PDA

View Full Version : The grapes have really gone sour



blacbird
11-19-2006, 10:21 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15773983/

My major question is, Why weren't we having these discussions, oh, maybe around four years ago? Around 3,000 U.S. Service people's lives ago? Around some unknown six figures of Iraqi deaths ago?

And how in God's name do we circumvent such atrocious decision-making processes in the future?

caw.

The Commatose Kidd
11-19-2006, 11:11 AM
carcus 'caw'cus?

robeiae
11-19-2006, 04:11 PM
My major question is, Why weren't we having these discussions, oh, maybe around four years ago?Because it's mostly just politics?

astonwest
11-19-2006, 05:41 PM
The paramount policy change we must enact is that there will be NO major military engagements - no invasions - without a declaration of war.So, we can still bomb the hell out of anyone we want to...

Bravo
11-19-2006, 06:32 PM
no.

next...

ColoradoGuy
11-19-2006, 08:49 PM
I agree. There also needs to be some way to curb those signing statements that presidents attach to bills they sign which, even though they don't really agree with the bill, they are unwilling to veto them. As I understand it, these statements essentially say that the president will not enforce the particular law he is signing. Many presidents have used them, but Bush has used them more than anyone by an order of magnitude. Maybe some armchair scholars of the "unitary executive" POV can explain this, but it seems to me that these things mean the president can just ignore Congress.

Maybe it would help if we had a law mandating pre-test on key aspects of American and World history for each president-elect, with tutoring for those who flunk it.

dclary
11-19-2006, 10:03 PM
You all know this has *absolutely* nothing to do with Bush or the war in Iraq, right?

It's Year 6. The Veep is NOT a viable candidate.

Everyone's lining up their guns for presidential campaign 2008. Republicans, Democrats, watch the next 12 months and see how each side forms internal lines against each other, all of which will be smoothed out miraculously again once the primary candidates have been decided.

ColoradoGuy
11-19-2006, 10:13 PM
The Veep is NOT a viable candidate.
Using "viable" in its best sense, of course.

dclary
11-19-2006, 10:16 PM
Personally, I think Cheney would be a great president. But the rabid hatred the demmies in congress have against him and Bush would prevent any good work from being done, and for the sake of the country, I'll toss one of the most able, brilliant businessmen in our nation under the bus to appease political doggerels.

ColoradoGuy
11-19-2006, 10:18 PM
Personally, I think Cheney would be a great president.
You're being ironic, right?

dclary
11-19-2006, 10:36 PM
No. I don't do irony. At least, not well.

Maybe better than Alanis, but not by much.

If you'd like, I can detail out why I think he'd be a great president. If you're a member of the rabid left, who hates him without question, though, I doubt anything I could say would matter.

ColoradoGuy
11-19-2006, 11:06 PM
If you'd like, I can detail out why I think he'd be a great president
Do tell.

If you're a member of the rabid left, who hates him without question, though, I doubt anything I could say would matter.
"Rabid left? What's that, as compared to, say, the "rabid right"? I'm unequivocally against rabies. My concern is that, from what I've read, no one was more obtusely insistent than Cheney on distorting intelligence in a vain quest to find evidence both of Iraq's complicity in 9/11 and of its WMD program. And, in spite of all we know now, he'd do it again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/).

blacbird
11-19-2006, 11:38 PM
If you'd like, I can detail out why I think he'd be a great president. If you're a member of the rabid left, who hates him without question, though, I doubt anything I could say would matter.

Cheney's approval rating hovers somewhere in the 20s%, and has done so for much of his tenure as veep. I guess that means 3/4 of the country consists of "members of the rabid left." I would also guess that would include a fair number of that well-known cabal of leftists consisting of retired military generals.

caw.

Celia Cyanide
11-20-2006, 12:55 AM
If you'd like, I can detail out why I think he'd be a great president. If you're a member of the rabid left, who hates him without question, though, I doubt anything I could say would matter.

Blacbird said what I was going to say. Cheney is not well liked, by anyone. It's not just the "demmies in congress," or the "rabid left." Cheney could never win, because people just don't like him, and they never really have. You can't blame the left for that, either. If the left were responsible for everyone hating Cheney, wouldn't just as many people have hated Bush from the beginning, as well?

dclary
11-20-2006, 01:20 AM
Do tell.

"Rabid left? What's that, as compared to, say, the "rabid right"? I'm unequivocally against rabies. My concern is that, from what I've read, no one was more obtusely insistent than Cheney on distorting intelligence in a vain quest to find evidence both of Iraq's complicity in 9/11 and of its WMD program. And, in spite of all we know now, he'd do it again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/).

When I refer to the Rabid Left, I mean specifically people who hate George Bush simply for existing. Who hate everything he's ever done in his entire life, who find not one shred of redeeming value in his life.

I would agree with you that there are Rabid Righties, too. People who don't get that for all his faults, Clinton had good points too, for instance.



That said, here are the reasons why I think Cheney would be a great president.

First, he has served with distinction in both the Legislative and Executive branch: there are very few Americans with as much political experience in varying degrees of leadership and authority roles. Extensive Executive Branch service, working with Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and as Vice President under Bush II. Service as a U.S. Representative, including leadership roles as House Minority Whip

Second, his family represents the diversity of America. He has a gay daughter that he has learned to live with, despite his personal opinions about it. This would be important in a Republican president, I think. His wife has chaired the National Endowment for the Humanities, so she can temper his opinions against liberals in the arts and media.

As the Secretary of Defense, Cheney was told to cut the military budget by 6.5 billion -- later increased to 10 billion in cuts. He was able to find ways to meet the budget requests each year of his tenure (although Congress chose not to follow his recommendations during appropriations). This ability to both follow budgetary constraints, even at the cost of projects you support (the military) shows Cheney would be the kind of fiscal conservative we need to continue America's economic resurgence, and help bring rampant spending back under control.

Cheney has extensive middle-east experience, including alliance building.

Cheney has strong ties to corporate America, and was the CEO of Fortune 500 company. This is something that is overlooked by a lot of people, but the management experience of working in the real world cannot be passed off. We have too many full-time politicians in office, with no experience other than their political careers.

For all of the above reasons, I think Cheney would be an excellent president.

Now, here are the reasons why he wouldn't be a good president.

First, he has known heart problems, and we run the very real risk of his dying in office if elected.

Second, as I've mentioned, and is well known, Cheney is intensely disliked by the hard-left segment of the democratic party, and there is reason to believe that if he were president, they would take extreme measures to thwart any forward progress the country might be able to make, simply to spite him.



There you go. I hope I've stated my case clearly and concisely.

dclary
11-20-2006, 01:21 AM
Cheney's approval rating hovers somewhere in the 20s%, and has done so for much of his tenure as veep. I guess that means 3/4 of the country consists of "members of the rabid left." I would also guess that would include a fair number of that well-known cabal of leftists consisting of retired military generals.

caw.

Approval rating is not the same thing as intense hatred. But you know that.

caw.

ColoradoGuy
11-20-2006, 01:47 AM
I think Cheney would make a dangerous president, dangerous to our constitutional system of government, because of his love affair with the "Unitary Executive" interpretation of the president's powers -- not just his war powers, but all his powers.

Here is a fairly balanced description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory) of what the Unitary Executive notion is, here is a partisan one (http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/unitaryexecutivetheory.html). Either way, it is clear that Cheney comes from this point of view. It scares me.

dclary
11-20-2006, 03:09 AM
Pauly Shore
Paris Hilton
Gilligan

These people scare me as president.

Cheney, not so much.

blacbird
11-20-2006, 03:34 AM
Pauly Shore
Paris Hilton
Gilligan

These people scare me as president.

What do you have against Gilligan?

caw

Bartholomew
11-20-2006, 03:43 AM
When I refer to the Rabid Left, I mean specifically people who hate George Bush simply for existing.

So the Rabid Left is a group of sociopaths?

Because everyone else has a list of prioritized reasons...

dclary
11-20-2006, 03:49 AM
What do you have against Gilligan?

caw

He's just a talking head for the skipper, who really runs the show, cowtows to big money, never listens to the scientists, and is wowed by hollywood all the while ignoring the beauty from flyover country.

dclary
11-20-2006, 03:50 AM
So the Rabid Left is a group of sociopaths?

Because everyone else has a list of prioritized reasons...

Simple as this: if you have a reason for not liking him, but can admit that even though he's done a lot of bad he's done some good too, then you're not rabid.

If you hate him and his entire existence, you're rabid.

blacbird
11-20-2006, 03:57 AM
When I refer to the Rabid Left, I mean specifically people who hate George Bush simply for existing.

Neither myself nor any of my Rabid Left friends hate George Bush for existing. We're all quite happy that he exists (if for no other reason than as an object lesson to others). We just wish he'd exist somewhere other than where he currently does. Right up the street from me someone has just put a nice house up for sale. He could move there.

caw

ColoradoGuy
11-20-2006, 03:59 AM
Simple as this: if you have a reason for not liking him, but can admit that even though he's done a lot of bad he's done some good too, then you're not rabid.

If you hate him and his entire existence, you're rabid.
So, in order to be rabies-free, I have to find something, anything, he's done as president that I like? I don't know if I can do that. I have no problem with his mere existence, but I do wish he'd remained just another failed Texas oil man with influential friends in government.

And I don't foam at the mouth. Much.

dclary
11-20-2006, 05:01 AM
So, in order to be rabies-free, I have to find something, anything, he's done as president that I like? I don't know if I can do that. I have no problem with his mere existence, but I do wish he'd remained just another failed Texas oil man with influential friends in government.

And I don't foam at the mouth. Much.

It doesn't even have to be as president, Colorado. Although, if you look hard enough, there's good stuff there too.

But yeah, it does sound like you may have a wee case of the rabies.

TheGaffer
11-20-2006, 11:07 PM
Simple as this: if you have a reason for not liking him, but can admit that even though he's done a lot of bad he's done some good too, then you're not rabid.

Sorry. It's entirely possible to believe that a person's public life and job as a public servant (or specifically as vice president) is an unmitigated failure without being a foaming-at-the-mouth nutjob moonbat lefty. If you think the entire Republican Party or all conservatives are useless and despicable, then yes, I'd agree on the rabies point. But I think the Veep's tenure has been undistinguished except by its failure, lack of judgment and inability to consider that he is potentially wrong about something he has done or said.

billythrilly7th
11-20-2006, 11:18 PM
Ray Maestro was a generally fair minded person.

He could say "the war is a mess."

And

He could say "the economy is pretty good."

I like generally fair minded people.

Thank you.

TheGaffer
11-20-2006, 11:24 PM
Fine. If this will give you peeps some satisfaction, here is what I think Dick Cheney has done well:

1. He supported the action in Afghanistan. Whether he gives a damn about this country now is another matter. But he supported that invasion.

2. He was not, as far as I know, involved in the making of "Gigli."

3. He has never, as far as I know, eaten a small dog while still living.

4. He actually looks ok in suits.

5. He was not responsible for the debacle that is the current incarnation of the New York Knicks.


That's about all I can give ya.

dclary
11-21-2006, 12:21 AM
3. He has never, as far as I know, eaten a small dog while still living.

THE TOTO FILE

Thank God this won't be declassified for another 18 years!!!

The Commatose Kidd
11-21-2006, 01:39 AM
'hate' is such a strong word... used mostly by extremists i believe.

astonwest
11-21-2006, 05:49 AM
As Brav, said: no. The post should be edited to take out the word "major," which I just did.

So, if one of our allies is attacked (say, the United Arab Emirates) by another nation (say the Iranians decide to start their takeover of the Middle East a bit early), we have to wait for Congress to get around to forming a consensus and declare war before stepping in to thrwart the aggressor's moves. Meanwhile, they've moved in to other surrounding countries and taken over while we're sitting around waiting on the political process.

Since I assume that no military action would also mean that we can no longer have protection forces stationed anywhere in the world (because if attacked, they would more than likely return force for force), how will we be able to muster up the necessary means to help those in need (in time to make a difference)?

astonwest
11-22-2006, 06:19 AM
...a little thought goes a long way as to whether or not we get embroiled in an affair that may or may not be any of our business, in our national best interest or worth the lives of our soldiers...Unfortunately, a little thought where Congress is concerned may take years...


As far as "protection forces," most of them should be pulled.Which leaves the forces that would need to enter an area in the event of future action unable to do so...


And where they're left? Of course, they should have full permission to return "force for force," as in self-defense or in the defense of their assignment. That's common sense.But who's to decide what constitutes self-defense, and how much force they could use to defend themselves? Could a smart bomb be used against forces using mortar fire to shell your position? Or could you only use small arms fire, and leave most of your ground forces open to increased death tolls?


But, a better strategy would be to allow nations to defend themselves and stop meddling in foreign affairs.Sadly, most countries around the world don't have the military budgets to allow themselves the luxury of adequate defenses. Personally, I would prefer to see them do so, and thus reduce my tax burden, but the sheer logistics of such a move are mind boggling.


BTW, I know it was hypothetical, but just to make sure you know: the Iranians aren't going to attack anybody.Because of course, they've never had any issues with any of their neighbors in the past...Good relations with Iraq, Israel...they're all the best of buds...

North Korea feels the same way about South Korea.


Iran will capitulate to RussiaPerhaps if Russia was still in its former Soviet Union glory...but aside from getting weapons on the cheap, I wouldn't call their relationship particularly amorous.

MattW
11-22-2006, 04:43 PM
So, if one of our allies is attacked (say, the United Arab Emirates) by another nation (say the Iranians decide to start their takeover of the Middle East a bit early), we have to wait for Congress to get around to forming a consensus and declare war before stepping in to thrwart the aggressor's moves. Meanwhile, they've moved in to other surrounding countries and taken over while we're sitting around waiting on the political process.

Since I assume that no military action would also mean that we can no longer have protection forces stationed anywhere in the world (because if attacked, they would more than likely return force for force), how will we be able to muster up the necessary means to help those in need (in time to make a difference)?
From what I remember of the original intent of the defense powers granted to the president (I think it was in the Federalist Papers...) the Navy (and by extension Marines) are to be used at the discretion of the President for defense and limited force projection. The Army was to be used only in declared war, with congressional approval.

Subsequent legislation has changed that, but I think they may have been on to something. I don't question the need for passive duty postings in critical regions, but at what point do the past wars get settled? There are no foreseable plans to draw down in Japan, Germany, and Korea, and no conditions in which that would be triggered.

astonwest
11-22-2006, 11:20 PM
Months at best, Astonwest; less if it's a dire threat.You have more faith in our Congress than I do. Depending on the perceptions of the Congress, debate could go on forever. If it was a direct threat to the US, they might move a little faster. But if it was to help some small country in the middle of nowhere that's smaller than most states (and consequently not in their voting districts), I could imagine the time taking a lot longer.

How long did it take Germany to move across Europe in WWII?


This is a moot point to me.Think about the Normandy Invasion, and stand by the idea that having a staging point in the center of an operational theatre is a moot point...


Whatever it takes to for our deployed to defend themselves and preserve civilian lives. Smart bombs are fine.But again, we go back to my original question which prompted this answer. Who gets to decide on each case-by-case basis? The soldier in the field, the commander in the theatre, the President of the US, the UN?


We are in a new age of military engagement. Invasions are not likely without a lot of warning.If a country like Israel wanted to invade a neighboring country, it could happen in short time with little warning. You'd know about it after the fact fairly quickly, with news organizations the way they are today.


And I'm sure any nation can support a small National Guard so to speak.Between weapon purchases, training, periodic maintenance, upgrades, and troop pay, it's an expensive venture. Not every country has those kinds of funds.


But you don't mind if they help us out of this mess in Iraq, do you?Who? Israel? Iran? I'd be content with abandoning Iraq, letting Iran jump into the fray to take over, and then letting Israel wipe the floor with them all...but that's just me.


Doesn't have to be amorous, even though the relations are, for all appearances, fine. I suggest that Russia can shoulder her share of the burden in keeping peace in the ME, and doesn't mind doing so, as long as we stop criticizng her on other fronts.As long as they're able to sell all the arms they can, nuclear or otherwise, to the rest of the ME, Russia (and other former Soviet republics) will be happy.