Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Can't quite make out what's going on over there from the link. It appears that they're discussing Churchill's disasterous early WW2 days. I also assume that there's an implicit comparison to Bush2 in Iraq. I'd repectfully propose that a closer analogy would be Churchill's WW1 Dardanelles adventure, which turned into a disaster, led to a resurence of the Turkish empire and forced Winston's resignation.

Posted by K at May 28, 2007 11:37 PM

Rand, when are you going to figure out that you sound like a moron equating Dick Cheney's deliberate, entirely optional imperial fiasco to a defensive World War fought between the globe's most powerful militaries? Such a cosmic non sequitur would be funny from the mouth of Stewie Griffin or some other Wagnerian cartoon character, but spoken seriously by a living, breathing adult who isn't under the influence of psychotropic medication, it's rather worrisome.

Basically, as long as we ignore everything that isn't analogous--comprising the vast, overwhelming majority of what's happened--then you can apply your boundless imagination and see vague general archetypes of war that put it within six degrees of separation of WW1 or WW2. And on that basis, we should just keep to the plan of listening to the raving lunatics who put us in Iraq in the first place, of whom you were no doubt a vociferous original supporter, and just focus ever more intently on American Idol as the bodies pile up and the regime's charnel house jesters mortgage our grandchildren's economy to avoid admitting they're wrong. Only Greek mythology has creatures both as monstrous and petty as these people.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 28, 2007 11:47 PM

No Brian, you're forgetting your imagination, where what you think is reality resides. Social Security and Medicare will do more to mortgage our childrens' future than the war. Castro has a regime, Bush has an administration.

Posted by Bill Maron at May 29, 2007 12:44 AM

Bill: Social Security and Medicare will do more to mortgage our childrens' future than the war.

You mean the Republican decision to take tax cuts instead of locking down surpluses. And no, those programs don't mortgage the future, they provide a basic service to the American people--unlike the Uberdeathfest in Iraq with no discernable purpose and incalculable costs on every possible front. The bulk of the money spent on Iraq is gone, kaput, sitting in Jimmy Hoffa's wallet--it has been annihilated from the universe as far as the American economy is concerned. That is, with the notable exception of the money "earned" by the various Republican-affiliated war profiteers operating in Iraq, and a lot of that money will just end up in Saudi Arabia.

Castro has a regime, Bush has an administration.

There is no administration in the Executive branch of our government at the present time, and there has not been any since the Clinton administration. The people involved in the Cheney organization are totally, utterly above the law, ignore it with impunity on a constant basis, and spit this fact in the face of the American people daily. They've committed basically every crime in the book dozens to hundreds of times over, often publicly admitted it with what can only be described as an "I dare you to stop me" attitude, and do whatever they wish, whenever they wish with the American people's money and government. They are a regime. Castro also has a regime, as does Vladimir Putin, and the degree and nature of their power varies, but they are united in their brazen contempt for rule of law, democracy, human rights, and the institutions they claim to lead. I've spoken to these facts before, and I expect no greater attempt to address these points than occurred the first time.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 29, 2007 02:52 AM

Mr. Swiderski,

Please, stop reading so much Hersh. You are starting to sound like my ex....

Posted by MG at May 29, 2007 04:00 AM

MG: Please, stop reading so much Hersh.

Hersh is one of the few remaining investigative journalists in wide circulation, so there aren't many alternatives if you want to know something that a blogger or infotainment muppet wouldn't know about.

You are starting to sound like my ex...

Your ex was incisive, witty, and manly?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 29, 2007 05:11 AM

So our host seeks to allege that Bush is another Churchill? Ward maybe, but certainly not Sir Winston

Posted by anon-y-moose at May 29, 2007 05:28 AM

Squiddie, I think you're bipolar. Sometimes you debate with strong points and gifted writing, then you sink into name-calling trash talk. Very odd.

You mean the Republican decision to take tax cuts instead of locking down surpluses.

Tax cuts were a great idea, it got the economy moving forward again after the debacle that Clinton left that managed to explode in the Bush administration.

And no, those programs don't mortgage the future, they provide a basic service to the American people

Herein lies the most basic difference between Dems and Repubs. A basic service is what you see, and that's fine. Repubs see it as a government program that while designed to help, fosters a dependency on government to always help. When do there people stand on their own?

it has been annihilated from the universe as far as the American economy is concerned.

So what? The market (a much better economic thermometer than wikipedia) is roaring in record numbers. Our economy is fine.

The people involved in the Cheney organization are totally, utterly above the law, ignore it with impunity on a constant basis, and spit this fact in the face of the American people daily.

I disagree, but to follow your lead...Nearly every Hollywood leftist has a large closet filled with skeletons they haven't paid for. How many professional athletes live above the law? Most of which, while young, tend to swing towards the liberal side of things politically. Of course, this is all a personal responsibility thing, which in your opinion, should be monitored by the government.

They are a regime.

Okay then, I put it to you. Clinton was a regime too. Willfully lying to protect himself, paying enormous amounts of money to cover his dealings of the shady side, and more importantly...whenever a bill was defeated, he created an executive order to make it happen anyway.

incisive, witty, and manly

Penetrating yes, sharp...no.
Witty? More likely cruel and insulting.
Manly? Political straw-manly maybe.

Posted by Mac at May 29, 2007 05:31 AM

I believe this passage from Josh Marshall is simply accurate:

On its face it is almost a storyline you might expect war supporters to embrace -- Iraq as the central front in the 'War on Terror', a breeding ground of terrorism now spreading to other countries. Again we see the leitmotif of the president's war on terror -- evidence of the abject failure of his policies marshaled as evidence of the necessity of pursuing them.
We're so far deep into this mess that sometimes I believe we're past the point of argument. You look at the evidence and you either see it or you don't. Or perhaps more agnostically, you look at the evidence and one of two completely contradictory narratives makes sense. Whichever is right, the assumptions brought to the issue are so divergent as almost to defy argument or debate.

Seeming sane and rational people regularly draw opposite conclusions. But then the Founders of America foresaw this -- see passage from the first Federalist Paper:

Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society.

If we are to be true to the spirit of 1776 and 1787, it is vital that we comply with the checks and balances established in 1787 and in the Amendments thereafter.

Posted by Bill White at May 29, 2007 07:05 AM

If we are to be true to the spirit of 1776 and 1787, it is vital that we comply with the checks and balances established in 1787 and in the Amendments thereafter.

Amend the first part to read...

If we are to be true to Bill White's perception the spirit of 1776 and 1787...

There, now its correct.

Posted by Mac at May 29, 2007 10:02 AM

Rand Simberg compares George Bush to Winston Churchill. Newt Gingrich compares George Bush to Jimmy Carter. Somewhere, someone in the vast right wing conspiracy missed a memo. From the New Yorker:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’ ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”

Posted by Bill White at May 29, 2007 10:18 AM

More from Newt Gingrich:

The only way to keep the White House in G.O.P. hands, Gingrich said, would be to nominate someone who, in essence, runs against Bush, in the style of Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right cabinet minister who just won the French Presidency by making his own President, Jacques Chirac, his virtual opponent [...]

Perhaps it is the GOP that benefits most if George W. Bush were to resign . . .

I gotta say, this New Yorker column makes me sit up and take notice of one Newt Gingrich.

Posted by Bill White at May 29, 2007 12:47 PM

I don't know if Gingrich is right about Bush and Carter. Bush doesn't seem bad to me, especially in relation to how I think things would have gone under Gore or Kerry. Carter was both incompetent on the details and got the big picture wrong. Bush seems to get the big picture, especially the big picture on the war, mostly right, but his management of the details has deteriorated. (In part I think Bush's problems are simply par for the course for any president late in his second term. Key people have left the Administration, good replacements are simply unavailable and the opposition is running out the clock. Reagan didn't get much done at this stage of his presidency either.)

I haven't read the New Yorker interview, but it sounds like another instance of Gingrich, who is brilliant on the big picture, letting his ego drive him to say things that his enemies will use against him. He seems to do better as an analyst than as a politician.

Posted by Jonathan at May 29, 2007 12:49 PM

Newt, who as I recall, was on the Defense Policy Board, as such did not really challenge debaathi-fication, in fact the very idea of keeping Saddam's Dulaimi, & Ubeidi tribe dominated enemy,
would have seemed ludicrous, and insulting to the Shiite and Kurd majority. that along with crushing
the first looters in 2003 (what would that have
won us) turning over power to what would become
the IGC, not realistic, other quibbles that need not go unmentioned . Talk to me, when we have $ 7-10 a gallon oil, when the emirates as well as the
Wahhabiyan Arab republic,(seems more honest than
Saudi) suffer the same fate as Iraq, than we'll have more grounds for agreement. Newt speaks of
WW 3, but he can't even stomach the costs of a
Phillipine type engagement, probably would have
given up after the battle of Little Big Horn,
much less Verdun

Posted by narciso at May 29, 2007 07:55 PM

I get the feeling that Rand is posting these being somewhat "tongue-in-cheek", since I know he's not seriously comparing G.W. Bush to Winston Churchill. (Or at least I HOPE he's not :))

But seriously, this isn't the case of a leader being "responsible for a military disaster in a misbegotten war". It's a case of the _leader being responsible for the misbegotten war_

This isn't complex. Iraq was NOT the front line in the GWOT when we invaded.

It still wasn't the front line in the GWOT even after we invaded and kicked the Iraqi military and Saddams' brutal dictatorship to the curb.

Everything after that lays at the feet of the Bush administration. If Iraq is the front line in the GWOT at this point, it's because of the numerous grievous and idiotic mistakes that they made, both in the planning of what to do after we won (Or lack therof), and what to do when things weren't working.

Al-Quaeda at this point should be cutting checks to the Bush administration, thanking them for:

1) The best recruitment opportunity they ever could have gotten. Well, short of invading Washington D.C. and burning the capitol building.

2) A "free" training ground where they can throw AQ "recruits" into action against the actual U.S. Military and promote the ones who survive, and the losers who die? Well, maybe they'll kill some americans. Or Iraqis (as if a Wahhabi like Osama cares what happens to Iraqis).

Oh, and a shiny nickle gets you that those "promoted" AQ aren't being sent back into Iraq.

All of this (IMO) can be laid at the feet of G.W. Bush and his administration.

Myself? I think that, having created this, we're honor bound to try and get the best situation we can. I just don't have a lot of optimism, considering the crew that created this mess is the crew still trying to fix it. And rapping my head against the wall thinking that I still have a year and a half where I can go Army Reserve.

Sadly, I think the "best situation" at this point is one in which the "Iraqi Government" basically kicks us out (as in asks us to leave), absolving us of what happens after that. I don't see that happening...unless it's engineered. Which I could live with.

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at May 29, 2007 08:32 PM

Narciso: (Newt Gingrich) probably would have given up after the battle of Little Big Horn

Well, thank goodness we didn't give up after that, who knows what would have happened....

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at May 29, 2007 08:36 PM

Rand likes to make up these scenarios,

The german navy was a real, immediate actual threat to
the british shipping lanes and home fleet. The Bismarck
had enough punch to sink the Hood in one shot, which
was the pride of the fleet, the graf spee, was tearing up
southern shipping. The Schranhorst was equally dangerous.

Everyone understood it and history saw it that way later.

70% of the american people disagrees on Iraq, 90% of the
world politic disagrees on Iraq, and History will disagree with
Bush on Iraq

Posted by anonymous at May 30, 2007 01:00 PM

70% of the american people disagrees on Iraq, 90% of the
world politic disagrees on Iraq

Finally somebody posts useful numbers.

70% of the American people disagree with each other on Iraq, while 30% of us know we're doing the right thing.

90% of world politic disagree with each other, trying to get re-elected or advanced in station, while the other 10% know we're doing the right thing. Thanks Anon

Posted by Mac at May 30, 2007 01:19 PM

Mac, I present you with todays medal for inane bravado in the face of impending doom. Seriously, you are truly an optimist.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 30, 2007 07:42 PM

Thanks TNT, but the point is that the numbers Anon is throwing out are a lot like this statement..."87% of all statistics are made up." Like the writing thread hints at, language is powerful, if used correctly. "90% of the world politic disagree on Iraq" A lot is desired to be inferred with that statement. I think in Anon's case it was unintended, but the statements are vague unless you immediately assume the subject of the disagreement mentioned. So, the numbers can be a little misleading.

Yes, I am an optimist. I believed the WMD were there, I believe they were moved. I believe this because he used WMD against Iran, so history has proven Saddam had them and used them. I also believe that was not the reason he needed to be punished. The UN gave resolutions that he blatantly ignored. We then stepped up to the plate and let Saddam know what would happen if he did not comply. He did not comply, so we backed up our threat. If I tell my children I'm going to punish them for throwing things in the house, I punish them when they throw things in the house. Saddam needed to be treated as a child because he acted like one.

Posted by Mac at May 31, 2007 05:37 AM

Mac
If we believe your position, Saddam has been punished.
He's dead. So who are we punishing now and why?

Posted by anonymous at May 31, 2007 12:22 PM

Mr. White:

Sure, your economy is fine. Apart from the trillion-dollar-per-year balnace of payments deficit, that is.

Of course, you can always send out your legions to exact tribute. Remember, however, what happened to the last empire that did that.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 31, 2007 04:22 PM

If we believe your position, Saddam has been punished.
He's dead. So who are we punishing now and why?

We're trying to help people into an era of freedom. Insurgents from countries fearful of success in that endeavor are attempting to stop the Iraqis in achieving freedom.

In your response, one wonders, when Saddam was defeated, we should've just left and let the chips fall. The opportunity to introduce a democratic style of government into the Middle East is a bold idea that (IMO) will help stabilize the region in the future (5-10 years down the road to start). We need to let the seed grow and support their new government. That also means having troops there to continue the work of suppressing the insurgency.

Posted by Mac at June 1, 2007 08:56 AM

Mac,

we've been in iraq 5 years, so you think it's 10 more years?

We've spent $500Billion on your bold idea.
at the rate of increase it will be $4 Trillion by then.
we've lost cloe to 40,000 casualties, do you think we
should lose 200,000 more?

Will you be willing to serve to implement your bold idea?

Posted by anonymous at June 1, 2007 11:56 AM

Post a comment