not put much thought into it. Hopefully my above comments will make you see the error in your thinking.

You're actually going to have to include some content in your posts if you want them to convey anything.

P.S. When you make statements like this "Please think about the role of the opposition in a demcracy" I hope you are jokeing around, because if not it shows a shocking combination of ignorance and arrogance. If you are trying to make a point: make it. There are many people whose advice I would entertain on what to think about, but it shocks me to think that you would think you are one of those people.

Spanky, you're more fun to talk to than Hank because you actually bother to include some substance and thinking in some of your posts, but when you get lazy and rest on the condescending attitude, it doesn't work for you.

What do you think congressional Democrats should be saying and doing re the war and Iraq? (Answer as an American citizen, not a Democrat or Republican.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, you're more fun to talk to than Hank because you actually bother to include some substance and thinking in some of your posts, but when you get lazy and rest on the condescending attitude, it doesn't work for you.

Do you know what hypocrit means?

You never have included substance. Unless you mean linking to DU- inspired bloggers is an intellectual call out.

I once engaged with substance- I found no response.

I admit my every PB post is simple DADA, yet they have all the "substance" of yours/ You have no room to omment. the on;y person putting actual substance down is Spank/

You. ain't. substance. My daughter has a more thoughtful blog than you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My daughter has a more thoughtful blog than you.

Link, please.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Link, please.

sounds fair. But first i need you all to pm me your real names and homes so i can check the Meagan's law list.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As Mark Schmitt said in the thing I linked to, asking the question about whether he lied misses the larger point. They made up their mind about what to do, and then cherry-picked facts and evidence to support it. If they lied, it was because they went too far in selling what was a shaky case. But the more fundamental problem was not the misrepresentation -- it's that these clowns settled on an Iraq policy, and a war, without caring about the actual facts. Yielding the mess we have now.

First, I dispute your main point - that we have a "mess" now. We have free elections in Iraq, we have plastic shredders shredding plastic, and we have the beginnings of a move towards democracy and, hopefully (and in my mind, likely) more stability in the entire region. That would be invaluable all by itself. Remember Bush telling us, pre-invasion, that this was going to be a long, costly, drawn-out process? I do - explicitly. Remember how many times various anti-wariots called it a quagmire? I can't - too many. Yes, the mad killers are still bombing in defense of their fucked-up service to some hallucination of gawd or ala or whatever, but, given their record world-wide in the last several years, why would you assume they wouldn't simply be jihading all over the globe anyway? I'd rather see them wiped out in one area, as it makes for more efficient disposal.

Second, what you just described is what everyone does to get their way in our system. Look at the numbers put out by the R's and the D's to support anything - take SS privitization, for example. Both sides put out numbers that were, at best, fanciful. Both sides chose to present those facts that best supported their desires, and ignore the ones that militated against them. Did Bush do just such a selling job in service to what he wanted to do in Iraq? Yep. Didn't the anti-warites do their own version of the anti-sell at that same time? Yep. Remember the vote after the dust settled? We're in Iraq. Want real lies? Look at "the new hawk" Murtha, and the coordinated response by the D's calling him just that. That's not even spin - that's outright lying. Geez, for an honorless cohort to call another cohort honorless is just so much fun to watch.