« Map of Iraq | Main | Great Moments in PAO History »

July 14, 2007

More "Support of the Troops"

Just remember: the First Amendment gives the antiwar Left absolute moral authority to say anything they want, no matter how obscene, in their relentless quest to "support the troops": (CWCID: Chrissie)

Ted_fg_Rall.jpg

They can, for instance, say that anyone who gives his life in war is an idiot.

They can characterize our armed forces as stupid, uneducated, or ignorant. They can patronize an entire class of professionals whose average age is 27 by referring to them as "children". They can imply that if we had any "real" choices (in other words, if we could just be like them), we wouldn't have chosen the life we lead.

It would be convenient to dismiss Rall as part of the lunatic fringe. As Michelle Malkin notes, his many awards make that a difficult task:

In 1996, he was one of three Finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. He was one of the New York Times’ most reprinted cartoonists in 1997, 1999 and 2001. He also did color strips for both Time Magazine and Fortune Magazine from 1998 to 2001. He was awarded the 1998 Deadline Club Award by the Society of Professional Journalists for his cartoons. Rall received first place in both the 1995 and 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards for Cartoons. The award, founded in 1968, recognizes distinguished work on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.

Today while I was out and about in my own community I walked past cars sporting childish "Republicans for Voldemort" and "My child is an honor student, my President is a moron" bumper stickers. I have just about had it with people who screech all day long that they are being brutally repressed, or that Republicans are mean-spirited, all while they are shouting their dissent from the rooftops and hurling petty, vicious insults like this:

the 28%ers, the “loyal bushies”, are the type of people who hurt animals as children, and then grow up as bullies. Imperialism is all they know.

Bush supporter:
Drug, Oil, Defence,[sic] international corportations,[sic] chamber of commerence, loony religious right, union haters, and watchers of the fox follies. Just a start but these are the “die hard” supporters because most of these people have money invested in Bush and have had a pretty good return on their investment up to date.

And now even former Republicans are getting into the act:

I received an email before the news conference from as rock-ribbed a Republican as you can find, a Georgia woman (middle-aged, entrepreneurial) who'd previously supported him. She said she'd had it. "I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth." I was startled by her vehemence only because she is, as I said, rock-ribbed. Her email reminded me of another, one a friend received some months ago: "I took the W off my car today," it said on the subject line. It sounded like a country western song, like a great lament.

As I watched the news conference, it occurred to me that one of the things that might leave people feeling somewhat disoriented is the president's seemingly effortless high spirits. He's in a good mood. There was the usual teasing, the partly aggressive, partly joshing humor, the certitude. He doesn't seem to be suffering, which is jarring. Presidents in great enterprises that are going badly suffer: Lincoln, LBJ with his head in his hands. Why doesn't Mr. Bush? Every major domestic initiative of his second term has been ill thought through and ended in failure. His Iraq leadership has failed. His standing is lower than any previous president's since polling began. He's in a good mood. Discuss.

Is it defiance? Denial? Is it that he's right and you're wrong, which is your problem? Is he faking a certain steely good cheer to show his foes from Washington to Baghdad that the American president is neither beaten nor bowed? Fair enough: Presidents can't sit around and moan. But it doesn't look like an act. People would feel better to know his lack of success sometimes gets to him. It gets to them.

Is this woman clued into reality?

She talks to two people, watches a press conference, gets torqued off and turns it into a column?

Please, Ms. Noonan. Do America a favor. Keep the dimestore psychoanalysis to yourself. Or better yet, do a little research before your write your next column. Try being informed. There's an old maxim about writing what you know. It's entirely possible there's something to it:

Ascione wasn't sure she could restrain herself with the president. She was feeling "raw." "I wanted him to look me in the eye and tell me why my brother was never coming back, and I wanted him to know it was his fault that my heart was broken," she recalls. The president was coming to Florida, a key swing state, in the middle of his re-election campaign. Ascione was worried that her family would be "exploited" by a "phony effort to make good with people in order to get votes."

Ascione and her family were gathered with 18 other families in a large room on the air base. The president entered with some Secret Service agents, a military entourage and a White House photographer. "I'm here for you, and I will take as much time as you need," Bush said. He began moving from family to family. Ascione watched as mothers confronted him: "How could you let this happen? Why is my son gone?" one asked. Ascione couldn't hear his answer, but soon "she began to sob, and he began crying, too. And then he just hugged her tight, and they cried together for what seemed like forever."

Ascione's family was one of the last Bush approached. Ascione still planned to confront him, but Bush disarmed her in an almost uncanny way. Ascione is just over five feet; her late brother was 6 feet 7. "My whole life, he used to put his hand on the top of my head and just hold it there, and it drove me crazy," she says. When Bush saw that she was crying, he leaned over and put his hand on the top of her head and drew her to him. "It was just like my brother used to do," she says, beginning to cry at the memory.

Before Bush left the meeting, he paused in the middle of the room and said to the families, "I will never feel the same level of pain and loss you do. I didn't lose anyone close to me, a member of my family or someone that I love. But I want you to know that I didn't go into this lightly. This was a decision that I struggle with every day."

As he spoke, Ascione could see the grief rising through the president's body. His shoulder slumped and his face turned ashen. He began to cry and his voice choked. He paused, tried to regain his composure and looked around the room. "I am sorry, I'm so sorry," he said.

But people like Peggy don't bother to find out what the President is doing:

David Schlegel came with his mother Thursday to honor the memory of his brother, Navy Cmdr. Robert Schlegel, who died in the attack on the Pentagon nearly five years ago.

"The anniversary of it brings back a lot of memories," said Schlegel, who also served in the Navy, "and this meeting actually brings a little more meaning to it."

Schlegel said his impressions of the president changed in the quarter-hour they spent together.

"You see a different side in person from what you see in the TV," he said. "Once I met him in person, I was very impressed by his genuineness and sincerity. It wasn't like we were sitting across the table from somebody -- we were three chairs, grouped, and I probably could have reached out and touched him."

What Schlegel found most surprising was simply the attention.

"I was impressed that it lasted so long," he said. "It's nice to know that somebody that high up actually appreciates, and can take 15 to 20 minutes out of their schedule, with everything else that's going on in the world, to spend time with a family that was really affected by this."

Ms. Noonan is convinced the President is too upbeat, almost eerily unaffected by the war:

One anti-war widow said she used the opportunity to voice her objections to Bush's policies.

"I said it's time to stop the bleeding," said Hildi Halley, whose husband, Army National Guard Capt. Patrick Damon, died June 15 in Afghanistan. "It's time to swallow our pride and find a solution."

She said Bush responding by saying "there was no point in us having a philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of the war."

The president became emotional, Halley said, when she tearfully described the impact her 41-year-old husband's death has had on herself and their two kids, ages 12 and 14, both of whom attended the meeting.

"He wept and hugged me and apologized for my pain," Halley said.

But for some people, facts are irrelevant because you see, they already know the truth.

And they support the troops. Oh yes, they support us all the way.

Posted by Cassandra at July 14, 2007 04:44 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1683

Comments

My own take on this guy....
http://tomsflashbacks.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/who-are-really-mindless-drones-liberals/

Posted by: tom carsley at July 14, 2007 06:02 PM

Y'know... I *like* Bush.

Even when I don't agree with him, I *like* the guy.

I can't say that about most public folks.

Posted by: Foxfier at July 14, 2007 06:35 PM

Yes, I do too.

But apparently that makes me a drooling, mouth breathing moron who likes to hurt small animals.

Or was I supposed to grow out of that? I can never remember, but that could be the daim bramage.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 14, 2007 07:16 PM

Oh, excuse me. I'm mean too.

And close minded. Unlike those nice, unjudgmental folks who think I'm a moron because I have different political views than they do.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 14, 2007 07:18 PM

None of you are as terrible as I am. I actually made a statement about the 'guest bloggers' on the Lew Rockwell site regarding the 'atrocities,'
only to be told that I hate Lew Rockwell because he isn't pro war. No, I detest their so called
'verification from TWO sources...' as if the sources themselves are unimpeachable.

Ummmkay.

Posted by: Cricket at July 14, 2007 09:55 PM

How you link a poorly thought out cartoon with a reasonable opinion by Peggy Noonan is utterly beyond me.

Noonan was trying to make a point. Firmness is one thing-non sensical defiance of even your own party without offering any practical way forward is just plain stupid.

The more I watch both conservatives and liberals I am amazed at how alike they really are. To heck with facts, to heck with reasoned dialogue-just stick to the script whatever it is-Pro War or Anti-war. Either way they want you to not deviate from the script by one bit.

Noonan was right on the mark and as a very loyal Republican which she has been for a long time, I thought it was very good of her to write that column.

Liberal, conservative-they are exactly alike when it comes to tolerating different ideas. No wonder politics in this country is such a mess.

Posted by: Skippy-san at July 15, 2007 04:13 AM

Noonan may have been trying to make a point, but she made it poorly. And my point was (since you seem to have missed it entirely) that Noonan is once more making emotional judgments based on her feelings rather than the facts.

Try looking at the section I excerpted. It makes absolutely no sense. She uses the word "seem" several times:

it occurred to me that one of the things that might leave people feeling somewhat disoriented is the president's seemingly effortless high spirits...He doesn't seem to be suffering, which is jarring. Presidents in great enterprises that are going badly suffer:

Then she goes on to say:

Is he faking a certain steely good cheer to show his foes from Washington to Baghdad that the American president is neither beaten nor bowed? Fair enough: Presidents can't sit around and moan. But it doesn't look like an act. People would feel better to know his lack of success sometimes gets to him.

First of all, this is utterly ridiculous. I have watched many press conferences where Bush has expressed frustration and even anger with the way things are going. So this is just factually incorrect on its face. But I have heard this meme so often from the liberal crowd that I went on to point out that the whole 'he doesn't suffer/he's unaffected/he never has to confront the families' meme is a bald faced lie.

And not only that, but if you bothered to read the comments in the last link, you can see that even when liberals are confronted with evidence that - yes - he DOES visit families of the wounded and dead ALL THE TIME and yes, he does grieve with them, they are so filled with hate they do everything in their power to avoid what is right in front of their eyes.

They were wrong.

And I said nothing about Noonan being "disloyal", so don't put that on me. I just think her editorial was foolish and not based on fact. If people want to disagree with Bush because of some political reason, fine. But she gave no reasons in her column except for that ridiculous digression about him "seemingly" being unaffected by the war, which was not based in any convincing argument.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 15, 2007 06:34 AM

Maybe you did not say Noonan was disloyal but plenty of others did. Its a lousy tag to give her-especially after all the hard work she has done.

Great, Bush visits the families. However when the rubber meets the road-getting decent benefits for those same families, the right number of Soldiers in the Army, the right sized pay raise for them, concurrent receipt for those who have been disabled, equity in terms of health care for reservists, decent turnaround ratios for active and Guard units-the things that really show the administration cares-every one of his appointees has made the wrong choice on these issues.

On those issues-issues that affect a lot of people-he comes out on the wrong side EVERY time. That's what counts-a lot more than stage managed appearances. He needs to pay the bill for his policies. Until recently HIS SECDEF would have no part of any of these things. He's the President so he is responsible for those wrong headed postitions.

Plus Noonan is not necessarily wrong about his perceived emotional involvement-he uses the troops and their families as a backdrop for his speeches.

Setting all that aside, I still believe her core premise is correct, Bush is losing even what little support he had from inside the Republican party. And he will have brought that erosion of support on himself.

Which as Noonan pointed out-does not do the working Citizen, Soldier, or Sailor any good, they are still stuck with him for 18 more months.

Posted by: Skippy-san at July 15, 2007 08:00 AM

Another baseless criticism.

Congress determines pay and benefits for the troops, not the President, and we are well compensated. I know - my husband has been active duty since 1981. So don't start preaching to me about how we aren't well compensated or don't have decent benefits.

That is utter nonsense.

And on the issue of increasing the size of our Armed Forces, it isn't conservatives who have fought that. Granted Rumsfeld was trying to cut the size of the military, but that is following drastic cuts during the Clinton years. He was trying to figure out how to do more with less, which was ALREADY a fact of life.

And this "equity" in terms of health care for reservists is also utter bullshit.

Reservists have civilian jobs. They are not entitled to military health care for a reason - they have their own health care through their civilian employers.

If you are a PART TIME civilian employee, you do not get, NOR WOULD ANY REASONABLE PERSON EXPECT TO GET, FREE HEALTH CARE.

For Congress to grant reservists the exact same benefits as full time active duty essentially takes away any benefit of being active duty. Why bother? How are the active forces supposed to recruit when the main benefits they offer are given for FREE to people who only have to show up one weekend a month?

No civilian gets those types of benefits for a part time job. This is an unreasonable demand based on emotion and ignorance rather than carefully considered review of the facts. Reservists have access to commissary, exchange and medical WHILE THEY ARE ON ACTIVE DUTY.

I would argue that if they are wounded in combat, they ought to have disability (don't know if they do but I'll be surprised if they don't). I will even buy off on the reserved servicemember getting VA benefits if he/she doesn't already get them, for life based on honoring his/her sacrifice. That is only fair.

But the other makes no sense, either from a fiscal perspective or a recruiting one. It doesn't even make sense from a simple "equity" perspective - you are treating part time employees the same as full time ones and that creates hate and discontent. We aren't always at war.

You don't make decisions like that based on short term considerations.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 15, 2007 08:13 AM

Skippy-san, I am trying not to be dismissive, but this country has been through how many wars? And in each war, fewer people have been killed and the quality of military health care, pay and benefits has gone WAY up.

And yet you people are screaming bloody murder (and the vast majority of you are not even IN the military) about how "this President" has "failed the military" - how he "doesn't care". What a load of nonsense.

Try taking a step back for once from the heated political rhetoric.

It's war. Things have to be balanced against the overall needs of the nation, and yes things could always be done better but that could be said about just about every single thing in this country. Are you going to leap in and solve all the world's problems?

Yeah. I didn't think so. Congress has some responsibility here too you know. And it doesn't make sense to vote the military and especially the Guard and Reserves wartime benefits that will bankrupt the nation in peacetime. We paying the price of shortsighted decisions made decades ago.

We CHOSE to cut our active forces to the bone. And now the very people who wanted to do that are whining that the military is "broken". Well guess what? You can't build a new military in a few years. It's not a flat structure - you have to pass new laws to increase the size of the active forces, recruit more people, train them, wait for NCOs, SNCOs and officers to rise through the ranks so you have some depth. This does not happen overnight - you can't just wave a wand and presto! a bigger military.

Likewise much of the equipment we use takes a long time to build and deliver. So there is a considerable time lag there and if it is rushed (as we have seen) the equipment that is delivered is faulty.

This is not the administration's fault - it is just the way things have ALWAYS been. It happened during WWII. To blame these things on Bush is just beyond dumb, but that won't stop any number of intellectually lazy people like Noonan and her "rock-ribbed" Rethug friend who don't bother to do their homework before they let their frustration get the better of them.

I don't give a tinker's damn what people like that think, because when you read them, they aren't "thinking". They are feeling.

Well I "feel" for them, too but you don't run a country based on your feelings of frustration.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 15, 2007 09:01 AM

[climbs onto soapbox]
A couple of decades ago, when I did more running, I read George Sheehan - and he kept referring back to the ancient Greeks and their worldview and philosophy. We see such references now from Victor Davis Hanson (of course), but in the context of the world as it is now. Hanson cites Thucydides' contention that wars are cuased by honor, fear, and self-interest.

Yesterday, Powerline mentioned the perspective of Herbert Meyer. The latter distills things down to their essence - we either believe we're at war, or we believe that the world exists with some acceptable level of violence, to be handled as a judicial matter (punishment after the fact, and - bluntly - too bad, so sad for the victims).

Partisans of each side cite chapter and verse of events to justify ("explain") their view. As the debate grows more bitter, and we grow more divided, we are more at war with each other domestically - a war rooted in pride and honor. The war with the Islamists (if you concede such exists) is one rooted in self-interest, survival being the ultimate societal self-interest.

It seems Peggy Noonan wants to see her conception of Ronald Reagan when she looks at George W. Bush, just as the leftists want to see their conception of Adolph Hitler. He is neither, neither their conception nor what history tells us of those men.

And so he disappoints. Too bad, so sad ... for her, as well as for the leftists. He is his own man, and while I disagree with many of his choices, I recognize they were his choices to make, not mine. I also recognize that he made them with information in hand that I don't and will likely never have.

A little humility might be in order for all of us, rather than our automatic hubris.
[descends from soapbox]

Posted by: Annlee at July 15, 2007 10:49 AM

And so he disappoints. Too bad, so sad ... for her, as well as for the leftists.

Heh.... :)

As I've said, I have no quarrel with Republicans who part with Bush over the issues so long as they don't claim - wrongly - that they were misled, because that particular complaint isn't sourced in fact as Bush's speechwriter pointed out rather succintly in a WaPo editorial not long ago. He compared Bush to Clinton in the sense that they were both elected because they ran on a platform which appealed to the center, not the far left or far right.

And that is true. He should know, if anyone should, what was promised.

He cited many examples and they are the same ones I've cited several times to prove the same point. There should have been no surprises to conservatives on this score - this is why Bush won the crossover Democratic vote in 2000 and for them to bitch now because he's not a "real" conservative is just looney toons. Wake up.

You get the whole package: he was the only strong candidate on defense and frankly he was the electable one. This is the reality no one wants to face: Rethug or Dem, we elect Presidents now who govern from the center. The "base" needs to get over themselves.

He is neither, neither their conception nor what history tells us of those men.

Yep.

I have never claimed Bush was perfect. I decline to criticize him on my own site because I'm paying for it and frankly there is plenty of criticism out there. It is not my focus to supply what is already plentiful and also I don't find it helpful.

I try to supply what is *not* in plentiful supply - an alternate viewpoint, even the minority one. It also happens to be what I think, or I don't say it.

Rarely I play devil's advocate, but that almost never happens and only when I think the other side has grown so unbalanced that something is needed to provoke a bit of reflection in response to all the knee-jerking.

There's an old saying: the President proposes, Congress disposes. This President has "proposed" solutions to some of the most pressing problems facing this country:

1. Social Security

2. Immigration

3. Terrorism

What the hell has Congress done? And somehow all of the blame for not "solving" problems no one else has been able to solve falls on his head. He has tried to move mountains for us. We should be thanking him.

There are 545 people in Congress, all drawing a paycheck. When are they going to show some leadership and start acting like a branch of government in their own right?

Posted by: Cassandra at July 15, 2007 11:36 AM

I thought Congress always acted for their own rights. Annlee, you can't post stuff like that.
People will accuse you of thinking and making sense.

Well said.

Posted by: Cricket at July 15, 2007 12:26 PM

Cricket, I only post such things here, where my maundering will be subsumed amidst the snark. Invisible in plain "site" ....

*waddling away*

Posted by: Annlee at July 15, 2007 02:24 PM

It made a lot more sense than my usual blather Annlee. I am always pleased when you comment.

I chime in a lot to help keep conversations going, but that doesn't mean my opinions are all that wonderful. It's just like tossing a ball back to someone so you can keep playing the game.

Only I throw like a girl. And I get tired of hearing myself talk.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 15, 2007 02:31 PM

Peggy Noonan writes the way she does these days because is would be socially uncomfortable for her to support the President in any substantial way.

Criminy, she lives in New York City. All this so-called Op-ed writing, whether it is Krauthammer or Brooks or Dione or whoever, is just so much childish blather by people who inform each other of their opinions like teenagers pursue the latest fashion.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at July 15, 2007 03:33 PM

This is the reality no one wants to face: Rethug or Dem, we elect Presidents now who govern from the center. The "base" needs to get over themselves.

That's what frosts me about these whiny, snot-nosed children on my side of the aisle who are talking about sitting out the 2008 presidential election if they don't have that, "perfect conservative candidate," to vote for. They want to, "punish the RINOS and send them a message."

I've been told that if I choose the lesser of two evils in a candidate that it's like I'm choosing a mate who will beat me less often. Sorry, but that analogy doesn't work. I have a choice to get out of a bad relationship. I don't have a choice of not having a president. If I sit home on my butt and don't vote...or if I vote for some candidate that will get .1% of the vote, to send a message, and I end up helping elect the worse choice, I get what I deserve. The only message I will be sending to anyone, is that I'm not a very smart voter.

Bush has been far from perfect. At first, he seemed he was going to be more conservative than his father, but, alas, I have been disappointed in many ways.

But Al Gore or John Kerry? I DON'T THINK SO!

In 1992, when the disgruntled Republicans got on the Perot bandwagon, because they were mad at George "read my lips" Bush, it led to 8 years of Clinton. No thanks to that. I will voter for the BETTER of the two candidates, even if one is a RINO.

Posted by: JannyMae at July 15, 2007 04:52 PM

"Please, Ms. Noonan. Do America a favor. Keep the dimestore psychoanalysis to yourself."

Dittos.

Posted by: JannyMae at July 15, 2007 04:53 PM

For those who do not have the Noonan article at hand, it may be found at

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

I like Bush. I do not like the degenerate political system our electoral process has become. How in hell is America to form any major consensus where the president is elected 50.1% - 49.9%? The political parties are sick and the carefully managed mummery of electoral politics needs a high colonic.

I was a Republican for many years and changed my party to Independent, meaning none, because of the recent Shamnesty proposal. It is utterly and completely unacceptable. I still lean Republican, but am furious with the damned party at present.

Noonan's article makes some good points and some ridiculous ones. FWIW Noonan writes almost as well as the Blog Princess and is almost as smart. Noonan is mystified at GWB's "good mood". For christsake, what does she want him to do, Hamlet? The "lack of success" is a stretch, or an outright falsehood. The "lowest rating" claim is false. Harry Truman won his second term going into the election with a 26% rating. I admire Truman because he had guts and would really go after his enemies. Here I see Bush as too willing to turn the other cheek.

Bush is a lousy public speaker. The cadence of his speaches is like listening to a square wheeled cart dragged over cobblestones. I did not vote for a voice on the boob tube, but an man for President. If he had Reagan's panache in this we would be blessed.

Annlee makes a good point that America, as a whole is not quite sure if it is at war or not. So long as the Islamists can keep at or below this threshold they may succeed in some areas. I do believe the surge is working and that we are turning the corner in Iraq.

The bad news is that GWB is largely hamstrung and unable to expand the war without impeachment by a traitorous congress, and desertion by treacherous members of his own party. I would love to see GWB take a whip to congress. The lamestream media is misrepresenting the war on terror and practically the official propaganda outlet for our national enemies. It is almost uniformly hostile to Bush.

Noonan's contention that Bush's decisions are principled and that his opponent's are not is silly. Bush is principled. Does anyone remember BJ Clinton? There are a few principled Democrats.

Don may be right in part about Noonan as a member of the chattering class not wanting to foul her nest. I give her more credit than that, but she is writing stuff that sells.

Iran needs to be neutralized. Pakistan is likely to go to hell in a hand basket. Musharaff is fighting the Islamists, but he will not be there forever. Who follows him? Pakistan has nukes and crazies galore.

Posted by: Mark at July 15, 2007 05:11 PM

Bush is principled. I also believe that, for the most part, he has done what he believed was right, despite being skewered in the media. I am disappointed that he hasn't done more to challenge their propaganda, but the reality is, they are not, and never will be on his side.

I too am disgruntled with the spineless R's. I have not given anything to the RNC since before the 2004 Presidential election, and I won't. I really don't have a choice about my party affiliation, in AZ, if I want to be able to vote R in the primaries. I am a conservative first, then a Republican. Most of the conservatives are still R's but there a few principled Dems.

Our founders intended for citizens to serve government and then go back to their, "normal," lives. They never intended politics to be a career. That's where all the corruption has ruined politics. Too many Ted Kennedys and John McCains.

Would that we could get a constitutional amendment for term limits, but those who would have to push for it are those whose careers would be destroyed.

Posted by: JannyMae at July 15, 2007 05:19 PM

Great, Bush visits the families. However when the rubber meets the road-getting decent benefits for those same families, the right number of Soldiers in the Army, the right sized pay raise for them, concurrent receipt for those who have been disabled, equity in terms of health care for reservists, decent turnaround ratios for active and Guard units-the things that really show the administration cares-every one of his appointees has made the wrong choice on these issues.

That's because Bush wasn't going to give you the job and make you the boss, skippy.

And yet you people are screaming bloody murder (and the vast majority of you are not even IN the military) about how "this President" has "failed the military" - how he "doesn't care". What a load of nonsense.

I suspect Skippy being out in Asia has something to do with that, Cass.

You don't make decisions like that based on short term considerations.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 15, 2007 08:13 AM

Perhaps skippy would, if Bush made him the boss.

Try taking a step back for once from the heated political rhetoric.

I'm not exactly sure how many steps back that would be, but it might be pretty legion. Like on the other side of the globe.

As I've said, I have no quarrel with Republicans who part with Bush over the issues so long as they don't claim - wrongly - that they were misled-cass

That's sort of like the question of who is more of a fool, the fool or the fool that follows the fool?

There's no real advantage in criticizing Bush for making a mistake if you admit that you already made a mistake in judging Bush's character. Either you were right to begin with, or the problem started with you, not him. And in that case, that requires fundamental reprogramming, not Bush changing his stuff. Being "surprised" sort of says that you were off on the wrong foot to start with. Always a bad thing.

Bush for example was always known as someone that couldn't extend the charm and the people power across the video screen. Using simple deduction, you can figure out that Bush must have one on one personal power and charisma, even if you never met him. Because you need that charm and ability to ascend to Presidential levels. No social bumpkin can do that, no matter what he looks like on tv. If your deductive logic is good, then fine you'll score some points in criticizing Bush's decisions, because you will be able to criticize Bush for what he has truly done wrong, not just what you see as being done incorrectly. Cass's example with the family meetings, is a good one concerning Noonan's critique of Bush not showing his sorrow. She should well know, as anyone with a psyche profile on Bush, that Bush both deals with stress of the office better than most and the fact that Bush tries very hard not to show his emotions on tv and in public. Even after Chirac betrayed him, you could see that he was quite upset/angry, but he wouldn't let it out or lash out. And if he won't do that when he had plenty of justifications, then he sure as heck won't look like he is suffering from a hangover in public for Peggy's benefit. Or anyone else's for that matter.
There should have been no surprises to conservatives on this score - this is why Bush won the crossover Democratic vote in 2000 and for them to bitch now because he's not a "real" conservative is just looney toons. Wake up.

I wasn't paying attention to 2000, but by 2004 people should have wised up by now. HIs "compassionate conservative" bizness should have been apparent in his soft treatment of Democrat insurgencies, French betrayals, UN crap, and Iraqi corruption. Unless you were just not paying attention, you should already have jotted down several consequences of such behaviors in Bush's psyche profile. IF people got caught with their pants down, that is the result of their faulty analysis protocols and logic processes. The whole point of having a "model" to analyze events and produce predictions, is so you don't get "surprised". 4+ years should be plenty of time to provide you with all the info and examples you need to form a good baseline.

The "base" needs to get over themselves.

[I'm switching gears, watch out]

The base took more hits for Bush than Bush ever would have taken for the base in public. You don't treat your strongest defenders and loyalists as if they are carrion to be thrown under the bus. It is not honorable, especially by American traditions.

The base expected the President to honor his oaths of fealty and loyalty, as the base honored their oaths and promises. For the President, they expected him to defend us on the national security front, and that meant border security, border enforcement; even if it meant spending a hackload of money and pork bribes. The oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, cannot be "gotten over". It should not be gotten over. No meer acceptance of the President's inability to confront internal domestic problems that are intimately connected to external foreign problems, is going to change much of anything for the better.

People have already said and recognized that the power is in the President's hands. He makes the decision, he has the knowledge. Then why doesn't he? I know why, but that doesn't mean such behavior is acceptable. Bush was given plenty of time to work things up. More time than Lincoln ever got. The decision on whether he failed or not, will be made once he is out of office. Perhaps more than once. None of that though will be changed by the base changing their reactions.

There's an old saying: the President proposes, Congress disposes.

Funny Cass, I only heard a version of it in Deathstalker. The Empress proposes, and the Empress disposes.

So that's where it came from.

What the hell has Congress done? And somehow all of the blame for not "solving" problems no one else has been able to solve falls on his head. He has tried to move mountains for us. We should be thanking him.

The President is not utilizing the Constitutional powers and enforcement agencies provided to him to balance out the Supreme Court and Legislative branch. If he is attempting to move mountains, it is without utilizing his full powers. It is okay if the President is unable to solve problems. It's not okay for the President to be unable to solve problems and also be unwilling to get rid of people like Plame and Wilson when the power was there for his use. There's a point to which you cannot sacrifice any more time, otherwise there's not enough energy to get the real work done.

Congress uses the President as a blackhole in order to suck in the blowback from unpopular decisions. That was true of Parliaments as well, I believe. Presidential power, however, was designed to deal with this kind of situation in mind. It is not anyone else's fault except Bush's; that he refuses to use his powers as they were designed. I am not making or forcing a specific decision on him after all. He can use his powers in whichever way he deems most fit, and against whomever he deems deserving of them. But use them he must; use them or lose them. Often, hopefully. And pseudo pardons of Libby don't count btw.

There are 545 people in Congress, all drawing a paycheck. When are they going to show some leadership and start acting like a branch of government in their own right?

because Congress was never designed to do what was best for the nation, Cass. They were designed to be pure politicians, wheelers and dealers in their own local affairs. The President represents every American, and his powers are tailor suited for especially that role, more so in war time even. Congress is a den of liars and dishonorable wretches. You cannot expect coherency from them, nor morality, nor principles, ethics, or honor. The age old truth that one smart person by himself is competent, while 500 smart people working together for consensus becomes dumb as a mice on steroids, is still true for today's world.

I chime in a lot to help keep conversations going, but that doesn't mean my opinions are all that wonderful. It's just like tossing a ball back to someone so you can keep playing the game.

Only I throw like a girl. And I get tired of hearing myself talk.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 15, 2007 02:31 PM

I don't get tired of hearing you talk. In point of fact, your comments are styled rather differently from your blog posts. They are both worth reading for their own merits, independent of each other.

But apparently that makes me a drooling, mouth breathing moron who likes to hurt small animals.

Wouldn't that be Jimbo chasing his dog around?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 15, 2007 05:27 PM

JannyMae, While I'm sulking in my tent, having dumped the spineless Republicans, I can revert in two weeks and vote in the primaries. I know I will not get everything I want in a President, or elsewhere, and will hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil, if I have to.

I am all for term limits, and would extend this to ANY office at a particular level: local, state, federal.

Posted by: Mark at July 15, 2007 05:31 PM

Whatever gets rid of Byrd and Kennedy.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 15, 2007 05:55 PM

Ymarsakar, You are right about Bush not using his Constitutional powers as he should. I never understood why Plame and Wilson were not indicted, not just canned.

Whatever gets rid of DiFi and Boxer, gag.

Posted by: Mark at July 15, 2007 06:47 PM

Regarding benefits and pay for the military-we will simply have to agree to disagree. George Bush has not done what he should have. Placing the blame on Congress is not correct-especially when this President has TWICE tried to submit a budget without a pay raise, threatened to veto a budget that did not have his numbers in it and has refused to stand up for issues that matter. I'm not alone on this thought-they echo the views of many of the organizations that make up the Military Coalition.

The blaming of Clinton is overdone in my opinion. The last Clinton budget was FY2001. Now fast forward a year to the QDR of 2001-Rumsfeld was planning on cutting the Navy back to 9 carriers, cutting Army end strength and raping the Air Force. That did not happen because of 9-11 which changed everything. Even at that-Rumsfeld still remained committed to reducing force structure. Yet the warning signs of strain on the force were there.

The fact that I am in Asia has nothing to do with realizing that when it comes to pay and benefits-this Presidents record is not stellar. Its actually been one of the achievements of Congress-to keep him from reducing pays in 2003 and 2005. Bush appointees in DOD tried and they got caught.

Posted by: Skippy-san at July 15, 2007 08:11 PM

Oh that's Ted Rall? I've seen his stuff and thought it was...well.....kinda harsh to say the least. but didn't know who the guy was.

Posted by: Roland at July 15, 2007 09:43 PM

this Presidents record is not stellar.

Not stellar is translated as, not doing what Skippy wanted done.

Regarding benefits and pay for the military-we will simply have to agree to disagree. George Bush has not done what he should have.

You being in Asia is a fundamental insight into your character and motivations, skippy. It is limited, as all things are limited, but there are specific direct affects. For example, Bush's actions these past half decade have stirred up anti-American sentiment. Those living abroad, on, or near army and naval bases will feel this personally as they interact with their foreign friends and contacts, whether professional or socially. Since there is and has always been an anti-American faction in the wider world, it isn't hard to craft a meticulous "let's attack Bush" strategy. It is easy to resent Bush when he is far away and those in your social circle believe the same. That's the whole point to anti-American sentiment in the first place or BDS as they say. It removes the need to actually to engage the person or group of peeps to see past the prejudices.

Of course he is in a good mood. The people he really cares about-his inner elite circle of rich cronies is being taken care of. The nearest threat to that circle breaking has been eliminated with reprieve of Scooter Libby-thus protecting the Sith Lord Cheney from further scrutiny. Ms Noonan comes out and finally realizes what us Bush bashers have known all along-he says one thing, but means quite another. " With Mr. Bush it is the people who are forced to be cool-eyed and realistic. He's the one who goes off on the toots. This is extremely irritating, and also unnatural. Actually it's weird. "

It could be that maybe, just maybe, George Bush believes the lies that have been told to him by any number of sycophants. That he believed we would be welcomed as liberators, that he believed that Iraq was fertile ground to plant democracy and that somehow it would outgrow the inadequacy of its people to understand what that involves-much less execute. He may have actually believed the lies of Donald Rumsfeld that the military was too large and too well paid-that it actually could take on a major ground war while foolishly shrinking it's numbers.-skippy's blog post

Now aside from the fact that your analysis and assumption of Bush's psyche is totally wrong, it is important to note that you really don't like Bush. So given a choice betwene laying the blame on Clinton and Bush, why would you choose anyone other than Bush? And that both has everything and nothing to do with military budgets.

It looks like it is all about Bush lies because if you just dig deeper, it is simply about Bush not doing what skippy wanted. You're in Asia and Bush is in America, mostly, so what does that tell you?

Aside from the obvious that Bush represents all Americans, optimally, not just one person or group of folks.

I've put it off long enough-making a post about the ongoing mess that is Iraq. I have watched the news with great interest-particularly the two big issues that have come to light lately, namely that true to form: the Iraqis have failed again to do anything useful with their government and the repeated pleas that the "surge" has only just started and it needs more time. If one listens carefully and between the lines, you can almost hear a small voice (that sounds a lot like GWB's) saying, "Stay the course!"

Its hard for me to approach Iraq objectively because when it comes to Arabs, I have a huge bias against them. I never liked dealing with them during my trips to Bahrain and always felt dirty and cheated after talking to them. Its irrational I know, but unfortunately there is a certain amount of history to back it up-they have messed up every good opportunity given to them in the 20th century and beyond.

Yet, that's hardly fair at all. Most Iraqis just want the same things any other person wants-to have a decent place to live, make some money, and to live and raise their families. I know that deep down inside-but I still have to make a conscious effort to overcome my own deeply held prejudices. At this point left to sheer emotionalism-I hate the Iraqis-sight unseen. I know that's wrong. Plus there is evidence that Islam is not the real problem-Asian Muslims don't have the problems that Arabs seem to thrive on.

What's funny is that you even wish to fight your prejudices against the Ayrabs but Bush is fair game all the time.

2) This fiscal year, the war will cost about $135 billion. This, while pressing needs at home and in the world are ignored. Imagine what 135 billion would accomplish to bring cures to the disease that are killing millions world wide. Think what that level of resources could accomplish if it were available to put to good use.

Great. First it's let's enlarge the military because.... whatever. And then when the military is being used and thus taking up resources, then it becomes about let's not spend the billions on it, let us spend it somewhere else like.... whatever.

Whatever skippy wants, that is.

Its about economics and the disparities of economics within the Arab world that give the current brand of wackos room to operate. I strongly agree with Thomas Barnett when says that we would be better off, "eschewing the war of ideas and focusing more on creating economic facts on the ground--slow and steady--while al Qaeda gets all caught up in illusory "victories." I don't want America or the Core on a war footing for the Long War, so de-escalating its crisis profile is a good thing ".-skippy

I get the sense that people believe the Cold War military should be stacked and packed the way it was, without the "Peace Dividend", and just de-escalate terrorism to the point where you don't even have to use the military on it at all. Because Bush and Rumsfield didn't do that, it's on I suppose.

As a motivation or justification for building a model to analyze Bush's psyche and predict his actions and motivations, it is not a very good one all in all.

Link

The fact that I am in Asia has nothing to do with realizing that when it comes to pay and benefits-this Presidents record is not stellar.

Hopefully I have provided other reasons concerning the subject of pay and benefits and why you think the President's record in that area is not stellar.

There's a couple of strands of thoughts and models being used to think about Iraq. There's Barnett, yes. There is also Bush and Dark Lord Chen and the Neo-Con Cabal. And then there's other people around. Psychologically oriented. I guess in the end, whichever model is correct as opposed to wrong is based upon whether you got Bush's character, motivations, and behavior correctly in an objective and reproducible manner.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 16, 2007 01:54 AM

The html code cuts out after each paragraph it seems.

So as fair warning,

Its hard for me to approach Iraq objectively because when it comes to Arabs,

and the paragraph immediately after it should be in bold since it is skippy's authored words.

The only other example had a -skippy marker after it. Other than that, the html tags are correct.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 16, 2007 02:04 AM

Ymarksakar,

(Breathing deeply in and out and controlling my temper)-for a seemingly smart guy-and someone who has read some of my writing-you don't know the first thing about me.

Lets start with some background-I'm no Johnny come lately Bush hater-I have not liked him since the 2000 campaign when he did dirt to John McCain in South Carolina. So if anything I am consistent. I've voted in the last 6 elections, so I've earned my right to bitch. I voted against him twice. I held my nose the second time-but by voting against him I was voting to make Don Rumsfeld go away and that was important to me at the time.

It's been an interesting excursion here in conservative land-which, has reaffirmed something I already already knew-both sides of the aisle are pretty much the same. Stick to the script or we will attack you as a person. Since I somehow don't agree with you or your sponsors-that somehow makes me a bad person and worthy of scorn or ridicule. As I blogged about before its probably the most disturbing thing I have found about the bloggersphere-both left and right are extremely intolerant.

I'll make it simple for you. I don't believe the war in Iraq is in the best interests of the United States. If we stay there a year or 10 years-in the end the Iraqis are going to find someway to fuck it up. Its what Arabs do. Eventually a new strongman will come to power-I think Al Malaki has in mind exactly what he wants to do by reaffriming Shiite rule and slaughtering the Sunnis. If he does not do that someone else will.

There are plenty of people who think differently about that. However the learned people whose opinions I respect came to that conclusion a long time ago. Thomas Barnett is one-you probably know the rest of the list by heart since you seem so hell bent to use my own words against me. I'll have to go to your blog and do the same to you.

I think Noonan is right about Bush and I don't have to apologize for that. Neither does she-she has paid her dues as a card carrying Republican. All but the most deluded are going to continue deserting the Republican ship because as she points out very well, it's Captain has no idea what he is doing.

Now knock yourself out criticizing me about that-just remember I have just as much right to be here as you do.

I'll skip the part about telling you where you can shove the broomstick........I think Thumper's rule applies there.

Posted by: Skippy-san at July 16, 2007 04:52 AM

You know Skippy, it seems to me that the very first thing you did when you came here was essentially to disregard my entire argument and go straight to the ad hominem:

Noonan was trying to make a point. Firmness is one thing-non sensical defiance of even your own party without offering any practical way forward is just plain stupid.

No, actually that wasn't her main point at all. Her main point was that people were "fed up" with Bush because he wasn't "suffering" enough to suit them but they were (supposedly) completely helpless to do anything about it despite her repeated statement that the American people "hire presidents and fire them" (another nonsensical statement - how many times have we fired presidents?). The truth is that we can fire them if we want but we are not helpless. Just lazy. In her case, intellectually lazy.

It was this idea that I addressed. But of course you didn't even try to refute any part of my post. You just attacked my character:

The more I watch both conservatives and liberals I am amazed at how alike they really are. To heck with facts, to heck with reasoned dialogue-just stick to the script whatever it is-Pro War or Anti-war. Either way they want you to not deviate from the script by one bit.

If you think about it, my post didn't really have a whole lot to do with the war, Skippy. It had to do with whether Ms. Noonan was paying attention or not. The war was a part of it, but not the main point. But again, you'd have had to be paying attention (part of my point) to get that.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 16, 2007 07:01 AM

Oh, and by the way I backed up my premise (that Bush is suffering, contra Noonan's totally unsupported accusation) with not one but several examples. So much for your accusation that there is no 'reasoned dialogue or facts'.

So who is "sticking to the script" and who wants to discard the facts? The script in this case being "Bush sucks

Posted by: Cassandra at July 16, 2007 07:05 AM

Cassandra, You don't really own man eating badgers do you?

Posted by: Roland at July 16, 2007 08:34 AM

We obviously read the article differently. Bush's emotion or lack thereof is simply her arguement to back up her point-Bush is losing the support of all but the most ardently loyal Republicans. Her example was given to show how out of touch he is with the mood of the American people. I've re-read her article serveral times and that is the main point I walk away with each time. The man is aliennating his remaining support.

We can around and around on this because the key issue hinges on whether you beleive Bush's sincerity. Noonan obviously has changed her mind about Mr Bush-and you have not. To each his or her own.

We could fire Mr Bush-by impeaching him. Ms Noonan knows the Senate math as well as anyone-thus her contention that we are stuck. The nation is helpless for the next 18 months unless his Bush's name somehow appeared on the DC Madams phone list and even I know that's not going to happen. The leadership of both parties is hardly the best that it can be-in particular I think if there were better Democrats than Reid and others in the Senate they would be doing better vis a vis opposing the President. Noonan knows that too-thus she is correct in saying we are stuck. The margin in the Senate will not allow anything else.

As for the last statement you quote-well, I wrote it out of frustration. When I came here it was after reading some of the other blogs and I was amazed at the strength of the words therein. So I stand by my statement-all of us need to learn to argue the arguement-not attack the messenger. However we do not and the link that brought me here-Michelle Malkin is one of the worst examples of that.

Now you are correct-ones view of Bush tends to color exactly how you feel about whether he is "emotional enough". I don't like the President and so I'm more inclined to agree with Ms Noonan than others.

I'd encourage you to look at George Will's recent columns about the war though-they say much the same thing.

Posted by: Skippy-san at July 16, 2007 09:06 AM

But that is exactly my point, Skippy san. Subjective like or dislike is not a reliable basis on which to make such a judgment. It colors your view of everything. I happen to like Bush but I don't demand others like him. I do demand that they not be unfair or factually incorrect.

Noonan goes off on an emotion-laden rant about how the President doesn't "suffer" after saying that she admits Presidents can't really afford to suffer. How silly. The fact is, she really doesn't like him anymore and that colors everything she writes.

If she has a point to make, she should back it up. If not, check the emotion at the door. Otherwise she risks sounding like Maureen Dowd. That is why I try to back up what I say when I am making a case. I don't just assert things with no evidence. People may or may not find it convincing, but at least I have made the attempt and not just thrown out an unsupported opinion as Noonan did here.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 16, 2007 09:20 AM

And I understood her main point, but that is hardly a novel one.

And like Bush, I am not sure that bothers me, not being "in touch" with a "mood". Is that how history measures great leaders, by their ability to be in touch with moods?

Wow. Not saying, necessarily, that Bush is a great leader. That is up to history to decide. But that premise (that greatness lies in the ability to sync up with the popular "mood") is really not one I'd care to defend.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 16, 2007 09:23 AM

So I see Cassandra is sticking to that same old script of writing what she thinks, being reasonable and backing it up with facts.

Most tiresome.

Posted by: Pile On® at July 16, 2007 09:46 AM

You are wrong, Mr. On.

If Cassandra were reasonable, she would be in touch with the national mood and would long since have lost patience with the President.

She is dangerously out of touch with the pulse of the rest of America. Such ideological nonconformity cannot, and will not, be tolerated. This sort of free thinking is obviously the sign of a delusionary and sick mind.

I need no stinking facts. I have said so.

Posted by: Peggy Noonan at July 16, 2007 09:53 AM

The article is distinctly below par for Noonan, whose writing I generally enjoy. Cynically, this could be called, "Bash Bush for cash!"

Skippy, I would encourage you to better your reading comprehension, as your sophomoric thesis has no basis in Noonan's article. I like Bush, don't like the Shamnesty at all. I am disgusted with the Republican party. Both houses of Congress should be tied to the whipping post.

What we are doing in Iraq is a calculated risk, that we can fight a limited war and grow a democracy in the arab world. It is worth the gamble, because the alternative is full scale war against the arab world and radical Islam.

Morons of America unite! Ensure WWIII! Watch your city glow in the dark. The people we are fighting will not back off until it hurts too much to continue. While the Skippys of the world think this is a choice, it is not, unless one prefers nuclear war in the middle east and elsewhere.

Posted by: Mark at July 16, 2007 03:42 PM

My social security reform was fought for by the President for about 7 seconds. Not long enough to stay on a bull.

Immigration? Heh. Thanks for nothing. If he can't learn from one of Reagan's biggest mistakes, he can't learn.

And I also like how he wants to nominate judges like Thomas and Scalia. Why? So they can vote unconstitutional the McCain-Feingold law that he keeps sending the Atty General to the SCOTUS to defend.

As for lots of the stuff he promised on and delivered -- bigger national health care and education -- great. He prevails on the stuff bad for the nation but gives up the farm on the stuff I really cared about.

Except for the WOT. Whether he has been great, fair or a disaster, he was better than the other two choices, and resoluteness is a virtue in that regard. (There - I ended with something positive)

Posted by: KJ at July 16, 2007 06:34 PM

So I stand by my statement-all of us need to learn to argue the arguement-not attack the messenger.

You cannot be seriously trying to claim that you are not the argument. Whatever you have against Bush, it is personal. Why then should the argument be about superfluous points about x and y, when getting done to fundamentals is so much more efficient and basic? Noonan isn't a messenger of Bush is bad, she originates it. Why, how, and for what reasons are very important, and it has little to do with attacking the messenger as you term it.

The various quotes I used was to further my own proposition and to undermine your general points. The quotes in themselves should not be seen as the point of contention, because I don't disagree with what you said so much as I am using what you say to prove you wrong, skippy. Or at least, less right than you believe of your views. The disagreement I have with what you wrote somewhere else is secondary to the goal of the original subject, your view of Bush and his actions. (maybe Rummy 2)

Lets start with some background-I'm no Johnny come lately Bush hater-I have not liked him since the 2000 campaign when he did dirt to John McCain in South Carolina.

Do you really think it matters when you started your prejudices or not? When you have them, you have them. When you don't, you don't. What's the problem? If you're a permanent Bush hater, then I'll factor that into my analysis model and everyone will be happy. Now that they know where folks stand. That is an important thing to learn, where people stand. Because a person's beliefs are based upon their current and past positions. That is as true of my views concerning Bush as it is with yours.

As for the lack of knowledge; I had to search for your own views and positions because you wouldn't explain them here or didn't provide enough material to make inferences from. Since I didn't want an inaccurate impression or give one, I tried to gather more info. There's nothing particularly wrong with that.

I've voted in the last 6 elections, so I've earned my right to bitch.

I don't care what you want. I do believe I've already implied this. My point is that you should try to make this whole issue about Bush or whatever, into something other than what "Skippy wants as his right to....". Cass may be able to provide you some more reasons why such a viewpoint should not be desirable, if you wish for more justifications.

I held my nose the second time-but by voting against him I was voting to make Don Rumsfeld go away and that was important to me at the time.

Then it's a good thing you got what you wanted anyways, isn't it.

It's been an interesting excursion here in conservative land-which, has reaffirmed something I already already knew-both sides of the aisle are pretty much the same.

I went to some lengths to make sure my points about you and your views weren't sourced from stereotypes or misleading comments you made here. Obviously you favor the quicker route. Bravo. Quicker, though in my opinion, is not as effective as my methods.

Stick to the script or we will attack you as a person.

It's a simple debate argument setup, Skippy-kun. Cass thinks you're subjectively involved and basing your opinions and statements on your dislike of Bush, regardless of backup. I believe you're personally biased and prejudiced, and you know it, but unlike with the Ayrabs you just don't care to resist it; perhaps because anti-Bush feelings are fashionable lately whereas the other isn't as much. You believe that all your opponents are identity-less non-entities that needs to stick to the script. It is how you defend against me calling you on your prejudicial script usage. Aka, projection.

You cannot do the same for me skippy. Because I've written quite enough to make my own views clear about Bush. There is no script for me, nor is there for Cass, except our own individually created works. You do not face a "both sides are non-entity" strawmen caricature here, as you might have elsewhere.

Since I somehow don't agree with you or your sponsors-that somehow makes me a bad person and worthy of scorn or ridicule.

If you aren't proud of being prejudiced against Bush and disliking him, am I supposed to praise you for this because you won't? These are your views, not some stuff I made up about you, okay. It's not even a red herring, because I'm not trying to argue about your flaws in relation to when you wrote those posts, just the flaws in your argument that concern why you dislike Bush and why others should or should not believe that you are right. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy after all. Just cause you dislike Bush, doesn't mean Bush is bad.

Its what Arabs do.

People may or may not know my comments and views concerning the Ayrabs, so to speak, however that doesn't really matter. Meaning, whether I disagree or agree with you skippy, does not matter. What matters is you're talking about the Ayrabs in a stereotypical or monolithic fashion and then saying it is your opponents that are "intolerant". That's not a good argument, all in all.

However the learned people whose opinions I respect came to that conclusion a long time ago.

So we got two spheres it seems. People who are right, because you respect them. And people who fauked up like Bush and Rummy, who you don't respect. I see.

Thomas Barnett is one-you probably know the rest of the list by heart since you seem so hell bent to use my own words against me. I'll have to go to your blog and do the same to you.

You can go to any Leftist blog, can't you, in order to find that stuff? After all, didn't you say that the Left and the whatever others who you disagree with, are all the same intolerant whatevers? So to speak in a paraphrasing manner.

I think Noonan is right about Bush and I don't have to apologize for that.

As if anyone would ever expect you to apologize about hating Bush. I don't expect that, I never did.

Neither does she-she has paid her dues as a card carrying Republican.

Which are just like the Democrats, in your view. Oh wait, excuse me, she agrees with you. Nevermind.

Oh, and by the way I backed up my premise (that Bush is suffering, contra Noonan's totally unsupported accusation) with not one but several examples..-Cass

A very convincing and powerful argument, in my view, Cass. I didn't expect anyone to try to undermine those examples precisely because they were powerful. More efficient to ignore them or brush them aside as meaningless so to speak.

However we do not and the link that brought me here-Michelle Malkin is one of the worst examples of that.

Your views on Malkin, were already well explained elsewhere.

I do demand that they not be unfair or factually incorrect.-Cass

I think that's a useful standard. I try to make sure that what I dislike of Bush is actually something Bush has done or contains, not just a figment of my own personal likes and dislikes. In the long term, it tends to cloud short term predictions and long term trends,

To each their own I suppose.

Is that how history measures great leaders, by their ability to be in touch with moods?

Ability as a leader comes from molding and controlling public direction and what people do as a group or even as individuals. But that ability does not make a leader great, in my view. Greatness has something a bit more historically valid so to speak. A better world, the result must be a better world. Now for Bush, he may end up a bumbkin concerning ability and talent for communications and Brilliant War Stratagems, but if he makes the world better, will history see him as Great, Cassandra? *shrugs*

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 16, 2007 07:04 PM

Roland, Sha has Man-Eating Marmosets, not Badgers

Posted by: unkawill at July 16, 2007 07:59 PM

Well, I agree.

The test of Bush's ability as a leader will be whether his stubborn adherence to what he thought was right made the world a better place, or not. Only time will tell.

And, I fear, only a very long period of time.

That is what makes me impatient with those who want to draw conclusions when history is not done with us yet.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 16, 2007 08:10 PM

However, I will sic my man eating marmosets on those who enrage me.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 16, 2007 08:11 PM

These would have to be above average Marmosets. Not nearly as scary as the noble badger. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bad princess. Bad bad princess.

Posted by: Roland at July 16, 2007 08:54 PM

Ymasakar,

Guess this is like arguing with a pig.........

I do wish to make two corrections. Thomas Barnett is not a leftist-very far from it. Neither is George Will or William Buckely. They all agree with me by the way. ( As any right thinking person should...........). :D

What I want-matters to me. What you want matters to you. What I want is more important than what you want.

Seriously, its not about left or right. This issue is about which view of foreign policy will win out. Bush's foreign policy is about 2 things :a) preemption of threats and b)persuading aligned and non aligned nations to support those efforts.

Most of what has been written by foreign policy analysts dissects those two main points. Some like William Krystol and others support Bush. Others believe that in the end we are harming our long term issues to acheive a perceived short term gain. It is not a zero sum game-e.g that you are right and I am wrong-we both have valid points to raise and in the long run hisotry will decide who is right. Till then, I'll keep writing.

How about we quit and I buy you a beer and we talk baseball?

Posted by: Skippy-san at July 16, 2007 09:20 PM

"How about we quit and I buy you a beer and we talk baseball?"

That's right. You're Deuddersun's friend. Can't help but be a decent lad, can you?

Posted by: Grim at July 16, 2007 10:10 PM

Thomas Barnett is not a leftist-very far from it. Neither is George Will or William Buckely. They all agree with me by the way.

You think folks like Barnett that agrees with you is a Leftist in the eyes of someone else? That's not the point. As you said, the Left and Right are the same. Only those that agree and come to the side of the light, skippy's light, is different. I disagree with that premise, as you may already have noticed.

Those that you draw to your camp, skippy, have no special element of respect or originality. Whether spiritual or otherwise. Perhaps subjectively, yes, but not objectively.

What you want matters to you.

What I want is for people to act honest, to tell people what they really want and believe, rather than throw up superficial constructs and illusionary puppets for distraction. They don't even have to tell people what they feel, so long as they factor in their own emotions when they craft their beliefs. I don't think it is a trivial issue when a person confuses what he wants with what reality is, or what someone else wants. My beliefs and positions do not cause shifts in someone like Bush, not unless I'm in his ear yelling at him 24/7 of course. However, other people act as if they believe their personal biases concerning Bush means that Bush is actually what they think he is. But Bush has always been his own person with his own problems, and if you aren't willing to graduate from the level of "I want" to understanding what he wants, that's going to be something I will continue to point out. Not for everyone since a lot of people have problems with Bush, but certainly for someone that makes a big deal about his views concerning Bush's policies and is full of previous comments/posts to draw from.

Noonan's post after all, is about Bush and his personality; his feelings if you will. She was covered sufficiently by other commenters, though.

Others believe that in the end we are harming our long term issues to acheive a perceived short term gain.

Sometimes people come up with conclusions that I agree with, but used a line of thinking that completely alienates me. Then there is the vice a versa. Your conclusions and your methods to arrive at those conclusions, skippy, are incompatible with my positions and methods. Barnett is different, given that he is a different person. That's another subject however.

How about we quit and I buy you a beer and we talk baseball?

Thanks. If you want to quit, I'm not stopping you. The main subjects have already been covered, what is left is simply conclusions and summaries. Unless you wish to add something more, there's nothing new to talk about really. Conversations have to end sooner or later.

Grim,

You can always count on military discipline to produce results for you.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 17, 2007 11:59 PM

Y,

So I guess you are too proud to have a beer? Fine, I'll drink yours too!

You lost me on the last one. You really did. If you think you have arrived at a logical conclusion-well congratulations. It went right over my head. My college English professor would have had a field day with your style of arguement-however I'm not too sure you would have liked the grade he would have assigned.

Yea, its about what I want. You make that sound like that's a bad thing. Every argument is about persuading someone to do what "they want". What I want is by definition what is most important to me. And it is, in the end, all about me.

Posted by: Skippy-san at July 18, 2007 07:36 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)