Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

But they won the mid-term elections in '02, didn't they?

Eyes on the prize, right?

Thoas comunists at the Financial Times are just jelus becuse Regan won the Cold War and Stalan isn't no longer in power...

"...the...al-Qaeda franchise, which always was the clear and present danger..."

-----------------

"Thoas comunists at the Financial Times..."

-----------------

Not "always", Josef. Not quite.

There's PLENTY of evidence to to support the theory that from late January 2001 until mid-September of the same year, al-Qaeda was--not to coin a phrase here--just a bunch of useful idiots...

-----------------

http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/item.jsp?item=a082801fisa

And there's SOME reason to believe al-Qaeda reverted to its previous useful idiot status "...just five days after Sept. 11 [2001]--"

-----------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

-----------------

--A status which it has retained ever since. Too.

NYT - 6/18/04

After a rousing introduction by Senator John McCain, President Bush today told soldiers that the 9/11 terror attacks and the war in Iraq were inextricably linked.

Speaking of idiots, I just switched on CNN to see Cheney saying, "...no shame, not a shred of decency...". For a moment I thought he might have been justifying his own failure to resign after being so thoroughly discredited in recent days.

The fruits of a one-party government.

Ok, although I too want to see this band of criminals rot in hell, I think we shouldn't overplay our hand here.

I truly believe Saddam Hussein's
regime was quite interested in supporting terrorism. I also thing thank in dealing with the worldwide threat of terrorism (both state and non-state sponsored) we need to figure out how to deal with regimes such as Hussein's.

I think what we should focus on is how the Bush cabal did this wrong (hence making us less secure) and lied.

I think there is an argument to be made that fighting against the current terrorist threat could involve rejiggering our policy with regimes
such as Iraq. To that as much as I hate to say it, perhaps it's a valid point that the two are linked.

"I truly believe Saddam Hussein's regime was quite interested in supporting terrorism."

I'm not interested in faith-based foreign policy. (Nor am I interested in Feith-based foreign policy.)

Whether a regime is supporting terrorism or not is a question of fact, not belief. I haven't seen any real evidence that Iraq was a supporter of terrorism.

Unfortunately our current administration seems to think that belief generates facts, not the other way around.

"I truly believe Saddam Hussein's
regime was quite interested in supporting terrorism."

Intensity of belief in a proposition is not evidence for the truth of that proposition. Saying, "I really believe that," is not a good argument.

Chris Lovell: "Whether a regime is supporting terrorism or not is a question of fact, not belief. I haven't seen any real evidence that Iraq was a supporter of terrorism."

What I think you wish to say is there's no real evidence that Iraq was a supporter of Al-qaeda, since they were openly supporting anti-Israel terror groups. I could be wrong about your wishes.

I truly believe Saddam Hussein's
regime was quite interested in supporting terrorism

I also believe Saddam Hussein was interested in taking over the world. The question is could he? The answer is no. I believe Saddam may also have been interested in being able to fly like Superman.

He couldn't even control his entire country as long Britain and the US defended the no-fly zones. This is why Kurds were able to establish autonomy. This is why the comparisons of of Hussein to Hitler in 1939 were absurd. It's like saying Hitler could take over Europe, but he couldn't control.

Gen. Zinni commanded US forces for 4 years in the Mid East said this, "Saddam was effectively contained." He said that was the view of most generals. An even greater majority of generals would have agreed that Al Qaeda was the true threat and should be dealt with before Iraq.

Also, in the case of Iraq we have to distinguish between terrrorism and terrrorism directed against the USA. Saddam and other Arab countries gave money to support the families of Palestinian suicide bombers which is post-facto support, I guess. I haven't heard anyone contradict that. That seems to be pretty out in the open that he supported the family of Palestinian terrorists. Richard Clarke makes the point that the last case of terrorism Iraq committed against the US was in 1993. Why did they stop? Because Clinton bombed the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence. They got the message and never tried to any more terrorism against us. The idea that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda and conducting operations against the US, was a fiction that the America Enterprise Institute tried to spread, but every American intelligence service rejected as bunk.

FT: "And its bungling in Iraq has given new and terrifying life to the cult of death sponsored by Osama bin Laden."

This is quite a point. It would be a better point, perhaps, if the FT was going to provide some sense of what it means, like some evidence or reference as to why we should believe this to be so. For example, are there specific facts that justify the FT's use of the phrase "new and terrifying life?" Or is this just a prejudice?

The fruits of a one-party government.
Posted by: Alan

This is the most profound observation explaining many things like calling a $140 billion business tax cut a JOBS bill???????????????

Give me gridlock any day.

Let’s take it from the top. Getting rid of murderous scum like Saddam Hussein is a good idea. It would be a good idea, even if he weren’t in the middle of an area full of evil people trying to get mass weapons. The argument that he really wasn’t chummy with bin Laden is a no-go. in fact, the Democrats CANNOT WIN in November by being against this war. (This is different from being against how it was accomplished.) In fact it would actually help the Dems if they took the tack: Bush’s basic instinct must be acknowledged as sound.

Everything beside that point, however, speaks for his immediate removal from office!

(1) His pre-9/11 terror policy was a lot bigger muddle than Clinton’s. (2) Saddam wasn’t related to 9/11 nor was his WMD threat imminent--so we could have WAITED to develop a larger alliance with major countries, both to share the sacrifice of blood and treasure, and to have a strategic global psychology AGAINST new terror and FOR Arab reform--instead of us being a single aggressor. (3) The ill-planned occupation of Iraq has probably led to extra American casualties (well, nobody wants to say THAT out loud!), the torture has blackened our eye, now the appointed government is talking about martial law (and who’s gonna play marshall?).

Perhaps we could all add more lines to that list.

The Democrats CANNOT LOSE in November as long as they pound on Bush’s obvious shortcomings, allowing the question of the removal of Saddam Hussein as his ONLY strong point.

But lying is not necessary a political shortcoming, except when it speaks to credibility.

Example. Now we’re in a silly shouting match over whether Bush lies about Saddam being linked to Al Qaeda. Well of course at the very best it is a half-truth. But the point is, it’s immaterial, except to some very few people who are on the fence as regards his credibility. Most people already suppose that all presidents lie, and even more people hope that they WILL lie, if it achieves the best purpose in wartime. Of course, we don’t tell this to the little kids, but everyone else should know the score.

Indeed, you can imagine that the Republicans have thought this out, and may start feeding outrages to the Democrats, just to trip them up. If they can get the Dems yelling about the lies Bush told to go to war, instead of just mentioning it in passing now and then, they will easily frame the debate to make the Dems appear to be against the removal of Saddam. William Kristol was on Lehrer’s Newshour Friday night, starting to do just that. It should be very clear that the Republicans are onto Bush’s devastating, self-immolating political weakness (shortsightedness), and also onto a strategy to keep the Democrats OFF of it.

So the Democrats had better stay on message: with regard to terror and Iraq, the overall aim isn’t bad, it’s the planning and execution. (And the lying is a sideshow.) It is possible to be right on a big question, and hopelessly wrong about everything else. Bush may have good instincts about protecting our country and our lives (well don’t we all!) but his planning and execution are NOT to be trusted. Absolutely lousy in fact, if not the worst ever. What NEXT crisis will he be unable to plan a response to? He is shortsighted, and our country needs to be put into better hands.

Hope FT is setting an example for the rest of the press.
Lee, are you auditioning for the lead strategist in the Kerry camp or was that an extra strong coffee before hitting the post? You make me feel like a real pee wee cynic with this thunderous rant.
Just a thought -- Beware you don't become encyclopedic Mike.

calmo:

I couldn't help noticing you're all wet.

Did Lee A spill his coffee on you (?:

------------

Lee A:

There are lots of very good practical and theoretical reasons why, generally speaking, it OUGHT to be self-evident "from the top" that "getting rid of" heads of sovereign states is a business best left to the citizens of those states. Which is NOT to say that you or ANYBODY ELSE is obliged to abstain from cooperating with, condemning and/or organizing with other states to "contain" one (or more) of them: provided, of course, one is able to convince enough people (or states) that the "targeted" state represents an extraordinary threat of some kind AND that one isn't completely out of one's mind--or worse...

Lee -- very good analysis. I really like it.
But let me add one point.

Because Bush lied about why we should go to war he can no get the public support he needs now to
achieve his objectives. So the mess we are in is a direct consequence of his lies.

So, spencer:

You "really like" Lee A's "anlaysis"?

You actually BELIEVE that crap about (the Middle East being) "an area full of evil people"?

You wanna buy a bridge?

OR spencer:

Was it the part of Lee A's "anaysis" about how well yeah, Iraq wasn't REALLY a threat to us, and yeah, Bush and Cheney lied to us and Congress (and everyone else in the world) about their motives for invading and occupying that country, and yeah, a BUNCH of people (on both sides) are maimed and dead as a result, and yeah, it's a quagmire, and yeah, they dishonored all of us. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but STILL, "Democrats" should studiously avoid the question of "instinct" [motive] because THAT'S sacred (political) ground?

Is THAT the part of Lee A's "analysis" you "really liked", spencer? Because if THAT'S the part of it that "really" appeals to you, I have another, DIFFERENT question:

Why, spencer? WHY?

Mike, I'm a little surprised that you can't differentiate between what a person might believe, from what is politically viable at the moment. I think maybe you and I agree on a good deal of things. I can only say here that I do not believe that the area is full of evil people. Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups only number in the several thousands--at least for now.

My comment was speaking to the Financial Times' leader on the LYING issue. It's important, I'm glad they're stepping up, but it can mislead, i.e. to the wrong campaign strategy.

Spencer--that's a good point. Lying's poisoned the well with our allies, another incompetence.

Sorry Mike you're not 'encyclopedic Mike' who used to blog here and catch hell because, well, he was pages long with catalogues of links. Folks steered around him and some even complained about wearing out PageDown buttons.
Your shorter and getting responses.
Here's another:
I admire the high ground you take against Lee. Sorry Lee, but the pragmatism you support is the rotten core of this administration. If you think that there are only" a few thousand " terrorists in Iraq after recent events you need to remember that the remainder, the 25 Million less those few thousand, are not too happy. That some of them may not be that far from considering the adventure of terrorism. What do they have to lose?
And this: " Most people already suppose that all presidents lie, and even more people hope that they WILL lie, if it achieves the best purpose in wartime." Please don't take the current administration as a template for all administrations.
This one is particular. This one is the bad apple. The others may not be perfect but they are/were/will be serviceable.
It takes the bloody Brits to focus on the "LYING issue", (the basic rot that has pervaded this administration from day 1) because our press/media has become entertainment and you are annoyed that this is politically naive.
Surely, there is a way to beat Bush without discarding basic respect for things like honesty and integrity?
There was a word for this but Bush abused it so badly I can barely mention it: principles.

calmo wrote, "And this: ' Most people already suppose that all presidents lie, and even more people hope that they WILL lie, if it achieves the best purpose in wartime.' Please don't take the current administration as a template for all administrations."

I agree. While politicians lie all the time, there has to be a line, and Bush has crossed it.

"Sorry Mike you're not 'encyclopedic Mike' who used to blog here and catch hell because, well, he was pages long with catalogues of links."

Huh? I assumed from the posting he's the same fellow, just reformed.

calmo & liberal:

It's not MY fault if you fellas are suckers for "snark", don't appreciate the difference between opinion and judgement and/or are just too "busy" to examine and evaluate evidence, now is it?

If you want to know the truth, I think the problem is both of you probably watch WAY too much television--but THAT'S just my opinion....

See this IS a different Mike. No links and real short. Let me see if our common ground is here on Lee's segment:
"My comment was speaking to the Financial Times' leader on the LYING issue. It's important, I'm glad they're stepping up, but it can mislead, i.e. to the wrong campaign strategy."
Or here with liberal's "While politicians lie all the time..."
Both side heavily on the cynical side and I just can't help bolting for the Pollyana side.
If politicians lie all the time, why bother to vote? If it's OK to step up and call someone a liar, but at the same time be prepared to step back because it's poor strategy, what kind of a step was that? Not much of a step, no? And as much as I dislike the brits, FT takes that step that our press isn't, won't or can't.

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Muppets love Viagra!

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

If you're looking for Kontaktanzeigen online, check the blog!

Hire a car to feel higher!