Democrats Cave to Warlords

[Winstonm]

Regretfully, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I have no clue what the average American believes "Get Out Now" means. The bulk of the population was woefully misinformed at the start of the war. I have little reason to expect that they are any better informed now...

 

True, but I bet 8 out of 10 can tell you the names of the finalists on "American Idol". Unfortunately, for too many the major effort of digging out information is essentially remote control flipping among ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox. It's hard to know if this is a condemnation of the average citizen or the media or both.

[Winstonm]

As was quoted in the original post.... "Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D."

 

Consider step C:

 

US citizens who apply for a job will need prior approval from Department of Homeland Security under the terms immigration bill passed by the Senate this week.

American Civil Liberties Union pointed out that the DHS's Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) is error plagued and if the department makes a mistake in determining work eligibility, there will be virtually no way to challenge the error or recover lost wages due to the bill’s prohibitions on judicial review.

 

Even current employees will need to obtain eligibility approval from the DHS Within 60 days of the Immigration Reform Act of 2006 becoming law.

 

"EEVS would be a financial and bureaucratic nightmare for both businesses and workers," said Timothy Sparapani, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Under this already flawed program no one would be able to work in the U.S. without DHS approval - creating a ‘No Work List’ similar to the government’s ‘No Fly List.’ We need immigration reform, but not at this cost."

 

Insidious. Incremental. First a shoe inspection. Then a drink ban. Then a no fly list. Now a no work list?

 

When they came for the Jews, I did not act, for I was not a Jew.

[mike777]

Your best guess may very well be dead on but I see little or no discussion of this on the news or in the newspapers.  Do people know that get out now means American combat power stays in Iraq?  Americans continue to fight, lose limbs and die? I see no discussion if your guess is the best option for the USA or even what the options are.

No offense Mike, but maybe you need to spend more time reading newspapers... None of the comments that I made are in any way original. All of these themes are being discussed, both in print, radio, and on line. You simply need to spend some time and effort to know where to look.

 

As I've mentioned before, the "On Point" show that NPR produces is invaluable. In any given week, four of their 10 hour long shows are "must hear" events. There are a number of very good web sites that act as aggregators and provide good pointers at major happenings each day.

 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ is a great source, though it tends to focus on domestic policy issues.

 

Glenn Greenwald's Daily column at Salon invariably has some very useful information:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

 

Salon also has a Blog Report that provides pointers at a number of the hot topics in the Blogsphere.

http://blogreport.salon.com/

 

If you are especially interested in the Middle East, Juan Cole normally has something interesting to say

http://www.juancole.com/

 

Regretfully, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I have no clue what the average American believes "Get Out Now" means. The bulk of the population was woefully misinformed at the start of the war. I have little reason to expect that they are any better informed now...

Yes, I know your comments Richard. They repeat what I have discussed here for a long time. But those were my comments, not what I see in the media.

I will check out your sites. I hope they discuss the pros and cons of the options.

 

My guess is close to yours and what will happen, more killing, deaths and pain and troops/air/sea assests in Iraq for decades. I am not saying anything new.

[pbleighton]

Mike, what would you do about Iraq if you were in charge?

 

Peter

[mike777]

Mike, what would you do about Iraq if you were in charge?

 

Peter

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam

2) The war will last for 40 more years

3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.

4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.

5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.

6) I would ask more questions.

7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.

8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

[pbleighton]

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam

2) The war will last for 40 more years

3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.

4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.

5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.

6) I would ask more questions.

7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.

8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

 

So you would stay indefinitely in Iraq. That's what I thought.

 

Next question: whose side are we on in the civil war? Note that I'm NOT asking whose side we're against.

 

Peter

[mike777]

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam

2) The war will last for 40 more years

3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.

4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.

5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.

6) I would ask more questions.

7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.

8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

 

So you would stay indefinitely in Iraq. That's what I thought.

 

Next question: whose side are we on in the civil war? Note that I'm NOT asking whose side we're against.

 

Peter

I am on the side of the Kurds for starters. Yep that causes problems with the Turks and others I know.

In any event Iraq is just a small part of whose side I am on...global war...not just Iraq.

I would make Lieberman Defense Sec if elected as a Republican.

Cheney if elected as a Democrat..you get the idea.

I assume Powell would not take the job so I put him in somewhere close.

 

My main domestic goal...jobs..jobs and more jobs....

[hrothgar]

Mike, what would you do about Iraq if you were in charge?

 

Peter

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam

2) The war will last for 40 more years

3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.

4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.

5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.

6) I would ask more questions.

7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.

8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

No offense, but this looks to be a random collection of justifications and excuses.

You haven't identified any kind of coherent policy other than asking questions.

 

I'm not saying that asking questions is a bad thing, not am I surprised to see that this represents the totality of your policy prescription. (Indeed, I've faulted you for this on many an occasion). However, it would be nice to see some kind of concrete recommendation...

[mike777]

Mike, what would you do about Iraq if you were in charge?

 

Peter

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam

2) The war will last for 40 more years

3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.

4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.

5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.

6) I would ask more questions.

7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.

8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

No offense, but this looks to be a random collection of justifications and excuses.

You haven't identified any kind of coherent policy other than asking questions.

 

I'm not saying that asking questions is a bad thing, not am I surprised to see that this represents the totality of your policy prescription. (Indeed, I've faulted you for this on many an occasion). However, it would be nice to see some kind of concrete recommendation...

Me too, but I would need many more questions answered and more information.

Bottom line, I would expect to make many mistakes.

I think tech will help in the long run.

Mainly, find the enemy and kill it. Is that pretty vague, yes in someways it is. I agree.

I know that only sounds like a partial plan, yep.

[pbleighton]

I am on the side of the Kurds for starters.

 

That's easy. How about the other 90% of the country?

 

Cheney as SecDef. Wow! A guy with a track record!

 

At least you wouldn't have to worry about intelligence which contradicted your policies :D

 

Jobs, jobs, jobs... would you institute a draft, so we could have the 450,000-600,000 combat troops which the counterinsurgency manual says we need to do the job in Iraq? Plus another 1.5 million to do the same to Iran?

 

Dude, you'd be rocking!

 

Peter

[mike777]

I am on the side of the Kurds for starters.

 

That's easy. How about the other 90% of the country?

 

Cheney as SecDef. Wow! A guy with a track record!

 

At least you wouldn't have to worry about intelligence which contradicted your policies :D

 

Jobs, jobs, jobs... would you institute a draft, so we could have the 450,000-600,000 combat troops which the counterinsurgency manual says we need to do the job in Iraq? Plus another 1.5 million to do the same to Iran?

 

Dude, you'd be rocking!

 

Peter

If you got a fuller plan, I am listening. :)

[pbleighton]

If you got a fuller plan, I am listening

 

Vietnam. Out. Dig it?

 

Peter

[mike777]

I.C.

 

 

My best guess in fighting the global war on terror is:

1) convincing people it is real war.

2) it is worth fighting and winning

3) ok....one and two are huge and very tough.

4) fight the war akin to how we fought the American Indian wars.

5) point 4 would be very tough to get agreement to do, maybe impossible.

[pbleighton]

4) fight the war akin to how we fought the American Indian wars.

5) point 4 would be very tough to get agreement to do, maybe impossible.

 

Yes, genocide has become unpopular.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Cheney as SecDef.

 

Gee, Mike, if you could only get Goebbels as Propaganda Minister and figure out a way to invade Poland I think you'd have it.

 

1) convincing people it is real war

 

If it is a real war, it doesn't require convincing.

 

fight the war akin to how we fought the American Indian wars.

 

Along with this plan, do we also change the Star Spangled Banner to Onward Christian Soldiers?

[mike777]

Cynicism is not a coherent plan. :D

[pbleighton]

Cynicism is not a coherent plan.

 

Neither is ignorance of history :D

 

The white invaders reduced the Native American population by over 90%.

 

You wish to do this to the Muslims who live in the Middle East?

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Cynicism is not a coherent plan. :D

Credit where credit is due. That was good. LoL.

[Winstonm]

I do have a plan, though.

Allow other nations to self govern without intervention.

Defend the U.S. against invasion.

Defend individual rights as guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

 

Now, Mike, let me ask you some questions. As you are surely aware, I have railed against the subjugation of individual rights in order to strengthen the executive branch.

 

The Military Commission Act allows the president to declare anyone, citizen or not, an enemy combattant and place them in the custody of the military, where the Military Commissions Act applies, which allows no habeus corpus, allows torture and forced confessions, and can use hearsay evidence to not only convict but sentence to death and execute such sentence - all with no oversight from Congress or the Judicial branch.

 

Are these necessary products of the global war in which you believe and are they right and justifiable actions in order to conduct the war?

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, here are my suggestions:

 

1. Write off Iraq as a bad investment. I don't think there is any point wasting any more money. I'd pull the troops out as quickly as possible, recognizing that this will take 12 - 18 months. Accept that Iraq is going to burn. With luck, the Iraqi's will be too distracted killing each other to cause much trouble else where.

 

2. Re-allocate the funds used for the War in Iraq for financial aid packages in other parts of the developing world. Work to improve things in countries like Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the like. I think that the best chance of creating long term stability in Iraq is to integrate countries like Egypt into the broader world economy. We need the equivalent of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East...

 

3. Institute a serious carbon tax. (I favor a carbon tax for a number of reasons. I consider this relevant here because we I believe that the US needs to ween itself away from Middle Eastern petroleum)

 

4. Everyone knows what the solution to the Palestinian - Israeli problem looks like. Dictate terms to both sides.

[pbleighton]

For what its worth, here are my suggestions:

 

1. Write off Iraq as a bad investment. I don't think there is any point wasting any more money. I'd pull the troops out as quickly as possible, recognizing that this will take 12 - 18 months. Accept that Iraq is going to burn. With luck, the Iraqi's will be too distracted killing each other to cause much trouble else where.

 

2. Re-allocate the funds used for the War in Iraq for financial aid packages in other parts of the developing world. Work to improve things in countries like Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the like. I think that the best chance of creating long term stability in Iraq is to integrate countries like Egypt into the broader world economy. We need the equivalent of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East...

 

3. Institute a serious carbon tax. (I favor a carbon tax for a number of reasons. I consider this relevant here because we I believe that the US needs to ween itself away from Middle Eastern petroleum)

 

4. Everyone knows what the solution to the Palestinian - Israeli problem looks like. Dictate terms to both sides.

 

Richard, I agree with 1-3, but how do you propose to accomplish 4?

 

Peter

[mike777]

You have mentioned the carbon tax and your thoughts often.

 

I have come around to where I think we need to encourage the use of carbon/fossil fuels not discourage them.

 

Of course I am not advocating all of us choking on dirty air or drinking filthy water.

I am talking about incentives to encourage the use of carbon based or fossil fuels not a disincentive such as a carbon tax.

 

I want to drive demand and supply up. Let the price go wherever the market places it.

 

To phrase it in other words I want the Law of Demand to kick in without price controls. One simple example of this is to remove the gas mileage requirements on cars and trucks. Another is make it easier to drill for oil and build refineries in the USA.

 

If people wish to impose more stringent pollution laws in terms of allowable measurements of particles in the air and water, so be it. IF this is what you mean by a carbon tax on an individual basis, then I am all for it. I am against paying more in gas taxes in general, tax the car..not the gas.

 

Your business or car or truck can put as much pollution in the air/water as you wish. You just pay for it.

[pbleighton]

You have mentioned the carbon tax and your thoughts often.

 

I have come around to where I think we need to encourage the use of carbon/fossil fuels not discourage them.

 

Of course I am not advocating all of us choking on dirty air or drinking filthy water.

I am talking about incentives to encourage the use of carbon based or fossil fuels not a disincentive such as a carbon tax.

 

I want to drive demand and supply up. Let the price go wherever the market places it.

 

To phrase it in other words I want the Law of Demand to kick in without price controls. One simple example of this is to remove the gas mileage requirements on cars and trucks. Another is make it easier to drill for oil and build refineries in the USA.

 

If people wish to impose more stringent pollution laws in terms of allowable measurements of particles in the air and water, so be it.

 

Your business or car or truck can put as much pollution in the air/water as you wish. You just pay for it.

 

Rationale?

 

Peter

[mike777]

You have mentioned the carbon tax and your thoughts often.

 

I have come around to where I think we need to encourage the use of carbon/fossil fuels not discourage them.

 

Of course I am not advocating all of us choking on dirty air or drinking filthy water.

I am talking about incentives to encourage the use of carbon based or fossil fuels not a disincentive such as a carbon tax.

 

I want to drive demand and supply up. Let the price go wherever the market places it.

 

To phrase it in other words I want the Law of Demand to kick in without price controls. One simple example of this is to remove the gas mileage requirements on cars and trucks. Another is make it easier to drill for oil and build refineries in the USA.

 

If people wish to impose more stringent pollution laws in terms of allowable measurements of particles in the air and water, so be it.

 

Your business or car or truck can put as much pollution in the air/water as you wish. You just pay for it.

 

Rationale?

 

Peter

I assume we will use up the cheaper sources first and then use up the more expensive sources next. The goal is to use up the supply faster, not draw out the supply for decades and decades longer.

 

The combination of increasing price and decreasing supply should regulate demand and spur alternative sources faster. The alternative is for the government to decide what is the best alternative source of energy not the markets. Disaster.

 

See government subsidies. If the government wants to fund basic science, that is fine. If the government wants to bet on Sugar Cane fuel, that is a Disaster.

[pbleighton]

The combination of increasing price and decreasing supply should regulate demand and spur alternative sources faster. The alternative is for the government to decide what is the best alternative source of energy not the markets. Disaster.

 

See government subsidies. If the government wants to fund basic science, that is fine. If the government wants to bet on Sugar Cane fuel, that is a Disaster.

 

The carbon tax is the reverse of betting on a specific technology. It creates a broad, powerful incentive for all non-carbon sources of energy. May the best source(s) and technologies win.

 

Do you really not understand this, or are you goofing?

 

Peter