Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Penske earns (and indeed positively begs for) the treatment he gets. I think it is some kind of odd political masochism/martyr complex.

S_A_M

Mindless slavering support
 

We've stood by and accepted the hugely ruinous spending, the complete abdication of borders, the pork (course, hard to blame someone who doesn't veto it more than you blame the a-holes who proposed and voted it), and some fairly weak and mistimed messages - things that could have done better had they been explained to the public with more expertise - while we waited to see the Court restaffed. That was the prize, the one factor that would reshape American society for the next generation.

And then we get Miers?

It's like being good all year, and pulling coal out of the stocking Christmas morn anyway.

It's like getting to second base, only to discover foam padding.

It's like kissing your sister. Hell, it's worse, it's like kissing MY sister. Your sister wasn't too bad.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Damn those short skirts. They're just asking for it!

(No, seriously, I was a bit dismayed yesterday to see the percentage of posts that contained offensive personal slurs instead of logical discourse. I'd tell you what I tell my kids about speaking like that, but it would be sort of patronizing, I guess.)

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Apparently it gets a lot funnier if you just repeat it over and over and over and over.

Mindless slavering support
 

But you guys are opposed to judicial activism. Got it.

Mindless slavering support
 

Words have meaning, Ty.

Well, okay, not yours, I mean . . .

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

I find lots of the crappolla the demos here post offensive and not work suitable but I don't impose my biased and intolerant sensibilities on the board by censorship.

Why do you think Ty had to redeem himself?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Ask Bugs Bunny. It's his expression.

Mindless slavering support
 

Ha! Good one.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Be honest, censored.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

2. Right on.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

The babyjesi suffer for a higher ideal, to save freedom's soul.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Exactly. I run with the anti-bias, far left liberal crowd. They teach their children all sorts of PC tolerance of everything. And they drive off in the effette Volvos with a Fuck Bush sticker on the bumber. I am not sure what that teaches about tolerance, anti-bias, social responsibility, PC or respect. Does anyone here know?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

So you are blaming Bugs for calling spanky a wild negro?

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Fortunately for us all, this approach is less so.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

No. But that wasn't your original example. In your original example, which concerned Iraq, I don't think there is much difference between Saddam killing his citizens to maintain power and us killing thousands of innocent Iraqis to overthrow him. The killing of Iraqi civilians may be an unfortunate but supportable evil. But they're just as dead either way. And Saddam is gone, but we're still killing Iraqis, which suggests to me that they aren't all that thrilled we're there.

I don't really think that you can blame that entirely on moral relativists. In the first place, we can't afford to be the world's policemen. In the second place, the fact that we generally choose to act only when it also suits our economic or geopolitical interests belies the notion that what has kept us from acting to stop genocide is people saying we can't shove western values down peoples' throats.

Call me cynical, but where have we been throughout the last several decades when various tribes in Africa have been engaging in widespread genocide? We've been either ignoring it, or sitting on the sidelines generally decrying it. But I haven't seen a Republican groundswell in favor of marching from Khartoum to Pretoria, spreading democracy and peace all along the path.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

If I'm wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Last year's referendum proved you to be on the wrong side of the country's populace and history. Please admit the same.

Not fair
 

Doesn't that run the risk of just making us the most powerful thug of all? How do we know we are always right? And what keeps us from moving to "empowering people" to run their lives the way we say?

You don't trust the federal government to decide when a religious majority is imposing its views on our children here at home, but you trust it to go roaming free throughout the world, picking off governments it decides aren't sufficently democratic?

And how are we to pay for this? You are on record as saying that taxes are too high now. How much higher do you think they would have to be to support a standing military that numbers in the tens of millions?

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

As the haves, I doubt we can afford to NOT be the world's police force.

There are so many places deserving of our attention that we have to prioritize. Why not first work on the ones whose improvement will also benefit us? That's just common sense.

Listening to Clinton tell us how he felt our pain, at least in the big genocide. As for the earlier ones, I think we may have been occupied in Kosovo, or in Kuwait, or in Haiti, or in Panama, or in . . .

See Haiti, Panama, Kuwait, Grenada, Beruit, Liberia, etc. All R-led, IIRC. We don't swell lots of ground when we act, T, we just act. And then listen to the D's decry the interventions. Know what really entertains me? The new D line that Bush didn't put enough troops in Iraq. Wonder why Bush didn't put more troops into the fight? Because the D's would have had an effin' fit if he had.

Not fair
 

Life is risk. I'm willing to take the chance that freeing people is generally a move in the right - i.e., the "moral" - direction. Do you just watch them die out of some fear that you might offend someone, somewhere?

Hopefully, our sense of justice, and right and wrong. Given that we're taking risks and incurring costs and pain in order to free them, I'd give us a fair amount of benefit of doubt on that one.

No, I give the American people that trust. Historically, I think we've earned it.

Cuts. Lots of cuts. Bridges for polar bears, Lawrence Welk museums, road beautification projects, subsidies for sugar beets and mohair and sex-change operations, parks and ampitheaters serving local interests and named after congresswhores, studies about mollusk pheromes, designations of state fungii, . . . I can find some slack in there somewhere, probablly enough to pay for the invasion of Syria and Iran, too.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Really? It wasn't meant to be. I'll have to tighten up my language.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

So the Iraq mess is the D's fault? Who's leading this country, anyway?


P.S. Hi, bilmore!

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Okay, but since when have you become a champion of Taxwonk's right to threaten to kill the President?

Not fair
 

I would have been more impressed with the bona fides of the operation if we had intervened in Rwanda.

Not fair
 

Isn't it just a Western arrogance that allows us to assume that Rawandans value life as we do? Who are we to impose life on them?

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

This, of course, clearly explains the Administration's policy on troop levels ever since the very public smackdown of (the proven accurate) Shinseki years ago.

"We'd love to send 300,000 or so troops, but that Boxer and Kennedy? Ohhhh, they're meanies. Let's try to make do with what we have."

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Tell me why the admin would worry about keeping troop levels as low as possible if not for the purely political reason of not wanting to give the D's more ammo. Tell me why it would argue with its own generals, if not because it knew that the more troops it sent, the louder the D's would object, and the more chance that the right course of action would become politically unacceptable. I imagine that, left with no opposition, Bush would have sent way more people. He'd have no real reason not to.

You want to stare at your cake as you digest it. Can't do that.

Not fair
 

I disagree with your postion on a theoretical level.

However, on a more practical level, I disagree with you because you seem to forget that the people you will be sending off to die for this noble cause are real people with real kids, hopes, and fears. The people you want to pay for it are also real people with real kids, hopes, and fears.

The man making the big decisions, however, seems to be more concerned with lowering the tax burden on those most able to support their kids, realize their hopes, and protect themselves from the bulk of their fears.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

By "opposition," do you mean the Secretary of Defense?

Basic catchup question
 

Penske threw up his usual photoshops, declared he was going Democrat for a day and ahalf or so, and we discussed whether or not she was a stealth candidate with no record to have to fight over, or if it was pure cronyism, plain and simple.

I don't know that we reached any conclusions, but do we ever?

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Ok.

Concede that troop levels are woefully insufficient. Check.
Concede that generals likely have been asking for more troops. Check.


The question then becomes, Why Hasn't Bush Sent More Troops?

Alternative One: Those Meanies Boxer and Kennedy. bilmore is a BIG fan of this one, as implausible as it may seem, especially when at various times in recent years prominent Democrats and Republicans have been advocating sending MORE troops, and how Bush has accumulated enormous political capital by demonstrating Forcefulness, Boldness, Fortitude and General Leadership in Standing Up To the Terrorist Scourge. Why would he back down in the face of some puny Senators from blue states?

Alternative Two: Sending more troops would require deeper sacrifices by the American people, which -- separate and apart from what Barbara and Ted might say, may actually be unpopular with regular Americans. Inconsistent with the Administration's message of getting on with our lives and buying that new Hummer while we're at it.

Alternative Three: We don't HAVE many more troops to send. See voluminous articles about the Army stretched to its limit and experts worried about the National Guard being essentially broken because of its heavy use.

Alternative Four: Rumsfeld has toyed with a new approach to our armed forces. Something about "transforming." Even though it may well make sense in an overall approach, Rumsfeld might have wanted to, you know, TRY the approach in Iraq. Lean and mean. Mobile units, less armor. Fewer troops stationed in Iraq, not more, because that kinda crap was sooooooo WWII thinking. If a general or two argued about it, well Rumsfeld's no wallflower.

I'm thinking it's less number 1, and a bit of 2 and 3, and a good ol' second helping of 4. In your enthusiastic embrace of #1, I'm disappointed in the lack of faith you place in GWB's fortitude in facing down pussified Democrats in Doing What's Right For Our Troops.

You can keep the cake.

Gattigap

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

I'm sorry, but I don't recall what your respnse to the post was. Could you repeat it or PM me, please. Thanks.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

You have a short memory. Rummy wanted to test out his lighter/faster military theories, and gave Shinseki got the boot for saying we'd need 300,000 troops. Bush's reason not to send more troops was not because the Dems would have objected more strongly, but because (at the time) such a course was thought to jeopardize his reelection chances. That was all he thought about in his first term. As a Dem, my opinion (expressed here) was that we should not go, but if we did, we should go in under the Powell Doctrine. But, I'll admit, I wasn't too concerned about Bush's reelection.

It's still a little early to begin trying to rewrite history. Wait a little longer.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

What I was actually proposing was treating Russia like Japan. Tell Stalin to accept unconditional surrender or we keep bombing. In the alternative, tell Russia to get the hell out of every other country or we keep bombing. I think they would have pulled out. Such a move would have saved millions of lives.

I don't by the corrupt regime stuff. I think the "corrupt regime" refrain has always been an excuse to just let the communists take over. Or has been used as a justification that the communists to take control.

Chianges government may have had trouble but the communists were getting a lot of help across the border. We were not doing much to help. We didn't need to lose China.

The refrain against the Korean war was that the Southern Government was corrupt and had no popular support. Fortunately Truman ignored that mantra and we saved the "corrupt" regime and it turned out quite well.

In Vietnam in 1972, after we pulled out, the South Vietnamese government did much better than people expected. The VietCong were not able to gain ground like everyone expected. The North Vietnamese broke the peace treaty and invaded the South - mainly because the Vietcong were not getting anywhere. Even though the invasion was a violation of the treaty the Dems in congress refused to send any financial support or military aid. Even though the North Vietnamese were being flooded with support from China and Russia.

The South, especially in the cities, did not want the communists. The NVA had to conquer the South and the flood of people out of the South showed how much popular support the communists had.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Because he was unwilling or unable to do the things necessary to get sufficient support from other countries.

Not fair
 

At times, I look at the world and I almost see the logic of your call to empire. But then I consider the fact that it is this imperial drive that has led to the collapse of every great society before our own. I think about the fact that, if we start ignoring a system of treaties and international laws, the only place Americans will be relatively safe is wherever they can rely upon our troops to control things. I remember Richelieu's warning that power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The world is a bad place sometimes. Evil exists, and it always will. We can't even eradicate it at home on the micro level. How can you possibly expect that we will eliminate it globally on a macro level?

I can't buy into the newspeak concept that war is peace and tyranny, even the best intentioned tyranny, is freedom.

We can, and should, work with freedom fighters wherever they exist to oppose tyrants. We should interfere where we can to put an end to genocide. But unless we are prepared to try and take over the world, we need to recognize that even our power has limits.

Mindless slavering support
 

It is rather a slap in the face, isn't it?

Not really an intentional F-U, I think it is more blind arrogance.

[Spanky disagrees though -- he rather thinks Bush is dumping the social conservatives (or no longer courting them) now that they are no longer needed.]

My thought now as the process grinds on is that the social conservatives and various others on the right who focused on the S.Ct. are now feeling what the Dems have felt for several years (with an added helping of betrayal).

S_A_M

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

I never threatened to kill the President. I simply stated that I'd rather see him dead than me.

Not fair
 

I'm not the one arguing cultural relativism. Take it somewhere else, Bilmore.