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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wow - that was really cynical. Do you ever have any trouble getting up in the morning?

No. I just surf along and hope to enjoy the ride.

Here's another way of looking at the dilletante/idiot problem in American politics. Political thought traditionally moved in huge pendulum shifts. One extreme to the other, with lemmings/opportunists/rubes glomming onto the arm as it shifted at a swift clip.

Nearly always, the solution to a problem, or at least the sensible approach, is in the middle. But that didn't happen with politics. We swung back and forth between Big Govt Libs to Small Govt GOPers.

Then came the 70s recession and Reagan. Now, there was no Big Govt party anymore. The Dems lost their plank. Their savior, Bubba, was a Rockefeller Republican. Both parties became the parties of small govt and an economically more kill-or-be-killed society.

So what do we argue about these days, when the parties are running on nearly identical platforms? Nothing of substance. The two parties spend all their time and resources trying to create "pendulum" issues. They try to indict one another or get people in a lather over abortion, or allegedly activist courts. They look for conspiracy theories. They try to differentiate themselves from one another to get the old peendulum shifting back and forth again, so they can start some "revolution."

There are no more revolutions of political thought in this country. The Right and Left are just pathetic fools bickering around a fat middle of moderates who just want to keep their taxes as low as possible.

The Dems can win any election they want if they just come out and say "I will lower taxes." People have given up on politics and politicians, except to the extent that they can make money in the system. We are a nation of people who vote with our pocketbooks. The people who want to start the pendulum again don't understand that, and thats why they keep making crazir charges at one another every day. They think they can somehow get the old back-and-forth rolling again. Ain't going to happen.

[Diane_Keaton]

Royal Marine leaders, dressing up as doctor and a Catholic school girl, and ordering that naked men prance around hitting each other upside the head, wrestling with heineys sticking up in the air and giving naked piggy back rides while a bunch of young men strip naked and watch. Concluded by the skinny doctor in drag beating the naked Chelsea boys up. "Just trying to make the Marines tough". Right!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't mean to suggest that Bush was opposed to ensuring that the elderly can get adequate health care. But the program adopted bears very little resemblence to the ways that conservatives has usually advocated achieving this goal -- e.g., the fact that the program was more expensive than the Democratic alternative.

You suggest that Bush places policy before politics. A true test of this would be to find an instance where Bush has made a political sacrifice in the name of conservative policy. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one. (Although the question is tough, because Bush has taken as a lesson of his father's presidency the need to keep the conservative base happy, so he often seems to act conservatively for political reasons rather than for principle, as when he nominated Alito.) For example, he barely talked about Social Security reform during the '04 campaign, only to throw himself behind it after he had been elected and would not face the voters again.

I think the invasion of Iraq. The politically wise thing to do would have been to wait until after the elections to invade (like he did with Social Security). I know there was concern that Hussein would Gas our troops and with twenty thousand body bags coming home it would be hard to get reelected.

But Bush felt he had to go in sooner than later, so he went in. But that is why this stuff about WMDs is so ridiculous. The administration's worst fear was the Saddam would use chemical and biological weapons. That is why all the threats about massive retaliation and forcing everyone within a thousand miles of the front lines to have a full body chemical suit ready to put on in thirty seconds.

My fraternity brother who is a Lt. Col. said that his biggest problem during the war was all the false alarms for chemical attacks. Three to four times a day his entire battalian had to stop and put on those stupid suits. The understanding was that if you lost one solider to a gas or chemical attack (because they did not have their suit at the ready) you could kiss your career good bye.

But my friend said they could have been in Baghdad a week earlier if they weren't so paranoid about chemical and biological attacks.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Spanky
I should add that there are many smart Dems that see Bush's vulnerability and know that the political attack of being well intentioned but naive and stupid is an incredibly effective political tactic. The right uses it against the left all the time (esepcially on things like welfare and other social issues). But unluckily for the smart Dems (like Hillary, Bill et. al.) the idiots (like Cindy Sheehand and Howard Dean) are drowning out and eclipsing the people that know what they are doing. The focus on Haliburton, Bush lied, Bush is evil, imperialism, immorality etc has completely drowned out the srategic Dems and blown their strategy: risky to go in, need world support (not to make it moral or legal, but to reduce the strain on the US and increase the chances of success) very naive, but if you went in no room for error, not enough troops, complete incompetance, no plan for the occupation, nor armor for cars, etc - I don't agree with these attacks but they are effective.

Just like Jesse Helms and Tom Delay are the Dems best friends, Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean are Bushs best allies. You can't buy help like that.

What I find so shocking is that many seemingly somewhat intelligent people that post to this board join in the chorus of the politically incompetant. I guess I should be happy because it shows that the Dems are really screwed up, but it is shocking that lawyers on this board could be so politcally unsophisticated.

For someone who believes he is "politcally competant", you write like shit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think the invasion of Iraq. The politically wise thing to do would have been to wait until after the elections to invade (like he did with Social Security).

You have got to be kidding me. Bush used the impending war as a political tool in '02, and he used it to the hilt again in '04. He took no political risk with the timing of what he did.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is awful.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have got to be kidding me. Bush used the impending war as a political tool in '02, and he used it to the hilt again in '04. He took no political risk with the timing of what he did.

You have got to be kidding me. Are you trying to say that there is no risks in war? Bush had no idea how this war would turn out. For you to assume that he knew the outcome is absurd. It was a huge political risk. All wars are.

[Spanky]

I often disagree with this women, but this one seems pretty logical. Where is the flaw in her reasoning?


NEW IDEA FOR ABORTION PARTY: AID THE ENEMY
November 23, 2005


In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger.

Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. Rape rooms and torture chambers are back in R. Kelly's Miami Beach mansion where they belong.

The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. In a rash and unconsidered move, they even gave women the right to vote.

Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month. The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24/7 protection by U.S. fighter jets.

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the Palestinians are holding elections.

(Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)

The American military has accomplished all this with just over 2,000 deaths. These deaths are especially painful because they fall on our greatest Americans. Still, look at what the military has done and compare the cost to 600,000 deaths in the Civil War, 400,000 deaths in World War II and 60,000 deaths in Vietnam (before Walter Cronkite finally threw in the towel and declared victory for North Vietnam).

What is known as a "hawk" in today's Democratic Party looks at what our military has accomplished and — during the war, while our troops are in harm's way — demands that we withdraw our troops.

In an upbeat speech now being aired repeatedly on al-Jazeera, last week Rep. John Murtha said U.S. troops "cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Claiming the war is "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said the "American public is way ahead of us."

Fed up with being endlessly told "the American people" have turned against the war in Iraq, Republicans asked the Democrats to show what they had in their hand and vote on a resolution to withdraw the troops.

By a vote of 403-3, the House of Representatives wasn't willing to bet that "the American people" want to pull out of Iraq. (This vote also marked the first time in recent history that the Democrats did not respond to getting their butts kicked by demanding a recount.)

The vote is all the more shocking because of what it says about the Democrats' motives in attacking the war — as well as alerting us to three members of Congress we really need to keep an eye on.

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

What are we to make of the fact that — as we now know — the Democrats don't even want to withdraw troops from Iraq? By their own account, there is no merit to their demands. Before the vote, Democrats could at least defend themselves from sedition by pleading stupidity. Now we know they don't believe what they are saying about the war. (Thanks to that vote, the Islamo-fascists know it, too.)

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.

They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
I often disagree with this women, but this one seems pretty logical. Where is the flaw in her reasoning?

Depends. Where's the reasoning?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think Bush's foray into Iraq was the same. Once he could not get world opinon on his side, and he saw how virulently the Dems hated him and would use this policy against him, politically there was not much upside in going into Iraq. But I think he really felt he had to morally. It is the left inability to understand this (just like the right with Clinton on Serbia) that has made it so hard to take him on politically on this issue. I think the left would get more politicla capital out of Iraq if they would say that Bush did this out of pure intentions but it was incredibly naive and stupid. That angle would work and make them seem more statesmenlike and not hurt the publics confidence in their ability to deal with foreign policy and take on terrorism. But to try and say that Bush did this for selfish reasons (lininig the pockets of big business, imperialistic ambitions) or that he was sinister when he did this (he lied or manipulated the information) just doesn't wash with the public

2.

This sums up nicely why I think Bush acts honorably, but not always in a politic manner. In those issues for which he definitely sees a moral position, he takes it, polls be damned. For things like drug benefits, immigration, and the like, where he mostly just perceives differences of opinion (as opposed to a true "right or wrong"), he's all over the boards.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

Here's the one flaw I see consistently in her reasoning.

What is "treason"?

To what are we beholden?

If I believe that my country is pursuing a path that will lead it to harm, and my actions in response are guided by a sincere desire to keep my country from that harm, can my anti-administration actions and words be deemed "treason"? Do I owe my allegiance to the current leadership of my country, or to my country? If I take actions or speak words that lead to a short-term harm to my country, but generally result in my country moving in a direction that I deem to be more healthy, and more likely to leave my country improved and less harmed overall, am I not truly serving my country?

I think her flaw is her fixation on "treason". I don't think that what she describes in her columns is treason. I think she could use the word "stupidity" and be far more accurate and far less offputting. Her message gets lost because she riles in too visceral a way.

I'm sure every person who thinks that our war in Iraq is horribly wrong, and who is fighting politically to end that war, is serving their conception of what our country is, or, at least, should be. I could use the "treason" label easily on a Galloway, or on any American counterpart actively serving anti-American interests for personal gain. But, just as we weren't treasonous in the sixties or seventies as we (stupidly, and without placing the proper value on educating ourselves to reality) fought to end a war, so too the current dissent isn't treason.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Here's the one flaw I see consistently in her reasoning.

What is "treason"?

To what are we beholden?

If I believe that my country is pursuing a path that will lead it to harm, and my actions in response are guided by a sincere desire to keep my country from that harm, can my anti-administration actions and words be deemed "treason"? Do I owe my allegiance to the current leadership of my country, or to my country? If I take actions or speak words that lead to a short-term harm to my country, but generally result in my country moving in a direction that I deem to be more healthy, and more likely to leave my country improved and less harmed overall, am I not truly serving my country?

I think her flaw is her fixation on "treason". I don't think that what she describes in her columns is treason. I think she could use the word "stupidity" and be far more accurate and far less offputting. Her message gets lost because she riles in too visceral a way.

I'm sure every person who thinks that our war in Iraq is horribly wrong, and who is fighting politically to end that war, is serving their conception of what our country is, or, at least, should be. I could use the "treason" label easily on a Galloway, or on any American counterpart actively serving anti-American interests for personal gain. But, just as we weren't treasonous in the sixties or seventies as we (stupidly, and without placing the proper value on educating ourselves to reality) fought to end a war, so too the current dissent isn't treason.

Her point is that doing things that do harm a war effort, not because you feel the war is wrong, but instead because you feel it will you get votes in some future election, is wrong.

She asks the question whether the vote in the house might not show that the "anti-war" movement doesn't really believe what it says.

Of course, the insulation is that most dems are staying pretty silent on the issue and letting the extremes carry their water. That way they can shift position when the polls show (See today's WP poll) that the cut and run arguments are not gaining public support.

It is perhaps not treason to keep quiet in such circumstance, but is it the behavior we should expect from the leaders of a party that will ask to lead the country in a few more years?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Her point is that doing things that do harm a war effort, not because you feel the war is wrong, but instead because you feel it will you get votes in some future election, is wrong.

She asks the question whether the vote in the house might not show that the "anti-war" movement doesn't really believe what it says.

Actually, I think the liberal use of the word "treason" detracts from any point she may make.

Are you saying that Murtha did this to get votes in a future election? Doubtful.

Of course, the insulation is that most dems are staying pretty silent on the issue and letting the extremes carry their water. That way they can shift position when the polls show (See today's WP poll) that the cut and run arguments are not gaining public support.

It is perhaps not treason to keep quiet in such circumstance, but is it the behavior we should expect from the leaders of a party that will ask to lead the country in a few more years?

Another way to view this is that we don't have the same wacky left that we had in Vietnam. The Bush Administration must pray nightly for the same collection of vocal anitwarriors that Nixon had and so successfully demonized.

You saw a microcosm of this with Murtha, in which the GOP stance for the first couple of days was to declare that Murtha, whom they've lionized for agreeing with them in the past, was secretly a pinkco commie-lover who was sleeping with Michael Moore. This pretty sight reached its zenith with a pissant Republican freshman in the House calling the Purple-Hearted and Bronze-Star wearing Murtha a coward on the House floor.

Eventually the GOP either reached its threshhold for self-loathing over this tactic, or realized that it simply wouldn't work, because the next day Murtha was, in GOP eyes, suddenly a "good man" who was entitled, like every good American, to question the war.

It's worth asking, is this the behavior that we should expect from leaders of a party who control every lever of federal power?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I often disagree with this women, but this one seems pretty logical. Where is the flaw in her reasoning?

Transparent pot-stirring, both by you and by Coulter. I will not take the bait.

[eta -- But I'm glad Bilmore did.]

For example, no serious person could attribute those motivations to John Murtha, or to the many Republican Senators who voted for the recent resolution in support of the vague, no-timetable phased withdrawal (which was not much different than Murtha's actual proposal).

[eta -- Also, here is one more flaw in her "logic" -- Voting against a resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq right this minute is not "gutless" or "hypocritical" -- even if you think the occupation has been mismanaged, think we should withdraw the troops ASAP, and/or think that our presence in Iraq is now doing more harm than good. Coulter's position is pure sophistry.]

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Her point is that doing things that do harm a war effort, not because you feel the war is wrong, but instead because you feel it will you get votes in some future election, is wrong.

Of course, you're then stuck at that ultimate issue - do they do so for personal power and enrichment and aggrandizement, or because getting your party in power is what allows the "right" policies and philosophies and thinking to guide your country to its proper path? Again, what is the ultimate motivation? If I truly thought that R thinking was harming my country, and that D thinking was what would rescue it, how would fighting for a D ascendency be treason? I'd be doing it for proper motives. If my country was helping Chavez kill bankers, and I thought this was entirely against what America stands for and was, in fact, bad action, would it be treason for me to find ways to undercut that effort and bring us back to correct thought, even if it meant that morale amongst the banker-killing soldiers dropped?