Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand...

Actually I thought Murtha kind of imploded on MTP...he was the incredible shrinking George McClellan.

The problem is that the administration has lost control of the debate. They have lost it because they have never been honest about the debate in the first place.

THEY RAISED a ton of straw men at the start of the war that just destroyed their credibility. Now the "other side" is doing the same thing.

There are a few "serious" people in the political spectrum right now. Actually Hillary is one of them...All three of the main contenders for the GOP nomination are being fairly responsible...

But right now the people who have the mike are those like Murtha and Dodd...four years ago it was idiots like Condi and Greggy and Dickie and the like.

The good news is that the surge seems to be getting some traction.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 09:20 AM

Robert, it adds nothing to your argument to call people "Dickie" and "Greggy." In fact it detracts from it, because it makes it hard to take you seriously. Particularly when I don't even know who "Greggy" is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 09:30 AM

Dodd's strawman version of President: "Staying in Iraq will solve the problem."

Dodd is mostly correct, because the President is doing very little other than staying in Iraq. Iraq is 87% of his international effort against terrorism, Afghanistan is 11%, and the rest of the world is 2%.

It is very important to have a basic sense of proportion in this discussion. Iraq only has 27 million people according to the CIA factbook (and I doubt that they have deducted the exodus to Jordan and Syria). That is less than 10% of the world's Arab population and less than 2% of the world's Muslim population. Yet this little population sliver has gotten $400 billion of American war; by the time Bush leaves office, it will be $600 billion and counting. By then it will have been more than $20,000 for every man, woman, and child in Iraq.

Why such a giant effort in such a small country? Why would Iraq be the cookie monster that eats almost the entire war on terrorism? It's because Newt Gingrich is correct: Iraq is a failure. Failure in Iraq is intolerable to Bush, so he is emptying the store to reverse the failure. The private sector has ways to stop itself from throwing good money after bad. At this point, Bush is hardly doing anything else. That is why Dodd is mostly correct and Bush is completely wrong in their public debate.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 10:28 AM

Dodd is mostly correct, because the President is doing very little other than staying in Iraq.

No, Dodd is constructing a flimsy straw man. Had he wanted to make the argument you just did, he could have, and should have, instead of misrepresenting what the president said, and then pretending to disagree with it, instead of answering the question asked.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 10:35 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 09:30 AM

Greg Fieth/Feith whatever (spell last name) the genius who told Shinseki he was wrong about the troop number. The genius who told us the war would pay for itself, the clutch was kind of Rummy's "Niedemier".

Sorry, the desire to mock people who sent us to this thing and had zero competency sometimes gets the best of me.

I do to the other side, RUn Away Johnny for instance so I am equall oppurtunity when it comes to incompetency.

But I will try and do better!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 10:39 AM

Posted by at March 4, 2007 10:28 AM

Dodd is an idiot...he is like the rest of the left wing demo's...he thinks that we can "talk" to everyone.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 10:40 AM

OK, so "Greggy" is Doug Feith? Got it. You're right, it should have been obvious...

Robert, again, things like this (and your apparent willingness to argue about things like the Clinton impeachment and other matters of which you seem to be unaware of many of the relevant facts) are why it makes it hard to take most of your posts seriously. You need to engage brain (and often do a little research) before letting fingers fly.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 10:46 AM

Dodd is constructing a flimsy straw man. Had he wanted to make the argument you just did, he could have, and should have, instead of misrepresenting what the president said

You're standing on the ground that Dodd explained it badly. It's not a fundamental point. The point is that the US is deeply overinvested in Iraq for the sake of Bush's personal reputation. It should therefore move out, which is Dodd's actual policy prescription.

Doug Feith. But you shouldn't lay these mistakes too much at his feet, because Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and ultimately Bush eagerly agreed with him.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 10:55 AM

You're standing on the ground that Dodd explained it badly.

No, I'm standing on the ground that Dodd dodged the question, and instead employed a cheap rhetorical trick. The president has never said, or implied, that remaining in Iraq, in and of itself, would tamp down all terror. But that's the false argument to which Dodd responded. Twice.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 11:00 AM

No, I'm standing on the ground that Dodd dodged the question, and instead employed a cheap rhetorical trick.

See, that's the point. Rhetorical tricks are cheap. Wars are expensive. You're not keeping your eye on the ball.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 11:06 AM

See, that's the point. Rhetorical tricks are cheap. Wars are expensive.

Is there supposed to be some kind of point here? If so, could you actually make it, because I'm scratching my head, you know?

Are you saying that we should only indulge in rhetoric, because it's cheap? And never go to war, because it's expensive? Or what? Help us out here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 11:11 AM

Is there supposed to be some kind of point here?

The point is that you are distracted by purely rhetorical transgressions, when the real problem is a mistaken war.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 11:42 AM

Ah, I see. So you don't, in fact, have a serious point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 11:45 AM

Dodd is a corrupt, small minded idiot who is only where he is because of his equally idotic father and an undemanding constituency.

I wonder if he and the Tedster have made any 'waitress sandwiches' lately?

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 4, 2007 11:59 AM

I was wondering who "Greggie" was myself. I kept wracking my brain for the name of the neo-con starting with Greg and the best I could come up with was Gregory Slayton, current US Consul General in Bermuda and hyperactive social conservative . Then I wondered whether Robert knew something no one else did about this Power Ranger.

Finally I can ascribe this to an error on Robert's part rather than too many drinks and the associated decaying middle aged brain. DOUGGIE is what you mean. Aha! Rand's right though, calling them by these pet names weakens the point you try to make.

Incidentally, and quite tangentially, but holding to the same cast of actors, if you want to see something really funny, check out OPUS in the comics page. Cheney looks pretty good in a thong, or whatever you can see of it, covering up his rumored formidable weaponry.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 4, 2007 12:31 PM

Rand...

I admit I got "Dougies" name wrong...somehow he just fit in the Animal House group with another name...but my bad.

As for Clinton...We (you and I) have a fundamental difference on "how horrible" that was.

You are happy to your view. I am quite comfortable with mine...but I have a pretty good understanding of "what" happened there.

Thanks for the "nudge" on how to be taken seriously...lol

I'll omit any "counter" suggestions.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 05:13 PM

As for Clinton...We (you and I) have a fundamental difference on "how horrible" that was.

You are happy to your view. I am quite comfortable with mine...but I have a pretty good understanding of "what" happened there.

No one would know that from anything you've ever posted here. Just as no one would know that you know the first names of administration members...

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 05:29 PM

Honestly Rand...anyone who had an objective mind would find your views on Clinton to be counter to your claim of not being an extremist.

Or put another way, the nation completly rejected YOUR VIEW...

As for the names...sorry I got Feith's wrong...he is more a "Greg Neidemier" to me then a Doug...

He lied and overstated and belittled the Army Chief of Staff...and just because I got his first name wrong, doesnt change that.

That you will not acknowledge the failures of this administration is yet another "extreme" indicator.

But I still think you are a nice guy!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 05:43 PM

anyone who had an objective mind would find your views on Clinton to be counter to your claim of not being an extremist.

When have I ever claimed not to be an extremist? And what does that have to do with whether or not Bill Clinton was corrupt and should have been removed from office?

You need to work on your logic, here, Robert. Not to mention your facts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 06:48 PM

Rand...sorry I thought I read one post here (could be mistaken) where you said you were not an extremist...ok fine you are! Big grin.

We all probably are in some way or another.

I dont think Clinton should have been removed. I reserve conviction on impeachment (and impeachment itself) for Richard Nixon like Crimes and the political fallout in the aftermath.

MOnica was bad judgment...that was it.

OK we disagree on that. Lets move on.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 07:56 PM

MOnica was bad judgment...that was it.

Anyone who remotely followed the impeachment knows that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath while giving a deposition in a sexual harrassment lawsuit by Paula Jones. Fooling around with Monica wasn't an issue, the fact that Clinton would lie about it was germane to the Paula Jones case.

So far, I've come to the conclusion, Robert, that you only superficially follow events and make decisions on what you think occurred without even trying to validate your thoughts with the facts as they exist. However, to make yourself seem intelligent; you obfuscate your laziness by name dropping. Unfortunately for you, your bad at that as well.

Posted by Leland at March 5, 2007 11:27 AM

I fail to see why forcing Bill to answer questions
about Monica was germane to the Paula Jones case:
if the Monica affair was already known, how would
an admission of it from Bill have been necessary
to the "administration of justice"? (If it wasn't
known, independent of his answers, then what
basis could there have been to accuse him of
answering falsely?)

It strikes me as a deliberately-set-up "no-win"
situation: asking a question that most folks would
have been unwilling to answer openly, and to which
an answer was already known... this suggests that
the intent was to embarrass him one way or
another - had he said "yes" instead of "no", the
only difference would have been that he would have
been called a "lecher" instead of a "liar": the
mud would have been flung either way. Only its
flavor was in question.

-dw

Posted by dave w at March 5, 2007 12:08 PM

It wasn't "already known." It was a rumor, that Bill denied (while slamming Monica's character--the typical Clinton "nuts and sluts" defense"). Remember, he didn't come clean about it, and all the Clinton defenders were denying it as well, until Monica produced the dress.

It was necessary to establish it as actually true in order to establish the pattern of using his subordinates as sex toys, as part of the sexual harassment case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2007 12:23 PM

It's not about the President's reputation or approval ratings. It's the realization of what
retreat from a battlefield like Beirut in 1983-84, Mogadishu in 1993, to some extent Afghanistan
after 1989, has on ecouraging jihadists, by making
us look like a 'paper tiger'. This evident in most of Bin Laden's specches and interviews. As to other battlefronts, we see how only the Brits,
the Australians and the Canadians are really holding the front in Afghanistan. How Putin, has
done next to nothing with his quagmire in Chechnya, and has built up the Iranians in their
nuclear ambitions, how the Brits have coddled jihadists in their midst, how the Italians and
Germans are torpedoing our terrorism interception methods, through the courts. How thank to the times, the Belgians and other govts are refusing
to cooperate with financial transaction
monitoring. All these things they do to spite
us, but in truth they are spiting themselves.

Posted by narciso at March 5, 2007 06:48 PM

Post a comment