Bush on TV

[Crux]

 

...my enthusiasm for Bush is tempered and not without limits. It will evaporate in short order if:

 

Saddam were to escape,

 

His commerce department approves the chinese Unocal takeover,

 

He signs a flag-burning ammendment to our constitution and passes it along to the states.

FW, one might appreciate that you hold your conservative values with integrity in regard to the above-mentioned constitutional issue, but your desperate exploitation of homeless hookers is disgusting.

[chucK]

The job of the President and his administration is to forumlate a strategy and it is not at all clear that they really have one. Everything we know about this whole business suggests they have not only failed, but actively refused to consider the possible outcome scenarios right from the start.

 

Are you guys following this Dept. of Veteran's Affairs fiasco?

 

Seems like they're/we're facing a billion $ shortfall because, get this, they estimated need for veterans' use of medical services on pre-war 2002 service levels .

 

Now what do you think the reasoning was behind this idiotic assumption?

 

a) complete utter stupidity?

b) arrogant attempt at a transparent accounting trick?

c) complete disregard for our Veterans?

d) genuine administration belief that we would suffer no casualties (think Pat Robertson revelation)? (also see a))

 

Seattle Times story

 

Fairweather,

Thanks for your reasonable post. I agree that the real work is trying to figure out what to do now that we've really stepped in it. How much more benefit of the doubt can you give these bozos to get us out of this problem? They've been continually making it worse. The VA thing is just one more bit of evidence that they're clueless about what's going on.

 

They said during the election that, "you don't change horses in the middle of the stream". To that I reply, "you sure as hell do if the horse is heading toward a waterfall".

[catbirdseat]

Pulling out of Iraq is one option. No one has seemed interested in speculating what might be the consequence of that. It is supposed that Civil War would result, but it is hard to argue that there isn't already one, now. I can't see the majority Shiites giving up what they have gained, especially with Iran next door ready to give aid to them.

 

What would the foreign fighters do if we pulled out? Would they stay and fight the Shiites or would they move on to Afghanistan or someo other place. My guess is that they would stay because they are mostly Sunnis.

[Crux]

...Now what do you think the reasoning was behind this idiotic assumption?

 

a) complete utter stupidity?

b) arrogant attempt at a transparent accounting trick?

c) complete disregard for our Veterans?

d) genuine administration belief that we would suffer no casualties (think Pat Robertson revelation)? (also see a))

To the point: "This shortfall results from either deliberate misdirection or gross incompetence by this administration and the Department of Veteran Affairs" (Sen. Patty Murray, D- Wash).

 

"Earlier this year, Murray proposed emergency funding for the VA, but that bill was voted down in the Senate after VA officials said the money was not needed...Late last week, after the VA disclosed the $1 billion shortfall, Murray reintroduced the emergency-spending bill"

(Seattle Times, June 28, 2005).

 

 

[mattp]

Fairweather wrote:

 

my enthusiasm for Bush is tempered and not without limits. It will evaporate in short order if:

 

Saddam were to escape...

 

 

I find this very interesting.

 

Isn't Saddam being held by Iraqi's who are (supposedly) not under our complete control? Even so, wouldn't control over the conditions under which he is being held and might escape be WAY out of Bush's control -- like two dozen steps below his level of command?

 

Why would you hold Bush responsible if Saddam escaped, but not hold him responsible for so many things that have been much more directly under his control like announcing to the world that we were not going to be bound by the Geneva Convention in our treatment of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo, failing to plan for a possible insurgency or provide for veteran's benefit funding or ignoring his own experts who told him that some of the "evidence" he was using to justify the war was bunk? What about announcing six weeks in advance that we were invading Afghanistan and then starting a second war before we captured Bin Laden -- didn't Bush's decisions on these matters effectively let Bin Laden go free? You may not agree that he's been responsible for all of these things, or you may not think all of them are "bad," but surely he carries significant responsibility for at least some of them and the whole thing has not been handled well -- yet I don't see folks who support Bush finding these matters significant some how.

 

If Saddam were to escape, would this somehow be worse than taking us into this mess in the first place? Is he a valuable source of intelligence, or an important war prize at this point?

 

This is a serious question. Why is Saddam so important and so many other things not?

[Fairweather]

Saddam was a valid secondary reason for our invasion. Official US policy under both Clinton and GWB was removal of Saddam Hussein. To let him slip from our grasp and escape trial would be unfathomable. If you want to call it such, then yes, he is a war prize.

 

You are mischaracterizing Bush's statements regarding The Geneva Conventions. The administration's position regarding non-uniformed combatants is correct. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe all of the detainees at Guantanomo were collected from the battlefield in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

 

As for announcing our "invasion" of Afghanistan, I think you are being disingenuous. The days immediately post 9/11 were filled with public outrage. Bush actually offered the Taliban the chance to turn Bin Laden over and remain the overlords of that nation. (Certainly more generous than the general American public would have been.) He announced the pending attack because the American public overwhelmingly demanded action. ....with the two possible exceptions being Matt Perkins and Jim McDermott.

[mattp]

Saddam was a valid secondary reason for our invasion. Official US policy under both Clinton and GWB was removal of Saddam Hussein. To let him slip from our grasp and escape trial would be unfathomable. If you want to call it such, then yes, he is a war prize.

 

Then there are "valid secondary reasons for invasion" in a half dozen nations, no? Sure, it'd be a major screw up to let him escape, but do you think GW is actually in control of the conditions under which he is held to anything like the degree that GW has been in control of our overall planning and execution of this war effort?

 

You are mischaracterizing Bush's statements regarding The Geneva Conventions. The administration's position regarding non-uniformed combatants is correct. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe all of the detainees at Guantanomo were collected from the battlefield in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

 

 

But what about the detainees in Iraq? Cheney and Rumsfeld's statements, endorsed by Bush, were obviously intended to apply to them as well. Further, we have lots of guys over there who are not wearing uniforms. Is Mike Adamson wearing a uniform? Would you find it "outrageous" if somebody put him in a prison camp and burned the Beckey bible in front of him and made him pose for pictures with a leash on his neck and some foreign object inserted into his you-know-where?

 

 

 

As for announcing our "invasion" of Afghanistan, I think you are being disingenuous.

 

No, I don't think so. If our goal was to capture the perpetrator, we would have sent a bunch of guys to go get him, and we wouldn't have given three months' notice. Bush said we were going to get him "dead or alive," but his program was in fact something else.

 

Bush actually offered the Taliban the chance to turn Bin Laden over and remain the overlords of that nation. (Certainly more generous than the general American public would have been.) He announced the pending attack because the American public overwhelmingly demanded action. ....with the two possible exceptions being Matt Perkins and Jim McDermott.

 

You're right that the American public demanded ACTION. I don't know about Jim McDermott, but I would have liked to see some effective action. I am not a miltary planner but I bet we could have more likely captured our guy AND we could have completely destroyed the training camps without occupying the nation and installing a new government - and I'm not sure what we are going to gain by the occupation/regime change part of the operation given the fact that virtually every time we've tried that in the past we have failed to accomplish what we set out for. Terrorism experts mostly seem to think that occupying countries - even with good intentions or a "valid reason" - is the single surest way to draw MORE terrorism, not less.

 

I'm not sure we undertook "effective action" on behalf of the American public, though I hear there may be a sweet pipleline deal out of this for those who are invested in such things.

 

By the way, I notice you go out of your way to use my full name, Brian. Is this some kind of intimidation technique? (It won't work because my name is available to anybody who wants to click on my user profile -- how about yours?) I can use your last name anytime I want to but I suspect you would not appreciate it because you've declined to put contact information that could lead someone to your identity on your profile.

 

Now, tell me more about why you think the loss of Saddam as a captive would be so much more a sign of a lack of leadership than was taking us into Iraq in the first place? I mean, really, would it be Bush's fault if some screw up made a mistake that let Saddam escape? Would it be more significant than his POLICY decisions? As much as my strident reply here may seem to you that I'm just a zealot, I am in fact interested in your reply on this point. I sincerely don't get it.

[Fairweather]

Matt. I have explained my position in far greater than you ever did the question I posed to you over two years ago:

 

How do you reconcile your belief in 'right-to-privacy' with your desire to see government wholly assume the role of health care provider for all?

 

Until you can return debate in-kind, it is pointless to engage in this circle-jerk.

 

 

As for using your full name, I apologize if I stepped over the line. However, I believe you regularly use your full name - and this site - for self promotion and the promotion of your WCC. Please spare me the indignation. The only reason I pulled my email address from my bio, was to discourage those on your side of the political fence from sending me any more hostile emails.

[mattp]

I forgot what your question was two years ago, Fairweather, and I sure don't get it from what you just posted. (I don't see any inherant conflict between an appreciation for privacy and a belief in a single-payer health-care system.) However, "you didn't answer my question two years ago so I'm not going to answer yours now" sure sounds like a pathetic dodge to me.

 

Like I said, I don't find it all that upsetting that you would use my full name because I have made no attempt to conceal my identity. However you only seem to "leak" my full name after we've exchanged a couple of argumentative posts -- in an attempt to discourage or intimidate me or something -- and you are not even denying that is what you were trying to do. I simply ask: should I return fire in the same fashion?

 

Can we talk about the issues now? (Our discussion here need not include personal jabs.)

Edited July 5, 2005 by mattp

[Fairweather]

...and when our posts get 'argumentative', you never use "sport", or "smart guy" when responding to me?

 

Matt, you seem to have this self-important, all-knowing, vision of yourself, often expressed here, to the extent you don't even see your own tactics mirrored in my replies. While I respect the climber you are and the knowledge you share in that regard...and I think we actually agree on many access issues...in no way do I respect the belittling, smarmy, pompous tactics you use in your political debates. I recall one episode where you were here on this site bashing Bush re the patriot act and claiming dark provisions that didn't even exist! Frankly, considering the wisdom one your age should possess, and your profession, I find your dishonesty and single-mindedness discouraging. You have refined the art of ignoring the meat in a debate and finding a less/non relevant tid-bit with which you can attack your opponent. You may have noticed that tactic coming back from me as well....it's been intentional. Still, you don't notice yourself in my replies. I cede that my president is not perfect...and you use that to attack. But never...NEVER do you retract, retreat, reflect, reconsider even a single position you hold.

 

I have no interest in continuing political conversations with you. There really is no point. Let's stick to the issues we both hold dear, access and mountain adventure, and steer clear of eachother otherwise. We'll both save our valuable personal time, and deny ourselves the angst that accompanies these flamefests.

 

Brian Rybolt

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

come on guys, get a room, already...

[mattp]

You wanna watch?

 

(You're right; this is unseemly. But I'll point out to be redundant once again that I never seek to take it personal. Not once have I attacked Mr. Fairweather on those grounds, and in fact I haven't ever put him down with nearly the vinegar that he has thrown in my face but there is obviously no point in attempting debate with someone who thinks I am "smarmy, dishonest, self important..." and who is going to steer the discussion to that opinion when I thought we were discussing politics. In deference to your fragile sensitivity, KJK, I'll refrain from posting my description of Fairweather's debating personality.)

 

Have a nice evening.