"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's something for y'all to throw rocks at:

• A War We Must End
  By John Podesta, Ray Takeyh and Lawrence J. Korb
  Tuesday, February 26, 2008; Page A17
  
  Despite the Democratic presidential candidates' expressed commitment to ending the war in Iraq, there is unease among the party's base. Some ardent activists have suggested that upon election, a new Democratic president will come under inordinate pressure to sustain the U.S. military commitment to Iraq, albeit with some modifications. This concern demonstrates both the difficulty of ending a controversial war and the necessity of doing so.
  
  Even a cursory examination of American history reveals the complexity of concluding a war that has taken on such a stark partisan tint. The shadow of Vietnam looms, as it has become standard Republican narrative that back then it was the Democrats in Congress who stabbed America in the back by cutting off funding for a winning cause. The fact that the war was lost in Southeast Asia, as opposed to the halls of Congress, is no matter. The Republican machine will press this same theme should it lose the White House in November. A Democratic administration would be accused of surrendering to evildoers, as once more the dovish successors of George McGovern are wrongly said to have pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.
  
  Such self-serving claims do not diminish the need and justification for ending one of America's longest and most misguided wars. Republicans will claim that after four years of disastrous mistakes, the Bush administration finally got it right with its troop "surge." Yet even despite the loss of nearly 1,000 American lives and the expenditure of $150 billion, the surge has failed in its stated purpose: providing the Iraqi government with the breathing space to pass the 18 legislative benchmarks the Bush administration called vital to political reconciliation. To date it has passed only four. Moreover, as part of the surge, the administration has further undermined Iraq's government by providing arms and money to Sunni insurgent groups even though they have not pledged loyalty to Baghdad.
  
  Beyond the impracticalities of the surge, it is important to realistically measure the costs and consequences of a categorical U.S. withdrawal. The prevailing doomsday scenario suggests that an American departure would lead to genocide and mayhem. But is that true? Iraq today belongs to Iraqis; it is an ancient civilization with its own norms and tendencies. It is entirely possible that in the absence of a cumbersome and clumsy American occupation, Iraqis will make their own bargains and compacts, heading off the genocide that many seem to anticipate. Opponents of the war seem to have far more confidence in Iraqis' abilities to manage their affairs than do war advocates. Moreover, a U.S. withdrawal would finally compel the region to claim Iraq, forcing the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians and others to decide whether a civil war is in their interests. Faced with that stark reality, they may seek to mediate rather than inflame Iraq's squabbles.
  
  The strategic necessities of ending the war have never been more compelling. In today's Middle East, America is neither liked nor respected. Iran flaunts its nuclear ambitions, confident that a bogged-down Washington has limited options but to concede to its mounting infractions. Afghanistan is rapidly descending into a Taliban-dominated state as the Bush administration responds only with plaintive complaints about NATO's lack of resolution. And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nowhere near resolution. America's occupation of Iraq is estranging an entire generation of Arab youths, creating a reservoir of antagonism that will take decades to overcome. A Democratic president who may enjoy a modest honeymoon in the Middle East simply by virtue of not being George W. Bush can take a giant step toward reclaiming America's practical interests and moral standing by leaving Iraq.
  
  A Democratic president would also be wise to realize that perpetuating the war conflicts with a robust domestic agenda. At a time of mounting deficits, when we are spending about $10 billion a month in Iraq, issues such as reforming the health-care system and repairing the national infrastructure are likely to remain neglected. The United States has too many national priorities that cannot be realized if yet another beleaguered administration prolongs this costly and unpopular war.
  
  The plight of the Bush presidency should be a lesson on what not to do. An administration without any consequential domestic achievements and a divisive foreign policy, hostage to an endless conflict, is what awaits anyone seeking to perpetuate the war. Remarkably, Sen. John McCain stakes his claim to the presidency on continuing down this path. This is a legacy that Democratic presidential aspirants would be wise to avoid.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
He's earned himself a chair in Bill Maher's show this season as a roving reporter or something.

I like Taibbi. He's funny and seems pretty smart. But watching the guy on TV -- my God, he's almost as smug as Maher.

You're right. He is kind of full of himself. PJ O'Rourke got away with that shtick because he laughed at himself. Taibbi comes off like mark Cuban at times, which is fine if you've got Cuban's money. Unfortunately, Taibbi's $999,800,000 short by my estimation.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, I still don't see it. So he's economically knowledgable? Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are both smart people, and I'm sure they both understand economic fundamentals pretty well. Doesn't mean they'll implement them.

As I think about it (and I suspect Spanky has long been there), free trade (which is described as NAFTA) may be the same sort of signaling issue as abortion. It's not just the issue itself, but that it signals a broader perspective. With abortion it's fundamental liberties. With free trade it's fundamental economics. The justifications for free trade are to me so basic (and the costs of stifling trade so significant) that opposing it calls into question a candidate's entire economic platform.

Seems to me that one could be pro-free trade generally, and opposed to parts of NAFTA at the same time.

Again, from the speech I saw:

We're here because there are workers in Youngstown, Ohio, who've watched job after job after job disappear because of bad trade deals like NAFTA, who've worked in factories -- who've worked in factories for 20 years, and then one day they come in and literally see the equipment unbolted from the floor and sent to China.

They need us to end those tax breaks that go to companies that ship jobs overseas...

Followed by,

We want to promote trade and we embrace globalization, but we also want our trade deals to have labor standards and environmental standards and safety standards so our workers aren't undermined and our children aren't playing with toys based in lead paint. That's the change we want.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
He's earned himself a chair in Bill Maher's show this season as a roving reporter or something.

I like Taibbi. He's funny and seems pretty smart. But watching the guy on TV -- my God, he's almost as smug as Maher.

I think it's the eyebrows. He's in permanent sneer.

[taxwonk]

Me
I also find the two statements to be entirely consistent, unless you can prove to me that what both Obama and Clinton have said is that "the exact same soldiers who are presently in Iraq will be deeployed elsewhere." Otherwise, I believe you are what we tax lawyers call "full of shit."

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yes I'm being Hank, which means I'm sticking you guys with a point you can't reconcile. and you're being Taxwonk, becasue my whole point is they are saying I'll bring them home, but not I need to send them somewhere else. Sorry NB/RT vague platitudes about Afghan/Pakistan are not the same thing as " I ain't bring troops home. I am sending them somewhere else."

Taxwonk-1, Hank-whatever number salves his ego, minus this one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough. But the alternative is to conclude he's cynically pandering to segments of the electorate. Which makes me wonder which of his statements are pandering and which are genuine.

You say this as if you are unfamiliar with electoral politics, and yet I do not believe this to be the case.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here's something for y'all to throw rocks at:

• A War We Must End
  By John Podesta, Ray Takeyh and Lawrence J. Korb
  Tuesday, February 26, 2008; Page A17
  
  Despite the Democratic presidential candidates' expressed commitment to ending the war in Iraq, there is unease among the party's base. Some ardent activists have suggested that upon election, a new Democratic president will come under inordinate pressure to sustain the U.S. military commitment to Iraq, albeit with some modifications. This concern demonstrates both the difficulty of ending a controversial war and the necessity of doing so.
  
  Even a cursory examination of American history reveals the complexity of concluding a war that has taken on such a stark partisan tint. The shadow of Vietnam looms, as it has become standard Republican narrative that back then it was the Democrats in Congress who stabbed America in the back by cutting off funding for a winning cause. The fact that the war was lost in Southeast Asia, as opposed to the halls of Congress, is no matter. The Republican machine will press this same theme should it lose the White House in November. A Democratic administration would be accused of surrendering to evildoers, as once more the dovish successors of George McGovern are wrongly said to have pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.
  
  Such self-serving claims do not diminish the need and justification for ending one of America's longest and most misguided wars. Republicans will claim that after four years of disastrous mistakes, the Bush administration finally got it right with its troop "surge." Yet even despite the loss of nearly 1,000 American lives and the expenditure of $150 billion, the surge has failed in its stated purpose: providing the Iraqi government with the breathing space to pass the 18 legislative benchmarks the Bush administration called vital to political reconciliation. To date it has passed only four. Moreover, as part of the surge, the administration has further undermined Iraq's government by providing arms and money to Sunni insurgent groups even though they have not pledged loyalty to Baghdad.
  
  Beyond the impracticalities of the surge, it is important to realistically measure the costs and consequences of a categorical U.S. withdrawal. The prevailing doomsday scenario suggests that an American departure would lead to genocide and mayhem. But is that true? Iraq today belongs to Iraqis; it is an ancient civilization with its own norms and tendencies. It is entirely possible that in the absence of a cumbersome and clumsy American occupation, Iraqis will make their own bargains and compacts, heading off the genocide that many seem to anticipate. Opponents of the war seem to have far more confidence in Iraqis' abilities to manage their affairs than do war advocates. Moreover, a U.S. withdrawal would finally compel the region to claim Iraq, forcing the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians and others to decide whether a civil war is in their interests. Faced with that stark reality, they may seek to mediate rather than inflame Iraq's squabbles.
  
  The strategic necessities of ending the war have never been more compelling. In today's Middle East, America is neither liked nor respected. Iran flaunts its nuclear ambitions, confident that a bogged-down Washington has limited options but to concede to its mounting infractions. Afghanistan is rapidly descending into a Taliban-dominated state as the Bush administration responds only with plaintive complaints about NATO's lack of resolution. And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nowhere near resolution. America's occupation of Iraq is estranging an entire generation of Arab youths, creating a reservoir of antagonism that will take decades to overcome. A Democratic president who may enjoy a modest honeymoon in the Middle East simply by virtue of not being George W. Bush can take a giant step toward reclaiming America's practical interests and moral standing by leaving Iraq.
  
  A Democratic president would also be wise to realize that perpetuating the war conflicts with a robust domestic agenda. At a time of mounting deficits, when we are spending about $10 billion a month in Iraq, issues such as reforming the health-care system and repairing the national infrastructure are likely to remain neglected. The United States has too many national priorities that cannot be realized if yet another beleaguered administration prolongs this costly and unpopular war.
  
  The plight of the Bush presidency should be a lesson on what not to do. An administration without any consequential domestic achievements and a divisive foreign policy, hostage to an endless conflict, is what awaits anyone seeking to perpetuate the war. Remarkably, Sen. John McCain stakes his claim to the presidency on continuing down this path. This is a legacy that Democratic presidential aspirants would be wise to avoid.

What's most amusing about this piece is it took three people to write something with almost zero persuasive value to anyone but a fellow traveller.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What's most amusing about this piece is it took three people to write something with almost zero persuasive value to anyone but a fellow traveller.

Very little that appears on most op-ed pages is persuasive or interesting. And those qualities are inversely correlated with the number of authors, I would think.

But I thought it was a useful counterpoint to the suggestion that neither Hillary or Bill will change our Iraq policy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Very little that appears on most op-ed pages is persuasive or interesting. And those qualities are inversely correlated with the number of authors, I would think.

But I thought it was a useful counterpoint to the suggestion that neither Hillary or Bill will change our Iraq policy.

On the first point, I disagree. Robert reich wrote one of the most concise and spot-on analyses of our economic malaise I have ever seen in maybe 300 words in the Times or the Journal (can't recall which) a few weeks back. Nailed it, like Plated used to nail shit.

I don't disagree with your second point, but I think the difference will be nuanced, in many instances almost unrecognizable. Not that they wouldn't try, just that the reality is, well, limiting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On the first point, I disagree. Robert Reich wrote one of the most concise and spot-on analyses of our economic malaise I have ever seen in maybe 300 words in the Times or the Journal (can't recall which) a few weeks back. Nailed it, like Plated used to nail shit.

There is some good stuff, but it's rare. It's a very hard format to be good in.

Which gives me a slender pretext for posting something funny from Krugman's blog:

• I’m almost never censored at the Times. However, I was told that I couldn’t use the lede I originally wrote for my column following the 2007 State of the Union address, in which Bush made ethanol the centerpiece of his energy strategy: “Before the State of the Union address, there had been hints and hopes that President Bush would offer a serious plan to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Instead, however, he took refuge in alcohol.”

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What's most amusing about this piece is it took three people to write something with almost zero persuasive value to anyone but a fellow traveller.

i think it's wild the three guys just copied a bunch of Ty's posts. Ty, if you want,sebby and I will sign a letter showing how they plagerized you.

unless is there some other explaination?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i think it's wild the three guys just copied a bunch of Ty's posts. Ty, if you want,sebby and I will sign a letter showing how they plagerized you.

unless is there some other explaination?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There is some good stuff, but it's rare. It's a very hard format to be good in.

Which gives me a slender pretext for posting something funny from Krugman's blog:

• I’m almost never censored at the Times. However, I was told that I couldn’t use the lede I originally wrote for my column following the 2007 State of the Union address, in which Bush made ethanol the centerpiece of his energy strategy: “Before the State of the Union address, there had been hints and hopes that President Bush would offer a serious plan to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Instead, however, he took refuge in alcohol.”

They'd have been smarter to let that in, with a hefty disclaimed in advance. Krugman could use a bit of levity. On Reich's piece, here it is, w/o that annoying registration request from the Times:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021308O.shtml

I don't agree with his solutions, but damn if he doesn't nail the causes and background of the mess it usually takes so many eggheads pages and pages of drivel to explain, often incorrectly.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
More comfortable than they were before they read it.

Um. Not really, no.

.... and now back to my week of hell

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
More recently, he said: "Under Bush I in the final years he and the Demcratic Congress cut discretionary spending more than Clinton did when Clinton and the Dem controlled congress." I'm just curious. This strikes me as something that could be true, although it's not what I would have believed. So I asked for a cite. And perhaps it is true, but the page he cited doesn't show this. Either way, it doesn't change what we were arguing about earlier.

It was Fringy that originally cited that page, not me. I cited the page on the document showing Federal outlays, and then she pointed out the page on discretionary spending in the same document. And I just transcribed the numbers from the page Fringy cited (Twice). So go back to Fringeys original cite, and tell me which numbers I transcribed incorrectly.

I think it is table 8.8 that she referred to on page 157.