Sounds like you are not too much of a fan of the "nuthouses" in our political landscape. Which leads to some obvious questions about this site.
You express some very honorable sentiments. It is good to hear. Why is it a bit of a surprise to read such things in a place like this?
One wonders how the tone here, let alone in our political society at large, would be different if people would routinely connect with their better angels, and let those sentiments inform all of their writing. More please.
P.S. It has been a generation at least since (IMHO) conservatism has stood for individual liberties against the encroaching state. Unless, of course, you define indiviual liberties as the right to pay only a 35% top marginal tax rate as opposed to 39%. Or the right to build an arsenal of military-level assualt weaponry. In all other dimensions, it has been the conservatives who have been the enemies of individual libery in our recent history, beginning with those religious leaders who wish to mobilize the power of government to establish their values in law, and culminating in the Bush administration's contempt even for that most essential of all individual liberty protections - the right of habeaus corpus. I suspect that the culminating is over yet, if these people are given the chance. It would be good to see you invovled in the resistance.Comment Posted By Tano On 4.03.2007 @ 14:08
One wonders why you find it of interest to search out the most loony people on "the left" and then waste your time analyzing them.
And do you really think that anyone believes you when you seem to imply that this is some exclusive characteristic of the left? Have you read LGF ever? You get this level of lunacy on a daily basis. Does the fact that it is in service to the same causes you support means that it gets a pass?Comment Posted By Tano On 27.02.2007 @ 23:08
"a high profile mayor of the second largest city in the country"
? Am I missing some city here?Comment Posted By Tano On 15.02.2007 @ 15:08
Your response to Greg is actually illustrative of his point. You are correct that everyone understands that blame attaches to Bush, and that there is nothing that will change that. But to what extent does the blame radiate outward from the Oval Office? Does any blame adhere to others in the administration (yes there really still are people who talk of Condi as a potential VP, if not more!)? Does blame adhere to Republicans in Congress? Or to the rabid Bush backers in the blogosphere?
This is serious business for the politicos. There is another presidential election coming into focus. It is now in the (dire, desparate) interest of Repbulicans everywhere to do all they can to avoid any blame, even though they are fully culpable.
Bush is, politically, a lost cause. He will never escape the blame, but he will never run either. As Rudy showed last night, Bush's political fate will be increasingly to be thrown under the bus, even by, or especially by Republicans.
The hoped for line, or general sentiment will be - Bush screwed up, then the Democrats killed off any chance of success. So obviously, future positions of responsibility can only be granted to Repbulicans. Although they supported the disastrous policies, they did so from a noble motivation - supporting a president in a time of war. You see, they were actually doing the right thing all along. And you can trust that they will always do the right thing!
Thats pretty much gonna be the line, right?Comment Posted By Tano On 15.02.2007 @ 15:21
You seem to be trying to define the field of possible positions that the Democrats can hold in a manner that merely defines two strawmen, instead of dealing with the complex reality of the war that you insist you actually understand. Perhaps that is why it seems, to me at least, that you are framing this as a WWII-type situation.
The Democrats understand, as you claim to do, the nature of this war. And when they refer to failure, they are pointing to the policy that has tolerated the Iraqi government failing to doggedly pursue a political settlement, while leaving our troops as effectivly a super-police force / occupation force, with primary resonsibility for dealing with the chaos that a lack of a political settlement allows. This has gone on for a long time now, and the situation continues to deteriorate. I am not sure you wish to argue with that - I certainly think it pretty obvious.
In that context, the surge is seen as something that will not change the underlying fundamentals. It may temporarily displace some of the violence out of the immediate neighborhoods that are being focused on. But it will also increase our exposure to the violence, will do nothing by itself to advance the political process, and it also has the danger of allowing our troops to be used by factions in the government that are more interested in advancing sectarian goals than in bringing the country together.
So it is seen as a bad idea. And what the Dems see as a good idea is to signal clearly that our presence there is nearing its end, with the hope that this will light a fire under the governments rear end to actually begin to seriously consider the shape of post-US Iraq. And the only way to signal that intent on our part is to actually begin to plan for and implement a phased withdrawl.
Now, you may argue the wisdom of this approach, but I see no basis whatsoever for calling it "immoral". Personally, I think it is both moral, practical, and has a reasonable chance of leading to an acceptable outcome. Far more so than the Bush approach.
I dont really understand why I need to explain all this - it represents what is probably the consensus view amongst Dems - although it certainly is true that there is a great diversity of views as well. Maybe it is better to call it the median view. I dont understand why you insist on dealing with some simplistic version of the Dem approach (we lost, so lets get out), and to argue that the only "moral" thing they can do would be to accept the logical consequences of your strawman. or else, I guess, just go along with Bush.
We have such a great democracy, with freedom of speech, and it engenders all manner of ideas - it seems a shame not to deal with actual ideas, but rather to play the game of pretending that your opponents are saying something that they are not.
And I really dont know what this "pretense to superiority" is that you accuse me of. Is it not the case that your entire argument is one big assertion of both intellectual and moral superiority over the Democrats? And, probably, over 60% of the American people? Why cant I play too?Comment Posted By Tano On 14.02.2007 @ 20:46
My problem with your analysis is that you seem to have a unrealistic and simplistic view of war. The equation that you seem to apply works for efforts like WWII, or our civil war - where total victory, the submission of one side to the other, is the only realistic goal.
The only "clean" goal of that is comparable in Iraq was the overthrow of Saddam. We won that war. The situation ever since then is not a traditional war - it represents our efforts to secure civil order in a society with a long history of repression, and with deeply entrenced factions that had been kept in check only by that brutal repression. And, of course, the entrance of al-Qaeda elements to take advantage of the situation and to do what they could to exacerbate it, and to bleed us in the process.
Even Bush himself has tried to educate the American people about this - his references to there being no treaty signing on a battleship in our future. Isnt it odd that you Bush supporters are the ones that just dont seem to get it.
There is no military victory in this kind of a war. What is needed is a political solution, and our involvement there must be focused on doing just that.
All questions about military strategy, tactics, troop levels etc. must address the simple question - will they help or hinder in the process of finding a political accomodation amongst the warring factions.
I'll not take this moment to argue one way or the other regarding this, but I merely want to note - that your arguments here seem entirely rooted in some fantasy view of this war - that it is a WWII-type effort agaisnt a definable force to which sufficient American force must be applied, relentlessly and with perservance through difficult times.
So the conclusions that you arrive at seem worthless to me, for they do not refer to the actual realities on the ground, nor do they address whether one strategy or the other advance us toward the political solution that is necessary.Comment Posted By Tano On 14.02.2007 @ 17:16
So lets try to follow the great Rick Moran logic.
There were no WMD, other than old, rusty remnants from before GF1. Hmmm, thats a problem. So lets see how we can spin this.
1. Santorum is trying to grab a few headlines in a desparate attempt to refloat his career. Good Rick. Great start. Is this your little gesture to reality to try an gin up some cred for the rest of the spin?
2. There is nothing new here. Excellent. I might have been wrong about Rick. Two points in a row that hew to reality.
3. But then, uh oh. Here we go. Suddenly we have to start an attack on the MSM for burying this story! This story which (I thought) we had just established is not news and is the hype of a desparate pol. But no! The evil MSM is hiding this! Why? Out of fear that maybe some people will be "convinced" of something! Convinced of what Rick? Convinced that there is nothing new here and that it is a ploy by a desparate pol?
4. AH, but its not just the evil MSM. Its the incredibly stupid American people too! Ya see, even if the MSM ran this story on the front page (Santorum's version, not Rick's insightful analysis of it), it would not make any difference. Because the stupid American people are so brainwashed that they would be incapable of changing their opinion. Is that it Rick?
Or is it that, even if it were on the front pages, the American people might see through it as easily as you did. In which case, I wonder why the MSM didnt run with it. Geez, its all so confusing.
Finally we finish with the coup de merde trifecta of loonies - Ledeen by way of Powerline by way of Malkin (geez Rick...). And the message? Its all a conshpiracy ya see - the CIA is hiding all the WMD (at least the ones on paper) and (I presume) thwarting the righteous ones in the WH who might just have an interest in publicizing the existence of all these WMD, because the poor ol CIA is embarrassed you see...
And good ol' Rick just laps it up - yeah - that evil CIA, no interest in the protecting America, just their own narrow interests. From Ledeen, of all people!
This site is nothing if not entertaining. Unfortunatly, nothing more.Comment Posted By Tano On 23.06.2006 @ 00:49
"I am at a loss for words in trying to describe that kind of ignorance"
Look Rick, I guess you can't see things very clearly here, but here is a clue. The sins of liberals that you describe here are exactly of the same type that conservatives engage in, every day, and you are no exception. Rampant hypocrisy, an addiction to over-the-top venting and namecalling, cherry picking examples of irrationality on the other side while ignoring the same, or worse, on your own side - it is all sympotomatic of a personality type found in people of all political persuasions.
If you want to criticize it, and not appear to be a blind fool, then you should start by forswearing such behavior yourself. But that you wont do of course, because you seem to take these habits as a source of pride, part of your identity. And so you subject your readers to these long (never at a loss for words, you) tedious essays that could so easily be written by anyone on the other side, just be substituting some names and quotes. I can't imagine that you could really believe that you could win such an argument, given the drek that your side produces on a daily basis.Comment Posted By Tano On 21.06.2006 @ 15:50
Thanks for your insightful remarks. You've made a real contribution today...Comment Posted By Tano On 20.06.2006 @ 16:59
Sure, absolutely. I would love to know who TO's sources were, and I certainly would expect them to reveal them if, in fact, this is the end of the story.
Your claims about Leopold dont seem quite plausable. How could he expect to "force the issue"? What issue could he force? Could he imagine somehow that he could force Fitz to indict Rove by claiming that he already did? Seems kinda absurd to me....Comment Posted By Tano On 20.06.2006 @ 16:03