Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I've been waiting for publication of that book since it was first announced. "60 Minutes" still has the biggest audience of any news program (I think), so it may reach some of those who are still wearing blinders.

Impeachment? Works for me.

There's just the slight problem of the GOP controlling Congress.

But despite that, if a whole bunch of Dems co-sponsored an impeachment resolution, and introduced it Monday morning, right on the heels of the 60 Minutes program, people might actually notice that something funny was going on.

If Clinton is impeached for sexual bad taste; if Nixon walks the plank becasue of a dumb cover up; if LBJ abdicates because of Viet Nam, what, o what, does this gang which has killed people needlessly to follow a discredited ideology, destroyed the finances of the state and torn asunder alliances merit? They deserve to be tried for treason and executed. Impeachment is too good.

Seriously, such a move should start, irrespective of where it winds up. Perhaps our fellow citizens will then wake up to the Orwellian big lie this gang has been propagating.

As a resident physician in psychiatry at a major academic institution in California, I would be the last person to pick on the mentally ill. However, I believe I am seeing something of a pattern. Most patients that are rather high functioning seem to have a natural mistrust of the Bush administration. However, I have had a paranoid schizophrenic who 'liked the things Bush was saying'. I had a former veteran crack addict with chronic drug-related low level psychosis who agreed with Bush's war in Iraq, because 'we have to kill the bad guys'. And just yesterday I cared for a very demented 99 year old who can no longer care for herself telling me she was 'for Bush'.

So I think I am beginning to see a pattern- albeit just from my own clinical experience- that cognitively impaired mentally ill patients tend to go for republican posturing. Maybe that's what we progressives have been missing all along...

Sure. Spend time asking for the impeachment of a corrupt Rethug. While corrupt Rethugs hijacked by crossworshippers control our entire government. Probably get to that right after the Congress passes a resolution that, Clinton being the Antichrist, he really is responsible for everything.

Outsource Milton Friedman's Acolytes!

non economist -

How very Charles Krauthammer of you.

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

Randy Newman was only kidding.

Think of it as a character test for the national corporate elite. Rational self interest should lead them to protect the life-raft by pushing Bush overboard to the sharks. I doubt that they will rise to challenge, though.

Non-Economist,

Don't forget to include yourself in the appropriate category of your non-scientific observations.

I'll reserve judgement. The quotation of Rumsfeld's sounds quite silly. In press conferences, Rumsfeld is sharp and quick witted. I don't buy the dim bulb quote. Let's wait to see what ax this guy has to grind. 60 minutes can twist a story with the best of them. They've got a real slant.

Shorter Brian: where's my spin point?

On September 11 already? Oh my. Then again, the Aznar government tried no longer than a week ago to make political capital out of the murder of 200 of their own citizens. Call me naive or whatever, but I never believed I was living in a country ruled by scumbags like that. Similarly, I thought no European politicians would have dared (in equilibrium) to play the utterly immoral game Aznar played. And it's not like I was starting from a rosy assesment of right wing populists. In fact, I thought they had already robed me of my political virginity three times over... Einstein was indeed right when he warned us about the growing power of the military-industrial complex.

You know, the Rumsfeld "lots of good targets" sounds goofy, but really reflects the view of the administration. Isn't that what Bush was saying today, that fighting terrorism is all about showing resolution and taking the fight to the enemy.

In the Postmodern presidency, reality is meaningless, only appearance matters. Post 911 it was important to beat somebody up real good, just to show what we can do, and Afghanistan was just all wrong for the part. Iraq had already had a juicy villein role and is an economical place to shoot. In Iraq we can stay on schedule, stick to the script. Afghanis and AQ are unreliable (like isn't it just like Osama to like just blow off his big death scene you know). Its terribly important that the terrorists understand we are willing to spend hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to conquer impotent petty dictators and convert their otherwise quiescent countries into hotbeds of terrorist activity lest they mistakenly conclude we are craven appeasers and surrender monkeys.

Surely the economists here can recognize the subtle brilliance of the signal sent by attacking Iraq. George Bush has conclusively demonstrated he has no regard for American lives or specie, nor for geopolitical consequences, and that any attack on the United States will be played for maximum political benefit at home and used an excuse for delivering ever larger portions of both the Islamic world and American tax revenues over to George and Dick's cronies. Bring it on!! Notice that recognizing the counterproductive nature of further attacks on the US, Al Qaeda has focused on those lily livered furreners with no stomach for occupying unstable and ethnically divided countries and installing corrupt regimes for the personal and political benefit of their unelected leaders. Meanwhile Bush has kept us safe and we will remain so so long as foolish liberal intellectuals don't succeed in creating a dangerous link between George Bush's personal and political success and the welfare of the country.

One thing that's come out recently is that the Spaniards are less blase about being lied to than Americans are. And at the governmental level, even the Poles, who are militarily and politically sympathetic to Bush, have expressed some annoyance at having been deceived.

Whereas a major talking point among American conservatives is "That was then. It doesn't make any difference any more. The war was worth it even if we didn't find WMD." And so on.

"Afghanistan was just all wrong for the part."

Well, had the GWB administration gone after Afghanistan, stayed in the country in full force until the Karzai administration is stabilized and actually rules the whole country, and had they gone after al Qaeda on location rather than open up another playground for them in Iraq, they could rightfully expect a reelection by a wide margin. Which in trun they could have used to escalate the conflict with Hussein to get their desired war. So Afghanistan wasn't so wrong after all. It was just that the PNAC hawks were too eager to go after their prize right away that they couldn't even think through the consequences of their actions.

I see a lot of pessimism here and, believe me, I'm not an optimist. I try very, very hard to be a realist. And I am certain that the national mood about Bush and this administration is undergoing a radical tranformation. I am hearing rumbles of discontent and *mistrust* from people I'd never have expected it. With the status quo continued, Bush will lose the election in November—but I see things continuing to get worse for him, not stay the same or get better.

Where did Brian get the idea that Rumsfeld was quick-witted? Rummy is like the bastard schoolmaster snapping up his students in unreasonable logic traps. Where are the WMD? There're N, E, W & S somewhat. Is that wit or arrogance? Rummy sure did sound (and look) like an idiot when Firedman dared turn on him, although being Friedman he asked no follow-ups. He's never been witty: the disadvantage of the overprotected dictator emerging into a market where people actually comnpete, with Rummy cowering and wondering why oh why they're being so mean...

This is the gangsta administration. A bunch of punks sitting in a conference room wanting to kill anything that moves. Saddam dissed my daddy, so let's get his ass.

Bush's theme for 2004 is sure and steady, not like that crazy Kerry who wants to think about it before he picks an enemy. But he is a religious man. So what else does the electorate need to know.

Give up any hopes of impeachment. Ain't gonna happen. Not even if verified tape recordings of Bush personally outing Plame came to light. Not even if indisputable proof of Bush committing outright treason came to light. Lott, DeLay, and Hastert would never allow it.

Sadly, history will be Bush's judge. It will not be kind. Should Bush win this year, America will be in for a true nightmare. Indeed, I would be surprised if the country still exists come 2008.

Don't miss this classic Rumsfeld "war on Iraq" moment, caught on video:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

On the notion that by invading Iraq we 'sent a signal'. The logic is sound enough, but the threat has to be credible. Cutting taxes that finance the threat, putting stop-loss orders on troops in the field to avoid calling more up via a draft, and demonstrating a willingness to pull out a couple of days after a rocket hits the Baghdad hotel where Paul Wolfowitz is staying do not signal the will that makes the threat credible. One can oppose the preemptive strike scenario, but it does have a certain obscene logic when carried through. This administration carries nothing through. All they have achieved by the invasion and Occupation is to signal utter fecklessness. The only people to whom the threat now seems credible are a small majority of the American people. Everyone else can see through the fraud. This is very dangerous and ultimately very destablizing.

When will the next Daniel Ellsberg show up?

"Let's wait to see what ax this guy has to grind."

Seriously? You don't know who Richard Clarke is?

That's a rather fundamental piece of missing knowledge for someone smart enough to find this blog.

make that General Einstein please . . .

sbw,
You will get what you want on the day Geo of Irak leaves office.
Enjoy

No good targets in Afghanistan, lots of good targets in Iraq.

Huh. I've been puzzling over that one since I fisrt saw the quote. No, he's not stupid. But what does he mean by targets, and what would have been the point? If he was referring to Saddam, shouldn't he have said "target" or called him by name?

I can't help thinking that even then--and starting from years before in planning the takedown of Iraq--they had to be thinking about the money to be made in rebuilding "targeted" infrastructure related to and possibly supported by oil. Otherwise, why not be satisfied with the reconstruction in Afghanistan? -- It was already rubble, and we then reduced it to gravel. Plenty of reconstruction opportunities there. But no oil.

The only other conclusion is that they really truly believed against all the evidence they already had that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction all over the country. Sorry I just don't buy that.

I guess that's the similarity between mathematicians, bank robbers and Rumsfeld.

Mathematicians work on obscure field X because that's where the theorems are.

We all know about Willie SUtton http://www.banking.com/aba/profile_0397.htm

And now Rumsfeld.

By "targets" Rummy means big things (e.g. cities) that can be hit by bombs dropped from an airplane. Rummy's view of a transformed military meant less troops, more tech. In Afghanistan, they ran out of such targets in a couple of days. They left most of the work on the ground of actually rounding up Taliban and AQ to the local tribal forces.

THIS WAS A HUGE MISTAKE AND NO ONE IS POINTING OUT THAT THE BUSH CROWD REALLY SCREWED UP IN AFGHANISTAN. We should have had more troops on the ground to do the cleanup work. Rummy' vision of a "soldierless" military is an arrogant, foolish illusion.

It's not like Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Libby/Feith/etc. & Co. hadn't been waiting for years to take out Saddam Hussein - as this January 26th, 1998 letter shows:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

OK. So Cheney/Libby/Feith didn't sign that one. But they signed this June 3rd, 1997 Statement of Principles:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Anyone think Iraq wasn't primarily about Neoconservative ideals? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? Hold on, my clue phone is ringing...

You know, this "lot's of good targets" story really isn't new.

Several blogs - including this one, I believe - ran a story in which Condi Rice was alleged to have been saying the same things in her push to attack Iraq right after 9/11.

These stories were running well over a year ago.

So there is probably some truth to it.

"So I think I am beginning to see a pattern- albeit just from my own clinical experience- that cognitively impaired mentally ill patients tend to go for republican posturing."

As I said before, if after three years of disasters both foreign and domestic, people are still for Bush, it's no longer politics we're talking about but pathology. In the coming election, all we need are the independents. The Bushophiles can stew in their own juices -- and obey the law.

No connection, huh. How about that Osama bin Laden himself told us he was attacking the U.S. because of our "infidel troops" on Saudi soil?

Troops invited in to protect Saudi Arabia from SADDAM HUSSEIN.

Personally, I wouldn't care for an impeachment. What I want to see is an electoral count of ZERO for Bush in 2004. After spending $200M of "hard earned" Republican dollars.

Nothing else would be sufficiently humiliating.

Nothing else would do as much to encourage the GOP not to back another buffoon like this one.

"My advice, not that you care, take a break, you need it."

Apparently the Republicans are withdrawing to their holes. Bye and give my regards to Donald Luskin.

"Apparently the Republicans are withdrawing to their holes. Bye and give my regards to Donald Luskin."

... and that is excellent news. It means liberals are finally recovering some of their spine and are defining the debate ON THEIR TERMS, instead of apologizing for not being more conservative than the Republican party. Democrats must stop ASAP spending most of their energy responding to Republican questions, and come up with their own agenda, and force Republicans to answer their questions. But don't expect them to be happy or honest about that.

"I now open the site occasionally and think: BORING."

If this was what you think, you wouldn't bother to posting something like this here. You'd be busy commenting on another "more interesting" blog.

I am genuinely amazed (and I have always been) about how much fear cconservatives think they can inspire among liberals. I guess they are trying to maje use of the liberal Achille's talon, i.e. a commitment to be truthful even if it means loosing on some issues here and there. But I also think many conservatives think they still live in a world where if they just shout "buuuh!" to make liberals compromise over pretty much every thing, including their deep felt ethos and their self-perception.

There are about fifteen books like this timed to dribble out over the election year. You'd better pace yourselves a bit.

Of course, the books that are pro-Bush are all lies.

Tbrosz, listen to your friends.

Brad DeLong is a professional and a citizen. The citizen part is foremost these days, thank God. And the pure professionals and conservatives are not amused.

Not playing the Godwin card or anything, but in 1932 there were a lot of people who just could not be bothered. They were just made of too fine a stuff to let themselves be dragged into anything so crass as politics. Some of them despised Godwin, others were rather indulgent of him, and some remained in blissful apolitical ignorance for the duration. These people are not admired today.

And no, Bush isn't Godwin. But he's very, very bad, and Krugman and DeLong are acting rationally, and certain other people aren't.

Everything you need to know about Godwin:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Yeah, that Rich Lowry book on Clinton (no link) must read like gospel to the wingers.

I was reading the Gruber Manifesto on Daring Fireball today. It started: "When was the last time you listened to an argument, and on the basis of that argument, changed your mind? Not just about something you hadn’t really given much thought to, but something which, prior to considering the argument in question, you felt quite certain regarding your original stance.

"In other words, when was the last time you realized you were completely wrong on a matter of opinion?

"If your answer is “never”, or even “a long time ago”, is it because you’re always right?"

... "When I end up changing my mind on a matter of opinion, it usually is not because I had the facts wrong; it’s because I was looking at the wrong facts."

A worthwhile consideration. This site has been a source of different facts, but recently its hard to sort them out for the infatuation with style and putdown.

Perhaps it would be useful to put conspiracy theories on the shelf and assume at least a modicum of integrity on the part of others.

Yep, all the facts against Bush are part of a conspiracy. And Republicans refuse to come to this blog now because such inconvienent facts tend to be mentioned. How dare anyone point out the emperor has no clothes?

Think what it takes to be a Republican these days? You'd have to ignore a record of failure without parallel in post-war American history. If your city was experiencing the worst crime wave in years, what would you think of supporters of the chief of police? It's not natural, I tell you.

I've read through about half the thread and I don't think anyone has made the correct interpretation of Rumsfeld's comment about targets. Remember that Rumsfeld supposedly had a radically new idea of how the U.S. military could fight wars, using fewer troops and striking extremely fast, backed up by bombing that finally could be called "precision bombing". A war in Afghanistan would not allow Rumsfeld to show off his new concept and so was inferior to a war in Iraq. The idea was to intimidate terrorist-sponsoring governments by showing how easy it would be for the U.S. to topple any one of them.
Another, unspoken goal was to showcase U.S. military ware for international buyers---again, a high-tech war in Iraq makes a much better War Marche than a slog through the hills of Afghanistan.

One of the implications of the adminstrations focus on Iraq after 9/11 is the fundamental unseriousness of their approach to terrorism.
By now I think most intelligent people realize that actually eliminating terrorism is hardly a higher priority for Bush now than it was before 9/11. The Spanish electorate understands that.
Will the American public understand that in November?

Sullivan: "No connection, huh. How about that Osama bin Laden himself told us he was attacking the U.S. because of our 'infidel troops' on Saudi soil? Troops invited in to protect Saudi Arabia from SADDAM HUSSEIN."

Yep. Well, now most of the US military is entangled in frantic efforts to keep Iraq under control (at the same time that Iran, North Korea and possibly Pakistan are about to raise nuclear hell), the US troops are all out of Saudi Arabia, and Al Qaida and its brethren are STILL after us. Surprise, surprise. (Patrick seems to have been naive enough to believe that the latter wouldn't have occurred if only we had had sense enough to invade and occupy Iraq back in the Nineties.)

And, lest we forget, Bin Laden also announced that he was attacking us because Spain evicted the Moslems in 1492, so I really rather doubt that the US troops in Saudi Arabia were what pushed him over the edge.

"My advice, not that you care, take a break, you need it."

More projection! As Robert announces to everyone he's leaving now to take a break. Perhaps once the impeachment is behind us we can get back to more interesting topics like endless deficits.

What Clarke has to say is significant. Dismissing his advice again as Bush did in 2001 would be up there with that phrase that occasionally ends with "can't fool me again."

A thoughtful post from SBW: "This site has been a source of different facts, but recently its hard to sort them out for the infatuation with style and putdown."

Tensions are growing because so much is at stake with the coming election. Many are truly concerned about what another four years of Bush will mean for America. But to the extent that discourse is meant to influence public opinion, thoughtful, reasoned, informed and humorous opinions are going to be more effective than in-your-face diatribe. According respect to others with a different point of view is civilized, avoids a defensive reaction and creates an opportunity for them to honestly review the merits during a time of quiet reflection. I'd like to think that the quality of the posts and posters can remain high between now and November. OK. Now, no hitting below the belt and at the sound of the bell, come out swinging!

I confess is that I've spend no energy at all in trying to convince Patrick Sullivan or Will Allen of anything. Some people you just write off.

I've spend a moderate time trying to convince moderates, neutrals, and centrists that the Democrat (now Kerry) will be vastly preferable to Bush.

By and large, though, what I try to do is convince liberals and Democrats that they should be more active, more political, and more aggressive. I'm not sure that I've been successful at that either, but it's persuasion, albeit of a different kind.

Anyone else notice that Richard Clarke has a name similar to that of the indefatigable host of New's Years Rockin' Eve?

zizka: "what I try to do is convince liberals and Democrats that they should be more active, more political, and more aggressive."

What I try to do is find the truth in opinions different than mine and weave it in to ideas I've found that stand the tests of time. Seneca advised that. Sound ideas work better than ideas that are simply liberal or conservative.

I also try to be sure that the question at hand will allow a sound and useful answer. If not, I try to rephrase it. Otherwise you spend to much time listening to "'Tis too!", "Tis not!".

Brad must being doing something right.

Ha ha, Charlie. You miss the point so amusingly.

SBW -- That's wonderful, but take care not to seem like a self-righteous prig.

Politics involves conflict, taking positions, and fighting for the positions. If y'all don't like the game, get off the court. If Brad wanted to run an neutral, apolitical site, you wouldn't find me hanging around complaining about it. To me the choice he has made is the right one.

"I confess is that I've spend no energy at all in trying to convince Patrick Sullivan or Will Allen of anything. Some people you just write off.'

The author of the above now advises another poster:

" SBW -- That's wonderful, but take care not to seem like a self-righteous prig."

You're on a roll, ziska!

"...shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

This is what Brad DeLong is talking about. No amount of revisionism will change the fact that Bush and his administration have lied repeatedly to Congress and the American people. Didn't the Republicans try to impeach Clinton on the base of a lie that was pretty much harmless, especially given the economic and long-term security consequences of a war as compared with the consequences of some cigar games in the Oval Office...

Really, how dumb are we supposed to be? Oh, I forgot, perception is reality... Tell you what: I trust that reality will take -and is already taking- its revenge on rhetoric. All we have to do is actively report reality's challenges and victories and then watch you struggle to fit it with your rhetoric.

"By and large, though, what I try to do is convince liberals and Democrats that they should be more active, more political, and more aggressive." writes Zizka.

And the take no prisoners approach is a good thing considering that the complacency of the Dems has let the Repugs set the agenda in recent years. Kerry seems to get the message but he (and his supporters) needs to be relentless in taking it to 'em if he is going to succeed in November.

Also, considering what is at stake with judicial appointments, which can shape the landscape of America for a generation or more, lets not forget that there is more than just a president up for election in 2004.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-sen-house-races.htm

SBW raises the interesting point about changing opinions. I can say that a very long and careful reading of Richard Rorty's Philosophy and Social Hope, along with a whole lot of other reading and talking to people, conpletely changed my mind about several deeply-held views. SBW asks whether people are willing to make such changes, and I believe the answer is yes, under the right circumstances.

I think that such changes come about not from arguments that are simply the polar opposite, as we constantly get from the blogisphere, but from those that are orthogonal to our point of view, and which draw us out from our own fortified position so as to survey new ground. The beginning place has to be an area outside what we consider to be our area of expertise, so that we have nothing to defend and can inquire. And, because different principles govern argument in economics than in law, there is a way to learn orthogonally to law. Following my theory, I can learn something new here. Not exactly from the people who repeat stuff I can read on strictly political sites, but from people who really know about economics, and whose politics spring from that knowledge and expertise.

The problem with all the Republican apologist rhetoric concerning Iraq is that it boils down to a "the end justifies the means" argument. Let's apply that same kind of logic here at home. The best way to assure safety from a terrorist attack is to create a police state. So who is going to be at the front of the line to get their official government Patriot Act Identification Tatoo?

Ah. My mistake in interpreting Sullivan. What he was really saying is that the fact that Al Qaida said it was attacking us to drive our troops out of Saudi Arabia is really strong evidence that it was trying to drive our troops out of Saudi Arabia not to keep them from contaminating the Moslem holy grounds (as it repeatedly said), but actually to keep us from interfering with an imminent takeover of Saudi Arabia by Saddam. This is your idea of strong evidence of a connection, Patrick?

Especially given the fact that Al-Zarqawi -- in that captured memo currently being trumpeted by the Bush Administration as authentic -- denounces, at length, the idea of any collaboration between Islamists and the secular dictatorship of Saddam. Quoting Spencer Ackerman ( http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=1327 ):

"Here's the CPA-provided translation of the memo. You'll notice that it says not one word about cooperation with Saddam Hussein either before, during, or after the war. In fact, it strongly suggests what the balance of the evidence already indicates: that no such connection exists. Check out point number two, 'The Present and the Future':

" '[America] is looking to a near future, when it will remain safe in its bases, while handing over control of Iraq to a bastard government with an army and police force that will bring back the time of (Saddam) Husayn and his cohorts. There is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the Mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening.'

"So Zarqawi--assuming he's the person who wrote the memo--thinks the new Iraqi army and police will bring back Saddam's regime, or at least its iron-fist tactics. He sounds really happy about that, huh? ('With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening.') Now, if Saddam had any kind of collaboration worked out with jihadists, the return of his regime would be something any self-respecting jihadist would celebrate. The regime's methods of oppression, under the logic of the Saddam-n'-Osama theorists, wouldn't apply to Al Qaeda or its affiliates. So why is the memo's author afraid of precisely this scenario coming to pass?"

As for the idea that an administration deliberately lying about evidence to trick Congress into declaring war isn't grounds for impeachment: if that isn't a "high crime or misdemeanor", what the hell is?

Incidentally, does anyone else remember the Administration emulating Patrick and saying that the very fact that Bin Laden was trying to drive us out of Saudi Arabia was, by itself, strong evidence that he was in cahoots with Saddam? I don't.

By the way, Yousefzadeh's column misses the point completely. If you actually bother to read the CBS piece (which P.Y. apparently didn't bother to do; he certainly never quotes it), it quotes Clarke at great length as saying -- repeatedly -- not just that the Administration was considering the "serious possibility" that Saddam and Al Qaida were in cahoots, but that it was absolutely obsessed with trying to make that appear near-certain whether the evidence said so or not. Of course, the mere fact that Clarke advised both Reagan and Bush Senior is no reason to think that he isn't a flaming Democratic kneejerk-peacenik dove...

Dubblblind: "The problem with all the Republican apologist rhetoric concerning Iraq is that it boils down to a "the end justifies the means" argument."

Funny. It's because Dems do the endss/means thing so much in tax and social legislation I've never been able to join them. (I'm social liberal/fiscal conservative). [Actually, there were good reasons for the UN to go in to Iraq, but since the UN charter leaves internal affairs untouched, I don't mind it being the coalition.]

"Let's apply that same kind of logic here at home. The best way to assure safety from a terrorist attack is to create a police state"

I've opposed Ashcroft since as a Senator he'd trample the Constitution to save the flag. I hoped he was out of politics when he was beaten by a dead man.

Patrick, not only do I not try to convince you of anything, I don't believe that anyone in the history of the world has ever convinced you of anything. Your opinions seem thoroughly calcified.

And on the many issues on which we disagree, you might well say the same of me! So what do we have to talk about? My entire political and intellectual relationship to you has been objectified in my attempt to make sure that you are an unhappy outsider come November.

On the other hand, there are many people here with whom I do have things to talk about. And you're the fifth wheel. very few people want to follow the decision the direction you want to take it. And contrary to your feeling of entitlement, no one here is obligated to listen to you, talk to you, or treat you with respect.

Nobody seems to get it.

This one's not about issues. It's not about break-ins or Whitewater or fluff-jobs or Great Society or the corrupt Supremes. It's not
about Osama versus Saddam, or Arab terrorism and Muslim majority, or Halliburton fraud and grand larceny, or that educated blacks have less job opportunity in America than poor white felons. It's not about the recalcitrant French, or the collapse of Germany, or new socialism in Spain, skyrocketing raw materials inflation despite low interest rates or Reagan Voodoo Trickle Down Economics and Bush's loss of 3,000,000 jobs.

It's about one thing, and one thing alone:
head-space on the grocery shelf of America's mind, such as it is. Bush is right at eye level, he's got far better advertising, and the price
is marked down just right. Hitler, the master manipulator, showed that in times of war and high economic stress, the Average Voter votes their gut, for Defense and Homeland Security and No New Taxes. Emperor George has this one dicked.
Watch in horror in January as he is re-sworn in.

The only way the Democrats are going to win is if we all stop singing to the choir and sharing sob stories, and go out, get our hands dirty and stump the lumpen proletariat one door at a time.

Then in December come back to Semi-Daily and Daily-Kos and sing the songs, "a song of joys, a song of occupations, a song of prudence, a song of the answerer, a song of the broad-axe, a song of the rolling earth, a song of the universal."

How do terrorists enter the US? They can enter through one of the major airports, or blend in with the hordes of illegals crossing in from the south. Let’s look at the airport problem first. I was witness to how easily security gets breached at LAX last year. The entire terminal that houses immigration area was cleared because of a bomb scare. Everyone waiting to get cleared through customs was evacuated and stood around in the street outside the terminal. Anyone wanting to enter illegally could then simply leave LAX instead of returning to the customs area. A security official admitted to me that this kind thing happens frequently, and yes a terrorist merely has to initiate a bomb scare, and then escape when the customs area is evacuated. I hear nothing from the current government or its opposition about this vulnerability. The same holds true for our borders. Neither party wants to face down the immigration lobby and really secure our borders. I don’t know who is worse on this issue Bush, or his opposition.

Bush seems to do something outragous every month, then every week, now it seems like it's every day. It reminds me of the book "Future Shock" when people would be stunned by the pace of change. There is so much bad governing, lying, conflicts of interest, etc that people remain in a continuous state of shock.

If Bush went honest for a month the country would probably explode with rage as the shock wore off. Now everyone forgets the last lie when they read the new one. You could call this "future schlock" or "future crock" perhaps.

To pick up on Bruce Moomaw, Pejman's article is the usual right-wing babble on this sort of topic, completely unworthy of attention.

To pick up on Zizka, Patrick Sullivan continues to make discredited assertions and has no intention of ever changing his mind. Future historians will find the collective delusional thinking of the right about iraq quite instructive, and not in a positive way.

To pick up on tbrosz, yes, in fact, by and large the pro-bush books are full of either fantasy or dishonesty - good of you to notice!

To pick up on our host, no one in their right mind would say that clinton did all that could be done about terrorism. But neither would anyone in their right mind say that bush did as much as clinton.

Correction:

And you're the fifth wheel. Very few people here want to follow the discussion in the direction you want to take it.

"... and that is excellent news. It means liberals are finally recovering some of their spine and are defining the debate ON THEIR TERMS, instead of apologizing for not being more conservative than the Republican party. Democrats must stop ASAP spending most of their energy responding to Republican questions, and come up with their own agenda, and force Republicans to answer their questions. But don't expect them to be happy or honest about that."

This is a very important point, particularly in foreign policy. The Democratic Party has no vision for foreign policy except as Republican Lite and a placeholder for the next Bush crony. How many Democratic principles are used in foreign policy?

The basis of Democrat philosophy is in part a safety net and aid to help the poor and disadvantaged to get on their feet. They should work out a plan to end diseases, initiate welfare in poorer countries, and end right wing dictatorships propped up by Republicans to be bulwarks against the communist menace.

The model for successful countries in Europe, the US, etc is a mixed economy yet the world is controlled by giving countries lessons in hard right economics and no welfare state. For example Argentina was wrecked by hard right policies forced on it. The world is a wasteland caused by the same lunatic partisan right wing policies that are wrecking the US now.

Democrats have to understand that the things they fight for in the US, they have to fight for them in the poorer countries too. You have Cheney proactically under indictment for bribing Niger for example. The Democrats need to look at prodding countries like Niger into distributing the oil wealth through the economy.

Democrats must offer a well thought out choice for a foreign policy vision for the world (like a kind of Marshall plan perhaps) as an alternative to spending so much on military.

The current situation is just like screwing the poor and then spending the money they get out of it on extra police to protect them from the starving homeless.

The Republicans have wrecked a lot of the world with their policies and an alternative needs to be formulated.

To A. Zarkov: it seems to me that our major emphasis should be in two completely different areas.

(1) We absolutely HAVE to choke off the acquisition of nuclear weapons, or powerful bioweapons, by any other dictatorships or shaky democracies, now and forevermore -- as well as trying to keep those which have acquired such weapons from using them or giving them to someone else who will use them. This is the central deadly threat to all human civilization from now on, and it was a threat which would have come to a head at this time even if 9-11 had never happened. (Indeed, if 9-11 does alert the US and the entire human race to this deadly danger at the cost of a mere 3000 lives rather than millions, we may end up regarding 9-11 as a fortunate event.)

There is a very good chance that we would have had to go after Saddam's regime for this reason at some point in the pretty near future -- my objection has always been that it was not our most urgent target. The "war" in Iraq was actually just one battle in a worldwide war which is unquestionably necessary -- and it was the wrong battle in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thinking that one battle is stupidly chosen is hardly the same thing as opposing the war.

(2) We have to minimize the danger from terrorist attacks with non-nuclear and non-biological weapons -- and the most important measure, by far, that we must take there is to prevent them from getting their hands on any more large airplanes, whether jetliners or big cargo planes. (As Aviation Week has indignantly pointed out, there has been incredibly little discussion of the danger from the latter, and no action on it at all. The clock is ticking.) The damage that can be done by big planes as weapons is far greater than that which can be carried out by most chemical explosive bombs.

Preventing planes from being turned into weapons is tremendously more important, from the viewpoint of cost-effectiveness, than trying to chase small detached groups of terrorists all over the Moslem world -- especially since such attacks can be carried just as easily by non-Moslem terrorists, and certainly will be carried out by such in the not too distant future. The very first attempt by terrorists to kill thousands of people was carried out by the totally non-Moslem group Aum Shin Rykyo. And the dirty little secret of 9-11 was how incredibly easy it was -- one of our homegrown nut groups could have carried out even more easily than a bunch of Arabs could, and still can. It is, after all, "The Turner Diaries" which ends with the American Nazi hero flying his explosive-stuffed plane into the FBI Building.

I am disappointed, tbrosz. Such a meager rejoinder.

Bruce Moomaw: Yes I agree that we need to do much more on other fronts, especially (as you point out) big cargo planes. However, I see a real difference between groups like the Aum Shin Rykyo and al-Qaeda. The latter is really suicidal, while the former have some sense of self-preservation. And yes some domestic groups have apocalyptic visions, but actually carrying out a suicidal fantasy is another matter.

The larger point I’m trying to make is that both sides of the political spectrum continue to undermine the fight against Islamic terrorists. Here is one example: scanning railroad container cars for special nuclear materials (SNM). Detecting SNM in a rail car is a really daunting problem because you have to process low-count-rate gamma-ray emission data, and our politicians and bureaucrats have made the problem even harder by imposing conditions. First they require no economic impact. This means you have to maintain the current throughput so we can’t slow the cars down at all while scanning them. Dollars trump security. The other side is just as bad. They insist we can’t expose any stowaways to any amount of excess radiation. This requirement puts a severe limitation on active interrogation methods. The stowaways can’t even get the exposure we allow for radiation workers which is a little riskier than the standard for the general population. Incidentally you can exceed the allowed standard for the general population by standing near one of the granite statues in the capital building for about five hours.

"kerry's (and your) problem in a nutshell: all kerry has to offer is that bush did it the wrong way and he would have done it differently (in french, unless he did it almost the same, and voted against it before he voted for it, the way he did when he served in VietNam)."

You make it difficult with that standard. If doing something wrong is not a reason for criticism, then what is? You do have a point about a negative compaign though. It's tempting to only focus on what Bush has done wrong instead of what positive needs to be done. That's why I think Edwards would be a good VP.

Send him out there only talking about positive things and let Kerry do the negative stuff. When Bush and Cheney are like Curly and Larry it's tempting for Kerry to become like Moe all the time. People want to see a clear alternative in the war on terror. The options are clear enough in economics, the Democrats have a track record of what works already. The science of economics is indisputably on their side.

However they have fallen for the Bush approach in the war on terror, making Al Qaeda out to be evil people who make terror for no reason, letting Bush play the Spiderman part. Needing an action hero for president is no substitute for proper analysis though. I like the spiderman analogy because romp.com had a flash movie of Bush wearing Spiderman pyjamas.

If you look at any other terrorist group in the world, you know what they want. The IRA the PLO, Shining Path, ETA, etc all had specific claims. Bin Laden is made out to be a kind of Lex Luther though, no one knows what will make peace with them so it's impossible to negotiate so it's on to endless war with Bush the Superman to save us all.

Of course this is why the right tried so hard to avoid any analysis of why Al Qaeda is so unhappy, because once you know that then you can negotiate with them. Then you have a Barak point of view when Bush wants to say only a Sharon like attitude to Al Qaeda can work.

The whole argument has become so Orwellian that not only is it not considered possible to use the historically left technique of appeasement and negotiation with terrorists, but it is as if such techniques have never worked in the past.

The current belief is that Al Qaeda is evil for the fun of it, they can't be reasoned with like the Terminator, it doesn't matter what they want, and so a forever war to try and crush them is historically the only possible way to win against terrorists.

It's just nonsense. If they treated the PLO like that they'd still be hijacking planes.

Mito: "The basis of Democrat philosophy is in part a safety net and aid to help the poor and disadvantaged to get on their feet."

Yes, demonstrating Dubblblinds "End justifies the means" characteristic I objected to earlier with Democrats. We all wish to address those issues, but simply throwing other people's money at the problems isn't always the wisest answer.

Mito: "They should work out a plan to end diseases, initiate welfare in poorer countries, and end right wing dictatorships propped up by Republicans to be bulwarks against the communist menace."

The US (Republican and Democratic) policies of the Cold War were expediencies of that time, not this time. Justifiable or not.

Mito: "The model for successful countries in Europe, the US, etc is a mixed economy yet the world is controlled by giving countries lessons in hard right economics and no welfare state. For example Argentina was wrecked by hard right policies forced on it."

The U.S. hasn't been following the Argentinian model. That is the problem with such generalizations as "right" and "left".

sbw:
"The U.S. hasn't been following the Argentinian model."

I may be taking your point out of context, but these are all easily documented economic and political conditions/actions in the US right now:

* Increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever smaller number of entities
* shrinking-by-impoverishment of the middle class
* warmongering to distract the populace from their worsening situation
* proto-fascist rhetoric directed against the regime's opponents

So if the Bush Regime is elected, or reappointed, this November, can we look forward to such Argentinian traditions as

* devastating economic collapse
* "disappearances" of the regime's opponents
* right-wing death squads operating in association with the government
?

I decidedly do not want to participate in such an experiment.

SBW: The phrase "The end justifies the means" is usually used to describe someone who does something evil (e.g., Lenin wiping out the kulaks) because he says that in the long run, he'll help more people than he hurts. Usually people who argue this way do NOT help more people than they hurt (Lenin didn't), but there's also a philosophical argument about the degree to which it is ever permissible to make that kind of choice.

For you, on the other hand, "the end justifies the means" means taxing one person in order to help a different person.

This makes you a raving loonie. Your comment on the Argentinian model is probably equally loony, but who cares?

Note: an ad hominem argument consists of saying "So and so is an idiot, so everything he says is stupid". What I just said is that "He just said something idiotic, so he's an idiot". That's not an ad hominem argument.

And while in areas like science or mathematics with well-prescribed protocols neither ad hominem arguments nor arguments from authority are valid -- you just look at the work that's been done and judge that -- in the real life world you tend to weight people's contribution based on their past performance. I suspect that you've entered the idiot category for more people than me.

Ginelli: have fun wherever you're going, dude, as long as it's not here. Hope you have something to say sometime, somewhere. I agree with you that Kerry needs a stronger positive program, but your cheesy "french" reference indicates that you're an incorrigible fool, so forget you.

"Yes, demonstrating Dubblblinds "End justifies the means" characteristic I objected to earlier with Democrats. We all wish to address those issues, but simply throwing other people's money at the problems isn't always the wisest answer."

Republicans always seem happy to throw money at the problems they want. Aren't these tax cuts for the rich throwing money at them hoping somehow it will trickle back? Aren't big military budgets, missile defense, corporate welfare throwing money at the problem?

The thing is, throwing money at poor people really is the wisest answer sometimes. If they had done that to Afghanistan the people wouldn't want the Taliban back.

The world economy is a collapsed society on the exact model of Argentina, Brazil, etc. Wealth concentrated in a few hands and big spending on policing to make sure the poor don't get any of it back. As soon as a country gets on its feet they bribe public officials to sell off assets at cheap prices, or to take big loans which are siphoned off. It's ironic to see Bush having shilled for Enron in Argentina and Cheney bribing the Niger government and then giving their vision for a prosperous world. A boot stamped in the face forever I suppose. Of course one of Bush's cronies would own the boot factory.

Iraq troop rotation will be a political nightmare for Bush. Bringing home thousands of troops disillusioned with the hellhole created in Iraq will add to the anxieties of new families watching their beloved placed in harms way. Their stories are personal and will substantially reform the way Americans judge Iraq. Once the returning troops hear about the duplicity of the Bush administration that will fuel the next great veterans protest against American adventurism. The dead soldiers are few because our technology can protect them from death, but not injury. The 10,000+ casualties is a number not seen since Vietnam. Our wounded soldiers are a daily reminder of the consequences of failed foreign policy.

I got to see our Senator Lugar on MTP this morning. He was asked about planning for after the government handover to the Iraqi coalition. Lugar bluntly stated that planning for this was of the highest importance. In spite of repeated requests from Lugar and Biden, no plans have been produced. This is deja vu all over again. In Feb. 2003, I had a chance to hear Lugar speak and he was complaining then about the lack of planning for post war Iraq. Whatever is going on in the Bush administration, they don't seem to have a grip on the extensive planning that must go in to successful government efforts. If for no other reason, the Bush administration needs to be replaced on grounds of sheer incompetence.

In any normal political situation, Clarke's charges against Bush ought to be enough to sink a sitting president. But I don't think the faith of the Bush supporters are going to much shaken by this revelation. Once the right-wing slime machine cranks up (Krauthammer, Will, Safire, Brooks, O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al.), they will provide all the justification the faithful need to continue feeling good about the administration. However, there may be a wavering voter or two out there for whom this will tip the balance against Bush this fall. I hope there are enough of those to make a differnce!

Z on sbw writes:
"Note: an ad hominem argument consists of saying "So and so is an idiot, so everything he says is stupid". What I just said is that "He just said something idiotic, so he's an idiot". That's not an ad hominem argument."

Ah...I don't think so. The mere engagement, the speech act as it were, implies that both sides presume their adversary is capable of a non-idiotic response, no? When you move from an instance of purported (and very likely contested) idiocy to the general ( and very much more likely contested) condition of idiocy, you are not only committing an ad hominen offense but admitting that you are not capable of distinguishing these purported idiots,(that you have been duped by arguments/ points of view that were masquerading as non-idiotic) on the basis of previous speech acts.
So the ad hominem offense is self-molesting.
But sometimes good poetry.

Another take: Arguing from an instance of sub-performance ( any mindless utterance ) to the general case ( always stupid, idiotic etc) is an unreasonable, and here, ad hominem characterisation that does nothing for the argument. Your "..so he's an idiot" means discard whatever sbw writes ( especially in the future) because it's from him, the idiot. Neither of you are idiots of course, just a little heavy on the poetry at times.

Zizka writes:

"I confess is that I've spend no energy at all in trying to convince Patrick Sullivan or Will Allen of anything. Some people you just write off."

"I've spend a moderate time trying to convince moderates, neutrals, and centrists that the Democrat (now Kerry) will be vastly preferable to Bush."

"By and large, though, what I try to do is convince liberals and Democrats that they should be more active, more political, and more aggressive."

This approach, I fear, is common on both sides, and an important reason for the increasing radicalization on both sides. Remember that this is a public forum. If you respond to Patrick Sullivan and Will Allen *as if they are persuadable* (whether they are or not) then you you have a chance to influence people now or later coming by to read who might be willing to consider their answers. If you respond too dismissively, then someone coming by who first things "[Patrick, Will] may have a point," even if that person is just mistaken for a moment, then that person has a good chance of being insulted by your remark, and think "Zizka must be wrong, what a maroon." If you had tried to persuade [Patrick, Will], then the same reader has a much better chance of thinking "Wait, now I see how that was wrong. Thanks Zizka!"

Discussion to persuade can include a back and forth exchange that traces back the disagreement to more fundamental issues and then debating those more fundamental (and harder for people to change) issues. It can also include arguing that "you think X on [a more fundamental issue], and I think Y, but by the following argument, we should agree on the the more immediate issue, with answer A, whether we believe X or Y."

[Note to Patrick Sullivan and Will Allen, when you respond as if everyone else is persuadable, even though they greatly outnumber you, it makes the discussion on both sides more useful.]

When you have a 400 billion dollar military equipped to fight states, and win, your enemies are states. When you've spent all your money on hammers, nails are damned well going to be your problem.

Ziska: A small point of correction on history. Lenin did not wipe out the kulaks, Stalin did. In the early years after the Bolshevik putsch in Russia Lenin tried to extort food from the peasantry with his “surplus-appropriation system,” meaning confiscation of all grain production above a subsistence level. Take their food and leave them just enough to live. The peasants resisted and Lenin had a problem so he backtracked and launched his “New Economic Policy [NEP] in 1921 where he encouraged the peasants to act like capitalists. NEP substituted a grain tax (tax paid by providing grain) for the surplus-appropriation system. The more successful peasants under NEP later became the “kulaks.” Actually “kulak” is a vague term, virtually any peasant could get branded as a kulak. Later Stalin abandoned NEP and simply took grain from the peasants by force resulting in the 1932-1933-terror famine and the subsequent collectivization of the Ukrainian peasantry.

Tom, calmo -- sorry, you're wrong. I've read my own share of speech-act theory and rhetoric too, though I'm not an expert in it. If these bodies of thought don't provide for ways of cutting your losses and writing people off, they are pretty useless sciences.

Calmo, what's wrong with poetry? And are you of the opinion that you have to eat the whole egg before you say it's bad? If you want to argue that sbw is not, in fact, loony, make your case. But your formal treatment of the question has no application. Sometimes you have to make that kind of decision about people.

Tom, political positions have been one-sidedly hardened for at least a decade. Facing a hardened opponent, what do you do? Maybe basketball didn't use to be a contact sport, but it is now -- you play the game the way it's played. I've read easily a hundred posts each by Will and Patrick, and I don't expect any surprises. SBW is new to me, but he's a familiar type: libertarian, "neither left nor right", and a much finer and more thoughtful person than whomever he's addressing.

In fact, in any real-world situation, ad hominem arguments and arguments from authority play a valid and necessary role. Brad here, for example, at times has as much as said "if anyone but Greenspan had said that, I wouldn't have taken it seriously". Likewise, if I pick up a publication and find out that it comes from the LaRouchies, if I read it at all I take it with a shovelful of salt.

There are people who are persuadable, but Will and Patrick absolutely are not among them. Someday SBW might be, but not in the timeframe of the 2004 election which defines this thread.

Mitro says: The current belief is that Al Qaeda is evil for the fun of it, they can't be reasoned with like the Terminator, it doesn't matter what they want, and so a forever war to try and crush them is historically the only possible way to win against terrorists.

We know what al-Qaeda wants. They have both immediate and ultimate goals. First they want the US completely out of the Arabian Peninsula and Somalia. Then they want to topple many current Arab regimes and replace them with Fundamentalist Islamic republics. Ultimately they want an Islamic world where those who refuse to convert are killed or enslaved. So on which of these are you willing to negotiate? Perhaps you think my list is defective, if so tell us what you think their goals are.

A friend of mine (an anarchist but no lefty) has developed the theory that we should embrace Total Information Awareness. Not just in the sense of Ashcroft's doomed plan, but proper, full on, Big Brother style cameras and bugs everywhere. We should do this, he says, because the state, no matter how many spies and analysts it hires, will never be able to sort through all the data and come up with anything useful. I can't say I agree, but I'm beginning to think BushCo are using a similar strategy that I call Total Incompetence Awareness.

Basically, the plan is that in order to disguise their key goals (tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, toppling Saddam), the administration screws up as much as possible in other areas, and lies about everything it can, in order to flood the political sphere with evidence of incompetence/disingenuousness. People just can't absorb all the ridiculous things the administration has done and said. There are so many of them that people assume it must be Democratic posturing - after all, no admistration could really be that inept or insidious. There was a fantastic demonstration of this, cited by Krugman in The Great Unravelling, when "focus groups literally refused to believe accurate descriptions of the stimulus bill that House Republican leaders passed on a party-line vote back in October [2001]. " Krugman uses Kissinger's description of a "revolutionary power" to explain why people don't grasp the BushCo agenda, while O'Neill suggests that the incompetence is down to the total marginalisation of policy in favour of politics. This may be true, but I like to think the two are linked.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn21.html

--------------quote-------------
For over a year, there've been jokes about the ponderous way the senator brings Vietnam up at every opportunity. Ask him about John Edwards' pretty boy bangs, and Kerry says solemnly, ''I know something about bangs for real.'' But he's beyond satire now. The Humane Society sends him a questionnaire asking ''Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?'' Instead of citing any of the ginger toms, gerbils and cockatoos that have passed through the Kerry household in the last four decades, he goes back to those four months in Vietnam and recalls a pooch named VC who accompanied him on his swift boat missions.

Is it normal to take a yappy mutt on a swift boat patrol through enemy territory? Especially a mutt named after the enemy. Calling out ''Over here, VC'' in the middle of the jungle seems a good way to get taken out by friendly fire. Come to that, how many folks name their dogs after the enemy? Did British Tommies stumble across stray French poodles on the beach at Normandy and think, ''Aw, cute li'l feller. I'll call him SS''?

Weird. And, just to round out a weird week, John Kerry, accompanied by the press, went into a sporting goods store and bought a jock strap. Even for a campaign marked by a strangely insecure macho exhibitionism, this was a little too self-parodic. Next time he shouts ''Bring it on!'' I want to see that VC puppy trot out with the jock strap between his teeth so Jacques Chirac can ceremonially drape it round the senator's neck.
------------endquote----------

Why the war In Iraq? So Mr. Bush can be like his Dad, strut around, and be a "War" President! The whole Bush Administration are retreads from Bush 1, and they all wanted to "blame Saddam" , and be "heroes" all over again! Because without this war, the adminstration was going nowhere. The Clarke info is old news, but the US Media has been completely in Mr. Bush's hands since 9/11. What a very sad situation. 600 dead Americans, 2000 injured, over 10,000 dead Iraqis, more terrorists in Iraq than ever, and $120 billion. Not to mention all the fat contracts before the bombing started. Remember "Bring It On" from Mr. Bush only a few months ago!

" Ah. My mistake in interpreting Sullivan. What he was really saying is that the fact that Al Qaida said it was attacking us to drive our troops out of Saudi Arabia is really strong evidence that it was trying to drive our troops out of Saudi Arabia not to keep them from contaminating the Moslem holy grounds (as it repeatedly said), but actually to keep us from interfering with an imminent takeover of Saudi Arabia by Saddam. This is your idea of strong evidence of a connection, Patrick? "

I think Bruce Moomaw has been watching too many episodes of "Law and Order". Especially the scenes near the middle of the program where the prosecutors have their best evidence thrown out by the presiding judge because its not acquired properly, or would be prejudicial to the jury.

Anyone not willfully obtuse can read the excerpts from the Woodward book and see exactly the connection that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are making. There's a reason it's not Called the War Against Al Qaeda.

"Ms. Coulter, what do you think of Clarke's description of the goings-on in the Bush White House?" Response,"I think Clarke's a traitor and should be shot at dawn."

"[Note to Patrick Sullivan and Will Allen, when you respond as if everyone else is persuadable, even though they greatly outnumber you, it makes the discussion on both sides more useful.]"

I'm here for the sheer delight of reading the stuff that hasn't a scintilla of self-awareness. Like:

"SBW is new to me, but he's a familiar type: libertarian, "neither left nor right", and a much finer and more thoughtful person than whomever he's addressing."

"Self awareness".

"The mere engagement, the speech act as it were, implies that both sides presume their adversary is capable of a non-idiotic response, no?"

"What I try to do is find the truth in opinions different than mine and weave it in to ideas I've found that stand the tests of time. Seneca advised that."

Jesus, everyone's going all sensitive on my ass. Did I come in the wrong door or something? I just don't thenk that there are a lot of liberals on conservative sites talking that shit. Not for long, anyway. I don't feel that being the nice guy has worked.

Point taken, Zarkov. I'm vague about specifics -- my sources are a short story by Babel plus Scott Martens' great-grandfather's memoirs (on "Pedantry".)

The GOP has been so successful in painting Democrats as "weak on defense" that any Democrat challenger needs some immunity from attack. Kerry brings up Nam all the time because the GOP brings up the weak on defense lie all the time. The GOP is not strong on defense. They are only strong on military industrial complex spending. If you actually look at the records, GOP and Democrat Congressmen and Senators have similar rates of military experience. The Clinton administration had as many veterans as the current Bush administration (They only had 3 until Ridge came on board.)

Patrick, Mark Steyn is both a demonstrable liar and an idiot, and if he's really interested in "descent into caricature," he might start with himself, move forward to the apalling intellectual decline of the vigorous conservatism of 25 years ago into the pathetic right-wing tropes of today, and continue on the caricature of a president that george bush demonstrates on a daily basis.

well here's some more proof that George Bush is a no-nonsense type of guy who knows exactly what direction he wants to take the country in:
http://images.google.com/images?q=left+arrow&imgsz=icon
scroll all the way down, see something out of place?

Let me ask Patrick again: has the Bush Administration -- or Tony Blair -- been peddling the simple fact that Bin Laden wanted to drive the US troops out of Saudi Arabia as strong evidence that they wanted to drive the US troops out of Saudi Arabia so that Saddam could invade it and take it over? (Not in my experience. They've been grabbing for everything else they could get.) How likely is it that Bin Laden would be willing to set up the decidedly irreligious Saddam -- whom other Islamists detest -- as Supreme Caliph of his unified Moslem Empire, rather than Bin Laden himself or some other intensely Islamist figure? And is this not the likely reason why (A) the Bushites and Blair haven't been using your argument as strong evidence of an Osama-Saddam tie, and (B) most security analysts who know a lot more about this than either of us have also rejected it as evidence?

As for Woodward: he has long ago established the fact that he's turned into about as reliable a journalist as Matt Drudge. The Right was griping about this fact first, and now the Left has caught on. His M.O. is to provide "authoritative" books supposedly presenting a Godlike infallible perspective on what really happened in the Inmost Circles of government, without ever telling us who actually leaked this Authoritative Account to him -- and his leakers, of course, always have self-interested motives. As does Woodward, who can't have these people continue to talk to him if he doesn't say what pleases them.

"Strangely insecure macho exhibitionism"? From someone who actually got shot at with monotonous regularity? As compared to the Hero of Houston strutting around on an aircraft carrier in an (unnecessary) flight suit? Steyn (like Patrick) is grabbing frantically for anything he can get at this point.

Parenthetically, Patrick, I'm still waiting to see your response to the point I made about the flat-out stupidity of Yousefzadeh's column.

This old ABC news story isn't doing your position any favors:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush_advisers_clarke.html

-----------quote------------
Richard A. Clarke was appointed today by President Bush to be the Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council.

He will be charged with protecting the nation's telecommunications and information technology infrastructure against a terrorist attack.
Experts have warned that hackers and terrorists could try and cripple systems — computer networks that monitor a city's water supply or air traffic, for example — to create further chaos.

Should such a crisis take place in cyberspace, Clarke would coordinate efforts with the private and commercial sectors to bring the affected systems back to normal.

Similar to his previous position as National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, Clarke will remain on the president's National Security Council. In his new role, he report to both National Security Advisory Condoleezza Rice and newly appointed Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge.

Clarke is a career member of the federal government's Senior Executive Service, having started there in 1973 in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Since May 1998, Clarke was the first National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism.

In that position, he led U.S. government efforts on cyber-security — and on counter-terrorism, continuity of government operations, domestic preparedness for weapons of mass destruction, and international organized crime.

In the role of counter-terrorism czar, he will be replaced by retired four-star Gen. Wayne A. Downing. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge will serve above Clarke and Downing in the new role as the president's Homeland Security adviser.

Clarke became well-known for his use of the phrase "electronic Pearl Harbor," when predicting the implications of a cyber-terrorist attack. Critics say he overstates the threat, perhaps as a tactic to win greater attention, support and resources for government computer defense capabilities.
-------------endquote------------

Yes, it does get worse. But for Lesley Stahl and the usual suspects, not Geo. W. Bush:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143

-----------quote-------------
Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation
The outgoing cybersecurity czar will be remembered for his steadfast belief in the danger of Internet attacks, even while genuine threats developed elsewhere.

By George Smith Feb 17 2003 01:38AM PT


The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.

In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.

[snip]

Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.

[snip]

In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.

--------------endquote-------------

This is better than "Bush was AWOL".

It appears that Clarke has a kind of John Kerry problem (From Jim Lehrer's Newshour last October):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec03/rice_10-13.html

-----------quote------------
JIM LEHRER: To pick up on your analogy, to pick up on Ivo Daalder's analogy, if you're caught between two giants, you can get smashed. Is that what's happening now to Condoleezza Rice?

RICHARD CLARKE: Not at all. As Ivo said, she has a tremendous close personal relationship and great trust from the president. So no one is going to squeeze her between two rocks. But it is true you have a very unusual situation here. You have a vice president who used to be a secretary of defense, used to be a White House chief of staff, who is playing a big role in foreign policy. You have a secretary of defense who used to be a White House chief of staff and used to be a secretary of defense. You have a secretary of state who used to be a national security adviser and used to be...

JIM LEHRER: We forget that, that Colin Powell was the national security adviser in the Reagan administration.

RICHARD CLARKE: And he also used to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs so Colin Powell has held three of the six positions around the table at an NSC principals' meeting. So this president has chosen people who are very strong personalities. He wants them to debate and engage as Franklin Roosevelt did. Franklin Roosevelt used to get his advisers to go at it to see what that produced in terms of analysis and alternatives and options. This is very unlike the president's father, the first President Bush, who didn't like disagreement among the boys. And really you were given demerits if you were a little obstreperous in the first Bush administration. This administration is not like that at all. What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug.

[snip]

RICHARD CLARKE: JIM LEHRER: Now based on your knowledge of Dr. Rice, now that she has a stick, what can we expect?

RICHARD CLARKE: I think you can expect much more integration of Treasury, State Department, CIA, Justice Department, assets -- not just DOD going it alone. I think you can expect a lot closer oversight, detailed, everyday oversight, milestones, goal posts, people being relieved if things don't happen. Condi Rice is a very nice person, but she's also a very tough manager.

-----------endquote---------

Gee, I guess all this stuff just slipped his mind last fall.

Note the exact nature of Clarke's accusation (which Yousefzadeh apparently didn't bother to read at all before writing his column). He didn't accuse the Bushites of just saying that there was a "serious chance" that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama -- they would have had a reasonable argument for that. He says that they were absolutely obsessed with concluding (without evidence) that it was a virtual certainty that Osama was actually just working for Saddam, and that we should therefore forget about attacking Osama for the time being and attack Iraq first instead. Which -- unless you are certain that Osama is just working for Saddam, has no goals and resources of his own, and will therefore close down his own operations the moment you attack Saddam -- is nuts, even if you DO think there is a serious chance that Saddam may have been assisting him. The most urgent and unquestionable enemy should be attacked first.

As for Clarke being an Unreliable Source: CBS has found at least one and maybe two independent witnesses who say he's telling the truth about his conversation with Bush, and that Hadley is lying. And -- unles