by hilzoy
Joe Biden wrote an editorial calling for a timetable for Iraq yesterday, and today the White House not only endorsed Biden’s plan, but claimed that it was actually Bush’s:
“The White House for the first time has claimed possession of an Iraq withdrawal plan, arguing that a troop pullout blueprint unveiled this past week by a Democratic senator was “remarkably similar” to its own. (…)
In the White House statement, which was released under the headline “Senator Biden Adopts Key Portions Of Administration’s Plan For Victory In Iraq,” McClellan said the administration of President George W. Bush welcomed Biden’s voice in the debate.
“Today, Senator Biden described a plan remarkably similar to the administration’s plan to fight and win the war on terror,” the spokesman went on to say. McClellan added that as Iraqi security forces gain strength and experience, “we can lessen our troop presence in the country without losing our capability to effectively defeat the terrorists.” McClellan said the White House now saw “a strong consensus” building in Washington in favor of Bush’s strategy in Iraq.”
Unfortunately, no one warned the right-wing bloggers that this was coming, and so, predictably, they heaped scorn on Biden’s editorial. Paul at Powerline has a post called ‘Clueless Joe’:
“This op-ed in the Washington Post by Senator Joseph Biden provides a reminder of why Democrats are unfit to direct this country’s foreign policy. (…) What we have in Iraq is an armed conflict, not a government program. In this context, timetables and schedules should not dictate events; rather events must dictate timing. But this reality is beyond the comprehension of clueless Joe Biden and most of his fellow Democrats.”
“Senator Joe Biden writes an op-ed for today’s Washington Post that gets the entire war on terror fundamentally wrong — and demonstrates why the Democrats have entirely failed to provide any leadership on Iraq and the wider war. (…) And in this last question, we have exactly the reason why Biden and his political allies cannot ever take charge of American security. Both of his priorities reflect a fundamental misjudgment about the nature of war, the nature of this war, and the nature of our enemy.”
Instapundit quotes the first sentence of Captain Ed’s post with approval.
“Slow Joe has an op-ed in the Washington Post today, continuing his decades=long campaign to be thought other than Delaware’s luckiest man. But with Niel Kinnock replaced by Tony Blair, Slow Joe is left to his own devices, and that’s always dagerous [sic] as just about any tape of unreahersed [sic] Joe shows us.”
And on, and on.
Now: imagine for a moment that the bloggers I just quoted actually sat down and thought about Biden’s plan, concluded that it was a bad idea, and that this reflection explains their posts. In that case, you’d expect them to respond to today’s White House statement with horror and alarm. After all, it’s one thing for the Senator Powerline calls “the Delaware windbag” to adopt a plan. He is in the minority party, and has no real influence over policy. It’s quite another for the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, to embrace a policy that “gets the entire war on terror fundamentally wrong”, and shows that people who adopt it “cannot ever take charge of American security” and “are unfit to direct this country’s foreign policy”. The thought that Bush, who does direct America’s foreign policy, is ‘unfit’ to do so, since he ‘gets the entire war on terror fundamentally wrong’, should be terrifying.
And yet, oddly enough, not one of these worthies has seen fit to comment on Bush’s embrace of Biden’s plan. And it’s not lack of time: they have somehow managed to fit in posts on Whoopi Goldberg, Cindy Sheehan, the Carnival of the Cats, and all sorts of other momentous topics. But somehow the fact that our President is, by their standards, unfit to direct our foreign policy seems to have escaped their notice.
Why am I not surprised?
I’d like this to be a clear example of hypocrisy (since I have no particular affection for the aforementioned bloggers), but I’m not sure it is. The parts of the Biden editorial which Powerline, Captain Ed, and others appear to be taking issue with is where he does things like mentions years and numbers. The parts which the White House is agreeing with don’t appear to be the same parts.
Now I think Biden doesn’t go far enough, since I think the military has accomplished what it can, but I’m not sure I see the inconsistency.
In order for this to be an Intellectual Integrity Watch, the subjects in question would have to possess any to observe.
I am willing to accept evidence that they do, but have seen nothing but counterfactual evidence thus far.
No, Catsy, you can go on a platypus watch (for example) and not actually end up seeing any platypus. A watch is as much about waiting for something to appear as about observation after it does. Hope springs eternal. Just think how exciting it will be for the first person to spot the veritable ivory billed woodpecker of rightist intellectual integrity!
Is it surprising that practitioners of the oldest profession exhibit considerable flexibility and agility?
And in their pajamas!!
I am mostly suprised the hilzoy can read those places. She has a stronger stomach than I.
So I have to ask. Is there EVER anything said at those sites she quoted (I have read Hewitt’s site, and it’s not TOO terrible, but Instapundit? Powerline? euwwwww) that does not smack of hypocrisy? For instance, would you find a comment like washerdryer’s on any of those places? A post comparing similar propositions and concluding that the differences might be important to those holding opposing beliefs to those of the poster?
I don’t know, but it doesn’t feel that way to me. As I said, I don’t read there. I would make myself read there if I thought that actual ideas were discussed.
Jake
It’s the oldest political tactic in the book. In fact, someone actually bragged about it a couple weeks ago. The unions have successfully waged this type of argument forever. It’s simply to recognize when your political opponent is about to kick your butt, then jumping the gun and declare their plan is your plan. And here our President is responding by pulling the opposition party closer to the middle, just as they hoped he would, and the heretofore naysayers fall into left fringe talking points hook, line and sinker. And Jake, what’s with that? Goodness sake. Instapundit? – heck, he’s mostly a lister and comments as much about cookware, cameras and family cars. I bought my mom a neat cooking pot based on his links. Hilzoy, keep doing your thing, it is an integral pillar of this elusive recipe we call democracy. I’ve got plenty of stomach to read it, although I’ve got to stop scratching my head, it’s getting bald enough.
The parts which the White House is agreeing with don’t appear to be the same parts.
Now I think Biden doesn’t go far enough, since I think the military has accomplished what it can, but I’m not sure I see the inconsistency.
Not to jump on you wd, but this would be a good point if the WH press release didn’t sound like something from a school yard. The title ‘setting the record straight’ beggars belief. The elision between Scottie’s “There is a strong consensus building in Washington in favor of President Bush’s strategy for victory“and Biden’s “”There is a broad consensus on what must be done to preserve our interests.” is typical, but still pathetic. And the invocation of S. Amendment 2518 certainly ignores the manuvering that went into that.
btw, a new email account that works, as the free thai email service went kaput.
now i now never to trust those bloggers again! golly, what a harsh lesson. 🙁
“No, Catsy, you can go on a platypus watch (for example) and not actually end up seeing any platypus.”
Yes, but the point is that you would look for platypus in their native habitat, not in the blasted heath of a wetland below a New Jersey landfill. The habitat for intellectual integrity was paved over in 2000 and has been leaking fatal toxins since.
Besides, 😉 the great thing about OBWI is that platypus show up even when you’re not looking for them.
Especially since all that was set in the trap was Blogbudsman bait. Semicolon and right closed parentheses is called for here, too. Winkity Wink.
It’s simply to recognize when your political opponent is about to kick your butt, then jumping the gun and declare their plan is your plan. And here our President is responding by pulling the opposition party closer to the middle, just as they hoped he would, and the heretofore naysayers fall into left fringe talking points hook, line and sinker.
Er, yes, Blogbuds. I can’t quite make this out: are you saying that Paul at Powerline, Captain Ed, Instapundit, and Hugh Hewitt are all in your view “heretofore naysayers”?
Powerline? Captain Ed? Hugh Hewitt?
C’mon, hilzoy: it’s not that you aren’t (as usual) quite right, but isn’t citing the aformentioned bloggers as negative examples of “intellectual integity” sort of a fish-in-a-barrel case?
These worthies, and especially the hacktacular Prof. Reynolds, have, in a remarkably short time, helped to create an entirely new medium for discussion of public issues (the “blogosphere”), while simultaneously destroying whatever intellectual credibility they might have ever claimed to possess.
Does anyone really expect anything other than glib talking-point regurgitation, mixed with sneers, from John Hinderaker and his ilk? Or the chorus of approbation from their echo-chamber commentariat that they use to claim to be the Voice Of The Nation?
It’s one of the things that keep me coming back to read and comment at blogs like Obsidian Wings. The posters here* may have their peculiarities and ideological crotchets, but happily lack (AFAICT) the virulent strain of egomaniacal self-importance over “political” commentary that makes places like RedState, Powerline or (to be balanced) DailyKos all too often so painful to peruse.
*I will make an exception for Bird Dog: he still sucks and is ruining the site (but getting slowly better!) 😉
the virulent strain of egomaniacal self-importance over “political” commentary that makes places like RedState, Powerline or (to be balanced) DailyKos all too often so painful to peruse.
Don’t forget Democratic Underground either. It’s genuinely frightening to think that almost everything I’d heard about that place was actually true.
[And it looks like RedState is heading that direction, too, which is equally disturbing.]
Well, yeah, it was shooting fish in a barrel. Actually, I had made one of my periodic excursions to Powerline and read their post on Biden, and then, yesterday, when that story came out about the President embracing Biden’s plan, I thought: hmm, I wonder … and then the post sort of wrote itself.
The Bush administration is a cruel mistress …
Well I’ve been cruising the comments sections of conservative sites, looking for signs of whiplash. This has always been my main question: what will Bush’s supporters do when he decides to pull out? So far there seem to be two responses: a sad or angry questioning of Bush’s judgement, or the amazing assertion that there is no news here because Bush always intended to start withdrawing. Well, I suppose that it is true that Bush intended to withdraw someday, but up until about five minutes ago the Republican party line was that withdrawal was so far in the future that any one discussing it in any form was a defeatist coward.
I don’t mind that Bush has decided to start a phased wihdrawal and I don’t care who thought of it first. I do feel that all of those folks on the right who attacked Democrats for suggesting what Bush is now prepared to do need to apologize.
Two items
First, Paul from Poweline repeats the claim that Dick Cheney’s torture-stance is heroic: McCain is fond of asserting that you can’t get reliable information through torture. In doing so, he relies on his experience in North Vietnam. However, the ineffe…
Two items
First, Paul from Poweline repeats the claim that Dick Cheney’s torture-stance is heroic: McCain is fond of asserting that you can’t get reliable information through torture. In doing so, he relies on his experience in North Vietnam. However, the ineffe…
Lily:
“I do feel that all those on the right who attacked Democrats for suggesting what Bush is now prepared to do need to apologize.”
I can’t hold my breath that long. And when the apology comes, acceptance of it by Democrats should come only someday, many generations from now, after those on the right have been a crabbed little minority in our legislative bodies and have not darkened the door of the White House in anyone’s living memory.
And then “Sorry” ain’t good enough. “Uncle” from a position on the knees sounds good.
When confronted with small, bitter people, get very small and very bitter. Show them how it is done, in case they have thoughts about ever behaving that way again.
We can, of course, all meet in the interregnum for drinks and raucous partying, but don’t bring up politics, sex, or religion, because my mother will rise from the table, plate of turkey in hand, and head for the bathroom, slamming the door behind her.
Then we will be sorry we discussed anything but the weather.
I know there’s a line already, but, Hilzoy, will you marry me???
And it looks like RedState is heading that direction, too
Heading? Was it ever “good”? I find and have found since it’s birth that most of the frontpage articles are just a variation of tut-tutting regarding whatever perceived injustice has been inflicted on “conservatism”, and a comment section divided into those that write attempt to write, for some unfathomable reason, like William F. Buckley, and those that write like Charlie Daniels.
Meanwhile, on NEBV…..other than an article labelled “Getting nervous” and a new “edgy” design, nothing.
Jes, no I wasn’t, but I did. Those guys hate it when Republican Presidents make an attempt to placate Democratic politicians, because it almost always is used against them, the great dividers! And John, I’m known to take the bait. As Slarti often points out, there are masters here.
John T, that’s a great bit about your mother.
At our table we talk heatedly about everything, and Thanksgiving dinner was wonderful. Nobody wanted to get up to go to the bathroom for fear of missing something. 🙂
No fights broke out, however.
Thank goodness.
Jake
“…a sad or angry questioning of Bush’s judgement”
NEBV is not intended to criticize or increase the determination of liberals or Democrats. The intended audience is Republican, and the targets of attack, even if indirectly, are waverers in the Party, Congress, and especially the White House.
There are people who believe the war is not optional, and that Bush has never been anything but a hindrance and obstruction.
Seen this? Bush may be planning to withdraw large numbers of US troops, but according to this, that just means the number of US airstrikes will step up.
Which means, yes, fewer US soldiers will die. But far more Iraqi civilians will die. I imagine that Bush sees this as a reasonable trade: his base never believed the Lancet study, and Iraqi civilians killed by airstrikes can always be declared to have been insurgents all along, anyway.
Yes, and anybody seen Godot?
“There are people who believe the war is not optional, and that Bush has never been anything but a hindrance and obstruction.”
On every issue.
Yes, I often wonder about folks on my side of the fence who ask Bush supporters how they can possibly support the man, given his incompetence, or his hypocrisy, or his wavering from granitic conservative principles.
This would be like the characters in “Jurassic Park” barely escaping from the velociraptors and then politely asking “When do we get chased by the real velociraptors, because I’m feeling like I would taste really delicious now that I’ve had some exercise?”
I agree, Bob, for the most part. It was simply being used, as you mention, to keep a certain segment of the faithful distracted, and it was used because it was handy.
But, the thing is, NEBV only lasted…what…a week?…two weeks?…before it became obsolete. The machine needs oil.
Yeah sure, John, that must be it. Funny I never thought of it that way before. Incompentence, hypocrisy, granitic? Do you get extra credit when those words are tossed out? It seems obvious the “let’s repeat it often enough and the dumb bastards will start believing” strategy might even be working. You should be so proud.
“But the quagmire in Iraq involves much more than politics. It involves national honor, the undiminished threat of international terrorism — and the lives of too many people who deserve better.
It’s hardly the time for clever politics.”
William Raspberry on Democratic “exit plans” or lack thereof. Via DKos, Armando
Democratic Karl Rove
“So what are Dems left to do? Very simple. They have to plan and act in ways designed to allow them to regain power in 2006. So they can try and deal with the Iraq Debacle given us by Bush and the Republicans. This requires offering plans for Iraq when voters can choose between Republicans and Democrats. The 2006 election campaign.
It is the only principled thing to do.” …Armando
Let me make this short and simple. If Riverbend or someone like her is gangraped, tortured, and/or killed by Hakim or Sadr’s thugs because Americans didn’t have the decency to fix what our OUR President broke we are 300 million+ pieces of dirt.
Blogs: “Do you get extra credit when those words are tossed out?”
No, I don’t, and it really peeves me. Especially “granitic”, which I thought deserved some mention. I try to use the words everyone else uses. I mean, I have my own words, but if I used only my own words and you used only your own words, communication would suffer.
We could each have our own private account of private words and not co-mingle them. Maybe I would lend you some words interest free if you ran out someday, but that would be socialism, so I’ll need to ponder my “granitic” principles to see if that’s permitted.
Then where would be? Well, as Charles might say, we would be where we are, owning what we own, as Bob McManus just pointed out.
Oh, go ahead, use any words you like.
An Iraq Strategy: Reinventing the Wheel
Richard Cohen thinks he detects “Signs of an Iraq Policy” from the Democrats…
Bob: If Riverbend or someone like her is gangraped, tortured, and/or killed by Hakim or Sadr’s thugs because Americans didn’t have the decency to fix what our OUR President broke we are 300 million+ pieces of dirt.
Here is the main question: How do we, as Americans, fix something OUR President broke, when the people in charge, and the only ones with any power to do anything, refuse to even see that it is broken in the first place?
My son called my wife and me yesterday from Iraq, and wehn we brought up the soon to be elections, he just dismissed them as not really meaning anything.
He has intimated in the past that many of those in power in Iraq, and not just in the government, prefer some degree of chaos.
He is not referring to the common Iraqi, who he states is sick of the whole situation.
But I digress. I want a stable Iraq. I want a peaceful world. I want a lot of things, but Santa isn’t going to put them all in my stocking.
Let me make this short and simple.
Bob,
Please don’t take this as being snarky in any way, but it seems that this is precisely the bottom of the pit if we choose to adopt the same tactics as the other side (apologies to those of you who feel you are on the other side and that this is a baseless slur) I don’t think anyone in the administration would lose a moments sleep over Riverbend or Zayed or any of the others and I wouldn’t be surprised if they brought a bloody hajib to wave at the State of the Union if it was thought it would solidify support.
Also, is there a way to fix the problem? The only way is to get a majority in one of the houses and begin investigations. How far dems go in gaining control of the House, I am not prepared to say, but I would say there’s plenty of room for sharper elbows.
I must confess, granitic was good. Outside the realm of geology I’m not sure it carries much weight (as merely a word). Of course that would be to me and afterall it is your word.
And John, isn’t American democracy some in large part chaos. We must keep the elderly somewhat confused and afraid to keep those that benefit from their ‘plight’ in power. We must keep minorities down so that those that enjoy the center stage of public attention in the spotlight. Union bosses must have workers who need their protection. Environmentalists must have dire consequences to anguish over. Politicians must have issues to fund and create laws to amend. The news media must have a bad angle to report and feed their own cynicism. We don’t recognize truth any more because the ends so often justifies the means. But hell, that’s what I love about this country, it just doesn’t matter. What your wonderful son is telling me is that it’s working there too.
blogbudsman wrote:
“And John, isn’t American democracy some in large part chaos.”
and:
“We must keep minorities down so that those that enjoy the center stage of public attention in the spotlight.”
Interesting construction.
By the way, another home run, hilzoy.
Blogs:
Re: the politicians and the union bosses and the environmentalists and the minorities and the chaos, I say, the chaos .. (in response to John Miller).
As Margaret Dumont said of Dr. Quackenbush:
“I didn’t know there was anything wrong with me until I met him.”
Or, slightly off but still relevant .. this from George Bernard Shaw: “Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.”
“The news media must have a bad angle to report and feed their own cynicism”
This may be true. For example, instead of reporting over 2000 Americans dead in Iraq, I think they should talk about all of the Americans who haven’t been killed. And, former inhabitants of New Orleans didn’t actually run for their lives or stay and drown but instead many found new lives elsewhere and those who stayed merely drank their recommended 8 glasses of water daily.
When the Good Witch of the North descended in her bubble on Munchkintown and reported the crushing of the bad witch under Dorothy’s house, the Munchkins didn’t just launch into Hey, Ho, The Witch Is Dead!. No, they looked at each other and asked “So, what’s the bad news?”
Cynics, every last one of them.
In most of the weekend talkshows were rightwing pundits were paneled they could all see a shorter than wanted occupation on the horizon and were purporting that this was the plan all along.
This will be the spin and gutless liberals will just shut up about it because a ‘declare victory and get out’ is the best they could hope for. I hate politicians…
“How do we, as Americans, fix something OUR President broke”
By whatever means necessary. If doing the right thing is impossible, try anyway, and fail with honour. Remove the President and his supporters from power. For the benefit of the FBI, I would not be the first to pick up a gun, but I will not be the last. I may well be the last to resist withdrawal from Iraq.
I am on record as wanting to reverse the tax cuts, reinstate the draft, and send millions of Americans to Iraq. I realize thousands would die simply in transit, but with quantity both Americans and Iraqis would be safer. And those who died would not have died in vain. There are a lot of reasons to be in Iraq, but abandoning it to the militias is an unbearable outcome.
The midterms need to be campaigned on keeping our promises and fulfilling our committments to the Iraqis; and on corruption, incompetence, impeachment, and war crimes trials. If pardons are used, that is adequate evidence that we are a rogue nation incapable of policing itself, and Democrats must commit to handing administration officials over to Iraq or the Hague. I have told Josh Marshall what he can do with his Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
For forty years I have listened to Democrats crying “No More Wars” and watched the Republican mass murder and torture machines get worse and worse. It is unbearable to watch Negroponte move his tactics from Central America to Iraq. There will be wars. The next one will likely be nuclear if Democrats aren’t waging it.
Bob M – what about the women (and girls, and boys, and god forbid, men) who have suffered and died because we are there? When does that stop, if we don’t leave?
What leads you to believe Riverbend, or any other Iraqi is safer because we are there?
I think a great many people will die because we leave.
Almost as many as if we stay.
Jake
I guess I’m a little off-topic. If the topic is right-wing hypocrisy and cynicism, all that needs be said is I have not broken bread with a Republican for over twenty years. When my 80ish grandparents traveled 1000 miles to visit me, politics was not discussed, but I ate in another room.
That is a terrible thing, but I think torture is worse, and after forty years, I think I understand how it becomes possible. Over at Bainbridge, they are dissing McCain, and the main objection is his vote against the tax cuts.
“Let me make this short and simple. If Riverbend or someone like her is gangraped, tortured, and/or killed by Hakim or Sadr’s thugs because Americans didn’t have the decency to fix what our OUR President broke we are 300 million+ pieces of dirt.”
Posted by: bob mcmanus
Bob, you were and are a supporter of this invasion, and this war. After Bush’s performance, you have no right to call us anything other than ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am’. You wanted it, you got it, now you want to blame it on us.
“I think a great many people will die because we leave.
Almost as many as if we stay.”
If we are responsible, then…we are responsible. We are not responsible for Darfur. We cannot wash our hands of Iraq.
Allawi wants us to stay to protect himself. Hakim wants our air power to ethnic cleanse the West. I think the most likely outcome in our absence is that Sadr allies with the Baathists and Iraq becomes Hell on Earth.
“Bob, you were and are a supporter of this invasion, and this war. After Bush’s performance, you have no right to call us anything other than ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am’. You wanted it, you got it, now you want to blame it on us.”
1) It doesn’t matter what I wanted, the war was inevitable. The current anti-war loyalty oaths, recantations, and confessions demanded by the left blogosphere are a simple abdication of responsibility. Opposing the war didn’t make you blameless, only irrelevant and impotent. We needed more troops. “No troops” had no probability of saving lives.
2)This was not the war I wanted, executed the way I wanted. Bush has never recieved a kind word from me, nor anything but the most virulent vicious wingnut level of criticism.
3) Yeah, I blame the left. Less than the right, but the right isn’t worth dicussing, only…never mind. War is like politics, dirty and messy and corrupt. Saying you are above such things and will not participate only provides an opportunity for those who will actually enjoy taking your place, delivering an outcome you are not going to like. If there is ever an end to war, it is Democrats who will shoot it to death.
4) I call everyone “Sir” and “Ma’am”, even small children. The look on the face of a ten-yr-old when a grey-hair calls him “Sir” is quite pleasing.
Bob, I sympathize with your feelings about our staying.
Up until about 3 months ago, I woudl have argued for your side with a great deal of vociferousness. This even though I was against the invasion for a multitude of reasons.
I can’t identify the exact tipping point where I changed my mind. It may have been after a talk with my son, it may have been after reading some comments from someone. I just don’t know.
I don’t believe in an overnight withdrawal which would be practically impossible anyway. I can readily accept Murtha’s plan. I believe that we have been enabling the Iraqis without creating an incentive to really get their act together. And this creates a lot of the chaos.
Over the last several months, the percentage of Iraqis who see us as occupiers has increased, as has the percentage that feels it is legitimate to fight us.
As long as the Iraqis allwo those in the Iraqi army to serve 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off, their army can never be ready. BTW, that is information that my son passed on to me, and I can neither confirm nor deny its validity. At the same time, if we try to call too many of the shots, then they are not really a sovereign nation.
I hate having to chose between the lesser of two evils, and I hate worse being put into that position by the President of my country. Yet I think a gradual withdrawal with specific benchmarks laid out is reasonable.
What really ticks me off is that, despite multiple calls from democrats, Republicans and Iraqis, Bush has yet to specifically say that we have no desire for a permanent presence in Iraq.
I really think that would help, if we haven’t yet gotten to the point of no return.
Hersh & Jeanne d’Arc on the Future of Iraq
I tire.
Bad News
I grieve. The blogosphere has lost a wise and good man. His personal blogs, and his archives at BOPNews, are worth a visit.
Is President Bush Clueless?
IS PRESIDENT BUSH CLUELESS?….Over at Obsidian Wings, Hilzoy notes that conservative bloggers were predictably scathing toward Joe Biden’s op-ed in Saturday’s Post calling for “specific goals and a timetable for achieving each one” in Iraq. Comments r…
Is President Bush Clueless?
IS PRESIDENT BUSH CLUELESS?….Over at Obsidian Wings, Hilzoy notes that conservative bloggers were predictably scathing toward Joe Biden’s op-ed in the Washington Post calling for “specific goals and a timetable for achieving each one” in Iraq. Commen…
Opposing the war didn’t make you blameless, only irrelevant and impotent.
Bob: I often learn from your comments, but I’m confused about this. On one hand, you say that even if “no war” was the right policy, advocating it was a waste of time because it was entirely unrealistic. On the other hand, you call for (among other things) Democrats to campaign on turning American officials over to international war-crimes tribunals. Do you judge that to be a realistic strategy for winning? or is there another resolution to the apparent inconsistency?
Heading? Was it ever “good”?
There’s a world of difference between “not good” and “DU territory”.
For those who like to go out and argue in the comments sections of blogs, one rightwing argument has been that the Democrats are trying to cash in on the victory withdrawal.
However the message from the White House and elsewhere has been mixed. Military leaders and others have been hinting about cuts for months, the president at times has contradicted them. So the proper line is unknown.
Since much of the balance of the political opinion game depends on a propensity of a big chunk of people to simplify into pithy though not necessarily accurate formulations, I would say the right may lose some long points on this one. The same sort that could believe Saddam hit the towers will note that “withdrawal is for wusses” followed by the president getting all wussy and surrendering to his enemies. The fact that he might have had statesmanlike reasons will not be part of this perception.
I’m afraid it will pull a few percent off the “base” who will either go elsewhere in disgust or link with the new winners.
I just checked: none of the four bloggers I cited has yet commented on Bush’s embrace of Biden’s plan. In case anyone is keeping score.
“Do you judge that to be a realistic strategy for winning?”
Actually, I do, but I am famously a “heightening the contradictions” kinda guy.
You might note the caveats, which involved failed investigations, thwarted prosecutions and pardons, but it doesn’t matter. And it might take a couple of elections to redefine the party that shrugged its shoulders at the pardon of Weinberger and the return of Elliott Abrams and John Poindexter. Democrats are not noted for playing tough or mean, at least by their f***ing base. And part of the point is to provoke a right-wing overreaction.
In any case, we have gone too far this time. If President Hillary says she will obey int’l law and humans rights rules while letting those who inspired Abu Gharaib and the Rape of Fallujah go build their libraries the world will not believe her. A very powerful gesture will be required to restore not just our credibility, but any actual value to other countries participating in the various conventions. We have not simply lost moral standing, we have destroyed the post-WWII consensus.
In case anyone is keeping score.
This isn’t a question of keeping score, this is a question of disconfirmation, because it is the nature of science that one true counterexample means that the theory no longer has explanatory value. It looks like a pretty solid hypothesis.
I’ll be more than willing to let Bush get all the credit for Biden’s plan (which looks to me like an elaboration of Murtha’s). Let him take the credit, let him receive all the accolades of a great warrior and peacemaker. Just get our people the hell out, stop their needless deaths, slow the downward spiral of our national honor and dignity. Giving an incompetent leader undeserved credit is a small price to pay. Let him turn his attention to executing incompetent and destructive domestic policies. At least half of us have it coming. Nobody in Iraq voted for this halfwit.
Thunderous Silence
Apologies for light blogging. I returned to work today (only Monday, Thursday, and Friday, but 9-5:30 those days), and I’m a bit tired. Anyway, you can’t help but love reading this Obsidian Wings masterpiece on Joe Biden’s Iraq editorial and the Bush…
A very powerful gesture will be required to restore not just our credibility, but any actual value to other countries participating in the various conventions.
i can’t imagine any professional politician doing that.
A very powerful gesture will be required to restore not just our credibility, but any actual value to other countries participating in the various conventions.
You mean like a presidential candidate for one party going across the aisle and asking a previously leading presidential contender to be his vice president on a unity ticket? Nah, no one would ever think of such a thing.
(this is not a snark on anyone here, but just to a reminder of gestures past.)
Seen this? Bush may be planning to withdraw large numbers of US troops, but according to this, that just means the number of US airstrikes will step up.
Which means, yes, fewer US soldiers will die. But far more Iraqi civilians will die. I imagine that Bush sees this as a reasonable trade: his base never believed the Lancet study, and Iraqi civilians killed by airstrikes can always be declared to have been insurgents all along, anyway.
I hate to keep beating the only drum I own, but this is really Vietnam all over again. This is the “Nixon Doctrine” (1969) writ large – reduce the number of AMERICAN casualties by putting “natives” on the front line, while at the same time greatly increasing the US firepower expended. Replace (American) bodies in the field with technology … whole books have been written about this (I’m thinking of Gibson, The Perfect War, in particular).
It didn’t win the war in Vietnam. It did reduce American casualties and thus allow Nixon to masquerade as a peacemaker (and win the 1972 election).
As always, parallels to the present are to be constructed at your own risk. The provider of this historical service proffers no contemporary expertise.
I imagine that Bush sees this as a reasonable trade: his base never believed the Lancet study
I believe the Lancet study as much as I believe the claims that sanctions against Iraq killed 500,000.
Now if both figures are to be believed, then there has been no net change in loss of life between pre-invasion sanctions, and after Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Is there a response to washerdryer‘s comment above beside lj‘s, which I don’t follow?
I think rilkefan must be referring to some imposter I was unaware of, who spells his name without an “e” between the “r” and the “y,” but otherwise I second the question.
Just to be clear, I agree with LJ’s point that the Bush press release misleads about the content of Biden’s editorial, but I don’t see how that supports the claim that the same bloggers who attacked Biden should have attacked Bush.
I read the Captain Ed piece (which at least makes substantive claims, Hewitt’s just mocks the general idea of Biden writing an Op-ed without addressing it, and Paul seems to be disputing the idea that we should have a policy at all) to disagree with Biden precisely to the extent that Biden desires something more solid than “We’ll stand up as they stand down” and “We’re going to leave when we win, where winning is measured by [hand-waving].” The press-release agress with Biden to the extent he can be distorted into saying those things.
Shiite Death Squads
via Kevin Drum.
I agree with LJ’s point that the Bush press release misleads about the content of Biden’s editorial, but I don’t see how that supports the claim that the same bloggers who attacked Biden should have attacked Bush.
Thanks, wd and apologies if my comment came off as too strident but I re-read the CQ comment and I am still not impressed. Perhaps the CQ post represents a higher standard than the other three (though that bar is several inches under the ground, so clearing it is not really a question. I mean, titling a post ‘Clueless Joe’ kinda makes it clear. I guess one could argue that ‘Slow Joe’ implies that he is only now beginning to get with the WH program, and I would not be surprised if Hewitt would try to claim that)
However, the CQ post claims the op-ed “gets the entire war on terror fundamentally wrong” (which, tellingly, is the portion that GR quotes) which suggests that the WH should have a bit harder time claiming that Biden “Adopts Key Portions of Administration’s Plan for Victory in Iraq” I mean, if it is fundamentally wrong, it must be difficult to adopt it. I don’t think that is the end of the twistin’ and turnin’. Note how ‘military deployment is conflated with ‘what Americans want’
Biden postulates that the primary issue of a military deployment is when it will end:
The question most Americans want answered about Iraq is this: When will our troops come home?
Reading the rest of the piece really suggests that Ed (or should I say ‘Captain Ed’, which kind of gets to the heart of it) is the type who believes that playing Stratego and watching World at War qualifies him to discuss military matters. I mean this piece of idiocy
“deny transit for terrorists across Southwest Asia — as anyone who can read a map could see in about ten seconds.”
Yes, if we control Asia, we get 7 extra armies and if we take Australia, we might be able to get a Risk card! I mean, what distinguishes the WoT is that it now requires only a small handful of committed individuals, so ‘denying transit’ in some sort of Great Game sense is rank stupidity
And this:
“We have already shown success with Syria along these lines, with their full-blown retreat from Lebanon this year.”
Next, he will be proposing that we organize a dirty bomb in Marseilles to stiffen the backs of the frogs.
Also, I made the mistake of scrolling down through the comments. The first comment is by someone with the email of ‘trickydick’ (gee, who could that be a homage to?) and the second comment has this
“And, in American politics, what’s probably going to happen, ahead, as populations shift … and run from places like Michigan … You’ll have an influx of Arabs to live among the Blacks. Imitating Africa, only if Blacks can’t learn a thing from their own histories.”
Sheesh.
Again, sorry to continue to be strident on this, but I really don’t see any there there.
DaveC: I believe the Lancet study as much as I believe the claims that sanctions against Iraq killed 500,000.
So, you believe them both, because they’re both based on solid data, or you don’t believe them both, because…?
DaveC, if you believe that “there has been no net change in loss of life between pre-invasion sanctions, and after Operation Iraqi Freedom”, then either you haven’t read the Lancet study or you don’t believe it. It was a longitudinal study, designed to measure the change in mortality.
Bob, your multi-point post has been adequately refuted by others, so I won’t waste time (mine and others’) on further refutation. Suffice to say that it was a load of excuses and blame-shifting.
Best Post in The Blogsphere today
Never write a blog off for dead. Just as I was promising not to crawl Obsidian Wings again, Hilzoy rounds up the startling shift in right wing thinking and shows the essential emptiness of the right wing blogging community. The…
So, you believe them both, because they’re both based on solid data, or you don’t believe them both, because…?
I disbelieve them both. I am more inclined to believe Iraqi Body Count, although their numbers include combatants and people killed by terrorists.
I don’t know of a good alternative source for mortality data during the sanctions, but wonder if the 500,000 number includes the 100,000+ Shiites killed by Hussein’s regime.
The WH “blueprint” was made known weeks ago, picked up by a blogger:
Which makes this Biden sentence disengenuous: “The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help.” The administration has already set up that schedule, with the primary goal of 270,000 Iraqi troops trained to level two status by next August. Intellectual integrity indeed. The Washington Post should also get dinged for its intellectual integrity. The title misrepresents Biden’s four-step plan because the only timetable that Biden put forward was that his plan be implemented in the next six months.
The administration has already set up that schedule, with the primary goal of 270,000 Iraqi troops trained to level two status by next August.
And a pony!
Are those Level 2 Death Squads? And are they equipped with vorpal swords + 1?
“I disbelieve them both. I am more inclined to believe Iraqi Body Count, although their numbers include combatants and people killed by terrorists.”
Posted by: DaveC
DaveC, it’s been repeatedly mentioned that the Iraqi Body Count is counting a much more limited set of deaths.
“Bob, your multi-point post has been adequately refuted by others”
If you say so. Having lived thru Vietnam, Central America, and now Iraq; Somalia, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, etc; the indirect financing and support of God knows how many other conflicts, you might think that since the anti-war position hasn’t actually, you know, stopped any wars might be relevant.
(For those who say they supported the war in Afghanistan, until and unless there are thousands of casualties I would say you weren’t really tested.)
It apppears the Communist wing of the Democratic Party has been replaced by peaceniks: Useless and pointless and proud of it.
Yesterday It’s Bad , Today Not – What’s Different?
Yesterday Joe Biden announces a plan for Iraq. Right-wingers everywhere are up in arms, loudly proclaiming (as only the can) that Biden surrenders to terrorists, endangers America, sells out the troops, etc. Then today, Bush announces that this is actu…
Bob- The fact that there is a long list of wars the “peaceniks” didn’t prevent doesn’t prove that the list wouldn’t have been longer without them.
DaveC: I disbelieve them both.
Do you have any reason for disbelieving either of them, other than that they report information you plainly don’t like at all?
Hence the provision in the 2006 mandate to end the presence of coalition forces early if need be
Don’t worry Chas, I’m sure they will wait not have the bulk of the forces out before the end of May, thus allowing you to maintain that 6 months doesn’t equal immediate. Intellectual integrity indeed…
Cue Sunset
Eric Martin at LAT discusses a Fred Kaplan column.
“And so it appears (assuming the forecasts about the speech are true) that the White House is as cynical about this war as its cynical critics have charged it with being. For several months now, many of these critics have predicted that, once the Iraqis passed their constitution and elected a new government, President Bush would declare his mission complete and begin to pull out—this, despite his public pledge to “stay the course” until the insurgents were defeated.
This theory explains Bush’s insistence that the Iraqis draft and ratify the constitution on schedule—even though the rush resulted in a seriously flawed document that’s more likely to fracture the country than to unite it. For if the pullout can get under way in the opening weeks of 2006, then the war might be nullified as an issue by the time of our own elections.” …Kaplan
“Above all, I think it is important to note that, despite so many assurances and speeches to the contrary from the Bush (“stay the course”) team, and despite their willingness to hurl base insults at political opponents for mentioning things like timetables, any withdrawal from Iraq initiated over the next couple of months would not be based on positive developments with respect to the situation on the ground.”
Martin is wrong. Conditions on the ground never were relevant to the decision to withdraw. They probably planned to withdraw in time for the midterms before the war ever started.
Bush is the MBA President. I might that it goes:”I want a Constitution in the summer, elections around Christmas, and withdrawal in the spring of 2006. Now I will be at your side all the way, but I need to know if you can deliver that, or if I need to find somebody else that can. Okay, Great. Then that is what is gonna happen, and I hope you understand that I am the guy who changes other things, not somebody who changes his mind. That is the schedule, and that is what will go down.”
Now we know. The war was not at all about WMD, or terrorists, or any threats to the US, or about freedom for Iraqis. It was about showing up his daddy, getting the aircraft carrier moment, winning American elections, and raping Iraq and the American taxpayer for as much graft and corruption as they could carry off. At the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives lost or ruined.
And yet I still think freedom, market capitalism, and an end to religious extremism in the ME would not only be pretty and nice, but is absolutely essential for world stability. It appears nobody in this country wants to try. What I now expect to get is a radioactive desert.
Don’t worry Chas, I’m sure they will wait not have the bulk of the forces out before the end of May, thus allowing you to maintain that 6 months doesn’t equal immediate.
Wanna bet, LJ?
Wanna bet, LJ?
So you are going to admit pace Gary, that 6 months doesn’t mean immediate, or are you going to just go on changing the titles of your posts to cover your tracks? Betting games are only interesting when the opposite party has an understanding of consistent understanding of what the propositions they make actually represent. I also seem to recall that you had some problems using the phrase “intellectual integrity” previous, and it does not look like you have climbed much further on the learning curve. Though that was painfully obvious when you posted your Murtha is a Loser-Defeatist and meditate on the fact that accusing a decorated Marine of “betraying’ his country and now have the gall to cite an article that suggests that troop pullouts are set for 2006. My embarassment for you is palpable…
Required Reading
Democracy Arsenal;Suzanne Nossel; an interesting comment by the should be legendary Dan Kervick; and I provided a couple paragraphs from Juan Cole, who isn’t opening.
I hope this is just a fake, and a precipitous and irresponsible withdrawal is not in the cards, but Bush seemed far too eager to achieve his Constitution milestone, so I bet it is real.
Charles,
Which makes this Biden sentence disengenuous: “The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help.” The administration has already set up that schedule, with the primary goal of 270,000 Iraqi troops trained to level two status by next August. Intellectual integrity indeed.
Indeed. 90 battalions. Wow.
Of course, you’d also have to take into account that, 6 weeks ago, Gen. George Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there was exactly 1 (ie *ONE*) battalion “rated by U.S. officers as capable of fighting without U.S. help” (‘Iraqi Military Not Ready For Solo’, AP 09-29-05). Weirdly, there had been 3 earlier. So, evidence of progress on this front is lacking.
So, maybe Biden, being in the Senate and all, caught wind of this revelation. And he thought it might be a good thing for *the president* (you did read that part of his sentence, right?) to step up to the plate and put down some hard numbers for the American people. Because it does make a great deal of difference when the president puts his weight behind something in public.
As opposed to now, when the Pentagon is planning force drawdowns for the ’06 midterms (oops, I mean ‘when all those 90 battalions are ready’), but the administration is still blustering about a “generational commitment”.
Wu
PS It’s a mystery to me why anyone thinks that 300k heavily armed Shia are going to turn Iraq into a democracy. They’re already drilling holes in peoples’ heads, this is not going to start getting better 1)when they’re trained or 2)when we leave.
“It apppears the Communist wing of the Democratic Party has been replaced by peaceniks: Useless and pointless and proud of it.”
Posted by: bob mcmanus
As opposed to the GOP – lying, traitorous, murderous, and even prouder of it?
“As opposed to the GOP – lying, traitorous, murderous, and even prouder of it?”
I will go to my grave having never voted for a Republican. Given a choice among Stalin, Hitler, and Bush, I would have to flip a coin. That’s a joke. I would love to see the GOP in my lifetime cease to exist, perhaps split into a Conservative and a Libertarian Party. It is not inconceivable that something there might appeal.
I don’t want Democrats to gain a few seats or gain control. I want them to utterly dominate. Ruy Teixeira’s latest poll shows that the American people still trust Republicans more on defense and security. That has been killing us for thirty years. I want to win.
“I want to win.”
YUP!
“YUP!”
By which I mean, Barry, this quote from a Republican Congressional aide to Mark Shields, via DKOS:
“If the House Republicans want to make Jake Murtha the face of the Democratic Party, then Republicans will really be trounced next year”
We can fight later. In power, not out of power. The venue is better.
Look at it this way. President Bob McManus restores some semblance of sanity to domestic policy, by which I mean not destroying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Yellowstone Park … pick your issue.
So far so good.
Then he sends 50 million Americans to the Mideast to do whatever it is he thinks he wants to do.
Then, you and I, Barry, head for Texas as ferocious peaceniks, throw our sleeping bags on Bob’s lawn and settle in for the long haul.
But we’ll cross that bridge after we actually find the bridge.
😉
“Jake” Murtha? Who’s he?
“I don’t want Democrats to gain a few seats or gain control. I want them to utterly dominate. Ruy Teixeira’s latest poll shows that the American people still trust Republicans more on defense and security. That has been killing us for thirty years. I want to win.”
Posted by: bob mcmanus
Then stop supporting Republican wars of choice. As for having to flip a coin to choose between Bush, Hitler and Stalin – uh huh.
“Then he sends 50 million Americans to the Mideast to do whatever it is he thinks he wants to do.”
50 million Americans will do in Iraq the only things Americans remain capable of doing: consume junk, argue politics & religion, sell worthless paper assets to each other. Under Hague convention, the Americans won’t own or run anything, so the Iraqis will be running the Walmarts and Buffalo Wing walk-thrus, with product supplied by China in exchange for oil. It won’t be long before the Iraqis are rich enough to retire in Portugal and Belize.
Umm, coincidentally the number of Registered Republicans is somewhere near 50 million. Just saying.
You can come on down and camp on my lawn any ole time, Thullen. Though after a year of drought, we Texans are showing dust storms on our weather radar(God’s truth!) and our Governor is running the state out of a Baptist church, so Iraq might look good by comparison.
Abandoning Iraq prematurely was always a bad idea
Some of you may have noticed that an awful lot of respectable terrorism experts ranging from Rohan Gunaratna to Evan Kohlmann to Reuven Paz to B. Raman, many of whom opposed the war in Iraq…
Picking up something from upthread:
“I hope this is just a fake, and a precipitous and irresponsible withdrawal is not in the cards, but Bush seemed far too eager to achieve his Constitution milestone, so I bet it is real.”
Posted by: bob mcmanus
I assume that Bush really wants to have something that he can call a withdrawal by the mid-term elections. Fudging the numbers, of course, is something that he is perfectly happy with. So he could have something which is billed as a drawdown, but isn’t (e.g., units which are ‘stationed’ in Kuwait, but spend their time in the Sunni Triangle).
Unfortunately for us all, irresponsibility is also a Bush core trait.
Gen. George Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there was exactly 1
Misleading, Carlton. Fred Barnes addressed it here (as well as Bush’s poor communication of same). The important measure for the security forces is level 2, not level 1, as Murdoc ably noted (more here).
So you are going to admit pace Gary, that 6 months doesn’t mean immediate, or are you going to just go on changing the titles of your posts to cover your tracks?
I covered no tracks, LJ, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Apparently, you didn’t understand my “six months” post, and your stating that I wrote that Murtha betrayed his country is a smear. Yep, you’re the one to talk about learning curves all right. You don’t have a clue.
Charles,
If Bush cannot explain something as simple as this, then he is truly incompetent.
But I strongly suspect that he could communicate the nuts and bolts of the situation- ergo, I conclude that he does not want to.
If he explains that we’re prioritizing getting troops up to the level to fight with embedded US troops, he’s committing to a long stay in Iraq (with reduced troop levels). Given that many Americans want a plan to bring *all* of the troops home, this might not play well domestically.
Contrawise, if he explicitly puts an emphasis on getting Iraqi units to level 1- a long-term commitment- he loses the political flexibility to bring home a bunch of troops mid-06, just in time to declare “mission accomplished” again for another election.
Basically, *any* real plan by the administration would limit that flexibility- thus, the ‘plan’ that had to be ‘declassified’ is just a bunch of positive bullet-points about how wonderful we’re doing. No quantifiable goals, no numbers, nothing.
Which is why Biden was demaning that *the president* step up and deliver a plan. Even if it’s not politically convenient for him to do so, it’s very necessary for the country.
I know that this isn’t a complicated concept, but you insist on not grasping it, and defending the point using low-level Pentagon press releases and inferences based on them. The president, or one of the other top people in the adminstration, has to articulate something more in-depth than the recent press-release “plan”.
Actually, Im surprised that you aren’t screaming for this as well, since it would support the victory that you claim to be in the process of willing into being. Or, Id be surprised, *if* I thought you cared much about Iraq, as opposed to caring about the political fortunes of the GOP.
Charles, 12-01
your stating that I wrote that Murtha betrayed his country is a smear…
Charles, 11-18
Murtha is betraying the American soldiers who have been there.
He betrays his country’s army, but not his country. Right.
His proposal is a path toward loss and defeat, but does this make Murtha a loser-defeatist by dint of his policy? There’s really no need to go there… Yet the post still claims that He is a loser-defeatist.
Have I got that all right now? You’re not questioning Murtha’s patriotism despite his betrayl of our troops, and his status as a loser-defeatist is still up in the air.
Charles, if anyone is smearing your reputation, it’s *you*.
But Carlton, there was almost a whole two weeks between the first comment and the last! Birdian thought evolves!
Carleton, it is my reluctant conclusion that Charles will never understand that intellectual integrity requires taking responsibility for what one writes and, as your juxtaposed excerpts deomnstrate, Chas continues to be unable to do that. This is a painful conclusion to come to, because as a teacher, one should always try to assume that people are capable of learning, but the fact that no one has really jumped all over Chas about this latest foray with the gusto and brio of the old days suggests that others are realizing it too.
Contrawise, if he explicitly puts an emphasis on getting Iraqi units to level 1- a long-term commitment- he loses the political flexibility to bring home a bunch of troops mid-06, just in time to declare “mission accomplished” again for another election.
Not true, Carlton. If you had read Murdoc, which it appears you have not, you would have found this:
Emphasis Murdoc’s.
The Democrats, including Biden, have no coherent response. Bush communicates a plan, but Biden says there’s no plan, as if White House didn’t put out a 35-page pdf. Feingold demands a plan, and then when he gets one, he changes the subject. It’s never good enough for the liberal rejectionists.
Have I got that all right now? You’re not questioning Murtha’s patriotism despite his betrayl of our troops, and his status as a loser-defeatist is still up in the air.
Reading comprehension, Carlton. A person can still have the wrong ideas and still be a patriot. A person can still be betray those troops who believe Iraq is a noble cause and still be a patriot. I know that this isn’t a complicated concept, but you insist on not grasping it…well, never mind.
I know that this isn’t a complicated concept, but you insist on not grasping it…
Maybe because it doesn’t make sense?
It doesn’t to me.
If you someone has betrayed the troops, in the field, of a war….
…um, that’s treason. As has been suggested, take ownership of your words.
Charles,
It’s not that it’s a complicated concept- it’s that it’s an obvious boatload of bullshit. I don’t think there’s a person reading this thread who doesn’t see through your sad attempt to backpedal.
If you had a single shred of intellectual integrity, you would’ve admitted some time ago that you’d gone overboard in saying Murtha had betrayed our troops (and yes, by extension, our country). It would be an easy position to step back from; every blogger makes posts that they later regret, particularly about such a charged subject.
But instead your chosen to engage in some ludicrous hyper-parsing and (apparently) redefining of words, so that betraying the troops doesn’t mean betraying the country, and betraying the troops is not unpatiotic.
What’s truly pathetic about this is that you lack the courage to defend your initial labeling of Murtha as a traitor and simultaneously lack the self-confidence to admit you were wrong.
And, apparently, you lack the intelligence to notice that *everyone* can see through your smokescreen.
Charles,
If you’d read what I said when you quoted it, you would’ve realized that I said “level 1” not “level 2”. Whereas the Murdoc quote is about troops being trained to level 2.
Reading comprehension, Charles. I’ve heard it’s very important. 😉
My point was: if Bush says that we’re aiming for training all Iraqi troops to level 2, then he will also be saying that some of our troops will be in Iraq for a year or longer (since those Iraqi troops will need our support) but perhaps less directly involved in the fighting.
Whereas, if Bush says that we’re aiming for getting enough Iraqi troops to level 1 (ie a level where *all* the troops can come home), significant numbers of troops will be there for a year or more, because that’s going to take more time.
Either way, our strategy commits us to be there for a year or more, either in whole units (with level 1 Iraqi troops fighting indepedently elsewhere) or piecemeal (supporting level 2 units). But this has not been articulated to the American people by the president. Someone willing to do the legwork can demonstrate that our current strategy implies this, but most people are not doing that sort of legwork.
They are relying on the administration to communicate what our goals are and how we will reach them. Something more specific that “victory” and “when we get there”.
The vast majority of the American people do not read Pentagon press releases. They rely on the major figures of the adminstration to explain what we are doing and what the plan is. And, I suspect that the vast majority do not know how long we plan on being in Iraq or what specific criteria we will be using to decide when to bring troops home.
Bush did publish a 35-page plan, but you’ll not find any of these vital details in it. Which is important- if, 6 months from now, it becomes politically expedient for Bush to declare victory and withdraw, IMO he may very well do that (in fact, I think you’ve already had this epiphany well in advance!). Whereas a plan with clear, quantifiable goals would not give him that sort of wiggle room.
That is why I said that you are apparently far less concerned about Iraq than about the GOP- someone who was truly concerned about Iraq would strongly support an explicit plan from the highest levels of the administration: it would commit the US to those quantifiable goals, it would make the path to victory and the costs clear to the average American, and it would silence the critics (like me) who say that the adminstration has not yet released such a plan for political reasons.
But you don’t; instead, you are hostile to the folks who call for a clear, quantifiable statement of our objectives. The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from this (and from your history of “withdrawl is betrayl” posts followed by “we should withdraw” posts) is that you are purely interested in domestic politics.
in my earlier post (1-1-05, 3:30pm) I said “to fight with embedded US troops- this should’ve been “to fight with US troops in support”, which is not the same thing.
Carleton, that was a very perceptive post, about the lack of clear goals.
I don’t think there’s a person reading this thread who doesn’t see through your sad attempt to backpedal.
What backpedal? You pigheadedly refuse to see the distinction.
But you don’t; instead, you are hostile to the folks who call for a clear, quantifiable statement of our objectives. The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from this (and from your history of “withdrawl is betrayl” posts followed by “we should withdraw” posts) is that you are purely interested in domestic politics.
If you want to continue to be confused about the differences between strategy and tactics while at the same time accusing me of putting politics over country, well, whatever. Another distinction pigheadedly not made.
“If you want to continue to be confused about the differences between strategy and tactics while at the same time accusing me of putting politics over country, well, whatever.”
Interesting, it’s rather easy to read Mr. Henke’s post as confusing “strategy” and ” goals,” and a bit more difficult not to. And interestingly, I see that Ezra Klein came to the same, rather obvious, conclusion. Henke responds:
That would be because Henke stated goals, not a strategy, and because “strategy” and “goals” are precisely as mutually exclusive — or not — as “strategy” and “tactics” are.
I read a lot from our government about our military/political goals. I read a lot of accounts in the news and blogs of tactical situations. I read very little to nothing at all that comes from the Administration or DoD about our strategy in Iraq. But YMMV. (Certainly I’ll agree that the Democratic Party doesn’t have a unified stance on the war, but that’s neither here nor there; Congressional Reps rather rarely have unified stances, particularly on putting forth a military strategy; the Republicans in Congress aren’t astonishingly coherent, either; it’s the Executive that has to be coherent, not Congress. But such an observation is quite redundant.
Charles,
Like I said, it’s sad to see you attempt to argue that betraying the troops is compatible with being a patriot. Or, not even argue, just assert it over and over. There is no debate to be had here- if you will not own up to your own words, so be it.
Bringing up a completely new point (strategy v tactics) while accusing me of ‘not getting it’ is pretty lame, too. Since you hadn’t mentioned it at all before, what was it I was supposed to get? Especially since you got it wrong…
Im not confuising strategy and tactics- you’re confusing strategy and goals. The link you cited defines strategy as “a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal” and “strategy is the overall plan.”
So, if someone asks for a *long-term plan of action*, that’s asking for a strategy. To reduce it to an example that even your limit capacities should be able to grasp:
In the game of chess,
The goal is checkmate
A strategic plan might be to disrupt the opponent’s queenside pawn structure and then trade off pieces for a favorable endgame. “Double the opponent’s pawns on the C-file” is a subgoal, and could be part of this strategy, but isn’t a strategy in and of itself.
The tactics are obviously the development of the pieces, the various combinations, pins, etc.
The author of the link you provided has the same problem. A single idea such as “train Iraqi troops” isn’t a strategy- a comprehensive strategy describes how the various subgoals fit together to achieve success.
That is a simple way to tell the two apart- if it’s a laundry list, then they’re goals. If it’s a coherent story about how one subgoal then leads to the next and finally leads to victory (and how to cope with various alternatives that might crop up), it’s a strategy. So his statement I’m not sure why Ezra claims that clear areas/hold areas/train Iraqi security forces” are “goals”, rather than a strategy… demonstrates his confusion between the two. Ezra isn’t asking for more details about the training methods (ie tactics)- he’s asking for a coherent story about how all these goals fit together and build on one another towards a clear final goal. That is, a strategy.
____
Of course, this is just another side track; you still cannot articulate why Bush should fail to produce more details about our mission in Iraq and what milestones will allow us to bring specific groups of soldiers home.
You cannot do this because you know that you will defend whatever position Bush takes, whether it’s bringing troops home in six months, bringing them home in 2 years, or leaving them for the medium-term. Because you don’t care that much about Iraq in and of itself, but you care a great deal about defending Bush.
Unfortunately for you, Bush hasn’t given anyone an indication what he’s planning to do, so your forced into the rather amusing position of defending every possible scenario. Of defending the idea that Bush *shouldn’t* tell the people what our specific goals are or what the achievement of those goals would mean.
Once Bush makes his final goal clear (whether it is “call it a win and get the hell out” or “stay and support the Iraqis for as long as they want us”), Im sure that you’ll be first in line to tell everyone how Bush’s newly-articulated strategy is the optimum path for reaching our worldwide strategic goals, and that all who oppose it are (patriotic) betrayers of our troops.
If you want to continue to be confused about the differences between strategy and tactics while at the same time accusing me of putting politics over country, well, whatever.
You know, I wish they would teach colonels in the Marines like Murtha the difference between strategy and tactics. Maybe you could apply to teach at Quantico. You could even make webpages with links to help them out.
Ah, Gary, you have beaten me to the punch. But I, in turn, have beaten lj, so it’s not all bad. 🙂
Like Gale Sayers, I am Third… (nice to have Gary back, btw)
Perhaps, but only someone being dishonest pretends to not know that we have had a strategy from the very beginning of that war and we have consistently tried to implement it using various tactics and adapting as we go.
creek,
Since you apparently know the strategy, maybe you’d like to let us in on the secret.
For example, can you tell me when the bulk of the US troops will be coming home? Not some useless platitude like “when the job is done”- something more like “when the bulk of the new Iraqi army can operate independently of US support” or “when sectarian violence is reduced to a background and all three sides appear willing to sort of their differences politically”.
Of course, you’ll need to not just pick from those options (or any other you’d care to suggest)- you’ll need to demonstrate that the administration has clearly articulated this strategy.
Good luck with that.
Wu
I’d second Wu’s call. Rather than accusing people of dishonesty, how about laying out what you think the strategy is? Remember that even if you do that, the strategy may be problematic, as the Israelis are coming to realize
Nope, can’t answer that. That’s part of the loser strategy. Not Bush’s strategy. Interesting how your first issue deals bringing the troops home? Is that all that interests you? Is having a timeline for pull out the crux of a good strategy to you?
If you are so concerned about the troops maybe we should look at what they think is best strategy in Iraq.
If I knew the exact plan disclosing it would be aiding the enemy. That’s what makes all the fuss about Bush not revealing all the military details of a plan so interesting. Revealing everything would only help the enemy. Why do so many want Bush to deliver the plan to the enemy? One can only wonder.
While I know that many here don’t have a problem with that I personally do.
If you can’t listen to Bush and discern the strategy there is nothing I can do to help you. I’ve personally understood the strategy in Iraq since the beginning of the invasion. It’s really not that complex. Implementing it on an unpredicatable enemy is always the challenge. We must remain flexible and learn to adapt the plan as we go.
Every good business does this. And we are also doing this in Iraq. BDS has just blinded many to that fact.
Maybe this link will help you.
http://www.secondbreakfast.net
Since you apparently know the strategy, maybe you’d like to let us in on the secret.
The Strategy
For example, can you tell me when the bulk of the US troops will be coming home?
No timetable, strategy does not necessarily state a timetable, but I’d guess not before 3 years or so.
Other observations here and here.
“That’s part of the loser strategy.”
We should rename it “The Loser-Defeatist Powell Doctrine,” I guess.
“If I knew the exact plan disclosing it would be aiding the enemy.”
Talk about confusing tactics and strategy! (Or faintly more clearly: tactical planning and strategic planning.)
“Why do so many want Bush to deliver the plan to the enemy? One can only wonder.”
It’s because we hate America. Haven’t you heard?
But
If I knew the exact plan disclosing it would be aiding the enemy.
This is presumably why Murtha is in the dark about it as well.
DaveC,
Bush’s strategy paper wasn’t one. It contained many platitudes, but virtually no specifics. I do agree that a timetable isn’t a necessary part of a good strategy in Iraq (although it might be very useful), but I also think that a real strategy would have to address things like Kurdish separatism, the dangers of an Iranian-dominated theocracy, and the risks of all-out civil war. Address by discussing the nature of those problems and how we’re going to defuse them, not address by saying ‘we will succeed because we have the will, and will accept nothing less than success’. The will to succeed is important, but so is a plan.
creek,
CW:For example, can you tell me when the bulk of the US troops will be coming home?
Nope, can’t answer that. That’s part of the loser strategy. Not Bush’s strategy.
Uh, you may be backpedaling sooner than you think. Condoleezza Rice on CNN (11/22)- “I suspect that American forces are not going to be needed in the numbers that they are now that much longer.
Personally, I think we either leave immediately (as tactical considerations dictate) or stay for several years. Im not sure that the American people have the stomach to stay for several more years- but Im pretty sure that they won’t if no one ever tells them what they’re accomplishing and what they need to accomplish in order to be successful- so that all they hear are casualty reports and sloganeering (“failure is not an option” kind of crap).
creek again
Interesting how your first issue deals bringing the troops home? Is that all that interests you? Is having a timeline for pull out the crux of a good strategy to you?
Not at all, but thanks for the ungenerous and inaccurate assumption. It is 1)something that the American people are very interested in and 2)a good example of something that isn’t being addressed.
Having specific criteria for success, that I consider essential for a good strategy. Not sufficient, but certainly necessary.
If I knew the exact plan disclosing it would be aiding the enemy. That’s what makes all the fuss about Bush not revealing all the military details of a plan so interesting. Revealing everything would only help the enemy. Why do so many want Bush to deliver the plan to the enemy? One can only wonder.
Ok, first we’re all liars for saying that we don’t know the strategy (so it must be everywhere, right?), and now the strategy is so secret that it cannot be revealed. You’ve managed to grok it with no difficultly based on Bush’s speeches, but explaining it to us would mean revealing it to the terrorists.
Uh huh. Tell you what, come back when you’ve made up your mind. Or, at a minimum, you can argue without tripping over your own friggin feet.
DaveC,
I checked out the links you pointed to. I disagree with the author- who admits his lack of knowledge about military matters.
Im no expert either, but I do know that von Moltke was preaching to Prussian army officers who lived and died by Planning. Every. Detail. His emphasis to them was on the necessity to improvise within the plan, or even to change the plan if necessary- because that was a potential weakness in their mindset.
From his history and the nature of the German army of that period, one cannot extrapolate into “don’t have a plan, it’s just gonna fall apart when we meet the enemy anyway” or “the plan is unimportant once contact with the enemy has been made.” Moltke was talking about *changing* plans, not trying to run a war without them.
Are you arguing in support of that kind of idea? That, since the plan didn’t survive our initial expectations of Iraq, we don’t need a plan anymore?
(Im not trying to attribute that viewpoint to you, just trying to understand why you offered that link when asked what the plan was).
His second-to-last para is correct, I think- in order to win you need the will to win and the support of the people. Keeping a stiff upper lip is a good thing, etc.
But those aren’t plans, and they aren’t subsitutes for plans.
Gary,
Well, I have been reading this site and that did occur to me at the time. I think it is more that their hatred of Bush has blinded many. But from reading here it does seem that many hate America also.
Carl,
I guess this was too complex for you to understand.
Maybe you missed where I stated implementation was the difficult part and the part that we shouldn’t share in detail with the enemy.
There will be no backpedaling. We have known from the very beginning that troops will come home as soon as they are not needed. But to set some exact number is foolish because the situation is fluid.
Obviously it is late and you are tired. Or else you would have understood this comment.
That’s what makes all the fuss about Bush not revealing all the military details of a plan so interesting.
It’s not me that is confusing an overall strategy and the military details for implementing said strategy.
It’s really not that complex for most.
It’s really not that complex for most.
Is 39% most? Bear in mind that this is from 21 June. I’m sure that everyone has got on board since then.
And at risk of over-emphasizing the point, following said doctrine is probably why we lost the 1991 Gulf War.
There’s plenty more one could say on this topic, and on what various counter-insurgent doctrines and strategies have been, and what historic “strategic plans” have been, and a wide variety of technical points, but, really, discussion at this sort of “If I knew the exact plan disclosing it would be aiding the enemy” level is just silly. Incredibly silly. A strategy isn’t a lot of tactical plans added together. Even something as simplistically basic as “we will defeat the Germans as our top priority over defeating the Japanese” is not a Secret That Must Not Be Revealed.
But Carleton’s comments on this have all been quite right. And I fear I do not have room in the margins of this comment to elaborate. (Yeah, okay, of course I do; I’m just being lazy and I have different Strategic Priorities, doncha know. [tonight they tend to involve watching DVDs, reading, and other such indulgences].)
“But from reading here it does seem that many hate America also.”
Interesting deduction. Can you perhaps name three such people, and cite some evidence for this assertion?
Do please note that loving America and being critical of its flaws, and the flaws of its government, or the flaws of governmental actions, are not in the least incompatible, or uncommon, and none of the latter are evidence of “hatred of America.”
Creek,
If your statement about not revealing the plan to the enemy was about specific tactics, then
1)it was a non sequitur, since we were talking about strategy. I didn’t ask for tactical details. Pardon me for assuming that you were continuing to talk about what we had been talking about previously rather than going off on a completely unrelated tangent.
2)you didnt read the first parts of the thread before commenting, as this particular dodge has already been tried, unsuccessfully, by Charles. No one is asking for counterinsurgency tactics or patrol schedules.
Why introduce a non sequitur like that one? Becuase you’d claimed to know the plan- that any fool would know the plan- but then couldn’t actually articulate the plan when called on it.
So you threw out some bullshit. You said that the plan was too secret for us to know.
I’m not east coast, it’s not late, and you still haven’t produced the plan that you said was so obvious. And you’ve conceeded that the strategic parts of the plan aren’t super-mega-secret. So, spill the beans already, willya?
Gary,
per Charles earlier, even betraying American troops is in the finest traditions of American patriotism. Given that low of a bar, Id have to guess that proof of folks hating America would have to be pretty spectacular.
(Either that, or creek has concluded that Charles hates America bc he thinks that betraying our troops is A-Ok).
Carleton,
Obviously, I agree with you, but “b**ls**t” is violating the posting rules, I think (though it is pretty mild to me, given that Creek just called me dishonest and then suggests that the comment was misunderstood. Yet another person who can’t own up to what they say, which, sadly, is not a posting rules violation)
My apologies. Thanks for the warning LJ, Ill try to keep my nose clean.
Just looking over the comments, it appears that both creek,DaveC and Charles agree that there is a clear plan.
But Dave thinks (well, guesses) that our goals will take 3 years, at least. Whereas creek’s version of the plan is compatible with a relatively quick withdrawl. And we all know that Charles recently opined that we should leave in 6 months, mission accomplished.
Sounds like everyone has the plan they like in mind when they think of Bush’s plan. Which, I suspect, is one of thge main benefits of Bush’s failure to produce a concrete plan…
But Dave thinks (well, guesses) that our goals will take 3 years, at least.
Way, way more than 3 years. I’d say a generation at least. See, I really do think Iraq is a part of the GWOT.
creek: “But from reading here it does seem that many hate America also.”
This is a serious insult. I’m with Gary: would you care to substantiate it?
This is a serious insult. I’m with Gary: would you care to substantiate it?
creek, hang in there. There are many many bad people on Obwi (John thullen, for instance:), and eventually everybody feels the wrath of Gary Farber, but it is a good place to check out where the pointy headed liberal professors are coming from. They don’t hate America, they just hate hotdogs, apple pie, baseball ond both kinds of music (Country and Western).
John thullen, for instance:)
Smile when you say that, DaveC!
(missing a “-“)
Are you arguing in support of that kind of idea? That, since the plan didn’t survive our initial expectations of Iraq, we don’t need a plan anymore?
(Im not trying to attribute that viewpoint to you, just trying to understand why you offered that link when asked what the plan was).
I think what she was saying is that the military strategy was focused on deposing Hussein. I think the that the State Dept, and intelligence agencies have failed much more than the military, even during the invasion. (Turkey not allowing troops to cross into Iraq from their borders as one example) Now, the military is continuing to be successful, and we are depending on Iraqis to make the right choices, rather than impose an imperialistic strong-man govt there, and everybody is complaining about that.
“and eventually everybody feels the wrath of Gary Farber,”
Well, revenge is a dish best served cold. I’ve heard tell.
Shame I’ve generally preferred gagh (properly served, of course) to it. I’ve just never gotten the whole grudge/revenge/vengeance thing down the way I’m told I’m supposed to. Not evah.
Not despite multiple lesons over decades. Shame, perhaps. Or not.
But I’m damn bad about smacking a lot of people with snark, sometimes vertent, and other times inadvertent, absolutely, m’lud.
Sometimes I’m a Klingon bastard, and sometimes I’m not. Sometimes I’m just a breath mint, or a floor wax. Sometimes i’m not.
“…but it is a good place to check out where the pointy headed liberal professors are coming from.”
I’ve had only 3 months of college, myself, actually. Are you some kinda intellechul bastich who went further? (I did take a couple of “Publishing Graduate” courses at NYU in the Eighties, in an attempt to help my then-career, but they had considerably less intellectual depth than I’d hope a decent origami course would have; they were literaly more about paperfolding, or at that level, than not, and yet less useful.)
“They don’t hate America, they just hate hotdogs, apple pie, baseball ond both kinds of music (Country and Western).”
But we loves us some Blues Brothers! Loves them! I do, anyway. And good hot-dogs. (Man, I read the other day that Gray’s Papaya now charges more than $.50, not that you care, you America-hater; how often have you eaten at Nathan’s at the actual Coney Island, you traitor-loser?) And the apple pie I ate the other week was, alas, likely the most sensuous experience I’ve had in a few months.
I wish I was kidding. But the truth will just have to do in an I-Love-America-More contest.
(Rest assured I take this as seriously as you do, DaveC, just as my hate for you is as undying as I suspect yours is for me, and, y’know what? My suspicions tend to work out okay.)
both kinds of music (Country and Western)
DaveC, if I ever meet you in person, I’ll thump you upside the head with my Patsy Cline collection. ;^)
This is possibly a decent time to point out the obvious, which is that DaveC, for all his curious poses as a commenter, tends to have a generally under-appreciated skill at humor.
Cleverly hidden behind his ostensibly dumb and obvious humor, is often significantly less dumb and obvious humor!, often to the point of being actually — how do you say? — clever and not entirely obvious!
I’ve heard tell. Even through my often-felt, well-known, wrath.
What would be good for a wrathp in one’s throat, anyhoo?
(Hmm: possibly should have gone with the sleeping, and the non-commenting; also should likely have knocked off with the meta-commentary-thinking; history says that I usually regret posting such.)
under-appreciated
Speak for yourself, man.
Had Gary not gotten here first, as he is wont to do, I would have said: I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the Wrath of Farber. The Annoyance of Farber, yes; the Bewilderment, faux and real, of Farber; the Snark of Farber; Farber’s Provision of More Detail Than You Thought Possible — all these, but never wrath.
Hmm.
I’d pay good money to see that,
as long as Ricardo Montalban plays GF.
🙂
DaveC: They don’t hate America, they just hate hotdogs, apple pie, baseball ond both kinds of music (Country and Western).
I’ll cop to hating hotdogs, baseball, and most kinds of commercially-made apple pie (the apples are too sweet and the crust is too floppy): but hate Country and Western? Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson are my gods.
In January, Riders in the Sky have a 1 week gig with the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra
“I’ll cop to hating hotdogs,”
Well, yes, the British version of “hotdogs” is likely as nauseating as the elder (contemporary?; I couldn’t say] version of the “pizza” that one might find in Britain. Not to mention what they claim to be a “hamburger.”
Is there anyone who has ever sampled both who doesn’t hate British versions of “American food”? (And likely vice versa, I expect.)
Probably, but I also likely don’t want to know.
Clue: what’s often served in Britain as a “hot dog” or “hamburger” or “pizza” does not actually reflect view in mirror, or America, shameful country that we are.
When I visited Britain, the food was great. The only exceptions were the truly, deeply, horrific, things they presented as “American” foods. Wow, they were inedible. As is legendary, what was called “pizza” was, yes, horrific.
And nothing like I’ve ever tasted in, you know, America.
(As usual, this dynamic is rather universal, I suspect.)
DaveC,
Way, way more than 3 years. I’d say a generation at least. See, I really do think Iraq is a part of the GWOT.
This, I think, is the (meta)difference between your position and that of creek & Charles. You are willing to go on the record with policy recommendations- because your primary concern is how well we handle Iraq. And I suspect (or, at least, hope) that you would express dissatisfaction if Bush went in a different direction.
Fortunately, there are many conservatives (pardon me if that’s not how you would describe yourself) who have such principled positions on the war. Unforunately, there are also quite a few who are unwilling to explicitly stake out a position prior to the administration doing so…
All this to get around to saying- you seem like a good guy, I hope we can have more disagreements in the future. 🙂
Is there anyone who has ever sampled both who doesn’t hate British versions of “American food”? (And likely vice versa, I expect.)
I really loved the Deli sandwich I ate at MacDonald last month in London 🙂
Do I understand correctly that you consider Pizza to be American food???
I like TexMex in America, hate everything that uses what you call cheese, and usually order medium one-person portions to feed the family from 🙂
“Do I understand correctly that you consider Pizza to be American food???”
Sure. Opines differ as to whether it originates in New Haven or Chicago, although I’m more with the former. You don’t have the silly notion it came from Italy, surely? (No, actually and really, claiming that the Italian version is the same as the American is just, well, wrong; possibly this is why Britain gets it wrong, and maybe others as well; it’s like claiming that noodles are only right if they are Chinese/Italian.)
Italian pizza is fine, but it’s not at all what is served in either Britain or America. (Not that there’s a lack of variables in either country, of course.)
Don’t get me started on bagels.
I had a Viet Namese neighbor in Seattle who invited me over for dinner. In an effort to please me he cooked what he thought was American food: Spam.
“I like TexMex in America,”
Incidentally, I, for one, have absolutely no idea what this means. Other than it might mean something yellow and something red on your food. Mostly my experience is that that’s all it means. Mostly.
“hate everything that uses what you call cheese,”
Um, I call it fermented milk. I’ll heartily agree that there tend to be far greater ranges of choices in British supermarkets than in average American supermarkets, and I can extrapolate from my sadly deeply limited experience that that means that European supermarkets have a far better range of cheeses — which clearly means I want some — but the above seems a tad blurry to me. I’m quite willing to believe that many things served, both in America and in Europe, as typical of “cheese” in America is awful. It seems to be an unfortunately variable term.
I’d far prefer a local Tescos to my (non-existent, due to local) local A&P or my local Safeway, but I’m not sure I’d trade it for the Whole Foods on Pearl Street. (Gee, and I just named the local choices the other day, here.)
There are plenty of variations of Italian pizza in America, to be sure (in big cities, that is), but that’s pretty unrelated to Chicago or New Haven pizza. I imagine there are decent places in Britain to buy pizza, but all I’ve ever read about, or tried, was horrific pasteboard that appeared to be based upon some vague and awful fantasy about American pizza. (Not related to arty pizza, such as Two Boots, of course.)
Yet, as it turns out, Americans often do know the difference between Illinois, Connecticut, and Salerno. Though I suspect more Europeans have trouble spelling, off the top of their head, the former two than the latter.
Of course, I may be wrong.
(If you prefer Chicago version to New Haven, or vice versa, feel free to speak up, please.)
“I really loved the Deli sandwich I ate at MacDonald last month in London :)”
This is, by the way, a frightening notion. What the hell was in it?
Re: hating baseball? *This* pointy-headed liberal professor sang the National Anthem (solo) at a Durham Bulls game in May. Need I say more?
(And might have followed it with a ballpark hot dog, except that the giant burrito looked more appealing.)
The last time I went to a baseball game, I had sushi. However, it was in Fukuoka…
Actually, I’ve never been to a baseball game in my life. But I’m willing to assume I’d hate it: I find watching most organised sports incredibly dull.
JeS, it’s great fun to play, and it seems to me if you like to play it, and don’t like to watch it, you’re still not in the ‘hates baseball’ camp.
There are a great many people who hate baseball, though. The game moves at a slower pace than most, and isn’t particularly violent. It’s very mental. OK, they all are, but baseball is more so.
And baseball certainly has the better mythology. I cannot imagine either The Natural or Field of Dreams being set in some other game. In the US, it is frequently said that the greatest rivalry in sport is between two particular baseball teams. I suppose there must be rivalries in the Premier league that are close to the Hundred Years War. This last season, the two finished with a 3 game set, billed by Fox as “The Nation vs. The Empire.”
I can’t tell you how disappointed I am to find that this isn’t true. Say it ain’t so . . .
Of course, it can go well over over the top. The Red Sox, principal owner John Henry, just acquired pitcher Josh Beckett. So a fan site says that Beckett and Henry are linked through history, and links to a page describing the relationship between Henri II and Thomas a Beckett.
Will no one rid me of this split-finger fastballer?
Obviously, the Nation hopes for better luck this time ’round.
I will never forgive baseball for breaking my heart.
Never.
Shouldn’t that be
‘say it ain’t so, Castro’?
Bill Richardson had a similar problem
I just clicked on the link hilzoy gave and I see that crionna corrected me on my tendons and ligaments. Given that this is an intellectual integrity thread, yes, absolutely right, tendons and ligaments are not the same,
But now I realize that I don’t know the difference, so thanks to google, now I do
Charley: JeS, it’s great fun to play, and it seems to me if you like to play it, and don’t like to watch it, you’re still not in the ‘hates baseball’ camp.
Oh, I’ve never played baseball. I have played rounders – practically compulsory if you were a girl in a British school! – but not for years. Haven’t played any competitive team game for years, aside from a casual game of kickabout football – the last organized sport I played regularly was underwater hockey. Now that’s fun.
Gary:
From the wiki: “In Australia, Britain and New Zealand, the selection is greatly extended with a range of healthier options under the menus “Salads Plus” (which offers salads, lean-beef burgers, yoghurts and more) and “Deli Choices” (submarine style sandwiches made fresh to order).”
I thought that qualified as adaption of american food. We (in the Netherlands) have the kroketburger but that is Americanising Dutch food, so it didn’t count 🙂
Pizza has a wiki reference /a> too 🙂
I like Chicago style in US, but my best Pizza ever I ate in France 🙂
Cheese: I LIKE cheese. Not just Dutch cheese, but French cheese, italian cheese, danish cheese, even some Britisch cheeses. In the States I have so far (I’ve never been to the west coast though) not encountered anything labelled cheese that I liked – unless it was imported 🙂
From your whole foods I conclude you are from colorado :). They do seem to have choice in cheese, but if I read the description of Salemville Amish (which sounds American to me) you are still supposed to combine it, not eat it on toast and enjoy for it’s own flavor 🙂
Most of the cheeses I tried in the States were a kind of cheddar and where more cardboard based than milkbased…
Ouch, preview is my friend…
That would be because Henke stated goals, not a strategy…
I missed the part where Henke expressly stated the goals, Gary. This is all really about semantics, anyway. For example, clear and hold and train is a strategy for accomplishing our strategic objective of providing adequate security to Iraq. That this strategy is put in a bullet-point list or not is beside the point. What Carlton apparently wants from the Bush pdf, switching the goalposts downthread mind you, is now a comprehensive strategy. The question then is, at what point do strategic “subplans” and the like start to look more like operational details and individual missions, i.e., tactics. Whatever. The argument basically goes nowhere. And let’s face it, the implacable rejectionists will most assuredly implacably reject even a 235-page pdf for lack of specifics. This is not to say that more information doesn’t need to be put out. The relevant issue, to me, is the fact that Bush provided one helpful bit of executive-level communication, but drilling down to the next level to get to the additional information is difficult work. Bush and Rumsfeld are at fault for this poor chain of communication.
Like I said, it’s sad to see you attempt to argue that betraying the troops is compatible with being a patriot.
What is truly sad, Carleton, is that you are unwilling or unable to see the distinctions. Murtha’s wrongheaded proposal for immediate withdrawal–despite the firsthand accounts of substantive progress from troops in Iraq–is a betrayal of the troops’ mission and of what the troops are doing. It is not a betrayal of Murtha’s country for him to make his proposals because it was never about his patriotism, but his judgment. He’s already given up and thrown in the towel, this despite the plentiful feedback (such as here) that directly refute and contradict his claims that American troops have done all they could. I believe that Murtha is sincere when he says that immediate withdrawal is the best course for this nation, and that he truly feels he has our country’s best interests at heart. I just believe his position is wrong, so awfully wrong that nothing less than a strong and forceful response was necessary, hence my post. I can understand how some may interpret it as maligning his patriotism, but it would be a false interpretation. That is why I expressly stated that I thought Murtha is a patriot and that he loves his country. If I had thought otherwise, I would have said so directly. You may interpret the post
By the way, the only one who is doing the patriotism questioning here is you, Carleton, when you made the ugly and false statement that I had a higher allegiance to political party than country. When lies like this are written, then heated responses and words like pigheadedly may appear. I am left to assume that you must be ignorant of the many posts I’ve written which are highly critical of Bush and his administration, and I suggest that you take a healthy look at my writings before you get the urge to start spouting that nonsense again.
Of course, this is just another side track; you still cannot articulate why Bush should fail to produce more details about our mission in Iraq and what milestones will allow us to bring specific groups of soldiers home.
It’s as if there are no entities in the U.S. goverment below Office of the President. I will grant you that Bush offered little in the way of drilling to more of the details for how to attain victory, but it’s not like the details don’t exist. The State Department produces its weekly reports, as does the Multi-Nation Force and defendamerica.mil. A coordinated communication effort needs to be made, otherwise the void is filled in the unembedded MSM by the daily casualty reports and downtalking by its brethren.
As I posted under “Bush’s Plan”, the training of Iraq’s spiffy new army is not entirely going according to plan…
But I’m sure the Vice President is not qualified to make that assessment.
This view seems to be in the minority. It remains, in my view anyways, several incredible leaps of logic to be able to say someone can betray a nation’s armed forces without betraying one’s country – given the current situation. Perhaps if the nation’s armed forces were colluding with the enemy, or seeking to overthrow the government, perhaps. Otherwise, not.
What Carlton apparently wants from the Bush pdf, switching the goalposts downthread mind you, is now a comprehensive strategy. The question then is, at what point do strategic “subplans” and the like start to look more like operational details and individual missions, i.e., tactics. Whatever. The argument basically goes nowhere.
You could not be less clear. Yes, I am asking for a comprehensive strategy. No, that is not a change in what I originally requested. No, I am not asking for tactical details. In fact, rather than asking for drilling down, I am asking for drilling up for a (as you put it) comprehensive view of our objectives and how we are going to reach them.
You are correct, though- your argument does go nowhere. Because it isn’t an argument at all, just a rambling attempt at a disclaimer. To paraphrase :’Well, Carleton wants a comprehensive strategy. But sometimes, drilling down into strategy gets to the tactical level. Ah, heck with it.’
And let’s face it, the implacable rejectionists will most assuredly implacably reject even a 235-page pdf for lack of specifics.
Im sure that there are some folks who would reject any statement of comprehensive strategy. Not relevant to whether or not Bush should actually publish one.
There isn’t a single position that a president ever takes that *some* people won’t object to. Yet, oddly, we still ask our presidents to sometimes articulate positions to the people. We’re funny that way, we don’t expect unanimous support, just some idea of where we’re supposed to be going.
This is not to say that more information doesn’t need to be put out. The relevant issue, to me, is the fact that Bush provided one helpful bit of executive-level communication, but drilling down to the next level to get to the additional information is difficult work. Bush and Rumsfeld are at fault for this poor chain of communication.
So you’re arguing for incompetence rather than intent. The thing is, how hard is it to say “a theocracy in Iraq is ‘1)unacceptable’ or ‘2)acceptable if that’s what the voters want'”? That’s the sort of question that needs answering. Is “victory” compatible with “Iranian client state” or “state where Sunnis are violently repressed and tortured by the Shia majority”?
Murtha’s wrongheaded proposal for immediate withdrawal–despite the firsthand accounts of substantive progress from troops in Iraq–is a betrayal of the troops’ mission and of what the troops are doing.
This is another attempted backpedal. You didn’t initially accuse Murtha of betraying the troops *mission*, you accused him of betraying the troops themselves.
Of course someone who objects to what the troops are doing is working against their mission- he thinks that the mission is a bad idea. In that context the word “betray” is almost hysterical (eg If you wanted to get sushi for lunch and I suggest pizza, am I “betraying” the sushi plan?).
But it’s still far, far away from betraying the troops, which is what you accused him of.
Yes, you could say that Murtha was a patriot while also saying that you disagreed with his judgement about the mission. But that’s not what you did.
I can understand how some may interpret it as maligning his patriotism, but it would be a false interpretation. That is why I expressly stated that I thought Murtha is a patriot and that he loves his country. If I had thought otherwise, I would have said so directly.
Just because you put a disclaimer on the front doesn’t make your attack any less a questioning of his patriotism. You keep trying to weaken your original statement (as you did above, shifting the object of the verb “betray”), but why can’t you just admit that you went overboard in saying Murtha betrayed the troops?
By the way, the only one who is doing the patriotism questioning here is you, Carleton, when you made the ugly and false statement that I had a higher allegiance to political party than country. When lies like this are written, then heated responses and words like pigheadedly may appear.
By all means, use big words if you’d like. But, as I believe you’ve said before (on considerably less convincing evidence), I call ’em like I see ’em. It is clear that you are defending an adminstration that is not releasing the sort of statement that would allow the American people to understand what exactly we are trying to achieve in Iraq and how we can expect to get there. This, despite the (IMO obvious) fact that such a statement could only improve our understanding of where we’re heading, what sort of commitments we can expect as a nation, and what success means in the mission.
This means to me that you care more about the fortunes of the Republican Party than those of Iraq.
(Also, nb, Iraq is not your country. Therefore if you think that supporting the GOP is more important to America than the outcome in Iraq then you aren’t being unpatriotic, just hypocritical).
I am left to assume that you must be ignorant of the many posts I’ve written which are highly critical of Bush and his administration, and I suggest that you take a healthy look at my writings before you get the urge to start spouting that nonsense again.
And I am left to assume that you take it as an article of faith that rabid partisans never, ever criticise other participants in their causes. Read Kos sometime, he’s clearly a Democratic partisan, and yet he manages to criticise Democrats- frequently and with vigor. That is to say, your defense is nonsense.
Actually, I have read many of your posts about Bush. They are almost pathological in their need to believe that Bush agrees with you on Iraq, even if he doesn’t articulate it. Even when key people in the administration are openly disagreeing with you, you seem compelled to assume that this is due to some lack of communication (eg you called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal in August when rumors said *he* wanted to draw down troop levels, because you felt that he wasn’t being true to Bush- you assumed that Bush was, for some odd reason, ‘letting Rumsfeld set his own agenda’ http://tinyurl.com/d2n4b ).
Of course, when it started becoming clear that Bush was probably going to draw down next year (even if he hasn’t admitted it in public yet, the trial balloons are obvious), you readjusted your position and got ahead of the curve (just like Rummy), and called for a drawdown “because their mission in Fallujah has been mostly accomplished”, whereas in August you’d agreed that “insurgencies… take a decade or so to defeat” so no drawdown should occur (or, you quoted that without expressing disagreement).
It’s as if there are no entities in the U.S. goverment below Office of the President.
It’s as if most people don’t get their information from piecing together Pentagon press releases. After all, you approvingly cite The Opinionated Bastard, who said that he had to “read the tea leaves” in order to get an idea of progress in training Iraqi troops and the implications for bringing American troops home. The average person will only learn the administration’s position if it is articulated by their leading spokespeople.
Of course, having information go out this way gives the administration freedom of movement- everyone is free to read into Bush’s stance what they would like to, and since they haven’t committed to a concrete goal (other than “victory”), Bush can, at any time, set a low bar for “victory” and bring the troops home. Contrawise, he can keep the troops there through the end of his term, leaving the next president to try to figure out what “victory” was supposed to be.
If there were objectives in Iraq that you personally thought were very important, you would presumably want to protect them from such interference. Even if you trusted Bush’s intent without question (which you apparently do, judging from your frequently writing that his flaws are in communication, not intent), you would at least want a clear statement of objectives so that other parts of the government (ie Congress, or a new president in ’08) will have a comprehensive strategy and a set of objectives already outlined. Any departure from that would require explaining why to the American people.
Two items
First, Paul from Poweline repeats the claim that Dick Cheney’s torture-stance is heroic: McCain is fond of asserting that you can’t get reliable information through torture. In doing so, he relies on his experience in North Vietnam. However, the ineffe…