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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And when are you going to consider us as having won the war at home? Is there ever going to be room in your politics for expressions of popular will that don't mimic the expression of concentrated power?

I know! We should have . . . elections!

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
Honestly, the main use of the word "patriotism" I've seen lately has been the huge, uninformed (or maybe just plain dishonest) outcry that people were calling Murtha a coward. Aside from that Jean whatever character who used a quote aimed at labeling a course of action, every R i saw responding to Murtha was tripping over themselves to call him an honorable, worthy, patriotic guy. You just keep making up this shit about "you called him a TRAITOR!" Bull.

As for the rest of your post, I really missed how it responded to what I said.

Come, come now.

There was a concerted attack on Murtha in media outlets and a very colorful outburst in Congress. Only when it was clear that the Administration and the Republican leaders in Congress overplayed their hands did they backtrack.

And both Mr. Spanky and you have pushed the point today that people who speak against the war are undermining our troops.

When you say silly things like this, you risk turning moderate eggheads like Me and hawkish Democrats like Murtha into flaming antagonists, and that is precisely what is happening right now in the "debate" on Iraq.

[Replaced_Texan]

How short staffed is the JAG Corps? I honestly don't know if there's some sort of major lawyer shortage in the JAG. I vaguely recall there being some JAG presence in law school, but not THAT much. Mainly at minority job fairs and some posters on the wall next to the DOJ materials.

Is this simply a question of principle or is there a demonstrated shortage of attorneys in the military that would be solved by more active recruiting on law school campuses?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
Come, come now.

There was a concerted attack on Murtha in media outlets . . .

Mostly calling him stupid. As I pointed out in a long post just a few days ago, in my mind, if someone is pursuing their own vision of what they think this country should be, or do, they can seldom be called traitors. To be a traitor, to me, involves selling out your country for personal gain, like the spies of yore. We owe our allegience to our country, not necessarily to the politicians running it. There were a few media outlets calling him a traitor, but there are usually a few on your side calling me one for my positions.

. . . and a very colorful outburst in Congress.

One rep, passing on words to the effect that pulling out was a cowardly plan, and that Murtha, as a Marine, ought not be going there. Recognizing that she had been too close to the edge, she withdrew the remarks, and apologized.

Only when it was clear that the Administration and the Republican leaders in Congress overplayed their hands did they backtrack.

Bull. Look at the actual quotes, not the "ohhh, he said . . . .!" Bush, Cheney, Rummy, all made very respectful noises about Murtha, and then questioned why such an honorable guy would fall in with such braigands. McClellan just about genuflected, calling Murtha god's gift to the flag, and then wondered, like everyone else, why Murtha would want to follow a plan that seemed to come directly from the Michael Moore School of Warfare.

And both Mr. Spanky and you have pushed the point today that people who speak against the war are undermining our troops.

Yep. That's the "stupid" part. That's why I said that people should make the arguments they need to make, but consider the cost when choosing the means of expression.

(ETA - not merely "speaking against the war" - I meant, like Dean, claiming we've lost,or like Kerry, claiming our soldiers are terrorists.)

When you say silly things like this, you risk turning moderate eggheads like Me and hawkish Democrats like Murtha into flaming antagonists, and that is precisely what is happening right now in the "debate" on Iraq.

Micahel Moore thinks of himself as a moderate. Your "hawkish" Murtha has been calling for withdrawal since last year. You can't arbitrarily decide that the center is waaaay over here, and then accuse me of abusing the reasonable center.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Honestly, the main use of the word "patriotism" I've seen lately has been the huge, uninformed (or maybe just plain dishonest) outcry that people were calling Murtha a coward. Aside from that Jean whatever character who used a quote aimed at labeling a course of action, every R i saw responding to Murtha was tripping over themselves to call him an honorable, worthy, patriotic guy. You just keep making up this shit about "you called him a TRAITOR!" Bull.

As for the rest of your post, I really missed how it responded to what I said.

My post was aimed directly at your comment that you were perhaps too tolerant in your statement last week concerning treason and traitors. The two things I got out of that were that (i) you were begining to think that perhaps being critical of the war could be viewed as treason and (ii) you were suggesting that those who speak out against the war were, if not outright traitors, at least unpatriotic.

Admittedly, you didn't use the word "patriot" in your post. On the other hand, I was being generous and suggesting that perhaps you were not really suggesting that anyone who questioned the war was not actually a traitor, but not a loyal American.

I'm sorry if I gave you more credit than you wish to claim. Traitors they are, then, one and all.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
My post was aimed directly at your comment that you were perhaps too tolerant in your statement last week concerning treason and traitors. The two things I got out of that were that (i) you were begining to think that perhaps being critical of the war could be viewed as treason and (ii) you were suggesting that those who speak out against the war were, if not outright traitors, at least unpatriotic.

This is the second time you've missed this key distinction. I was saying earlier that "treason" must have a very high threshold, because, if I dissent against what my government does because I think its actions do not fit what America is or should be, then I am still serving my country. Difference with the new post was Dean's comments about "we've already lost." He's passed the point that Hank spoke of in another post - he's now saying things that directly cause harm to soldiers in order to garner votes. He's getting far closer to what I would call treason with those words. I do not apply this to, as you say, "speaking against the war." Such speech is and should be proper. Dean has just moved on to shock speech with harmful effects with no concern about those effects. There's a way for him to express his opinions about the war just as clearly without doing what he's doing.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is the second time you've missed this key distinction. I was saying earlier that "treason" must have a very high threshold, because, if I dissent against what my government does because I think its actions do not fit what America is or should be, then I am still serving my country. Difference with the new post was Dean's comments about "we've already lost." He's passed the point that Hank spoke of in another post - he's now saying things that directly cause harm to soldiers in order to garner votes. He's getting far closer to what I would call treason with those words. I do not apply this to, as you say, "speaking against the war." Such speech is and should be proper. Dean has just moved on to shock speech with harmful effects with no concern about those effects. There's a way for him to express his opinions about the war just as clearly without doing what he's doing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how has Dean directly harmed the troops? He's a loudmouth and a blowhard, and it's really only a small but vocal minority of his own party that pays him any heed. I realize he's the titular head of the party, but I don't personally know a single Democrat who thinks he's anything but a maroon, good for entertainment value but little else.

Haley Barbour has more influence simply because he's a Republican. Surely you wouldn't claim that he makes policy for Bush, would you?

You're ascribing more influence to Dean than you would under any other circumstance if you mean to suggest that he can affect any change. Hell, the most he's likely to do is lose more seats for the Democrats.

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
...or like Kerry, claiming our soldiers are terrorists.[/i])

You are doing it again.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Captain
You are doing it again.

He can't help it. Once it becomes a talking point, it's read-only.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Correct me if I'm wrong, but how has Dean directly harmed the troops?

Troops are out in the field, fighting, helping rebuild Iraq, meeting and helping the people, risking their lives daily, re-enlisting in a cause in which they believe.

The national chairman of one of our two major political parties has just announced that they're wasting their time - that they've already lost, that it's useless.

The past failed presidential candidate has just announced that they're the new terrorists in Iraq.

A "hawk" Dem senator has just announced that they're bloodied and whipped and really want to bug out, and should, "immediately."

So, how's their morale? How enthused can they stay, how hyped up for the work will they be? isn't it easier to stay motivated when you see yourself as a the good guy, and not the terrorist? Don't you do more inspired work if you think you're winning, as opposed to having already lost? How motivated will the terrorists and bombers be, now that they're seeing concrete indications that their killings might yield the desired result?

Any chance some of these factors might have performance issues associated with them?

That's how Dean and Kerry and Murtha have harmed the troops.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
You are doing it again.

"It"?

You dispute that this is exactly what he meant? I can understand that - it's a stretch. But it's fun to see you react after yourself having spent significant typing claiming that Murtha got slimed when THAT didn't happen.

This one must be YOUR ox, right?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Troops are out in the field, fighting, helping rebuild Iraq, meeting and helping the people, risking their lives daily, re-enlisting in a cause in which they believe.

The national chairman of one of our two major political parties has just announced that they're wasting their time - that they've already lost, that it's useless.

The past failed presidential candidate has just announced that they're the new terrorists in Iraq.

A "hawk" Dem senator has just announced that they're bloodied and whipped and really want to bug out, and should, "immediately."

So, how's their morale? How enthused can they stay, how hyped up for the work will they be? isn't it easier to stay motivated when you see yourself as a the good guy, and not the terrorist? Don't you do more inspired work if you think you're winning, as opposed to having already lost? How motivated will the terrorists and bombers be, now that they're seeing concrete indications that their killings might yield the desired result?

Any chance some of these factors might have performance issues associated with them?

That's how Dean and Kerry and Murtha have harmed the troops.

Everything's perfect! Keep up the good work, W!

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
"It"?

You dispute that this is exactly what he meant? I can understand that - it's a stretch. But it's fun to see you react after yourself having spent significant typing claiming that Murtha got slimed when THAT didn't happen.

This one must be YOUR ox, right?

Believe it or not, my Ox is the debate and the level of it.

You did two things here: first, you once again made the discussion about the people, not the issues.

Second, you misread his statement.

Of course, the misreading follows from and is motivated by the desire to make the people the issue. Yes, you like to "stretch".

Once you break the world up into teams and all the reds are right and all the blues are wrong (or all the blues are right and all the reds are wrong), you've pretty much lost the game. And that is why I objected to the partisan attacks on Murtha.

By the way, when I first mentioned Murtha, I combined it with praise for McCain, who has spoken frankly and honestly throughout this debate. It was you and others who decided to make the discussion about Murtha.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Everything's perfect! Keep up the good work, W!

Can you think of ways to express dissent and reservations and alternate plans without saying "we've lost!", or "they're bloodied and beaten", or "they're terrorizing Iraqis!"?

I bet I could.

But ranting and making shit up is so much more fun, and it energizes the base!

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Can you think of ways to express dissent and reservations and alternate plans without saying "we've lost!", or "they're bloodied and beaten", or "they're terrorizing Iraqis!"?

I bet I could.

But ranting and making shit up is so much more fun, and it energizes the base!

How about this: we went in unprepared, and we still do not have sufficient troops on the ground to fully control the situation, apparently the result of the misguided notion of our leadership that we would be welcomed with open arms and that everyone would just be cool once we got there and rolled through. Our troops have suffiecient strength to defend themselves and westerners within enclaves, but they have not projected enough control in Iraq to actually establish stability in the countryside. If we were to pull out now, we would leave Iraq a chaotic mess. However, there appears to be no concrete plan to change that fact, such that when we pull out in five years the country will be stable. We haven't lost, but we sure as hell haven't won. Indeed, if Saddam is not executed or otherwise dead before the US pulls out, I'm not sure that even your first criteria of a win (toppling Saddam) has been satisfied long term.

Additionally, our leadership has approved interogation techniques that I believe are immoral and violate the basic tenents upon which this country were founded, although I think they are doing so under the (mistaken) belief that this will somehow be to America's advantage. Look, I'd like to figure out some way of raising this issue without sounding like I'm saying US troops are torturing people, but US troops are torturing people.

As for the ranting and making shit up, where did Democrats learn that? "From you, alright. [We] got it by watching you."