Intellectually Honest
 

I trust you've read his plan on the website, here . I went to Bush's to look for Bush's strategy, but found it oddly silent on the future in Iraq. Indeed, every mention of Iraq I found looked backwards and talked about what had been done, not what was still to be done.

Obviously, Kerry's plan is very high level, and there are links to several speaches that focus in on one element or another of the plan and give more details. But I'd say the fundamental assumption throughout his plan is that he'll have an opportunity to go to allies and say, "OK, look, I want a real partnership, including partnership in reconstruction contracts and the like, and let's talk. We all know the reality, which is that we're there and going to stay there, now let's figure out how we're going to make this work given that reality."

Or, I'm sorry, was this meant to be just a snide one-off and get a response? Is giving you an answer a Wiff?

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

Aw, c'mon. Even The Note, not known at all for being pro-Bush, is talking about how Kerry seems to be moving in the direction of false scare tactics, maybe out of desperation.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

With Cheney running around telling people voting for Kerry is practically inviting terrorists to attack, I'm not sure how pointing out that Bush has been a consistent supporter of privatizing social security and that this threatens social security is out of bounds.

For the latest Cheney escapes, see here , where he says point-blank, "If the wrong man is elected in November, the nation will come under a devastating armed attack of an unimaginable magnitude..."

I mean, get real.

Intellectually Honest
 

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

Coming from an administration that has said* that a terror attack in the US is more likely if Kerry wins?

And the administration does want to privatize Social Security. Calling them on it is not a false scare tactic. (I haven't heard any specific KE 04 comments about the draft, other than the "back-door draft.")

My point was that Bush is not really in a position to complain about scare tactics or false characterizations of his positions. Glass houses, etc.

*Can't remember Cheney's exact words. Etc.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

Kerry keeps saying Bush will start a draft, but in fact Kerry had a mandatory service plan for HS students included on his webpage until the time he realized he wanted to start saying Bush will have a draft. Fair? Don't know, but it sure shows he's one sleazy fuck.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

OK, you guys explain the math.

We're told that current troop commitments are probably unsustainable, and there are no immediate signs of Terrorist Fuckheads subsiding in Iraq. GWB redux would have several unappetizing choices to make in the coming months.

1. Continue fighting with existing troop allocations. Again, it's unclear how long we can continue to do this with our existing deployments and rotations. Other coalition members are withdrawing troops (albeit in small numbers) and there's no indication that Bush Redux will be getting any additional ones from any OTHER country.

2. Draw down troops quickly and hand everything over to the (untested) Iraqi forces. Given that noone is very optimistic about the Iraqi forces, this does not seem to be a palatable option, and (despite Novak's bleats otherwise) the thought runs counter anyway to Bush's scratching-of-balls-and-killing-terrorists credo. After all, since we've created the terrorist magnet here, why not stay and kill as many as we can?

3. Increase troop strengh to truly solve the fuckin' problem. Though I like bilmore's strategy, I think that the elimination of the moehair subsidy will only go so far to fund this.

Regardless, Bush has said both (1) incredibly, we've got all the troops we need, so we don't need to expand the Army, and (2) We Will Have No Draft.

Seems to me like one of those statements may have to break. That Bush is trying to have it both (every?) ways is why the story has legs. Sure, you don't like Kerry saying this stuff, but don't be playa-hatin', Hank.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

The fact that you took my post at face value says something much scarier than Dick Cheney has.

Ah, it's nice when you can catch the breeze in the cheap seats.

The two are not that inconsistent. Suskind is writing about Bush personally. We all know that there have been terrific battles within the Administration over policy, but they've been aimed at the next decision, not what Bush has already done.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

Yes or no, can we add the troops we want through enlistment?

If yes- then no draft.

If no- then how will Kerry build 2 new divisions (batallions-whatever)?

Intellectually Honest
 

So his plan is to beg? Because the French and Germans have already said no, no matter who is president.

Not a whiff, I was serious. I don't get it.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

Now, read that, and be fair. What he said was, if Kerry is elected, and we're attacked (and we will be attacked), the danger is that Kerry will treat it in the old, failed crime-scene way.

Of course, two weeks later, Kerry said that electing Bush puts us at heightened danger of nuclear attack.

So many glass houses, so little time . . .

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

Kerry has acknowledged that current troop strength is insufficient, and has committed to spending some real money on growing the forces through additional enlistment, and to do so NOW.

Bush is on record saying that it's not necessary, and has indicated that he would not spend big amounts on upping pay, etc, all the while watching (I think) Army and (certainly) Guard enlistments miss their recruiting goals.

If it becomes glaringly apparent that more troops are needed quickly, then it's hard to see how we could afford to wait for a few enlistment cycles for people to sign up, get trained, etc. The enlisted army doesn't grow overnight. The argument is not so much that Bush WANTS a draft, it's that he may end up with few real options to the contrary.

Sounds like your man needs to get off the pot and commit to some more troops, or he's gonna continue to hear about this draft stuff.

So don't hate, Hank. Be part of that Bush Redux Solution, and push your man where he needs to go!

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

I notice you only post your haiku after a Yankee loss (which explains why you've been so quiet recently).

Schilling goes Game 6
But Boston's best battlecry?
"Just wait til next year!"

TM

Intellectually Honest
 

I believe that there are a significant number of foreign countries who cannot commit to play a bigger role in Iraq because they have been basically told by George Bush to go screw. And, because he has made his rigidity an issue at home, Bush is not in a position to act diplomatically.

As an example, when Turkey was debating overflight issues, Bush's response was not to try to negotiate but to bully, and it backfired. Now, I suspect Turkey will have a much easier time coming around if Kerry is in office.

It's diplomacy. A little give and take and a bit of face saving here and there.

When this administration is over, I'm really looking forward to the books comparing and contrasting the diplomatic approaches of the two Bush administrations (but, a good starting point is "War in a Time of Peace", which shows how Dad did it).