Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 26

Journal by pudge

Senator Tom Daschle

Sen. Daschle was just full of lies in regard to the judicial nominees on Fox News Sunday this weekend.

He said that the 6 nominees were being fillibustered because all of them were more interested in pushing their own views than following written law. Alabama AG Bill Pryor has, time and time again, upheld and defended -- vigorously -- laws that go against his own personal beliefs. His record is unblemished in his upholding of the law, despite signficant effort in the judicial committee to prove otherwise. They came up empty. Daschle lied.

He said that Miguel Estrada refused to turn over a lot of documents -- at best, a mischarcterization -- and that other justices, including Bork, have turned over documents on such requests. That's false: Estrada was asked for ALL of his documents when working at the solicitor general's office (something every living solicitor general, from both parties, strongly opposes), and previous justices only turned over specific documents related to specific issues. Daschle lied.

He said that the Republicans fillibustered 63 nominees "in the judicial committee." There is no such thing as a fillibuster in committee. Daschle lied.

Daschle is just such a tool.

General Wesley Clark

Gen. Clark wasn't bad on Meet the Press, but he gave up ground on two big potential arguments against Bush.

First, Clark admitted in another interview this weekend that the war in Kosovo was "technically illegal" because it did not get UN support. He said it was OK, though, because another legitimate body supported it (NATO) and because it was a legimiate threat. But the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq is -- quote technically -- no less legitimate than NATO, and "legitimate threat" is in the eye of the beholder.

So Clark has entirely forfeited to Bush the "legitimacy" argument in regard to Iraq. He can still argue on the basis of faulty intelligence, even on motive, but not on legitimacy, because his main difference between what is and is not legitimate is something that has no actual bearing on legitimacy -- the existence and level of "threat" -- because it is subjective.

Second, Clark admitted he misled the American people in 1995 when he said the troops in Bosnia would be home in a year. He said he had reservations about the timeline, but stated it unequivocally to put pressure on the Bosnians to speed things up. So now, he cannot condemn Bush for misleading the American people if that misleading was for some "greater" good.

Then Clark went on to attack Bush on misleading the American people on intelligence in Iraq. Hold on there, pal. You concede that there were many good reasons to go into Iraq, and then say that it is bad to mislead the American people about those reasons, when you did the same damned thing in Bosnia?

I should also add that while everyone agrees Iraq posed some sort of a threat to the U.S. and its interests, even if not a direct security threat on U.S. soil, the same cannot be said of Bosnia and Kosovo. They had very little, if anything, to do with the U.S. We helped because we are a part of NATO and because, apparently, they wouldn't/couldn't do it without us.

But it wasn't our direct business, unlike -- as Clark and most everyone concedes -- Iraq, which was destabilizing the entire region, which was threatening Kuwait and Israel and Saudi Arabia, which was making the life of terrorists from Syria and Iran and Turkey and the Palestinian territories easier. I can't see how Bosnia or Kosovo posed any threat at all to our interests, and I can't see how Iraq wasn't a threat.

Does that de facto make the war in Iraq legitimate, in his view? Does that make the misleading OK? I don't know what is going on in Clark's head, but he surrendered quite a bit of ground today.

One last interesting note on Clark: he said, in reference to the election next year, "This is not about the economy, it's about jobs." I know he was trying to say that the issue is not GDP, but jobs, but his phrasing make him sound dumber than he is. Also, I am unimpressed with the sentiment: jobs won't turn up until GDP and other leading indicators turn up. Now those things are turning up, so give jobs a little bit of time.

Representative Dick Gephardt

Gephardt, when asked about the steel tariffs on This Week, said Bush should have lowered the steel industry's health care costs. How's that for a spin?

But then he did say he thinks the tariffs should remain in place until the steel industry can be protected. In fairness to Gephardt, he opposed NAFTA and is probably in favor of the tariffs in large part because of the damage NAFTA has done to the steel industry in the first place, which is an opinion that, while I disagree with, I can respect. At least he is consistent and mostly principled on this issue.

George Will asked Gephardt -- someone who has talked about reducing the amount of money in politics -- about George Soros giving $15 million to oust Bush. Gephardt eventually said, when pressed, it is legal, but against his ideals of campaign finance reform. I guess it's not too interesting, except in that Gephardt had to be pressed to come up with the answer. Maybe he hopes to accept the money, but doesn't want to seem too eager for it?

George Soros

As to Soros himself, I really have little comment. He has an unreasonable hatred toward Bush and wants to see him gone. I can't fault the latter, but his rhetoric in the former is extremely tiresome: "The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position."

Right, so the Bush doctrine you define should be abandoned, and Bush should, instead of imposing its values and interests everywhere, should leave Iran and Syria alone (like it is doing), it should use multilateralism in North Korea (like it is doing). It is truly nonsensical rhetoric. It's one thing to attack Bush's position on Iraq, but to magnify that to a general doctrine that simply doesn't exist according to the facts, makes it unreasonable.

President George Bush

There's something I've been hearing myself say a lot lately: there are so many things to complain about in regard to Bush: his lack of communication, his poor communication, even amounting to misleading; his policies on protestors and free speech; the Patriot Act; how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have gone.

So why the need to make things up? Why attack Bush on whether or not the "mission" was "accomplished," or whether "major combat operations" were over, when in those contexts, those things were clearly true, as intended? Why attack his views as a general doctrine for the world, when there's no significant evidence that it extends beyond Iraq?

I know Bush brings some of it on himself with his extremely poor communication to the American people: when he is communicating, he often contradicts himself, if not in word, then in tone or emphasis (was the war about terrorism, or liberty, or UN resolutions, or weapons? the correct answer is "all of the above and more," but you get a different message each time).

But -- and this is a tip for all you Bush-haters out there -- just because Bush leaves himself open for attack on these things doesn't mean you will benefit by attacking him there. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if Bush left himself open for attack on such things on purpose. You attack him on these minor issues (what did he mean in this speech or that one, who leaked what to whom) while he succeeds on the big issues (no major terrorist attacks, rebuilding Iraq [we'll see], improved economy), and Bush beats you. It very well could be a clever ploy to distract his opponents.

I don't think it is, but even if not, the effect is the same. Once again, people are underestimating Bush, hoping they can make him look bad while he is actually doing well overall, and the more they do it, the less chance they have of beating him, because all of these issues are things most voters don't give a damn about.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • Just recently Bill Pryor went against his personal beliefs and probably hurt his career as an Alabama politician by pushing to remove Chief Justice Roy Moore. Although whether he was following the law is debatable since the Constitution say nothing about separation of churh and state. It simply says that congress can may no laws promoting a particular religion. And a state supreme court justice placing a ten commandments monument in the judicial building has nothing to do with congress.

    • Although whether he was following the law is debatable since the Constitution say nothing about separation of churh and state.

      Moore should have appealed up to the Supreme Court instead of disobeying the ruling in his court case. A judge, if anyone, should know that things need to be done via the rule of law.

      And a state supreme court justice placing a ten commandments monument in the judicial building has nothing to do with congress.

      It's generally accepted that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Fir
      • He tried to appeal, but they wouldn't take it. And on the law, state or not, a judges decision isn't a an act of congress.
      • Yes, and this is why the NRA and others think state laws abridging the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. Some people claim the states may do it, because the Constitution specifies the Congress. But it has long been established that where it is a right of the people, that a prohibition to "Congress" is a prohibition to all government.

        I am unconvinced that there is a Constitutional prohibition of government to acknowledge God. I think precedent shows us this is patently ridiculous, if you
        • To say the Constitution says the government shall not recognize religion, when God is in our founding document

          Huh? Where? Disclaimer: I'm not American, so I genuinely don't know. But I thought all of the founding documents of the US specifically excluded mention of God. Certainly things like "one nation under God" were only added much later. I'd appreciate references if you have any...

          • The Declaration of Independence is the document that founded our nation, signed on July 4, 1776, written by Thomas Jefferson. One of the most famous passages in recorded history worldwide reads, "... we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights ..." This document essentially says we have the right to declare our own freedom because we have value, because we have rights, because God gave us those rights.

        • "the answer, I think, must be to treat philosophical belief systems, in government, equally, unless someone can convince me that their belief system is inherently more worthy of government recognition than mine is."

          This becomes silly once you realize that there are thousands of religions being actively practiced around the world, and tens of thousands more throughout history.

          If I claim to be a follower of Zeus, who are you to argue with me? If next to your poster of the Ten Commandments in the courtro

          • This becomes silly once you realize that there are thousands of religions being actively practiced around the world, and tens of thousands more throughout history.

            If I claim to be a follower of Zeus, who are you to argue with me? If next to your poster of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, I insist on gluing a poster of Apollo, the all-seeing sun god, you can't possibly object; you have no basis to claim that your belief system is more worthy of recognition than mine.

            What becomes silly is you setting

            • "if you reject one [religion] just because it has a 'god' in it, then you cannot reasonably allow others merely because they do not."

              That makes no sense.

              "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Not "belief system."

              "I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anything, and a 1990s dictionary is not evidence of anything at all in this regard."

              I imagine you said that because you realize the dictionaries all happen to agree with me.

              Webster's New Universal Unabridged Diction

              • Jamie, I mean, I want you to show me that the founding fathers meant what you think they meant.

                While you're at it, you could tell me how it is any way logical to say that one belief system be excluded on the basis of whether it not it refers to the supernatural.

                I don't think you can do either one.
    • Pryor was following the law because the people who get to decide what the law means told Pryor that the 10 Commandments must be removed. Was the court's interpretation correct? That's debatable, of course, but that's not Pryor's job as AG to determine. His job is to follow the written law as best he can personally interpret it, except when the courts interpret it, and then to follow that interpretation, and he has done precisely that.
    • Alabama has a similar clause in their constitution(from prior to the civil war and the 14th ammendment[equal protection clause]). The establishment of religion clauses are well-established as preventing both the state-sponsoring of religion in any form and freedom of/freedom from religion.

      The last time we got into the whole states rights versus federal rights debacle was the civil war, and the south lost. Hence the 14th ammendment which ensures that federal trumps state and that the Constitution(and all
    • Just recently Bill Pryor went against his personal beliefs and probably hurt his career as an Alabama politician by pushing to remove Chief Justice Roy Moore. Although whether he was following the law is debatable since the Constitution say nothing about separation of churh and state. It simply says that congress can may no laws promoting a particular religion. And a state supreme court justice placing a ten commandments monument in the judicial building has nothing to do with congress.

      Even if you believe
  • From entertaining the leaders of the coup in argentinia mere weeks before said coup, to his establishment of "free speech zones" outside of the range of effective protest, to not sending representatives to military funerals, to not opposing cuts in military benefits and pay, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and there's the blocking of the 9/11 inquiries, the typical obfuscation and scandals, etc. etc.. And if you want to be pissed off at Republicans you can toss in using the anniversary of 9/11 for political gain by
    • As to the whole economy issue, I don't understand it. He's neither responsible for the drop off, nor provably responsible for any uptake.

      I think you can make the case that the Iraq situation made the economy worse, or postponed the recovery; and certainly, the Iraq situation is contributing to long-term debt. I think you can make the case that he could have done other things to make the recover more quickly.

      But on the other hand, you can say that the Democrats not allowing Bush's first tax cuts, in 2001

    • From entertaining the leaders of the coup in argentinia mere weeks before said coup

      Which coup? December 20, 2001? What leaders? It's quick-'n-dirt, faulty logic to peg every coup south of the equator on the White House. The States have a poor track record on Central America, but excepting Kissinger meddling in Chilean business and maybe (I'm not convinced Bush's admin had anything to do with it) the recent upheavals in Venezuela, I think they've stayed mostly out of the way.

      And certainly the last Arg

      • I meant Venezuala, sorry. So many coups, so few South American countries. And given the history, I tend to default to suspecting the White House at least did a little nudging or gave the proverbial thumbs up.

        Here's an observer [guardian.co.uk] article on the whole mess. Documentary comes out soon.

        Oh, and most of the Bush Administration served under Reagan, so uhh, yea it's believable as hell.
  • Here's the rush transcript of what Clark said about Kosovo. Point to where he said he intentionally misled the American people.

    MR. RUSSERT: I want to talk a whole lot more about Iraq, but I want to stay on Kosovo for just a second. In 1995, the president of the United States announced, and you echoed it, that the troops would be home from Kosovo in a year. That never happened. No one believed at the time it would happen. In hindsight, did you mislead the American people in suggesting the troops would be

    • Point to where he said he intentionally misled the American people.

      He said the troops would be home in one year, knowing it was unlikely.

      If I follow your logic, you are saying that if a military man has doubts about the wisdom of a superior officer, yet does not publicly destroy that officer's credibility and undermine his goals, he doesn't get to talk about whether someone else is a liar.

      You are missing the point. Clark went on, in the quote you made, to say the decision to mislead was justified. I
      • "Clark went on, in the quote you made, to say the decision to mislead was justified."

        Quote me that, please.

        • That was the policy, that was the intent ... We used that intent ... It was productive ...
          • Where's the part where he says he intentionally misled anyone?

            And where's the part where he says it was justified?

            • You can't be that daft. He said that the troops would be home in a year. Do you not get that? He also said he had reservations about the truthfulness of that. Did you not get that? He also defended the position, saying it was useful, etc. Did you not get that? What the hell is your problem?
          • To clarify my question: where's the part where he misled the American people or their government?

            Clearly he tried to mislead the people at the other end of the negotiating table; that only made sense. That's part of negotiation. His superior (the President) made a statement intended to help end bloodshed, and Gen. Clark did not actively subvert his commander-in-chief's goals.

            I can't believe you're comparing that to misleading the American people into supporting war.

  • "Iraq ... was threatening Kuwait and Israel and Saudi Arabia ... I can't see how Iraq wasn't a threat."

    I started typing a reply to this but gave up because there are too many facts of which you're apparently not aware. So I went to reading my mail and found this on a mailing list:

    "It's my opinion that anyone who thinks the Iraqi regime was a greater threat to the US, as a backer of terrorism, than the Saudi regime was and still is, is not to be trusted fighting terrorism."

    Which sums it up pretty well.

    • I started typing a reply to this but gave up because there are too many facts of which you're apparently not aware.

      Well, you're stupid too.

      "It's my opinion that anyone who thinks the Iraqi regime was a greater threat to the US, as a backer of terrorism, than the Saudi regime was and still is, is not to be trusted fighting terrorism."

      I find it hilarious that you actually think this is in any meaningful way related to what I wrote.

      Of course, Saudi Arabia is a significant threat. That is completely bes

Slashdot Top Deals

You're not Dave. Who are you?

Close