the dynamite politics thread

[Lina]

Me on C-SPAN. Click on the event called "House Republican Policy Cmte. Immigration Forum" from 9/12 and fast-forward to 2:06:33. I'm telling the witness to turn on his mike, heh. I was reminded of this by hyena's post because the topic was immigration, so I went a'searching.

 

[Taliesin]

Not my words but they speak for me ...

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet. Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.
[...]
“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

Heh, I didnt know that was Olberman.
Ive really come to like this guy. Sharp, witty.. cool guy

 

[Salamurhaaja]

Hmm, I think it's a good thing USA is in war with Iraq, I mean, they are only spending 46000kr/second (yes, per second) in that war.
Wonder if using that money to remove poverty from the world would've won the "war on terror" a bit easier.

Gotta love the American logic.

 

[hyena]

I'll be a sport and extend my congratulations to Lina, though.

 

[Lina]

Claudia, I'd like your opinion on this op-ed by Tom Friedman. He's a centrist who wrote some complimentary books about the Bush team at the start of his administration but has now come to a different opinion. I'd say he's the most respected journalist in the U.S. right now (and I don't particularly like him).

Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 3, 2006

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, “They must think I’m stupid.” Because they surely do.

They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team’s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry’s mangled gibe at the president.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men — to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld’s response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you’ve got — get over it.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than to send them off to war in Iraq without any coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction there, so that the U.S. military has had to assume not only security responsibilities for all of Iraq but the political rebuilding as well? The Bush team has created a veritable library of military histories — from “Cobra II” to “Fiasco” to “State of Denial” — all of which contain the same damning conclusion offered by the very soldiers and officers who fought this war: This administration never had a plan for the morning after, and we’ve been making it up — and paying the price — ever since.

And what could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in Iraq than to send them off to war and then go out and finance the very people they’re fighting against with our gluttonous consumption of oil? Sure, George Bush told us we’re addicted to oil, but he has not done one single significant thing — demanded higher mileage standards from Detroit, imposed a gasoline tax or even used the bully pulpit of the White House to drive conservation — to end that addiction. So we continue to finance the U.S. military with our tax dollars, while we finance Iran, Syria, Wahhabi mosques and Al Qaeda madrassas with our energy purchases.

Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century — to bring out the best in us. His “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.

And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country’s health, prove him wrong this time.

Let Karl know that you’re not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has — through sheer incompetence — brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.

Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.

It means we’re as stupid as Karl thinks we are.

I, for one, don’t think we’re that stupid. Next Tuesday we’ll see.

 

[Kovenant84]

I'd be happier if this didn't basically lead to Hill in '08.

~kov.

 

[hyena]

@Lina:

This is not the first time that I read an article criticizing the current US administration for how the troops in Iraq have been treated. Of course I have never been on the ground in Falluja, so I don't know how much of the reported shortcomings are objectively true, where the soldiers can make do and where they can't. But if we admit that at least a sizable percentage of the claims is true, along with the claims of insufficient assistance and compensation/benefits for the soldiers who managed to come home, I do agree with Friedman: the administration has been unfair to officers and soldiers, and this is particularly serious seeing how it put a lot of focus on military action.

Still, it is very easy to criticize when you don't have a counterfactual. I'm all in favor of the overwhelming force approach, but let us not forget that millions of people took to the streets in a large number of countries when the war in Iraq began. If the US administration had dropped an atom bomb on Baghdad, it would have been accused of being completely undemocratic, for failing to respect the apparent wishes of its own citizens and the citizens of allied countries fielding their own troops in the Middle East. So their hands were partially tied. They should have persuaded public opinion that the case was sound for a harsher entrance, maybe not as harsh as nuking the country (it was just an example), but still harsher than the one they employed. After all, it's a politician's job to persuade people, and they didn't even try: this was another mistake, less serious than mistreating soldiers, but still not good.

The war in Iraq has been a disaster so far: tactically, strategically, and from a PR standpoint. The US administration didn't handle it well. People from several countries died unnecessarily. And the will of extremist groups is far from being broken. On this I concur, and I will also concur on the fact that leaders who lose wars should be punished in elections.

On the other hand, I definitely don't trust the Democrats to perform significantly better. Withdrawing from Iraq only means that you sweep the dust under the carpet and hope that the problem goes away, which is irresponsible; and I tend to think that irresponsibility is a general feature of current left-of-center thinking. Which brings me to the other point: while it is true that the elections had a lot to do with the war, it's not the only issue at stake. And I see the Democrats as less value-oriented than the Republicans - and by value-oriented I don't mean "the Christian right". I'll be happy to debate this point if you want.

@kov: nah, it's rudy in '08, relax.

 

[Kovenant84]

@Hyena: Actually, I probably wouldn't be against that. There'd at least be a serious competition for NY votes at that point.

And btw - I think I'm gonna start shopping for you at http://www.goats.com/store/rfv.html

~kov.

 

[hyena]

yeah, i'd seen that shirt, i totally love it.

 

[rahvin]

On the other hand, I definitely don't trust the Democrats to perform significantly better.

It's really unfortunate that, lately, left-wing politics often wind up being so similar to right-wing politics to come off as almost indistinguishable, were it not for the uneven distribution - in favor of the leftists - of tact, good manners, dignity and statesmanship. On the one hand this creates the illusion that failing strategies are sort of ok, after all: who cares about a bad joke more or a sensitive word less in the face of cold facts? On the other, it makes educated people more likely to side with the "refined" choice regardless of whatever their real program turns out to be, because how can we ever believe that someone who puts binoculars on the wrong way could lead us to anything but ridicule?

 

[Lina]

And I see the Democrats as less value-oriented than the Republicans - and by value-oriented I don't mean "the Christian right". I'll be happy to debate this point if you want.

Yes, I would like to know which values you think they embrace.

 

[hyena]

- individuality and personal responsibility (diffidence toward the collective as a category)
- a propension toward building, both socially (families, grass-roots organizations etc) and economically (making an awful lot of money is morally valid if it's the result of effort); you're not a good person if you just live for yourself and it's not cool to be a trendy 30something single in a big city - and yes, i'm bound to become one, but this doesn't nullify the principle, just says that i'm doing something wrong
- subsidiarity
- a propension toward decision-making (not the same as above): considering options is a good activity as long as it's finalized to an informed choice, indeterminacy per se is not a good point
- doing what's right vs doing what feels good if the two don't happen to coincide
- foregoing respectful facades in favor of substantial initiatives (ie getting rid of affirmative action to put more emphasis on individual merits)

 

[fireangel]

Claudia, I'd like your opinion on this op-ed by Tom Friedman. ....

Awesome, that´s all what several people been saying here for years, in this very thread, just that if it´s by some US-Journalist-guy, no-one freaks out and accuses him of being anti-american, socialist, leftist or whatever; instead hyena writes some civilized, non-excited reply and actually agrees with some points she pretty much never agrees with if Villain says them.


Anyways, I want Geena Davis as president

 

[rahvin]

instead hyena writes some civilized, non-excited reply and actually agrees with some points she pretty much never agrees with if Villain says them.

Villain is in favor of the extermination of the American people. I doubt this journalist feels the same, as nihilistic as those sordid leftists can get.

No really: the general idea of this war being poorly-conceived was indeed expressed here before, but you cannot deny that the criticism in this thread tends to assume a guise that is little short of fanatical. It's hard to reply soberly to ad hominem and calls for governments to disappear under the ocean. This is not the same.

Also, the White House cannot comfortably accomodate Geena Davis's forehead.

 

[Kovenant84]

As much as I hate Hill, if Geena Davis got in, I'd fucking walk to Canada.
Maybe I'd apply for dual citizenship or somesuch, possibly get something from Ireland so I could travel Europe without any trouble.

~kov.

 

[fireangel]

Also, the White House cannot comfortably accomodate Geena Davis's forehead.

It´s not like she´s prettier than any man who´s currently in the office

 

[hyena]

hey, what is it? everyone-gang-up-on-me day?

 

[Kovenant84]

<Reads sentence again> <Theme from Jaws begins>

~kov. (Wildly looks around for the incoming Plintus)

 

[Arch]

hey, what is it? everyone-gang-up-on-me day?

Yes.

Next week is gang-up-on-Rahvin day. Mark your calendars, everyone.

 

[hyena]

[continued here from another thread]

Ah, but according to the coverage I read about the Berlusconi-case, he got free because he used his political / economic power to make it impossible for him to get convicted. This would be much worse corruption than any mafia-connections, in my eyes at least - politicians rising above the justice system.

-Villain

Well, you are right that politicians being given a preferential treatment would be a very serious problem and completely undemocratic, but allow me to say - as I guess any Italian would tell you - that being in league with the mafia would be really, really worse. Mafia is a criminal organization that stifles entire regions of the country with violence and intimidation, prevents many innocent people from having decent lives (ie by burning their shops if they refuse to pay "protection money"), has caused the deaths of magistrates and policemen, and makes money from the trade of drugs, weapons, and worse of all human beings. i think that a politician who profits from connections with such people is way worse than someone who pulls strings in the legitimate judicial/business system to obtain favors. i'm not saying that pulling strings is ok, it really isn't, but at least nobody dies or is shot in the legs.

this said, Berlusconi has been accused of both things, being in league with the mafia and simply pulling strings. i believe that the first accusation is unfounded, mainly because of what i said above: a major police and intelligence effort to get rid of prominent mafia figures was started after the tangentopoli (bribesville) scandal at the start of the 90s, and it has continued both under the 2 governments led by Berlusconi and under the governments led by the Left, to very good results. i don't think the mafiosi would support someone who has them jailed. another kettle of fish altogether is the involvement of some local figures of Berlusconi's party with the mafia. as far as i know, none of the accused has been sentenced in this sense, so all it boiled down to was: a couple of sicilian politicians in Berlusconi's party were rumored to have connections with criminals. I think it was unwise on Berlusconi's part not to oust them from the party, as it had been unwise on the part of the Christian Democrats ages ago not to get rid of suspected mafia collaborators until a couple of folks were shot, but that's hardly evidence of high crime. lack of sense of opportunity, superficiality, and maybe also a certain excessive swagger.

as for the pulling of strings, i also highly doubt it, because most magistrates involved with the Berlusconi trial were on the opposite side of the fence, politically. now, this is not a conspiracy theory: it is actually quite well-known that some sectors of the State are politically colored, say everyone knows the Army and the Police are mainly composed of right-wingers, and most of the magistrates are left-wingers, as are the majority of high school teachers. i don't see Berlusconi managing to bribe some very prominent judges who basically hate him and anyway would have a lot to lose if caught accepting his money.

what is true, and i think that this is where one can really accuse Berlusconi without being absurd, is that when he was prime minister he actually changed a number of laws to make sentences milder for people accused of some of the crimes he was accused of, and to prevent being accused of other crimes (in this case, it would apply to actions performed while in government: sentencing is present-time, and the definition of crimes is not retroactive). so, for example, before his time in government tinkering with balance sheets of companies was a criminal offence, but he turned it into an administrative irregularity, which means that you don't go to jail, you just pay a fine. he modified stuff here and there to "cover" for himself and his associates, which is why the legge ad personam expression was all over the papers through his government.

now, personally i think that it is still not possible to call Berlusconi a criminal because of that. of course, he didn't pass the laws all of his own; they were approved by the Parliament, and he had a very thin and fragmented majority (3 different parties for a total of 52-53% of the votes, and each party had a different agenda, with Berlusconi's own amounting to slightly more than half of the total) so the laws were actually negotiated with the opposition. also, it is flabbergasting how the famous law about the conflict of interests, which should have prevented Berlusconi from acting as a media tycoon and as the Prime Minister simultaneously, was not drafted by any of the preceeding left-wing governments, and Berlusconi got the blame.

again, Berlusconi had very little sense of political decency. i do not admire this kind of behavior, because i find it unethical, but it was not illegal. he actually did something that is the job of people in government: he changed some laws, and he had the parliament's approval for that. he lost credibility (and my vote) in doing so, but it is important that one understands how this is different from bribing judges or being a mafia hitman.