Kevin,
You'd think that after 6 years of this B.S. the Democratic party would respond vigorously, forcefully and continually to these charges. Sen. Reid seems to be at least game for the challenge.

It's progress, but the headline still sucks. It should really be "Bush Team Ties Democrats To Dirty Hippies Without Evidence"

Kevin, it is beyond ironic that you would (correctly) point out the GOP's failure to identify these sinister figures after you did the exact thing yesterday in the "Black Gold" thread, declining to specify your alleged "fever swamps" of lefty "conspiracy theorists" after numerous invitations from us to do so.

Then you actually use the phrase "fever swamps" again here--as yet another attempt to appear "balanced," or as a big F-you to your readership?

Another "bullshit" I'd like someone to call Bush on: "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable, and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies -- Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al-Qaida terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban." --Bush today in Salt Lake City, courtesy AP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, Iraq needs to be able to defend itself? Where is the effort to create an efficient, sizable Air Force? The Mideast is a festering pool of nations often at each other's throats. From one month to the next you're subject to attack by most of your neighbors. Has Bush initiated the sale or loaning of heavy artillary, short range missiles, mechanized infantry, ground radar and all the other items needed to, as he puts it, "defend itself"? Where are the training programs for advanced fighter pilots? Where are their jets and munitions? Certainly the only threat to Iraq isn't one that can be deterred with small arms and ground soldiers. Exactly what kind of army is it we're standing up so that we may stand down? It doesn't appear to be one capable of fending off the organized, armed military of many of its neighbors. Why isn't someone prominent crying "bullshit" on this canard?

Kevin: You can't find anybody on the Left who insists the war in Iraq is the cause of increasing terrorism? What's the obvious corollary?

'Logical interpretation' or objectively a threat to US securitiy? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. think the latter.

Bigcat-

I don't think it's all the Democratic Party though. I really wish someone in the media would ask him about that statement at the next press conferance. Or on the next talk show, ask Cheney who's saying that the terrorist will leave us alone.

Either way it's clear the Bush admin really wants to link itself to the heroic struggle against Hitler again. Good luck with that. Fitting a square peg in a round hole isn't going to work at election time this year.

Under the Constitution, Congress, and only Congress, declares war, but Congress has failed to exercise that authority for over 50 years.

But at least until now, Congress has maintained a backup authority over military involvement: using its power to approve or not approve funding.

Congress — controlled by Democrats in both houses — ended the war in Southeast Asia by cutting off funds. Even after we had pulled out all of our ground troops from Vietnam, we were still bombing in Laos until Congress cut off the funds.

What we have here is an attempt to discredit Congress' authority to cut off funds, as Congress did in 1974, to finally bring all of our troops home from that fool's errand in Southeast Asia. Mr. Cheney and his thought police allies are trying to make it politically impossible for Congress to exercise yet another of its constitutional powers, both to aggrandize the Executive over the Legislative Branch, and to help assure continuation of the present quagmire. Will he get away with it?

Even better would be to simply refuse to quote the straw men lines. "President Bush today continued to make stuff up."

Al nails it!

Democrats are the incarnation of Satan. So anything that captures and communicates this evil is, indeed, True.

And to think all this time, I thought Iraq was a "sovereign" already. How many sovereign nations out there require $100B/yr occupations just to prop them up?

Alexander,

I wish I shared your optimism regarding the press. It would be nice if someone who's getting paid to uncover the facts would try it just once. I'm not so confident we'll see any such thing. You'd hope the midterms would allow the opportunity to call some of these weasels on these gratuitous lies.

Irony Man:

"How many sovereign nations out there require $100B/yr occupations just to prop them up?"

Apparently several of them. Just as an example, NATO has cost the U.S. about $90 billion a year. South Korea military support, $59 billion a year. And how many years has this been going on?

So, surrendering to terrorists isn't surrendering to terrorists, so long as the democrats don't admit it?

Kevin, you are a piece of work. Also, exterminating the JEWS isn't anti-semetic unless you can get the nazis to admit it.

Note to Republicans: the media will stop using unnamed sources when you guys do.

Joel Rubinstein,
There is truth in what you say. Most people do not operate with the same frame of reference as the Cheney administration. This is really the revenge of Richard Nixon and the paranoid, autocratic governance he represented. The project war in the Middle East is their baby and they want to keep it going, but their real interest, their deeper revolution, is the restoration of the sovereign power of the executive. Although this is a perversion, as the Supreme Court has pointed out.

Most Americans would be shocked if these men ever articulated their true political beliefs. There is no doubt they would have been for a monarchy in 1783 and not such an unrealistic scheme as separation of powers.

Um, is "REVENCE" a word?

Has Bush initiated the sale or loaning of heavy artillary, short range missiles, mechanized infantry, ground radar and all the other items needed to, as he puts it, "defend itself"? Where are the training programs for advanced fighter pilots? Where are their jets and munitions? Certainly the only threat to Iraq isn't one that can be deterred with small arms and ground soldiers.
Posted by: steve duncan

Bush isn't about to sell or loan the Iraqis those types of weapons. They can be used by the Iraqis to drive out those nations who have come to take away their oil. If a bunch of supposedly outmatched goat-herding insurgents can wreak such havoc on our military using what they're using now, imagine what an Iraqi Air Force can do with American-made jets?

A Hawk

There isn't anybody surrendering. The fact is, without the US military and media over there, the Iraqis will revert to form and start killing a whole lot of terrorists.

Bush surrendered to Al Qaeda when he outsourced capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora. He sold out the victims of 9/11, along with the rest of the country (except for idiots like you), when he chose to let Bin Laden live comfortably in Pakistan and invade Iraq instead. Who else but a traitor would let Bin Laden off the hook and who else but a traitor would cheer for the coward who did it?

Hey, I'm getting good at this Republican shtick.

It's about time the straw men started fighting back.

But that would presuppose a press that had the sense to ask the questions. They're way too busy covering JonBenet and Warren Jeffs.

Irony Man:
How many sovereign nations out there require $100B/yr occupations just to prop them up?

How much do the Chinese loan us every year?

And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Here's what's so warped about Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, NO ONE is suggesting passivity. Democrats are not saying, 'we want to make nice to terrorists'. In fact, what they say is "let's get tougher, and fight smarter". Invasion and bombing may allow the boy wonder to strut around the stage, but it not only doesn't kill terrorists, it helps create them.

We're long overdue for a real dialogue about what a smarter war on terror might be.

More revealing I think is this:

“We face an enemy that has an ideology,’’ Mr. Bush continued. “They believe things. The best way to describe their ideology is to relate to you the fact that they think the opposite of the way we think.”

Well, isn't that convenient! That simplifies everything, doesn't it? The Democrats "think the opposite of the way we think," too.

What an ass.

Good point, Kevin. However, what are the Dems proposing (other than bland, vague family-values type stuff) to do on those fronts; Iraq, national security, and fighting terrorism?
Also, one could equally interpret the Dems' response to said statements as fear-mongering, fear for the continued republican domination.

Hey Al, you bastard, come on down...

Als & AHs are right on this one. I'm a liberal and not only to I want to surrender by literally standing on my roof and waiving a white flag (how does Nov. 1 sound?) but I think we should fly all Islamofascists to the US and give them the keys and codes to our nuke stock. We should welcome them with big pictures of Osama and the call to prayer blaring from our Christian church towers. Just before the detonations we should all praise Allah and bend over. Yeah, that's what I want to do. You got me, wingers! I thought I could cover my appeaser plan by suggesting a rational redeployment and aggressive diplomacy plan, but you have seen right through me.

It is stupid to even attempt to fight these accusations.

The Dems should just emulate the opposition and declare, e.g., (a) that the Republicans want to establish a Dictatorship and give unchecked power to the dictator, (b) they want take your children and send them off to die in wars based on lies, etc. etc.. Actually these assertions are more supportable as following logically from the Repubs' statements of the past five years than the nonsense coming from the idiots' mouths.

So, surrendering to terrorists isn't surrendering to terrorists, so long as the democrats don't admit it?

Uh, no, little feller, let me explain it to you nice and slow: leaving Iraq for the Iraqis to sort out--no doubt with substantial Iranian influence--is not surrendering, whether or not cracker nincompoops like yourself acknowledge it.

Shitbird.

We're long overdue for a real dialogue about what a smarter war on terror might be.

Absolutely correct.

It's about time the straw men started fighting back.

Word. And Democrats should point out that the constant use of this dishonest tactic by Bush and his cronies Republicans only proves they're afraid to debate the Democrats' actual positions, because they know they -- the Republicans -- are the ones out of the mainstream.

Perhaps the italics really belong around the phrase Pressed to support these allegations.... That seems to be the new element here.

Kevin: You can't find anybody on the Left who insists the war in Iraq is the cause of increasing terrorism? What's the obvious corollary?

To anyone with rudimentary capacity for logic, the "obvious corrolary" to the position you relate is that, all other things being equal, stopping the war in Iraq would arrest the increase in terrorism associated with that war.

It is certainly not a corollary, or even a reasonable inference, that stopping the war in Iraq would stop terrorism (rather than halt the increase in terrorism attributable to the war), though it might be a reasonable (though not necessary) inference that stopping the war in Iraq is a necessary but not sufficient step to success against terrorism overall.

Speaking of straw men, where's Al?

Strawlublicans. Liarluicans. Fantasicans. Repulican'ts. Shitheadicans. Makeshitupicans.

Speaking of straw men, Kevin implicitly criticizes the Bush and Chaney speechs by pointing out that "the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone." However, neither Bush nor Chaney had made such a claim in their speech.

However, this point is just a quibble. In the public mind, Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation. In November we will see which POV the voters support.

By raising these easily deflected strawmen, the Republicans allow Democrats the opportunity to ask and re-ask Republicans to explain their actions in Iraq and why they let Al Qaeda go years ago. We want a smarter and more effective war on the guys who attacked us. We want results. Where the heck are the results Mr. President?

In fact I have to wonder if the Republican strategy is all too easy. I wonder if they have a rabbit they are going to pull out of their hat. Are they are going to drag Osama out of a hole and perp walk him down the streets of Washington?

The Democratic response has to account for that possibility.

Clearly Representative Strawman is causing the Democratic Party problems with his crazy off the wall imaginary comments.

Glad to see that these comments are starting to get challenged by the media.

In the public mind, Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation.

You wish. Again, while the GOP has worked hard to create this impression in the public mind, the public mind can't help but notice 1) the conspicious Republican incompetence in terms of waging the so-called "war on terror" and 2) the conspicuous disconnect -- as always! -- between Republican words and deeds when it comes to waging a "vigorous" war on terror.

Hell, Bush insists on paying for his war with a tax cut and loans from the Red Chinese -- that's all you need to know he isn't serious.

Come November, we'll see how little credibility the GOP marketing scheme has with American voters, "ex-liberal". Only dishonest hacks like you -- part and parcel of said marketing scheme -- will trust the GOP with national security for a generation. The American public, not so much.

of course the righties insist that Rumsfeld didn't say anything mean about Democrats. they say he was horribly misunderstood and misquoted . :(

In the public mind, Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation. In November we will see which POV the voters support.
Posted by: ex-liberal

actually going after terrorists instead of fabricating lies to invade an unrelated country for purposes of oil and profiteering is not considered "negotiation."

but you're a repub ... and a stupid one ...

I can see how the shiny flash of repub merchandising could blind an ignorant dipshit like yourself to the reality of their incompetence.

Speaking of straw men, Kevin implicitly criticizes the Bush and Chaney speechs by pointing out that "the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone."

Kevin explicitly criticizes the Bush and Cheney speeches by pointing out what you quote; there was nothing implicit about the criticism.

However, neither Bush nor Chaney had made such a claim in their speech.

Wrong; Bush claimed the first part, Cheney claimed the second. The White House could support neither.

In the public mind, Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation. In November we will see which POV the voters support. exliberal

Looking at the polls, if that is the choice, the House and Senate Republican leadership ought to start laying off staff right now to give those socially connected boys and girls a chance to catch on with some K Street gang before November.

who the fuck is "Chaney" ?

steve duncan wrote:

"So, Iraq needs to be able to defend itself? Where is the effort to create an efficient, sizable Air Force? The Mideast is a festering pool of nations often at each other's throats. From one month to the next you're subject to attack by most of your neighbors. Has Bush initiated the sale or loaning of heavy artillary, short range missiles, mechanized infantry, ground radar and all the other items needed to, as he puts it, "defend itself"? Where are the training programs for advanced fighter pilots? Where are their jets and munitions? Certainly the only threat to Iraq isn't one that can be deterred with small arms and ground soldiers. Exactly what kind of army is it we're standing up so that we may stand down? It doesn't appear to be one capable of fending off the organized, armed military of many of its neighbors. Why isn't someone prominent crying "bullshit" on this canard?"
__________________

steve, you aren't the first to notice that all the effort has been going into the Iraqi Army. We in DOD are aware of it as well. There is the beginnings of an Iraqi Air Force, but so far it's only helicopters and transports. I suspect that the reason is two-fold. Firstly, the immediate danger is internal and ground related. Secondly, nobody has much of an Air Force over there, except us and the Israelis. Giving the Iraqis fighters could be seen as a waste of effort right now, though eventually they'll probably get them (if they live that long.)

But your larger point is important. Eventually, we'll be talking about artillery, logistics, and armor, without which they would be helpless against an outside threat. The problem extends to all government departments. We'll also have to rebuild their equivalent of an FAA, since all air traffic control is in US military hands, as well as a dozen other technical services that any government needs. But the security needs preclude paying more attention to that kind of stuff right now. That's where Kevin's idea of a "progressive army of society builders" falls a little flat. It's a chicken and egg thing, we can't leave because the security situation sucks, and we can't improve things because we can't deliver all the services they need without security. We've got a tiger by the tail and cannot let go.

We on the Right will ensure or men and women of the Armed forces will die with dignity,Which is why we perposed to cut death bennifits to there survivors.We on the right will make sure the terrorists kill american over there so they will not kill or harm the top 5% of americans over here.We on the right will pledge to make sure the top 5% do not get burdened with too high of taxes.We on the right will make sure the lower populace will pay for and fight the wars that make the top 5% safer and richer.Now what righty can't win there elections on this platform?

The Democratic Party needs to select and nurture a wedge breaker. Some one who can take on these rethug arguments aggressively and stuff them down their slimy throats.

Keith Olbermann demonstrates how to do this here:

Olbermann Blasts Rumsfeld On Facism

For those of you who do not follow American football, a wedge breaker is a special teams player on the kick offs. His job is to sprint down the field throw his body into the blocking wedge that is forming to protect the ball carrier.

If done correctly two things happen: 1) the wedge breaker gets battered, 2) the ball carrier is exposed, and stripped of protection, brought down.

"Bush Declares That U.S. Must Stay the Course

By DAVID STOUT
Published, NYT: August 31, 2006

President Bush began a new drive today to rally the American people behind him on the Iraq war and national security, declaring that the United States must stay the course in Iraq because it is a battleground in an epic struggle between democracy and tyranny."

I almost did a spit-take when I saw that headline this morning. "Declares", instead of "repeats", echoing his "epic struggle between democracy and tyranny" crap without quotation marks and, above all, accepting "stay the course" as an actual policy — laughable, if it weren't so tragic.

Good thing the Times is so liberal, right? What would they do if they were in Bushbaby's back pocket. Anybody notice how bloated and decrepit he looks in the accompanying photo. Dorian Gray, party of one!

Sorry Blew the tags. Here is the link:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/OlbermannBlastsRumsfeldOnFacism.wmv

Interesting Olbermann comment. It was obvious from the get-go he was adopting an Edward R. Murrow pose. THe diction was the same. But it's a good idea. He's saying things that cannot be condensed into a single-clause sentence, because the situation in which we find ourself is too complex to be condensed into single-clause sentences, and indeed many of hte ills we now face may stem from too much striving to condense our thinking into single-clause sentences.

We didn’t teach them how to slaughter the cow to get the butter. We gave them the butter.

Only a Republican would slaughter the cow to get the butter.

Jeez.

Trashhauler, I posit the main reason we don't create a real Iraqi military is it couldn't be trusted to act rationally (i.e. in U.S./Israeli interests). Modern weapons in the hands of a force that can't control infiltrators, defectors or other unhinged actors is just not wise. Imagine a squadron of fully loaded F-16's suddenly turning the Green Zone into a killing field. As long as there are U.S. military units present Iraq will never be given much beyond small arms and small bore, short range field artillery. Even if our army leaves altogether untrustworthy Iraqi factions dictate allowing but a weak military capability, if for no other reason than mimimizing violence against remaining American civilians and other Iraqis. Iraq won't have a modern military so long as the risk entails loose, uncontrollable use of it by angry malcontents. That means never.

cmdicely wrote:

"...all other things being equal, stopping the war in Iraq would arrest the increase in terrorism associated with that war."
_____________

Well, that's not quite right, cmdicely. A three or four way struggle will continue, probably breaking out into open warfare. We cannot stop all the fighting in Iraq, we can only stop participating in it. And even then, only very gradually and with the knowledge that we'll have to reengage as soon as things get shitty enough to make it obvious to everyone. And, wherever we "redeploy," we'll still be the Great Satan, so our withdrawal might have no effect on jihadism, except to give them everything we can't haul out of Iraq.

Keith G,

If done correctly two things happen: 1) the wedge breaker gets battered, 2) the ball carrier is exposed, and stripped of protection, brought down.

I think you've just hit upon the perfect way for Lieberman to show that he is with the Democratic party.

I'd like a pony, too, by the way.

Reprobate wrote:

"If a bunch of supposedly outmatched goat-herding insurgents can wreak such havoc on our military using what they're using now, imagine what an Iraqi Air Force can do with American-made jets?"
________________

Reprobate, the insurgency isn't wreaking havoc on the US military and never did. This low level combat is draining and dangerous, but hasn't threatened any unit's military effectiveness. And attacking the US military remains a quick way to wind up dead. Most of their efforts are now directed against Iraqi civilians for that very reason.

Some say that Bush sold out the World Trade Center at a secret meeting with members of the Bin Laden family at his ranch in July 2001.

Kevin,

Maybe you can see how it feels now when the trumpet call is sounded from the left about how the Bush administration wants to
"set up a theocracy", "take-away our first amendment rights", "take-back all the civil-rights advances"...

How dare a man of the left talk about over the top rhetoric! We have a name for Democrat over the top lingo. It is part of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). It runs rampant through all levels of the Democratic party.

Personally, I would like to get all of the over the top lingo out of politics and have nice reasoned discussions. Its of course just my opinion, but if any Democrats want to see the reason that reasonable discourse has been dumped in favor of straw-men and exageration of the opponents positions, they only have to look in the mirrror.

From a frustrated right-center voter who enjoys sensible political discussion.

Well, that's not quite right, cmdicely.

Perhaps not.

A three or four way struggle will continue, probably breaking out into open warfare.

Well, sure, that's a plausible result; I was reading "the war in Iraq" generously to the poster I was responding to as "(the US participation in) the war in Iraq", and then only describing what was and was not a reasonable corollary of the position he attributed to liberals, not making my own prediction of the actual likely results of withdrawal.

There was no politcal solution to our own civil war. A very big bunch of people had to die and a subculture had to be pretty much destroyed before peace was possible.

Is it possible that there is little that the US military can do to prevent the sectarian violence?

If that is the case, might not the best thing to do be to just back off and let all these factions try to cope with the unpleasent reality of their desires.

"There was no politcal solution to our own civil war. A very big bunch of people had to die and a subculture had to be pretty much destroyed before peace was possible."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If only that subculture had been destroyed........

if any Democrats want to see the reason that reasonable discourse has been dumped in favor of straw-men and exageration of the opponents positions, they only have to look in the mirrror

well that's not a very "sensible" thing to say.

BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). It runs rampant through all levels of the Democratic party.

Eh - an exaggeration, to be sure.

However, rightwing partisans are loath to admit that this syndrome also runs through the Repulican party, albeit in a more pathological form. There, the derangement consists of people who, when the topic of Bush comes up, lose whatever semblance of rational thought they possess, and reflexively defend and support anything the man says or does. Sounds like derangement to me.

The problem for the Democratic Party is that they enable the Bush Administration to set up strawmen through their rhetoric. Unless they speak with specificity about how they would change our approach in the Middle East and Iraq, they leave the field to the Administration. It isn't enough to answer every strawman with a litany of past Administration mistakes and sins, fun though it may be. After the fifth or sixth time, all that does is make the critic sound slightly moonbatty. All the Administration has to do in that case is say, "See, they don't have a plan, except to quit.

Somebody, somewhere, must come up with a plan better than, "Elect us because these guys are awful and we won't lie and we won't make the same mistakes." While people might agree that they current Administration is awful, nobody believes the next Administration, Democratic or not, won't lie, if they feel they need to. And, unfortunately, they will be as prone to mistakes as any other group of humans.

The only way to stop strawmen arguments is to stand up real alternatives to argue about. That means the Democratic plans can be critiqued and picked at, as well, but at least the debate will progress beyond sophomoric insults and the political equivalent of, "Quitter, quitter!! Am not! Are too! Am not! Are too!"

cleek: well that's not a very "sensible" thing to say.

But so typical of "reasonable" poster John Hansen. Plead for civility and tolerance in political discourse, call self a moderate, then include gratuitous over-the-top shot at Democrats. (I left out the part where he invariably mistakes Kevin for a leftist.)

In a way, it's worse than the crap spewed by the vitriolic trolls, because Hansen appears to really believe he's a rational man surrounded by injustice.

Personally, I would like to get all of the over the top lingo out of politics and have nice reasoned discussions.

Oh please. You're going to have to remove the Bush administration before there's a chance of this.

We didn’t teach them how to slaughter the cow to get the butter. We gave them the butter.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh on August 31, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, I know I'm a city boy, but don't you milk the cow and slaughter the milk to get butter?

shortstop:

I called Kevin a "man of the left" ( which he is ) not a "leftist" ( which he is not). The terms mean very different things to me.

"Straw Men" would be a great name for a band. The Straw Men Fight Back would be their first album.

Rock!

LMAO at trashhauler.

His satirical essay about how Dems are responsible for the strawmen set-up against them by the GOP, because they don't have a plan for Iraq -- itself the biggest strawman set-up against the Dems -- is genius.

I look forward to more essays by trashhauler where he lampoons the thought processes of the rightwing.

A "frustrated right-center voter who enjoys sensible political discussion: wrote: We have a name for Democrat over the top lingo. It is part of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). It runs rampant through all levels of the Democratic party.

Ah, he tried not to give the game away by saying "Democrat Party," but forgot when talking about the lingo...

So-called "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is another side of the Republican's dishonest rhetoric, designed to make the very act of criticizing Dear Leader seem deranged. (Which, conveniently, absolved the GOP from having to address said criticism." Anyone who uses such a dishonest term exempts him/herself from "sensible political discussion."

But speaking of straw men, I wonder what our so-called "frustrated right-center voter" would consider an example of "over the top lingo" from the Democratic party.

Yes, as trashhauler blames Dems for GOP-manufactured strawmen, by using GOP-manufactured strawmen, John Hansen blames Dems for GOP over-the-top rhetoric by using GOP over-the-top rhetoric.

These folks are nothing if not consistent.

tomeko,

Ok, I know I'm a city boy, but don't you milk the cow and slaughter the milk to get butter?

I believe the term is "churn": as in you milk the cow, and churn the milk to get butter.

Disputo,

Why, thanks, I rather liked it myself. lol

Seriously, I didn't mean to say that it was the Dems fault, it's just in the nature of how debate works. The Administration has something to defend, while the Democrats have hypotheticals. It leaves them with a natural disadvantage.

As to the Democratic alternative plan, I've heard scattered ideas from some Democratic politicians, but nothing close to an actionable plan. I think Senator Biden comes closest to having a plan, but he doesn't represent all of the Democrats and he hasn't been specific enough about how to implement his ideas. The Democrats have to stop wasting the first three minutes of every opportunity to talk with accounts about mistakes made three years ago. Believe me, our military leaders don't enjoy putting their Services - the kids they lead, their friends and colleagues - through this bullshit, anymore than most here enjoy reading about it. Worse, probably, because they've all been there, done that and it sucks.

I'd like to see some Democratic leader (Hillary?) hire some of those anti-Bush generals to develop an actionable plan for disengagement and redeployment, including who stays where, what the rules of engagement should be, and who we should be ready to fight next. That last is important to us military types, because we know there is always a next fight, even when Democrats have the White House. And the thing that would really piss us off is if we have to fight our way back into some shithole we just left. That would really suck.

speaking of straw men, I wonder what our so-called "frustrated right-center voter" would consider an example of "over the top lingo" from the Democratic party.

I believe I gave three examples in my original post.

Dem speeches about how the Bush administration wants to
"set up a theocracy", "take-away our first amendment rights", "take-back all the civil-rights advances"...

I don't have access to a search of campaign and other speeches made by Democratic candidates/officials. If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation.

If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation.

1. you don't have any examples of X
2. you assert X anyway
3. you challenge others to prove no X ever happened, anywhere, even though you can't prove that one did
?

how very sensible

I don't have access to a search of campaign and other speeches made by Democratic candidates/officials. If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation.

Wait a minute...you cite three pieces of rhetoric you claim as over the top (an assertion not in evidence, by the way, but we'll accept it for the sake of argument) that you attribute to the "left," then attribute these words to "over the top lingo" from the Democratic party, citing "Dem speeches" that you admit you can't provide a single example of?!?!

Withdraw your accusation, hell -- you made the claim and you admit you don't have a basis except some vague perception you got somewhere (gee, I wonder where) that Democratic rhetoric is over the top.

You made the accusation -- back it up. Put up or shut up.

Trashhauler: The Administration has something to defend, while the Democrats have hypotheticals. It leaves them with a natural disadvantage.

Normally I might agree with you, but since it's nigh-impossible to honestly defend the Republican record of mendacity, incompetence and corruption -- a record with which the American public is deeply dissatisfied -- dishonest rhetoric is the GOP's only recourse. It isn't a normal part of debate or political discourse; it's the Republican Party's only hope.

Dear cleek,

Here is an example of X.

April 18 2005,
[ Howard ]Dean said in California, "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?"

trashhauler,

I'd like to see some Democratic leader (Hillary?) hire some of those anti-Bush generals to develop an actionable plan for disengagement and redeployment, including who stays where, what the rules of engagement should be, and who we should be ready to fight next.

Why not just review General Clark's plan? Why do you need "some Democratic leader (Hillary?)" to pick some other general or set of generals? This is not a parlimentary system. There is no shadow cabinet. There is no acknowledged leader of the Democratic party.

Also, where is the GOP plan to which the Dems are supposed to provide an alternative?

Maybe if we ask nice, Iran will give Iraq back its Air Force?

Trashhauler: The only way to stop strawmen arguments is to stand up real alternatives to argue about. That means the Democratic plans can be critiqued and picked at...

See here. While I'll be the first to say it could use work, it's more coherent than the shotgun of talking points and bullet lists the administration (or the GOP) has produced.

Maybe if we ask nice, Iran will give Iraq back its Air Force?

IIRC, the neocon "solution" would be to bomb Iran so they will give Iraq back its Air Force.

Here is an example of X.

Feverish Googling revealed that Howard Dean, a Democrat, used the word "theocracy," indeed, but how is that rhetoric "over the top"?

Stories about campains are the easiest place to find these things.

Another example of X.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/16/candidates_slam_bush_on_pickering?mode=PF

Trashhauler: The only way to stop strawmen arguments is to stand up real alternatives to argue about. That means the Democratic plans can be critiqued and picked at

Of course! That's the whole point -- so that Democratic plans, rather than the current republican failures, are critiqued and picked at.

It's a lame tactic at the level of high school debate, and a sure sign of a side that knows it's losing.

To the "troop supporters":

My car gets 46 mpg.
What are YOU doing to fight Terrorist Funding?

(I wish that would fit on a bumper sticker).

Stories about campains are the easiest place to find these things.

Then one wonders why you made an accusation that you admitted you couldn't support.

Feverish Googling revealed that Howard Dean, a Democrat, used the word "theocracy," indeed, but how is that rhetoric "over the top"?

Because the clear insinuation of his comments is that the theocracy he is speaking about is what will happen if the Republicans stay in office.

Actually, we SHOULD block additional money; it's the only way to get us out of Iraq.

Her failure to vote that way is why I will vote for a Green write-in candidate rather than semi-liberal Eddie Bernice Johnson for Congress here in Dallas.

Oh, and by the way, Johan Hansen, you stipulated that "If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation." The article you cited appears to be dated 2004, which by my count is more than a year ago.

Also - I think it's high time Democrats begin using the term:

Neo-McCarthyism.

Because both Democratic candidates used fear mongering that civil rights would be severely turned back if Pickering were appointed.

Because the clear insinuation of his comments is that the theocracy he is speaking about is what will happen if the Republicans stay in office.

Even granting your interpretation of the "clear insinuation," how is that over the top?

Or inaccurate, for that matter? Remind me, which party is the party of choice of the religious right?

Or isn't the whole point of calling it "over the top" a dodge to prevent considering how accutate it might be?

"Enjoys sensible political discussion," my eye.

Democratic candidates + fear-mongering = LOL!

The article you cited appears to be dated 2004

That is the reason that I stated that campaign stories would be the palces that this stuff could be found. The last time that a lot of this type of rhetoric was covered extensively by the press was 2004. It is just an example.

Apparently several of them. Just as an example, NATO has cost the U.S. about $90 billion a year. South Korea military support, $59 billion a year.

$59B for Korea? The figure I've seen says it's more like $2B. And that's hardly an "occupation" like what we have in Iraq.

And the NATO example? Stop being silly.

John Hansen is just a 30-percenter and a dead-ender, a Bush cultist through and through. Since there is nothing that would shake him of his view of Bush as the God-annointed King and of Republicans as saintly angels, why bother?

Kraft writes:

Apparently several of them. Just as an example, NATO has cost the U.S. about $90 billion a year. South Korea military support, $59 billion a year. And how many years has this been going on?

Um, NATO isn't a country. And the American military spends about $1.5 bil in South Korea annually, 40% of which is paid by the South Korean government. What source are you using? Or are you just making up stuff?

Because both Democratic candidates used fear mongering that civil rights would be severely turned back if Pickering were appointed.

Sorry, John Hansen, but your claim that they "used fear mongering" isn't good enough. What did they say?

And if they did predict that Pickering's appointment would harm civil rights, again, how is that over the top?

Wouldn't it have to be untrue to be over the top? And isn't the whole point of this game to give the GOP the presumption that such accusations are untrue, by labeling them over the top, thus avoiding discussing uncomfortable issues?

As we've been discussing, the rhetorical tactics of the GOP are dishonest to the core (but no wonder, when the majority of the country prefers the Democratic priorities, and all the GOP has to offer is mendacity, incompetence and corruption).

And you, John Hansen, are an eager participant in that dishonesty. Now that's "over the top", and a sure fire exemption from consideration in "sensible political discussion."

So John Hansen,

How are those checks from Karl Rove ? Can you buy enough Cheetos to keep you happy ?

You sir, are a prime example of "over the top" ignorance

Just yesterday I was in a cab driven by an obvious Muzzlum and I can tell you that I was scared shitless. The only way out of this mess is to bomb the daylights out of Iran, since it's full of Arabs and all.

Gregory,

You have to admit it, any mention of the word theocracy associated with America is over the top. If you actually spend some time talking to people on the religious right, you will find that they are the strongest supporters of freedom of religion. Just because many religious people find the Republican party more in line with their views is no reason to use such a loaded word.

On the other hand, ( and I could not find it in the archives of this site, but the discussion was about nationalized health care), I have been commended by the very people on this site before for discussing things in a very reasonable manner, free of name-calling and ad hominem attack.

I think what we need in discussions is clarity over sharp rhetoric. To deny that the party who had Al Sharpton as a legitmate candidate for its highest political office has not made a major contribution to the descent of rhteoric into the garbage zone, is to put one's head in the sand.

John Hansen is just a 30-percenter and a dead-ender, a Bush cultist through and through. Since there is nothing that would shake him of his view of Bush as the God-annointed King and of Republicans as saintly angels, why bother?

No, no name-calling here.

That is the reason that I stated that campaign stories would be the palces that this stuff could be found.

A big relief, I'm sure, since you already admitted making an accusation you couldnt' back up, resulting in your feverish Googling. However, I think you'll find that political rhetoric is a pretty much ongoing process -- I refer you to The Washington Post.

The last time that a lot of this type of rhetoric was covered extensively by the press was 2004.

Well, no, you don't really have a basis for making this statement -- big surprise -- simply because that's what your Google search found.

And, of course, you already stipulated rhetoric within the last year or so, which lets 2004 out entirely, so rip that one up anyway.

An alternate explanation, of course, is that the Democratic Party really doesn't engage in this sort of rhetoric.

It is just an example.

Well, no, it isn't, really. It's outside the time frame you yourself specified, and moreover, you haven't established that it's an example of over the top rhetoric at all.

(Here's a hint: Just because you -- and obvious Republican sympathizer -- agree with your Party's diktat that its lousy civil rights record should not be criticized, nor its ties to the religious right and its agenda, doesn't make bringing up uncomfortable subjects to the GOP "over the top".)

Objection.

If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation.

Dean's use of the term "theocracy" was April 18, 2005

Source--John Hansen on August 31, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Edo wrote:

"Why not just review General Clark's plan? Why do you need "some Democratic leader (Hillary?)" to pick some other general or set of generals? This is not a parlimentary system. There is no shadow cabinet. There is no acknowledged leader of the Democratic party.

Also, where is the GOP plan to which the Dems are supposed to provide an alternative?"
________________

Edo, from what I've read of General Clark's ideas, they differ only in small detail from what we are currently doing. Without the mistakes, of course. Has he published something recently I don't know about?

I realize that there is no requirement for a shadow government. I'm just pointing out that one cannot stop strawmen attacks by saying, "That's not our plan! You are misrepresenting us!" The Bush Administration is quite free to say anything they want about what the Democratic Party plans to do, so long as there isn't a plan somewhere that people can compare against the Adminstration rhetoric.

As far as the Republicans go, they have the advantage of controlling the Executive Branch. Therefore, "their" plan is institutionalized in formal government publications, such as "The National Defense Strategy of the United States." Google it and go to "Operations" for the plan, such as it is, in Iraq and in the GWOT.

Once the Democrats get back into the White House, they will write their version of "The National Defense Strategy" (and I will have to defend it.) However, that doesn't prevent them from issuing something a bit more substantial then they have so far.

No, no name-calling here.

I am merely applying the Rumsfeld standard to you, John. If you can't take the heat....

If you actually spend some time talking to people on the religious right, you will find that they are the strongest supporters of freedom of religion.

A prime example of over-the-top rhetoric.

You have to admit it, any mention of the word theocracy associated with America is over the top.

Oh, that's rich! I call you on the fact that you haven't established that rhetoric as over the top, and you rejoind that I have to admit it? I have to admit no such thing. Prove it, or shut up. (Here's a hint: for it to be over the top, it has to be untrue, which is, of course, what this whole thing is about.)

If you actually spend some time talking to people on the religious right, you will find that they are the strongest supporters of freedom of religion.

Which is, of course, neither here nor there when considering the agenda promoted by the leaders of the Religious Right and thrie allies in the REpublican Party. You're engaging in distraction, and obviously so.

Just because many religious people find the Republican party more in line with their views is no reason to use such a loaded word.

Straw man. The word is a criticism of the religious right's political agenda and the Republican Party's professed support of same.

On the other hand, ( and I could not find it in the archives of this site,

Your poor search skills are obvious, rest assured.

I have been commended by the very people on this site before for discussing things in a very reasonable manner, free of name-calling and ad hominem attack.

Here's a hint, John: Just because you refrain from name calling doesn't mean you discuss things "in a very reasonable manner," as my critiques of your posts, your steadfast refusal to substantively rebut those critiques, your use of straw men and other fallacies, and your wholehearted embrace of dishoenst Republican frames attests. You are not, in fact, discussing things in a very reasonable manner. You're parroting GOP talking points, and failing to support them.

I think what we need in discussions is clarity over sharp rhetoric.

It'd be nice if you could provide some, then.

To deny that the party who had Al Sharpton as a legitmate candidate for its highest political office

I remind you that anyone can run in a primary, of course, but it's rich that you, who claimed to avoid ad hominem attacks, just engaged in one. As a fallacy, fo course, your rhetoric deserves to be rejected out of hand.

has not made a major contribution to the descent of rhteoric into the garbage zone, is to put one's head in the sand.

What's even more rich is that you repeat this assertion -- with the added bonus of an ad hominem! -- despite having totally and utterly failed to prove your point. Since you have failed to do so, of course, your assertion is meaningless.

No, no name-calling here.

John, you refuse to engage in honest discusson, so why on Earth should you be accorded any respect? You deserve none. Ford knows it's nigh-impossible to honestly defend the mendacity, incompetence and corruption of the Republican Party, but no one forces you to, or forces you to do so as poorly as you've done.

I think what we need in discussions is clarity over sharp rhetoric. To deny that the party who had Al Sharpton as a legitmate candidate for its highest political office has not made a major contribution to the descent of rhteoric into the garbage zone, is to put one's head in the sand.

Remind me again, John, of when Pat Robertson was in a similar position. Indeed, is not George Allen interested in the highest political office? Pot and kettle and all...

Sorry, but I think that everyone on the left is seriously underestimating Karl's plan. This sort of "democrats want to appease the terrorist" rhetoric is simply to give pundits something to ponder on November 8, 2006, when the real issue will be Diebold and lack of a voting paper trail. As long as the Admin follow Karl's playbook by frothing at the mouth about democratic appeasers, then post-election when the democrats fail to take a majority of the house, Cokie Roberts, George Will, David Broder will all say that they are a little surprised that the message carried so well. Only a few in the tin-hat crowd will look a voting irregularities. They will be dismissed as crack-pots and another election will have been stolen.

"Because the clear insinuation of his comments is that the theocracy he is speaking about is what will happen if the Republicans stay in office."

Well sure...IF you strip away all the context. He was speaking specifically about the Schiavo mess - a fact you neglected to mention. A very odd choice for you to provide as an example of Dem "over the top rhetoric" since virtually all of America was scared absolutely shitless by the *Republican* rhetoric around that. You may recall it was the beginning of the endless slide in popular approval for both Bush and the GOP in general.

Straw man = lying communicator
America's Least Wanted

I like it, Tomeck ! Slaughter the milk works for political churn.
gregor did ok at 1:46 too.
http://ww.boston.com/news/globe/articles/2006/08/30afghanistan_ignored/
U.S. Rep Barney Frank Mass 4th Congressional District talks straight about aiming at the wrong target.
I even did a blunt enough comment on my own board that "reasonable" John Hansen would like to ride me out of town on rails ... whoops. Done already.

John Hansen wrote: "To deny that the party who had Al Sharpton as a legitmate candidate for its highest political office has not made a major contribution to the descent of rhteoric into the garbage zone."

Please provide specific quotes of statements made by Al Sharpton as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 that represent "rhetoric in the garbage zone".

Please also provide specific quotes from other well-known Democratic politicians endorsing or approving of any such quotes from Rev. Sharpton that justify your attribution of any such comments as you are able to quote from Rev. Sharpton to the Democratic Party as a whole.

Alternatively, you may simply continue slavishly regurgitating scripted right-wing extremist Republican propganda.

He was speaking specifically about the Schiavo mess - a fact you neglected to mention.

Dishonestly selective quotation from a GOP supporter? I'm shocked! Shocked!!

A very odd choice for you to provide as an example of Dem "over the top rhetoric" since virtually all of America was scared absolutely shitless by the *Republican* rhetoric around that. You may recall it was the beginning of the endless slide in popular approval for both Bush and the GOP in general.

Which makes it all the more important for John Hansen to change the subject from the GOP's relentlessly dishonest rhetoric to the Democrats. The GOP simply can't afford an honest debate, and John Hansen proves they don't intend to offer any.

There is no good word to describe the gang that runs the party today.

Ah, another dead-ender now joins the fray. And what word, dead-ender, would you use to describe the leader of the Republican party? It certainly would not be either popular or competent.

It might be easier for the straw men to fight back, now that we have this:

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), once an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, said yesterday that the Bush administration should set a time frame for withdrawing U.S. troops. He added that most of the withdrawal could take place next year.

"My view is that it may be that the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal," Shays said from London in a conference call with reporters. "A timeline of when the bulk of heavy lifting is in the hands of the Iraqis."

PS - John Bolton just lied today: He said there is no other use "for uranium metal" than making weapons. But whether uranium is weapon-worthy depends on the *concentration* of fissionable U235 within it. This is inexcusable.

There is no good word to describe the gang that runs the party today.

Hey, John Hansen! Care to respond to this under-heated non-rhetoric from your kith and kin?

trashhauler,

then how about the Dem's Real Security Plan to Protect America

Backed by fellow Democrats, Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks about the nation's security during an event at Union Station in Washington, March 29, 2006.

From left is former General Wesley Clark, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi, Reid, firefighter representative Harold Schaitberger, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI).

Surely you're not claiming that this is a) not a Democtratic Party plan for national security, nor b) differing in only small details from the GOP plan?

Doesn't the Republican framing of this conflict really just amount to "So tell the court sir, when did you stop beating your wife?".

cmdicely wrote: Bush claimed the first part, Cheney claimed the second [that major Democrat have proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone]

Three points:

1. cmdicely, you can find those words in some reporters' interpretations of the speeches, but they're not in the speeches themselves. If you disagee, I challenge you to find

2. Leading Dems like Sen. Kerry have proposed withdrawing from Iraq. If we withdrew, wouldn't that mean cutting off funds? Minority leader Harry Reid has complained about too much spending in Iraq. Doesn't that equate to a proposal to cut funding there?

3. I agree that it's exaggeration to assert that Dems have claimed that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. However, Dems like Murtha do say that withdrawing from Iraq would aid the war on terror.

Leading Dems like Sen. Kerry have proposed withdrawing from Iraq.

you can find those words in some republican hack's interpretation of Kerry's position, but they're not in his speeches or web site. If you disagree, I challenge you to find.

Minority leader Harry Reid has complained about too much spending in Iraq. Doesn't that equate to a proposal to cut funding there?

Asking for effective oversight, (or even a "Truman comission") does not equate to proposing to cut funding.

However, Dems like Murtha do say that withdrawing from Iraq would aid the war on terror.

There are no "Dems like Murtha". There is Murtha, a unique character, who sacrificed his body to defend the freedom you would so cavalierly toss aside for your boot-licking security.

Murtha never said that.
Murtha never proposed withdrawl.
Murtha proposed redeployment.
And it would aid the war on terror.
Murtha is right, Rumsfeld and his golfing buddies are wrong.

Gregory wrote:

(Quoting me) "Trashhauler: 'The only way to stop strawmen arguments is to stand up real alternatives to argue about. That means the Democratic plans can be critiqued and picked at[...]'

Of course! That's the whole point -- so that Democratic plans, rather than the current republican failures, are critiqued and picked at.

It's a lame tactic at the level of high school debate, and a sure sign of a side that knows it's losing."
___________________

If it's a sure sign of a side that knows it's losing, then why get all upset about it?

If suggesting that a Democratic plan could help stop strawman attacks is a tactic at the level of high school debate, then what, for Gnu's sake, is the level of debate currently?

Why should the Democratic Party fear being specific about what they intend to do? An intelligent plan should be defensible and don't we all deserve to decide on if it's a better one than the mess we have right now?

Of course, being less than completely specific about their plan for Iraq gives Democrats some advantages, too. By not being specific, they cannot anger the far Left by not getting out fast enough. They avoid giving meat to the nasty Press types, some of whom will get bothersome. And they avoid being contradicted by various foreign leaders who might not like like the plan.

The Democrats can't prove a strawman is wrong if there is nothing to show in comparison. But so what? If you think being specific is more politically dangerous, perhaps it would be smarter to keep the debate on the level we now enjoy. Somewhere around the fourth grade.

Dems like Murtha do say that withdrawing from Iraq would aid the war on terror.

Yes, it would aid the GWOT precisely because resources would be freed up to go after the actual terrorists.

Sheesh.

Democrats en masse cheered the decision of the Detroit judge who, in her wisdom, declared the NSA program unconstitutional.

Yeah, Democrats like to defend this country and the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Go figure.

steve duncan wrote:

"Doesn't the Republican framing of this conflict really just amount to "So tell the court sir, when did you stop beating your wife?"."
_______________

It certainly is, steve. And you can't stop them from doing it. If you don't think it will be effective, then don't worry about it. If you think it might, then you better offer something concrete to change the topic. If you think the "Bush lied, people died" theme is sufficient, then go with that and don't worry about what the Administration says.

Trashhauler:

I think that you set your sights too low- surely we could accomplish reasoned debate at the high school level?

Anyway, I think this type of rhetoric (and the debate on this thread that it spawned) is straight from the Rove playbook: 1) keep the base happy; 2) beat the drums to drowned out any questions about voting irregularities.

Disputo wrote: Yes, it [withdrawing from Iraq] would aid the GWOT precisely because resources would be freed up to go after the actual terrorists.

Thank you, Disputo. Yes, one can assert that withdrawing from Iraq would help the WOT for this reason. But, it makes no sense to acknowledge that Dem leaders have urged withdrawing from Iraq, but then claim that these Dems didn't think withdrawing from Iraq would help the US..

ckelly - that Detroit judge wrote a dreadful decision on the NSA spy program. Even people who liked her conclusion found her legal reasoning defective.

In my opinion, Dems cheered the decision mostly because they saw it as a defeat for Bush. For many Dems, thwarting Bush is their highest focus. However, the country likes the NSA spy program. The Dems anti-Bush feelings led them to make politically unwise comments, in my opinion.

ex-liberal wrote: "I agree that it's exaggeration to assert that Dems have claimed that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. However, Dems like Murtha do say that withdrawing from Iraq would aid the war on terror."

The view that you attribute to "Dems like Murtha" -- that withdrawing from Iraq would aid the war on terror -- is the exact opposite of the view that the Cheney administration is trying to hang on "some Democrats" that "withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone."

Murtha is a militarist and a hawk. There is no one of either party serving in the US Congress who has been a more staunch advocate for the military, and I doubt there is anyone in the Congress who has greater respect from the military, than Murtha. Republican attempts to paint him as a pacifist or appeaser are pathetic and stupid.

Just like your pretense of being an "ex-liberal".

Out on Bond >"...Only a few in the tin-hat crowd will look a voting irregularities. They will be dismissed as crack-pots and another election will have been stolen."

I share your concern about the quality of the electorial process in these (somewhat) united states so I`ll just assume you aren`t being a dick but just not up to date for ignoring these items :

Ohio

"With paper ballots from the 2004 presidential election in Ohio scheduled to be destroyed next week, the secretary of state in Columbus, under pressure from critics, said yesterday that he would move to delay the destruction at least for several months.

Since the election, questions have been raised about how votes were tallied in Ohio, a battleground state that helped deliver the election to President Bush over Senator John Kerry.

The critics, including an independent candidate for governor and a team of statisticians and lawyers, say preliminary results from their ballot inspections show signs of more widespread irregularities than previously known.

The critics say the ballots should be saved pending an investigation. They also say the secretary of state’s proposal to delay the destruction does not go far enough, and they intend to sue to preserve the ballots..."

Florida

"After spending 36 days in the fall of 2000 in thrall to politicians, pundits and the press, Americans probably thought they knew all about the hanging, dangling and pregnant chads that helped decide the presidential election.

Turns out, those chads only distracted attention from much more grievous breakdowns during the 2000 election..."

and more generally

"...despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio..."

And, of course, I could go on and on pointing out multiple instances on the web where there is information on public concern for this very topic but you know, sometimes ya just gotta do your own homework

Google away !

"All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door." - John Kenneth Galbraith

ex-liberal wrote: In my opinion, Dems cheered the decision mostly because they saw it as a defeat for Bush.

Your opinion is the opinion of a Bush-bootlicking regurgitator of scripted right-wing talking points and should be valued accordingly.

I am not a Democrat, and I cheered the decision as a victory for the US Constitution and the rule of law and a defeat for Republican neo-fascism.

It's understandable that mental slaves like yourself whose fondest wish is to be relieved of the burden of being a free citizen of a self-governing democracy and be the subservient subjects of an all-powerful "hereditary king"
would be unhappy with the decision.

Edo wrote:

"then how about the Dem's Real Security Plan to Protect America

Surely you're not claiming that this is a) not a Democtratic Party plan for national security, nor b) differing in only small details from the GOP plan?"
__________________

I've read it, Edo, and if it were an actionable plan, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. For example, it's three points for Iraq are:

- Expedite transition of responsibility to the Iraqi government

- Insist that the Iraqi government make any compromises it needs to to secure its future

- Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its malfeasance in Iraq.

Is that the entire plan for our national strategy in Iraq? That's not a plan that any US military leader in Iraq can take action on. He's already doing all he can about the first. He doesn't have the authority to do the second. He's not even interested, much less empowered, to do anything about the third. So, why did those generals who backed the Democratic plan back it? Because it corresponds to their politics, not because it can be implemented or is better than the mess we have.

that Detroit judge wrote a dreadful decision on the NSA spy program.

are you a lawyer ?

Even people who liked her conclusion found her legal reasoning defective.

not all of them.

trashhauler,

such as "The National Defense Strategy of the United States." Google it and go to "Operations" for the plan, such as it is, in Iraq and in the GWOT.

I did just this and got to here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

Frankly, I don't see the "Operations" piece you are referring to. Can you point me to something more specific? And how is this plan any more specific than what the leading Democrats presented (per my earlier post)?

daCascadian-

Wasn't trying to be a "dick" and I had missed some of those articles. Thanks for pointing them out, I'll backtrack the links.

However, I think that stomping out voting irregularities should be part of the democratic platform. If the democrats let the President use his bully pulpit to frame the debate, the democrats will lose. I think that the best defense is a good offense.

I don't much care for Nancy Pelosi- I respectfully disagree with her policy of hitting back every time the Republicans throw a shot. It is too predictable. Better to have the Republicans react.

We are all debating whether the Democrats are basically appeasers on one hand and whether Bush is competent on the other- that way lies a continued Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

ex-liberal: you can find those words in some reporters' interpretations of the speeches, but they're not in the speeches themselves

One is interpretation; the other is verbatim...

Bush: There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now; vote for me, I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they'll try to do to get our troops out. (here)

Cheney: some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone (here)

In either case, what has been written is accurate, nor has it been taken out of context.

Is that the entire plan for our national strategy in Iraq? That's not a plan that any US military leader in Iraq can take action on.

Given that the GOP is currently in charge, I believe their plan should first have to address your questions. I'd love to see those answers with related citations. Thanks in advance.

I did not, of course, listen to Bush's speech today, but for anyone who may have done so, did he finally quit beating around the bush and propose adding a likeness of Osama Bin Laden to Mount Rushmore?

Christ almighty! Now all it takes to make yourself the equal to the Nazis and Communists is to get ahold of a video camera and hijack a couple of planes. You don't need an Army, a Navy, an Air Force, anything.

Understandable from a propaganda perspective, I suppose, but is there no way to call him on this bullshit?

In either case, what has been written is accurate, nor has it been taken out of context.
Posted by: has407 on August 31, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Damn. Sounds like ex-liberal's going to be taking a trip to Wal-Mart for a whole case of Preparation H after that buggering!

Out on Bond >"...I think that stomping out voting irregularities should be part of the democratic platform..."

Democracy assumes fair voting processes which is, I think (not a member of the Democratic Party am I), the position of the Democratic Party

Remember that all election processes are organized and operated by local authorities (usually state & county) so that is where to focus

Out on Bond >"...I respectfully disagree with her policy of hitting back every time the Republicans throw a shot. It is too predictable..."

That is part and parcel of how politics is done & is much like fighting a war; some are cannon fodder so others can be heros. Some spend their time poking the other side while others observe and prepare for the next campaign. Much of it is about psychology & mind tricks; watch "Band of Brothers" &/or "Saving Private Ryan" and study Machiavelli & SunTzu

One election did not get us to where "We the people..." are nor will one election get us outa this madhouse

Patience is one of the most necessary talents in all this

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." - Niccoló Machiavelli (The Prince, 1532)

Remember that all election processes are organized and operated by local authorities (usually state & county) so that is where to focus

but - wasn't the Fair Voting Act a national legislation that forced the nationwide adoption of Diebold?

I realize that California voted to ban them (because they didn't meet the minimum requirements - by a long shot - of the law they rode in on) - but I haven't heard that anything's being done (like actual removal of the machines).

that Detroit judge wrote a dreadful decision on the NSA spy program.

The rightwing talking heads told me so.

Osama_Been_Forgotten >"...wasn't the Fair Voting Act a national legislation that forced the nationwide adoption of Diebold?"

Not my understanding but I ain`t no lawyer

(dealing with this stuff is worse than walking through someone else`s spagetti code I swear; snakes on a plane would be far easier)

I think that the Diebold machines are only one out of several choices (I seem to recall that there is a Senator from [a midwestern state] that owned part of a different voting machine company...)

Osama_Been_Forgotten >"...I haven't heard that anything's being done (like actual removal of the machines)."

As I recall there have been several instances of the machines (from different companies) being decertified and then recertified and then tossed out again (my head spins even thinking about it); try www.blackboxvoting.com & www.blackboxvoting.org for starters (2 different sites !)

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." – Buckminster Fuller

U.S. First.!!!!

Edo wrote:

"(Quoting me) 'such as "The National Defense Strategy of the United States." Google it and go to "Operations" for the plan, such as it is, in Iraq and in the GWOT.'

I did just this and got to here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

Frankly, I don't see the "Operations" piece you are referring to. Can you point me to something more specific? And how is this plan any more specific than what the leading Democrats presented (per my earlier post)?
______________

Sorry, Edo, I was looking at a DOD site. The National Defense Strategy objectives and goals are translated into action through other documents (hence, I wrote, "such as").

The Quadrennial Defense Review Report (2006) begins the translation into military goals and objectives. There are more specific instructions for each Service and Agency in yet other documents, including the Program Objective Memorandums (POM) which provide detailed direction of how the money is spent and which is approved by Congress. There are the classified strategic planning guidance documents that get yet more specific. Finally, there are detailed procedures, instructions, and orders issued by the National Command Authority and the Pentagon.

Here, try this one: http://www.comw.org/qdr/offdocs.html

Still, the National Defense Strategy is rather more specific than what the Democrats have provided, such as:

"Winning the War on Terror requires winning the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq." This is no longer mere Republican rhetoric. It is the official national defense position.

"Isolate hardened enemy elements who are unwilling to accept a peaceful solution."

"Clear areas of enemy control, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe havens."

"Hold areas freed from enemy control with an adequate Iraqi security presence that ensures these areas remain under the control of a peaceful Iraqi government."

"Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society."

"Restore Iraq's neglected infrastructure..."

You get the idea. There are four other distinct goals that aren't the direct job of the military. They aren't completely specific, but they give a clear picture of the task. But all can be broken down into very specific military tasks, none of which includes withdrawal before they are finished.

I'm not saying these represent the correct national strategy, mind you. I'm saying that's what it is.

Trashhauler: I've read it, Edo, and if it were an actionable plan, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Check the references at the end of the Iraq section: one by Pollack; another by Korb & Katulis. One calls for a more focused counterinsurgency approach; the other for phased withdrawal/redeployment.

They address Iraq at a similar level of detail as the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq*, although Pollack goes into greater detail, especially analysis, and Korb & Katulis cover additional topis.

As mentioned in a previous post, there is no shadow Democratic government, so which approach wins is TBD, and likely dependent on the 2008 candidate.



* Which appears to be what you're looking for, not the equivalent of the NSC National Security Strategy or the DOD National Defense Strategy.

daCascadian:

I have studied Sun Tzu- Do not let your enemy pick the terrain. Do not let your enemy dictate the terms of battle.

I am not certain that the democratic party is centralized to the extent that it has any real control on the local governments that manage elections. This is something that the Replicans figured out years ago fromTip Oneill- ALL politics is LOCAL.

And it may well be that the Democrats are just harvesting the investments Republicans made fifteen years ago at the local level. One positive about Pelosi is that she is attempting to create/exert some centralization.

Consequently, when the people who are going to manage the election and conduct any recounts are Republican- I think that the Dems should litigate for paper trails in every precinct. Obviously not every precinct has a problem, nor does every precinct have Republicans in the control apparatus- BUT, making that an issue versus defending perceived democratic appeasement makes the Republicans react.

I am aware, unfortunately, that the idea of widespread election fraud does not have a lot of traction with the general public- but why not take the argument for a ride?

The Bush administration has shifted its rationale for the Iraq War so often that I now eagerly await its pending proposal to thwart "Islamo-fascists" by reconstituting the Ottoman Empire.

Why should the Democratic Party fear being specific about what they intend to do? An intelligent plan should be defensible and don't we all deserve to decide on if it's a better one than the mess we have right now?

Count me as one of those Democrats who won't supply a plan. The elephant in the room is that this war is as good as lost. No one wants to admit it yet. Let's face it, the only reason that this administration is "staying the course" is because they know it, too, and don't want the blame pinned on them. Bush was more revealing than he knew when he said at his last press conference that the US wasn't going to leave Iraq as long as he was president. You betcha. They're going to leave this mess for a new clean up crew.

The mess they've created: a strengthened Iran in the region; an Iraq "democracy" sympathetic to Iran; Turkey on the brink of war on the northern border - nasty business going on up there with Kurdish terrorists (supported by Iran) bombing Turkish coastal cities. Truly, one should weep at the calamity this government has brought down.

The more Bush & Co. try to scare us with talk of terror, the more they call attention to their abject failures and the hostility they've cultivated around the world.

Where's Bin Laden?

Donald from Hawaii >"...thwart "Islamo-fascists" by reconstituting the Ottoman Empire."

Hmmm, maybe that is what is going on lately "over there" when the Turkish armed forces chase the Kurds around in SE Turkey & Northern Iraq

Scarier & scarier day by day

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

Out on Bond >"...why not take the argument for a ride?"

I agree & think that is what is going on, in part, with those articles I referenced upthread

Remember patience (and its close cousin frustration...)

"There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." - Richard Avedon

I think that I must be a defeatist- I find our current situation fairly depressing: 1) no real good options for dealing with Iran- [does Iran need to be dealt with?] 2) a national leadership that does everything but call an opposing point of view treason; 3) an election system that is questionable; and, 4) limited Tequila in my liquor cabinet.

My .02 on the Fair Voting Act is that it requires all jurisdictions to adopt electronic voting by 08- it doesn't mandate Diebold. That company simply purchased the legislation thinking correctly that it was an exellent longterm investment.

Paging John Hansen:

Speaking of "over the top" rhetoric from former presidential candidates, just last night we got this on national TV from Messr Buchanan:

"“What I would like is — I’d like the country I grew up in. It was a good country. I lived in Washington, D.C., 400,000 black folks, 400,000 white folks, in a country 89 or 90 percent white. I like that country."

ExBrit wrote:

"Count me as one of those Democrats who won't supply a plan. The elephant in the room is that this war is as good as lost."
_______________

If by "this war" you mean the Iraq campaign, that still doesn't mean you don't need a plan. Even if true, the military must proceed as if it is still winnable until the National Command Authority tells us to do something else. So, if it becomes the Democratic Party's position that we should admit defeat, then its plan should take that into account.

For that matter, the National Military Strategy is centered around the concept of "The Long War" with nearly every program being shaped to fit the possibility of scattered fights with mixed conventional and counter-insurgency operations. That goes far beyond Iraq, well into the future. If you don't want us to prepare for that, then at least get ready to tell us what you want us to prepare for.

At the very least, even if your thinking doesn't stretch that far, it would be nice to tell us when to begin planning the Noncombatant Evacuation Operations.

Can anyone name all the righties who where on board with Clinton in Kosovo.Did any righties say bad things about Clinton when he was conducting that little war.Where any righties on board with Clinton when he was tring to kill Osama. Anyone?????

Trashhauler:

I think that ExBrit's point is that the Democrats most effective stategy at this time is the "rope-a-dope." I am not sure that it is a good strategy, but it is a strategy.

Why should the Democrats develop and run on a plan when they KNOW that the admin's strategy is to label them as appeasers irrelevant of the democratic plan. If they put a plan out it will be labeled as a plan of appeasement, apology and as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I appreciate your posts- you seem well informed and able to carry a debate with minimum ad hominem type arguments. Consequently - if you were chairman of the DNC- what is your plan for winning a majority in the House of Representatives in the mid-terms?

If by "this war" you mean the Iraq campaign, that still doesn't mean you don't need a plan.

What's Bush's plan? You're asking the loyal opposition to provide a plan, but I've yet to see anything beyond "stay the course" from the Bush administration. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over despite the fact that it doesn't work, but that's what "stay the course" means. This is a war they started, against expert advice. Now that its fubar you're asking Democrats to come up with a plan? Maybe you don't have one of your own.

Can anyone name all the righties who where on board with Clinton in Kosovo.Did any righties say bad things about Clinton when he was conducting that little war.Where any righties on board with Clinton when he was tring to kill Osama. Anyone?????
Posted by: Mann Coulter on August 31, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

I was.

I didn't realize I was a lefty (ie. hard-core stalinist) until the Bush Junta declared me one. I didn't realize I was an aspiring member of Al Qaeda until the Bush Junta declared me one.

Yeah - I *was* a righty. Mainly on Gun Control. And responsible government spending.

I gave McCain $2000 for the 2000 election.

I supported Clinton in Kosovo, Afghanistan, even the "asprin factory" bombing. I supported Clinton in Somalia (though I thought we should have gotten out of there sooner than we did - BEFORE the Blackhawk-down situation).

I approved of Clinton's brand of bipartisan centrism. I thought it was a great way to marginalize the freaks and whack-jobs that were taking over the right, and bring moderate Republicans back into prominence.

I thought that economically, America was doing great, and it was great that we could be responsible and bring down the deficit, to the point where we could talk about affording tax cuts.

When the Contract (on) America came out - I supported it in principle. When the impeachment thing happened, I thought that holding the president to high standards (especially with regard to lying under oath) was good (as long as those standards would be applied evenly and fairly in the future).

But then Bush got elected. And told me that I couldn't disagree without being a traitor. And told me that "the market" would fix Enron's gaming the system.

Bush opened my eyes to the real agenda of Conservativism:
Lies and deceit as cover for massive unchecked white-collar crime, market manipulation, and war-profiteering.

Now I'm an ex-conservative.

Edo wrote:

"Check the references at the end of the Iraq section: one by Pollack; another by Korb & Katulis. One calls for a more focused counterinsurgency approach; the other for phased withdrawal/redeployment."
_____________

Yes, I read them, too. If the references to represent the rest of their plan, then there can be the start of a debate that should knock down many of the strawmen whose use supposedly instigated this discussion. However, not many Democratic politicians seem ready to get even that specific. The problem with those authors is that even they expect that the Democrats will need to stay engaged, even if not in Iraq. So, we'll pull up stakes where we are already in place and engaged, redeploy and prepare to engage the enemy somewhere else. Like I said, we just hope we don't have to fight our way back into someplace we just left.

No, Mann, righties are always against nation building. They campaign on that and think it's a bad, bad idea and woulod never change their "minds" just because of oil reserves or religious fantacism.

BTW, I figure Conrad is kidding with this statement:

"The only way out of this mess is to bomb the daylights out of Iran, since it's full of Arabs and all."

But it's worth repeating for the ignoramuses who run things these days that Persians are nor Arabs, ethnically speaking.

A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over despite the fact that it doesn't work,

That's also, by the way, the definition of Conservativism.

John Hansen: "You have to admit it, any mention of the word theocracy associated with America is over the top. If you actually spend some time talking to people on the religious right, you will find that they are the strongest supporters of freedom of religion."

While no doubt select individuals could probably be commended for respecting others of differing faiths and beliefs, to be perfectly honest I fail to see much collective tolerance actually put into practice.

Religious fundamentalists of any kind, regardless of their particular religion, are by their very nature intolerant and judgmental toward others who don't subscribe to their belief system.

True faith is inquisitve and introspective, and urges humility and compassion toward others.

Blind faith is unquestioning and projective, and endows its adherents with a false sense of moral superiority over the infidel.

Which way lies the path to peace?

'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.'
--Bertrand Russell

On talk of Theocracy:

(from Wikipedia; Wicca):

Nevertheless, Wiccans can still become the object of stigma in America, and many remain secretive about their beliefs. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs has not approved use of the pentacle in military cemeteries, although symbols of many other religions are permitted. (This policy came under renewed attack when Sgt. Patrick Stewart, a Wiccan soldier, was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2005. His widow has pressed for the inclusion of a pentacle to memorialise him at the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery.[36]) Recently, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has given the Department of Veteran's Affairs 30 days from June 7, 2006 in which to respond to the request or face litigation.[37]

The conservative Christian James Clement Taylor has commented on the subject of persecution of Wiccans that "these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them..."[38]

In 1999 a group of conservative Christian groups was formed on the initiative of representative Bob Barr (R-GA), in response to Wiccan gatherings on military bases. The group asked US citizens not to enlist or re-enlist in the U.S. Army until the Army terminates the on-base freedoms of religion, speech and assembly for all Wiccan soldiers.[39] The boycott has since become inactive. George W. Bush stated "I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.". [40] In September 1985 some conservative Christian legislators introduced three pieces of legislation designed to take away the rights of Wiccans. The first one was House Resolution (H.R.) 3389 introduced September 19 by congressman Robert S. Walker (R-Penn.)

Senator Jesse Helms (R, NC) made an amendment, Amendment 705, in the House Resolution 3036, The Treasury, Postal, and General Government Appropriations Bill for 1986, specifying that organisations that promote "witchcraft" should not be given tax-exempt status.

After being ignored for a while it got attached to HR 3036 by an unanimous voice vote of the senators. Congressman Richard T. Schulze (R-Penn) introduced substantially the same amendment into the Tax Reform Bill of 1985. When the conference committee met on October 30, the Helms Amendment was thrown out since it was not considered germaine to the bill. Following this Schulze withdrew his amendment from the Tax Reform Bill. Leaving only HR 3389, the Walker Bill. It managed to attract Joe Barton (R-Tex) who became a co-sponsor November 14. The Ways and Means Committee set aside the bill and quietly ignored it and it died with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.[41][42]

Disclaimer: I am not a pagan, nor do I believe in the tennants of Wicca. But I'll defend their right of conscience - because THAT is the American Way.

November 3, 2004

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular votes of any president in America's history. Congratulations!

In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.

Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18). It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term. Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time only—to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.

Christ said, “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour” (John 12:26).

The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob Jones University commit ourselves to pray for you—that you would do right and honor the Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one president who doesn't care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely that he does right.

Best wishes.

Sincerely your friend,

Bob Jones III
President

BJIII:lw

PS: A few moments ago I read this letter to the students in Chapel. They applauded loudly their approval.

When I told them that Tom Daschle was no longer the minority leader of the Senate, they cheered again.

On occasion, Christians have not agreed with things you said during your first term. Nonetheless, we could not be more thankful that God has given you four more years to serve Him in the White House, never taking off your Christian faith and laying it aside as a man takes off a jacket, but living, speaking, and making decisions as one who knows the Bible to be eternally true.

osama_been_forgotten: "Dear Mr. President: ... Best wishes. Sincerely your friend, Bob Jones III"

Mahalo nui loa for this timely reminder about the true nature of the beast to which presidential wannabe John McCain is currently pandering.

Out on Bond wrote:

"I think that ExBrit's point is that the Democrats most effective stategy at this time is the "rope-a-dope." I am not sure that it is a good strategy, but it is a strategy....

- if you were chairman of the DNC- what is your plan for winning a majority in the House of Representatives in the mid-terms?"
_____________

Yes, I understood ExBrit's point and it is a good one - so long as it doesn't slide into overt defeatism, which is a sure way to turn off the electorate. While a majority of the public thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake, the important number is how many want us to lose or think that we will lose. Probably not yet a majority.

The rope-a-dope strategy is okay, but it is an essentially passive one, relying on the opponent to punch himself out. One can miscalculate and take a beating all the way to the end of the fight.

Lessee, if I were in charge of the DNC....

There's not nearly enough time to play up the Democrat's plan for Iraq, besides, it smells like defeat. Bearing in mind that all politics are local and must be adjusted accordingly, I would have Democratic candidates (who still can) essentially make the same point that Rumsfeld made.

Essentially, "Yeah, I don't know who those appeasers are, but they sure are wrong. Still, we've got to be smart about this, we've got plenty of problems and it'll take tough thinking and, yes, some tough fighting before we're done. Trouble is, we got the gang that can't shoot straight running things." Biden does this very well.

I'd tell them to lay off Guantanamo and Haditha and Abu Ghraib - reminding voters that their kids can be rotters, too, isn't a way to make them like you. Instead, mention their heroism and ain't it a shame it's being slowly wasted. Always have some young vet fresh from Iraq or Afghanistan at your side and make a special gesture his or her way.

But, politics being local, I don't think the Party can make it solely on the war issue. Frankly, I think the Democrats are missing a strong populist wave by not making a big deal about illegal immigration. Play up the value of legal immigration. Call up images of the melting pot. Make whatever other comments you want about treating the illegals here humanely, even promise blanket amnesty for all but serious criminals, but no speech should lack the mention of a GREAT BIG FENCE. Folks tend to see it as simply making people "follow the rules, just like I have to." It even has a tough on terrorism angle.

If asked about abortion, as a Democrat, be pro-choice without being insulting to churches. In fact, never pick a fight with a clergyman if at all possible. Respectfully disagree and move on.

Stay away from gay marriage, but be firmly gay rights.

Don't forget to hit on free healthcare for seniors (those spoiled brats) and cheap health insurance for kids.

Social Security. A looming disaster if you get into the details, so don't. Yes, we'll have problems in the future, but elect us and we'll work with the other side to keep it safe for your lifetimes.

In general, the tone should be populist but never sound spiteful or hateful. The Republicans came into office promising certain things and they haven't delivered - hit spending hard. Time to let a fresh crew try.

Adjust all of the above for local situations.

Shoot, I don't know. If I knew anything, I'd be rich.

I saw Dan Bartlett on the Situation Room today telling Americans that they need to listen to what Osama Bin Laden says about whether Iraq is the central front in the (you know the rest).

A smart Democratic politician would say, "The only the thing I want to hear from Bin Laden is a death rattle."

It's catchy and true.

Here's the plan.

(1) the War on Terror, or whatever the hell Bush labeld it, is over. What is going on in Iraq is no more and no less than an expiditionary police action.

(2) No responsible police force would ever shirk its responsiblites. The Bush administration accepted the responsiblity of providing for the security of the Iraqi citizens. Perhaps reasonable minds could have differed on the plan and scope, but now we've made a committment, and we will not ignore the 911 call of the Iraqi people.

(3) The experiences of the last seven years has taught us quite a bit about the proper role of the United States Military and how that military might best respond in the future to threatened state-sponsored criminal activity. Only a person blind to those lessons could possibly continue to refer to the collective efforts of reasonable people everywhere to prevent criminal terrorst acts as a "War on Terror."

(4) To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We must never forget that fundamental wisdom as we consider our proper role in international relations.

Trashhauler,

Sorry if I miss you with this. I appreciate you sticking around for the whole thread. I started at work and just got caught up here at home...

You mentioned the National Defense Strategy and posted this as the first plank: Winning the War on Terror requires winning the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. "This is no longer mere Republican rhetoric. It is the official national defense position."

How is this a specific plan of action? How is this NOT a sample of Republican rhetoric? It specifically uses the WOT meme developed by the administration and provides no direction as to how these battles should be fought or won.

BTW, I did appreciate the Democratic victory strategy you proposed. It seems fairly well reasoned with only a hint of trying to turn the party into (even more) moderate Republicans.

I am inventing a new word: "Christianofascist."

First bearer: Ann Coulter.

ExBrit wrote:

"What's Bush's plan? You're asking the loyal opposition to provide a plan, but I've yet to see anything beyond "stay the course" from the Bush administration. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over despite the fact that it doesn't work, but that's what "stay the course" means. This is a war they started, against expert advice. Now that its fubar you're asking Democrats to come up with a plan? Maybe you don't have one of your own."
__________________

I'm not asking you to come up with a plan, ExBrit. I said that having a plan beyond "we're getting the hell out" could knock down some of those strawmen people were grousing about. Not having a firm plan makes you seem at best shortsighted and at worst, defeatist. But if you think it's a waste of time because anything you say will be called defeatist, then so be it.

Like I told someone else, you can't stop them from saying it and recounting all the old mistakes they've made is nothing new. So live with it.

As far as the Bush plan goes, it's all down in black and white and, yes, it comes down to stay the course. That's the plan for at least two years, so no sense blowing a gasket. It isn't even all that crazy, you know. Even in a war of attrition, one side wins eventually. And it's not like we are just sitting there. We might even win. We're sure going to try because that's our duty. Crazier things have happened.

In the end, those are the choices. Under orders from the President, we are still undefeated and still fighting. Many at home are tired of it and want it to stop and they don't much care what happens afterward. Crazy or defeatist. Not much of a choice.

has407 wrote: Bush: There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now; vote for me, I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they'll try to do to get our troops out. (here)

Cheney: some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone (here)

has407's quotes confirm my assertion that neither Bush nor Chaney claimed that major Democrats have proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone.

The Dem's defensiveness on this point may be a case of "If the shoe fits..."

having a plan beyond "we're getting the hell out" could knock down some of those strawmen people were grousing about.

There have been quite a plans plans more detailed than "getting the hell out". Kerry, Murtha, Biden have all proposed phased withdrawal.

Everyone here knows that there will be a phased withdrawal gussied up with a victory figleaf. The Iraqi campaign was a diversion on the real war on terrorism and a huge strategic blunder. We'll wreap the whirlwind of it for years to come.

I'm really dubious about solicitations to "come up with a plan" because anything less than total victory will be pilloried by Republicans.

So far, Olbermann and Paul Begala are the go-to guys on how to win this stuff; Paul Hackett had an interesting approach at the beginning of his duel with Dan Senor, but it clonked as it went on.

Bottom line: insult them and call them incompetent, or issue extremely serious and stirring denunciations which cast them as dangerous fools and connect them to the most scurrilous figures in history. Begala called Rumsfeld a crazy old man who ought to be locked up and sent to an insane asylum. Olbermann delivered an explicitly Murrow-esque peroration which compared Rumsfeld and the rest of Team Bush to Neville Chamberlain, McCarthy and Nixon, with ominous images of Nazis running in the background.

Hackett did something that might have bombed, but was shockingly effective: he came out of the gate calling Senor a coward with no military experience and a "little Unterfuhrer". It was such a vicious and blistering, and in fact unjustified, personal attack that Senor was visibly knocked back on his heels. It actually set the terms of the debate markedly in Hackett's favor. But over time the value was lost, as Hackett kept repeating the aggressive tone and boasting about his own credentials, missing chances for substantive argument. The more I see of Hackett, the gladder I am that he was pushed out of the Senate race. He's not a consistently strong candidate, though he has his moments.

bigcat wrote:

"You mentioned the National Defense Strategy and posted this as the first plank: Winning the War on Terror requires winning the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. "This is no longer mere Republican rhetoric. It is the official national defense position."

How is this a specific plan of action? How is this NOT a sample of Republican rhetoric? It specifically uses the WOT meme developed by the administration and provides no direction as to how these battles should be fought or won."
________________

bigcat, they are part of the plan because they are seen as being important, if not crucial, to the prosecution of The Long War which, as they conceive it, will not stop with either of those two campaigns. Success in Iraq and Afghansistan are intermediate goals, not victory in and of themselves. It's important to listen to what the Administration says because it is not just blather. When the President says he's preparing things for the next Administration, he means it. He's not admitting defeat, he's convinced that The Long War will last far into the future, even if not in Iraq.

It is not mere Republican rhetoric because the Administration is molding the Department of Defense for the Long War. When such statements are written into the National Security Strategy, they have gone beyond partisan hype or arguendo. They are official United States objectives. They become the predominant mission of the Armed Forces, not simply electioneering points. We are no longer in Iraq simply because the President made a blunder or twelve. We are there because it is official United States policy that we will seek victory there. Whoever comes after can direct, if they choose, that the policy be changed, but nobody should expect that it will be as simple as flipping a light switch. It will take time to turn the whole massive machine of government around and the question will remain, "Okay, where to, next?"

Oh, I'm sure my election plan will never be used, but thanks for the kind words.

he's convinced that The Long War will last far into the future, even if not in Iraq

Most people on this site feel the same way. I feel that way myself. My argument is that the way this administration has fought the WOT was deeply flawed at the beginning because it misunderstood the nature of the enemy. It has not reexamined the basic mistakes it made at the beginning. It has learned nothing and continues on the same flawed path. This is insane.

ExBrit wrote:

"I'm really dubious about solicitations to "come up with a plan" because anything less than total victory will be pilloried by Republicans."
____________

I rather agree with you, ExBrit.

bigcat:

How do you WIN an occupation?

"Stay the course" isn't, in itself, a plan; it's a slogan. What it represents at the moment is whatever the US warfighting strategy in Iraq is. That strategy seems to have shifted to an "oil-spot" counterinsurgency program focused at the moment on achieving stability in Baghdad.

This is a plan, true, in the sense that, say, the US's strategy for victory in Vietnam, circa 1968, was a plan. But it is a plan with no hope of success. If there was an opportunity to construct a peaceful Iraq along some kind of democratic lines, it was emphatically blown in the first six months of the occupation. There remains no possible strategy for achieving "victory" in Iraq with the US military. And this is why using the word "plan" in connection with what we're now doing in Iraq rankles: sending a larger US force into Baghdad to try to achieve stability there, when it is becoming perfectly that an American force with the size and skills to achieve that objective does not exist, seems more like an enraged refusal to acknowledge the reality of failure than a "plan".

There remains no possible strategy for achieving "victory" in Iraq with the US military.

And probably not even with the Iraqi military:

Iraqi govt strikes truce with Shia militia fighters

AGENCIES , BAGHDAD
Wednesday, Aug 30, 2006,Page 7

Locals flee from Diwaniya, 180km south of Baghdad, Iraq, on Monday after gun battles between Iraqi forces and militiamen of the Mahdi Army loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that killed 20 government soldiers, 40 militants and eight civilians.
PHOTO: AP

Iraqi government forces agreed a truce yesterday with Shiite militia fighters after violent clashes south of Baghdad as Iraq reeled from a three-day bout of bloodshed in cities across the country.

Since Saturday -- when Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki hosted a peace conference for tribal leaders -- Iraq has been battered by fire fights, bomb attacks and murders, marking one of the most violent periods in recent months.

Scores of Iraqi soldiers and civilians have been killed, along with 10 US soldiers, and government forces came close to losing control of the mainly Shiite city of Diwaniya, 180km south of the capital.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/08/30/2003325492

Good thing we liberated the Shia or they would never had had the opporunity fight us and their own government like this.

seems more like an enraged refusal to acknowledge the reality of failure than a "plan".

Right. They made basic mistakes at the beginning and are now hanging in for the long haul simply because they don't want to acknowledge they screwed up. It's a plan, but it sure isn't one we should be following. This gets back to trashauler's original question: what do the Democrats propose. Like I said, there are several plans out there. We haven't even had a national debate on this because every time a Democrat opens their mouth to criticize this administration they're told they're aiding and abetting the enemy, or not supporting the troops, or being unpatriotic. The Bush administration is made up of lying, self-serving, corrupt excuses for leaders in a time when the country deserves better.

Ok, so challenge the administration's seriousness on the entire issue, and their execution, by laying out what would be required to "save Iraq"... higher taxes to pay for it? a draft to man it?

It would be interesting to put that in front of the American people--although I don't know who would risk it, or how it might best be presented--and see the reaction: (a) more of the same; (b) get serious; or (c) get out.


p.s. ex-liberal -- your statement confirms that you are an obtuse pedant.

windhorse: "Good thing we liberated the Shia or they would never had had the opporunity fight us and their own government like this."

I noted that you had to read about this in a Taipei paper. Guess they don't care about JonBenet Ramsey and Warren Jeffs the way we do.

ex-liberal: Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation.

"more vigorous war"? Oh. Civil war in Iraq not clipping along fast enough for you yet, eh?

Anyway, you've got it wrong, 'cause the public is learning that:

Republicans = blowing shit up.

Democrats = aiming.

Donald from Hawaii: I noted that you had to read about this in a Taipei paper.

Good point. In Google News if you google "truce" and "mahdi" you'll this story covered almost exclusively by non-American sources.

Another example of a virtually non-existent story in the U.S. press is the shelling of Kurdistan by both Turkey and Iran. I mean, they're using artillery, airstrikes -- the whole deal, to attack the friendliest region of our new "ally."

I guess that unlike the Hezbollah/Israel conflagration, since there's no easily identifiable good guy in this story that editors probably deem it too difficult for Americans to understand, what with their World Wrestling Federation sensibility for comprehending news from 'furren places.

Good Call Kevin. Kudos.

Locals flee from Diwaniya, 180km south of Baghdad, Iraq, on Monday after gun battles between Iraqi forces and militiamen of the Mahdi Army loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that killed 20 government soldiers, 40 militants and eight civilians.

Iraqi government forces agreed a truce yesterday with Shiite militia fighters after violent clashes south of Baghdad as Iraq reeled from a three-day bout of bloodshed in cities across the country.
_______________

I'm rather surprised that the Iraqi government is so seriously challenging al Sadr's militia. Guess they're finally getting accustomed to being in charge.

al Sadr cannot afford to lose 2 to 1 against the army, which is far larger than his militia. Perhaps not a bad job by the army. The question is how often they can repeat the performance.

And it said, "Iraqi government forces agreed a truce...." I wonder if that means the Shiite militia requested it.

great info, thank you

Donald from Hawaii >"...He was a butcher, and never denied that..."

He was a professional & did his job like a professional

Donald from Hawaii >"...If you'd like a more recent example of American willingness to engage in a battle of attrition with its enemy..."

Ia Drang Valley November 14-17, 1965

More professionals, doing a professional job (kill ratio 5:1)

War sucks shit but either you do you job or you die; quit whining about it

"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." - Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

Republicans = blowing shit up.

Democrats = aiming.

Outstanding.

Trashhauler - Are you sure it isn't water that you carry? Slogans are not a strategy. Do you really expect Democratic politicians to start issuing Op orders? Did you read the WaPo excerpt from Fiasco?
"Army Lt. General David McKiernan had another, smaller but nagging issue: He couldn't get Franks to issue clear orders that stated explicitly what he wanted done, how he wanted to do it, and why. Rather, Franks passed along PowerPoint briefing slides that he had shown to Rumsfeld: "It's quite frustrating the way this works, but the way we do things nowadays is combatant commanders brief their products in PowerPoint up in Washington to OSD and Secretary of Defense…In lieu of an order, or a frag [fragmentary order], or plan, you get a bunch of PowerPoint slides…[T]hat is frustrating, because nobody wants to plan against PowerPoint slides."

By the way I have seen this exact phrase - "'Winning the War on Terror requires winning the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.' This is no longer mere Republican rhetoric. It is the official national defense position." - in other blog comments.
Do you just cut and paste?

the four bloodiest years of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War (1966-69).

Interesting idea to compare Grant to Westmoreland on attrition. The difference was that in Vietnam, the NVA could replace its losses, while we, effectively, couldn't - Americans were simply not willing to keep killing and dying in South Vietnam, while North Vietnamese were. So our attrition strategy there was sort of like if Lee had decided to engage in a strategy of attrition against Grant. And this is also effectively what we were doing for the first two and a half years, at least, in Iraq.

There is a technical term for this in military circles: "fucking stupid".

Ia Drang Valley November 14-17, 1965

The Battle of the Ia Drang Valley was a defeat for the United States. The kill ratios you cite are based on American speculation and self-flattery. The US Army itself considered the operation a yellow light, as it forced a reevaluation towards more caution in the use of helicopter cavalry, which commanders before the battle had believed would overwhelm the NVA with its speed.

NVA commanders since the end of the war have acknowledged that the introduction of helicopter-borne assault at first caused them serious difficulties, as US troops were extremely quick to deploy. But they adapted. Their greatest counter-advantage was camouflage, the uncertainty of US troops about where NVA units were - which is what caused a small US cavalry unit to accidentally land practically on top of an NVA division at Ia Drang. The Americans narrowly escaped complete annihilation, and the operational capabilities of the NVA division were not reduced by the engagement. The NVA fought for as long as it chose to in order to inflict American casualties, and, when it decided to, it left. It was a war of attrition: they were attritting us.

This administration has never had a true realization of the nature of this conflict. They have looked through a narrow tube to see what they want to see.

The huge waste of money, resources, lives and physical and material ability, not to add national confidence (gosh, I hope that's taken a dent), and willingness to inflict violence on other people, I would hope all this reflects back on the USA.

mann coulter: Can anyone name all the righties who where on board with Clinton in Kosovo.Did any righties say bad things about Clinton when he was conducting that little war.Where any righties on board with Clinton when he was tring to kill Osama. Anyone?????

"You can support the troops but not the president." -Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) 1999

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags (FROM BOSNIA) why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush

something smells wrote:

"Trashhauler - Are you sure it isn't water that you carry? Slogans are not a strategy. Do you really expect Democratic politicians to start issuing Op orders? Did you read the WaPo excerpt from Fiasco?
"Army Lt. General David McKiernan had another, smaller but nagging issue: He couldn't get Franks to issue clear orders....

By the way I have seen this exact phrase - "'Winning the War on Terror requires winning the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.' This is no longer mere Republican rhetoric. It is the official national defense position." - in other blog comments.
Do you just cut and paste?"
_____________________

something, it's been a long thread, but I invite you to review it. I'm not suggesting that the Democrats do anything of the sort. I was just saying that you cannot knock down strawmen with nothing and there was no sense complaining about it. Then someone asked what was the Bush plan and I pointed out that it is published in official documents. As it is.

That's about it. I'm not surprised that you've seen the sentence, "Winning the War on Terror requires winning the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq." in other blogs. But I got the sentence from The National Security Strategy of the United States, 2006. That's why the sentence is in quotes.

You can find it here: http://www.comw.org/qdr/offdocs.html

The sentence is on about page 12 of the pdf file.

Thank you D-from-H, brooksfoe & Windhorse for the excellent information.

I have a quibble with daCascadian: War sucks shit but either you do you job or you die; quit whining about it

It is not whining to make the observation that butchery occurs during war. There is a difference between a meat grinder and a pruning shears. Or the trenches of WWI vs IED's of Iraq. There is a reason war sucks shit, and some wars suck more shit than others.

The forces that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about are presently in control of this country.

Heed the ghost of Ike.

John Hansen: "You have to admit it, any mention of the word theocracy associated with America is over the top. If you actually spend some time talking to people on the religious right, you will find that they are the strongest supporters of freedom of religion."

"George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God." -- Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin - Good Shepherd Community Church, Sandy, Ore., June 2003

"...blow them all away in the name of the Lord." -- Jerry Falwell on CNN, 10/29/04

This administration has never had a true realization of the nature of this conflict. They have looked through a narrow tube to see what they want to see. The huge waste of money, resources, lives...

When you belong to the military-industrial-political-complex the lens through which war is viewed is quite dramatically warped by greed.

"Worst case scenario- we're still makin' money."

Trashhauler,

I am sure you are aware of this but I thought others might be interested in it. One of the biggest proponents of the Stryker was General Shinseki! As part of his 1999 vison for the future of the army he proposed these types of vehicles. You can check the story out here; http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Stryker2,,00.html and here:http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Stryker,,00.html

Bit of irony would you not say!

Trashhauler,

Finally, there are detailed procedures, instructions, and orders issued by the National Command Authority and the Pentagon.

Are you seriously suggesting that in order for the strawmen to be finally knocked down that the Dems have to prepare "detailed procedures, instructions, and orders" issued by presumably some equivalent of the National Command Authority and the Pentagon? What would that equivalent be? I think you are asking for something that is not feasible in our political system.

"You're asking the loyal opposition to provide a plan, but I've yet to see anything beyond "stay the course" from the Bush administration. "

No, no, no. You didn't get the memo from Ken Mehlman? Now it's "adapt to win."

But adapt HOW? That's not so clear. Of course, one cannot say that either "stay the course" or "adapt to win" is not really a PLAN, because as everyone knows, it is the DEMOCRATS who don't have a plan.

The MSM is a box of dull tools. Karl Rove knows this, and knows just how to use dull tools.

Edo wrote:

"Are you seriously suggesting that in order for the strawmen to be finally knocked down that the Dems have to prepare "detailed procedures, instructions, and orders" issued by presumably some equivalent of the National Command Authority and the Pentagon? What would that equivalent be? I think you are asking for something that is not feasible in our political system."
______________

Not at all, Edo, I'm not suggesting anything like that. I gave an example of a document in which the Bush Administration's policy was written and you promptly pointed out that it was not the sole source of their policy. I agreed and pointed out other some sources of policy, carrying it down to the logical end. The only reason I mentioned orders and such was that having been corrected once, got carried away with stuff that is not publicly available. However, the list does point out the things an incumbent can do that his challengers cannot.

This is one advantage of incumbency. Not only does any administration have a ready pulpit from which to make its case, but also the power and responsibility to change the actual position of the country. Democrats should certainly know this as well as Republicans.

The wonder is that somehow people forget the the President is actually President and not just some operatically funny/tragic/evil character to snark at. In many ways, his success becomes functionally linked to the success of the nation, if for no other reason than he gets to define the official terms of success.

Having served under seven Presidents, I've gotten used to partisanship, but never completely comfortable with it. Anyone who thinks the other side is completely evil is an idiot. In a democracy, it's okay to assume the other side is tragically wrong, even irredeemably stupid. But I've seen too many countries where it became common for people to assume the political opposition is the enemy. The private militias, assassinations, and coups follow closely behind.

In many ways, his success becomes functionally linked to the success of the nation, if for no other reason than he gets to define the official terms of success.

"Official" is meaningless. Every American citizen—in whom, not the President, ultimate authority and sovereignty resides—decides the criteria for success on their own and acts on it.

That's what government of, by, and for the people means.

The success of the President may be consistent with or diametrically opposed to those criteria for success of the nation.

They are functionally linked only to the extent that a particular citizen shares the beliefs of the President.

You seem to conceive of the President as an elected deity whose will defines right and wrong, good and evil, success and failure. This is, IMO, an infantile attitude toward government.

cmdicely wrote:

"Official" is meaningless. Every American citizen—in whom, not the President, ultimate authority and sovereignty resides—decides the criteria for success on their own and acts on it.

That's what government of, by, and for the people means.
__________________

Respectfully, cmdicely, that's not what it means. We do not have a government based on the principles of Michel Foucault, but, rather, on the principles of the Enlightenment. It is a representative democracy in which the decisions of the elected representatives mean something. Once elected, our representatives (and especially the Executive) are invested with certain powers to act on behalf of the nation as a whole.

Sovereignty lies in the people, collectively. Logically, if sovereignty lay in each individual, then no law would be legitimate, save in the opinion of each individual. That would be a unique school of thought, but not one taught in any school of government that I'm aware of. Even anarchism has more form than that.

The President, any President, is both the Chief of State and Chief Executive. While not a king, much less a deity, the President has certain powers which the individual citizen must acknowledge, recognizing that our system is organized that way for good reason.

Otherwise, your argument is against the democratic form of government, not any particular President.

Respectfully, cmdicely, that's not what it means.

Well, clearly its not what it means to you.

We do not have a government based on the principles of Michel Foucault, but, rather, on the principles of the Enlightenment.

I never suggested the former, nor the contrary to the latter.

It is a representative democracy in which the decisions of the elected representatives mean something.

Yes, they mean specifically what actually gets done. Which the citizens then evaluate by their own standards of success and failure, dispute about among themselves, and respond to as they choose.

Once elected, our representatives (and especially the Executive) are invested with certain powers to act on behalf of the nation as a whole.

Partially true (the parenthetical is institutionally inaccurate—the Legislature has far broader power as an institution to act on behalf of the nation as a whole than the Executive, the President more than any other single elected representative.)

But the authority to act on behalf of the people does not give them the authority to define the standards by which their own actions will be judged as successes or failures.

Sovereignty lies in the people, collectively.

The "people collectively" is a fiction; freedom is naturally the right of each individual, and soveriegnty is nothing more than freedom.

But the idea that soveriegnty lies in the hands of the people, whether collectively or individually, is a nullity if a dictator (elected or not) defines the standards by which the nations success or failure is judged.

Logically, if sovereignty lay in each individual, then no law would be legitimate, save in the opinion of each individual.

I don't think that's even remotely true; clearly the English understanding of soveriegnty from which ours descended, even prior to the Enlightment, held that the sovereign power could bind itself and, once bound, remained bound. Hence the idea that the soveriegn was not free to act contrary to a legitimate Act of Parliament which justified the deposition of Lady Jane Grey (made heir by an "illegal" Will of Edward VI) after she was proclaimed, but not yet crowned, Queen.

The President, any President, is both the Chief of State and Chief Executive. While not a king, much less a deity, the President has certain powers which the individual citizen must acknowledge, recognizing that our system is organized that way for good reason.

Those powers are clearly defined in the Constitution. They do not involve the power to "set the official terms of success of the nation" in any manner that any person is obligated to respect. He acts, and the people judge his success or failure, and that of the country, on their own terms.

Otherwise, your argument is against the democratic form of government, not any particular President.

My argument is against your monarchist fantasy that the person of the President is endowed by our system of government with quasi-Papal authority to define "success" and "failure" of the nation. The President is given the (specifically delineated) power to act.

The people set their own standards for judging the results.

cmdicely wrote:

"Those powers are clearly defined in the Constitution. They do not involve the power to "set the official terms of success of the nation" in any manner that any person is obligated to respect. He acts, and the people judge his success or failure, and that of the country, on their own terms.

My argument is against your monarchist fantasy that the person of the President is endowed by our system of government with quasi-Papal authority to define "success" and "failure" of the nation. The President is given the (specifically delineated) power to act.

____________________

While I admire strict constructionism as much as the next guy, are you sure you want to go down that road? :)

However, if you want to go back to the intent of the Founding Fathers, the diffence between the President and a King is explained in Federalist #69 and I quite agree with their distinctions.

I, of course, also never said any thing about quasi-like Papal powers.

I'll go this far towards you, cm. When I said the President defines success, I meant it in the context of the thread. I.e., to the extent that the Executive decides what the objectives of the National Security Strategy are, it is in accordance with his power as Commander in Chief. There is no Congressional advise and consent function with regard to determining the National Security Strategy. (And yes, I know there are other ways for Congress to make known its will.)

In any case, I have no heartburn with the idea that each individual can decide for herself what is success or failure. I just disagreed with the idea of individual sovereignty.

Auto and Trucks articles Auto and trucks articles

Boats articles boats articles

Cars articles cars articles

Motorcycles articles motorcycles articles

RVs articles RVs articles

Trucks articles trucks articles

Business articles business articles

Advertising articles advertising articles

Careers articles careers articles

Customer Service articles customer service articles

Entrepreneurs articles entrepreneurs articles

Ethics articles ethics articles

Home Based Business articles home based business articles

Management articles management articles

Marketing articles marketing articles

Networking articles networking articles

Public Relations articles public relations articles

Small Business articles small business articles

Computers and Internet articles computers and internet articles

Computer Certification articles computer certification articles

Data Recovery articles data recovery articles

Games articles games articles

Hardware articles hardware articles

Networks articles networks articles

Software articles software articles

Education articles education articles

College articles college articles

K-12 Education articles K-12 education articles

Language articles language articles

Philosophy articles philosophy articles

Psychology articles psychology articles

Science articles science articles

Sociology articles sociology articles

Family articles family articles

Pets and Animals articles pets and animals articles

Babies articles babies articles

Elderly Care articles elderly care articles

Holidays articles holidays articles

Parenting articles parenting articles

Pregnancy articles pregnancy articles

Food and Drink articles food and drink articles

Coffee articles coffee articles

Cooking articles cooking articles

Gourmet articles gourmet articles

Recipes articles recipes articles

Wine articles wine articles

Health articles health articles

Acne articles acne articles

Alternative Medicine articles alternative medicine articles

Beauty articles beauty articles

Cardio articles cardio articles

Depression articles depression articles

Diabettes articles diabettes articles

Exercise articles exercise articles

Fitness articles fitness articles

Hair Loss articles hair loss articles

Medicine articles medicine articles

Meditation articles meditation articles

Men Issues articles men issues articles

Muscle Building articles muscle building articles

Nutrition articles nutrition articles

Weight Loss articles weight loss articles

Women Issues articles women issues articles

Yoga articles yoga articles

Hobbies articles hobbies articles

Home Improvemenr articles home improvement articles

Home Security articles home security articles

Interior Design articles interior design articles

Landscaping articles landscaping articles

Gardening articles gardening articles

Science articles science articles

Astronomy articles astronomy articles

Biology articles biology articles

Environment articles environment articles

Physics articles physics articles

Technology articles technology articles

Kids and Teens articles kids and teens articles

Legal articles legal articles

Family Law articles family law articles

Immigration articles immigration articles

Personal Injury articles personal injury articles

Finance articles finance articles

Credit articles credit articles

Currency Trading articles currency trading articles

Debt Consolidation articles debt consolidation articles

Fundraising articles fundraising articles

Insurance articles insurance articles

Investing articles investing articles

Leasing articles leasing articles

Loans articles loans articles

Mortgage articles mortgage articles

Mutual Funds articles mutual funds articles

Personal Finance articles personal finance articles

Real Estate articles real estate articles

Stock Market articles stock market articles

Taxes articles taxes articles

Online Business articles online business articles

Affiliate Programs articles affiliate programs articles

Auctions articles auctions articles

Audio-Video Streaming articles audio-video streaming articles

Blogging articles blogging articles

Domains articles domains articles

Ebooks articles ebooks articles

Ecommerce articles ecommerce articles

Email Marketing articles email marketing articles

Ezine Marketing articles ezine marketing articles

Ezine Publishing articles ezine publishing articles

Internet Marketing articles internet marketing articles

SEO articles SEO articles

Internet Advertising articles internet advertising articles

Web Design articles web design articles

Web Hosting articles web hosting articles

Politics and Government articles politics and government articles

Commentary articles commentary articles

Current Events articles current events articles

History articles history articles

Recreation and Sports articles recreation and sports articles

Fishing articles fishing articles

Extreme articles extreme articles

Biking articles biking articles

Golf articles golf articles

Gambling and Casinos articles gambling and casinos articles

Hunting articles hunting articles

Martial Arts articles martial arts articles

Running articles running articles

Relationships articles relationship articles

Dating articles dating articles

Divorce articles divorse articles

Marriage articles marriage articles

Sexuality articles sexuality articles

Self Improvement articles self improvement articles

Attraction articles attraction articles

Coaching articles coaching articles

Creativity articles creativity articles

Goal Setting articles goal setting articles

Grief articles Grief articles

Happiness articles happiness articles

Innovation articles innovation articles

Inspirational articles inspirational articles

Leadership articles leadership articles

Motivation articles motivation articles

Organizing articles organizing articles

Spirituality articles spirituality articles

Stress Management articles stress management articles

Success articles success articles

Time Management articles time management articles

Travel and Leisure articles travel and leisure articles

Aviation articles avation articles

Boating articles boating articles

Cruises articles cruises articles

Destinations articles destinations articles

Outdoors articles outdoors articles

Travel Tips articles travel tips articles

Vacations articles Vacations articles

Article Writing articles article writing articles

Book Marketing articles book marketing articles

Copywriting articles copyrighting articles

Communications articles communications articles

Broadband Internet articles broadband internet articles

GPS articles GPS articles

Mobile Phones articles Modile phones articles

Satellite Radio articles Satellite radioarticles

Satellite TV articles Satellite TV articles

Video Conferencing video conferencing articles

VOIP articles VOIP articles
Arts and Entertainment articles art and entertainment articles
Celebrities articles Celebrities articles
Humanities articles humanities articles
Humor articles Humor articles
Movies articles movies articles
Music articles music articles

Poetry articles poetry articles

Product Reviews articles product reviews articles

Book Reviews articles book reviews articles

Consumer Electronics articles consumer electronics articles

Digital Products articles Digital products articles

Movie Reviews articles movie reviews articles

Music Reviews articles music reviews articles

To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular
source of income. Despite invitations from credit
card issuers, you will still have to demonstrate that you are a good risk
before they grant you credit.
The proof is in your credit report. Before you submit a credit
card application, you may want to obtain a copy of your credit
report to make sure it is accurate. Credit
cards by type could be following:

0% Intro Low APR credit cards - 0% Intro Low APR credit cards
,

Rewards credit cards - Rewards credit cards ,

Instant Approval credit cards- Instant Approval credit cards,

Airline Miles Cards - Airline Miles Cards,

Business Credit Cards - Business Credit Cards,

Gas Credit Cards - Gas Credit Cards,

Student Credit Cards - Student Credit Cards ,

Low Interest Credit Cards - Low Interest Credit Cards, ,

American Express credit cards ,

Bank Of America credit cards - Bank Of America credit cards,

Chase credit cards - Chase Manhattan credit cards,

CitiBank credit cards - Citibank credit cards

Columbus Bank credit cards - Columbus Bank credit cards,

Discover credit cards - discover credit cards

HSBC Bank credit cards,

New Millennium Bank credit cards - Millennium Bank credit cards, and

U.S. Bank credit cards

Calculator
Mortgage - calculator free mortgage, calculator mortgage rate

Mortgage
Calculator calculator interest mortgage, mortgage interest calculator, calculator
mortgage.

Read more about personal
finance , earnings,
stock
markets and economy
at online business news. More offers
can be found at credit cards
offers.

Credit card offers, compare credit cards - Credit card offers, compare credit cards.
Visa credit cards visa credit
cards

Visa gift cards
visa gift card

Visa platinum
visa platinum

Chase visa chase
visa

Aspire visa
Aspire visa

Aspire visa
Card Aspire visa Card

Visa Master
card Visa Master card

Royal bank visa
Royal bank visa

Capital One
Visa Capital One Visa

Prepaid Visa
Prepaid Visa

Bank of America
Visa Bank of America Visa

Visa Gold Visa
Gold

MBNA visa MBNA
visa

Visa
student credit card Visa student credit card

Secured visa
Secured visa

Visa
credit card application Visa credit card application

Bank One Visa
Bank One Visa

Prepaid
visa credit card Prepaid visa credit card

Chase Visa card
Chase Visa card

Worldperks Visa
Worldperks Visa

Bad credit
visa card Bad credit visa card

Visa debit card
Visa debit card

Chase master card

Chase master cards offers

Master Card gift
card

Master card gif cards listings

Platinum Master
Card

Platinum master card listings

Prepaid Master
Card

prepaid master card offers

Citibank master
card

Citibank master card offers

Master Card credit cards

Master Card credit cards top offers

Citi master card

Citi master card offers

Shell Master Card

Shell master card best offer!

Orchard bank
master card

Orchard bank master card - get here!

Gold Master Card

Gold Master Card best offers

Bad Credit Master
Card

Bad Credit Master Card offers

HSBC master card

HSBC master card listings

Master credit card

Master credit card listings

You can search, compare and apply for
a credit card online - and in some cases even get a credit
decision within 60 seconds!

Low Interest
Credit cards low interest credit cards

Cash Back Credit
Cards cash back credit cards

Fixed APR Credit
Cards fixed APR credit cards

Balance Transfer
Cards balance transfer credit cards

Reward credit cards
reward credit cards

Gas Rebate Cards gas
rebate cards

Shopping Rebate
Cards shopping rebate cards

Travel Rebate Cards
travel rebate credit cards

Airline Credit
Cards airline miles credit cards

Business Credit
Cards business credit cards

Student Credit
Cards student credit cards

Pre-paid Debit
Cards prepaid debit cards

Bad Credit
Credit Cards bad credit credit cards

Catalog Credit
Cards catalog credit cards

Advanta credit
cards advanta credit cards

Amex credit cards
amex credit cards

Chase credit cards
chase credit cards

Citibank credit
cards citibank credit cards

Aspire visa card
aspire visa card

Discover credit
cards discover credit cards

HSBC Bank credit
cards HSBC bank credit cards

New Millennium
Bank credit cards New Millenium Bank credit cards

Pulaski Bank credit
cards Pulaski bank credit cards

Worlperks visa
credit card Worldperks visa credit card

bad credit repair bad credit repair

bad credit report repair bad credit report repair

bad credit mortgages bad credit mortgages

bad credit loans bad credit loans

bad credit auto loans bad credit auto loans

bad credit home loans bad credit home loans

bad credit personal loans bad credit personal loans

bad credit home improvement loans bad credit home improvement loans

bad credit refinance bad credit refinance

bad credit debt consolidation bad credit debt consolidation

bad credit motorcycle loans bad credit motorcycle loans

bad credit boat loans boat loans

bad credit military loans bad credit military loans

bad credit signature loans bad credit signature loans

bad credit mortgage loans bad credit mortgage loans

bad credit repair bad credit repair

bad credit visa cards bad credit visa cards

bad credit california mortgage bad credit california mortgage

bad credit help bad credit help

bad credit second mortgage bad credit second mortgage

Online insurance quotes Online insurance quotes

Online insurance rates Online insurance rates

Online insurance quote Online insurance quote

car insurance car insurance

health insurance health insurance

home insurance home insurance

life insurance life insurance

business insurance business insurance

auto insurance quote auto insurance quote

home owner insurance home owner insurance

travel insurance travel insurance

dental insurance dental insurance

medical insurance medical insurance

renters insurance renters insurance

motorcycle insurance motorcycle insurance

boat insurance boat insurance

pet insurance pet insurance

family health insurance family insurance

disability insurance disability insurance

liability insurance liability insurance

flood insurance flood insurance

property insurance property insurance

car insurance rate car insurance rate

insurance broker insurance broker

online insurance quote online insurance quote

Credit Reports credit
reports

Mortgage Loans mortgage
loans refinance

Credit card application Credit card
application

Credit card online application Credit
card online application

apply for a credit card online - apply for a credit card online

Affiliate programs are the best way to make your web site profitable. There's a huge range of href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.net">web affiliate programs available
now, so each webmaster could find

href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com">affiliate program

home security home security

x10 x10

home
security system home security system

barking
dog alarm barking dog alarm

voice
dialer voice dialer

x10 home automation x10 home automation

home automation software home automation
software

assisted
living assisted living

wireless
camera wireless camera

xray vision
xray vision

x10 cameras x10 cameras

entertainment
entertainment

wireless cameras wireless cameras

home automation home automation

nanny cam
nanny cam

nanny camera
nanny camera

home
security system home security system

home automation kits home automation kits

wireless
camera systems wireless camera systems

universal
remotes universal remotes

camera
systems camera systems

home
automation home automation

home
security systems home security systems