Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 37

Journal by pudge

Howard and Saddam

Howard Dean says we are not any safer for having captured Hussein. But already we are seeing his capture lead to the capture of others, and the war on Iraq is largely viewed as key in Libya's surrender of its NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) weapons programs (note that Libya went to the US and UK, not NATO or the UN, and that the US intercepted NBC weapons components headed to Libya recently, etc.).

And it is also entirely reasonable to tie the multilateral talks with North Korea to the war in Iraq. China would not be as willing to unite with the US against North Korea in formal talks if not for Iraq. The situation in North Korea is yet unresolved, but it is moving forward toward permanent disarmament in a substantial way that we've never seen before.

Of course, some of those things are not directly related to Hussein's capture, and there are other ways in which we are perhaps not safer. Maybe terrorism is worse in Iraq now (it is unquestionably false to assert that we know one way or another on this point). "Safe" is subjective in some ways, and unknowable in others.

The point here is not that Dean was wrong in his opinion, since it is merely an opinion, but that he was politically wrong. The point here is that it will seem, to many voters, like the capture of Hussein, the surrender of Libya, the negotiations with North Korea (if successful) are bad news for Dean.

And beyond whether we are safer or not ... last Monday Dean said he "would not have hesitated" to go into Iraq "had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be part of a multilateral force." It's like Dean is out to prove to the U.S. voters that he is incapable of being the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. The President needs no permission from the U.N. to do what he thinks is in the best interests of the security of the United States.

I know some would say, "well, attacking Iraq is not in the best interests of the security of the United States." That is beside the point I think, because he has said he would not go in, no matter what, without U.N. approval (the implication being even if he DID think it was in our best interests). But let's assume he meant that in the context of Iraq not being a threat, despite not saying it: how is that any better? So he would send American troops to die (his characterization) when America is not even threatened, if the U.N. merely asked it of him?

Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, was on This Week, and he said their policy is to "let Dean be Dean." Dean's opponents seriously hope they do.

Speaking of Trippi: Gephardt has been attacked by the Dean camp because of ads run against Dean, made (in part) by people who used to work for Gephardt. Gephardt responded he had no connection with the ads, and that it is ludicrous to assert he did just because some of the people who made them used to work for him, especially considering Trippi himself used to work for him. Ha.

Ralph Nader

Apparently, Nader said he may run if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination. Why does he bother adding "if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination"? Regardless, I doubt Nader can get enough votes to be a factor this time around, since it seems like most Nader supporters from last time around are going to Dean.

Slobodan Milosevic

Last week, General Wesley Clark was testinfying in The Hague testifying against Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. Milosevic called Clark a liar, and then he quoted General Hugh Shelton saying Clark was fired for problems of integrity and character. You never know how what you say may be used. :)

Clark then read a statement from Clinton saying Clark was a good man, and entered into the record. Clark looked almost embarassed to read the statement, reading through it very quickly. It looked like he didn't want to read it, but that he knew for the sake of his testimony, that it was best to do so.

There's no criticism of Clark in this, I just found it to be interesting. This certainly doesn't make Shelton look good, and he better keep his mouth shut for the next year, because he is now the guy who gave Milosevic a defense from his American accuser.

Polls

A Newsweek poll asked voters if the capture of Hussein makes them more or less likely to re-elect Bush. Voters, individually, do not re-elect people. They only vote to re-elect, or not. I wouldn't have even mentioned this poor language, except that George Stephanopolous mentioned the poll and they captioned it something which made it sound like they were being polled about whether or not they thought Bush would be re-elected, not whether they would vote to re-elect him.

Right now it is an even split among voters, 46-46, when asked if they would vote for Bush in 2004. But when put against actual candidates, his numbers are much higher: he is in double digits over all Democratic candidates, including Dean (53-40).

Yes, there are still a lot of undecided voters out there, but Bush's numbers increase to over 50% against all of these candidates, where they were 46% against an unnamed candidate. That's right, only 46% favor Bush for President, until you get the most popular Democrat against him, and then they go up 7 points higher. This tells me that all the candidates bring more negatives to the table, in a national election, than they do positives. And that's kinda sad. I am not sure if that says more about us, the media, the candidates, the system, or a combination of it all.

There's lots of time for those numbers to turn around, and polls are often misleading ... but for Dean, it is not a good sign. It's not just that the President has good positives right now, it is that Dean has bad negatives. That's going to be tough to overcome, especially when Dean is not really getting attacked nearly as much as he will be a few months from now, and Bush has been attacked daily for a over a year.

Lord of the Rings

The Return of the King pulled in a quarter of a billion dollars worldwide in its entire run, in its first five days. Only one movie has ever topped one billion, Titanic (which hit $1.8b). FotR hit $861m and tTT got $921m.

Two movies about low-lying cloudlike precipitation opened in five theaters, total: House of Sand and Fog and The Fog of War, earning $84,779 between them. If they combine forces, they have only $999.915 million to go.

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:
  • A very interesting reader letter [nationalreview.com] at National Review speculating that Khadaffi's motivation stems at at least partly from a desire to secure the 2010 World Cup for Libya.

    This, by the way, is why it's great that we have Internet journalism. Everything I've seen on Libya in the major media is either the obvious (this is a huge win for Bush and Blair, and for the world in general) or the laughable (This is another catastrophe for Bush, worse than the capture of Saddam!).

  • It opened earlier in some countries and will open later in others. The $250 million was the world-wide take for those five days, not the world-wide total so far.
  • There have been plenty of news accounts pointing out that al-Qaeda recruitment is up thanks to the war in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is actively using the U.S. attack on Iraq as propaganda to recruit more terrorists. Which isn't a surprise. The CIA said before the war that an invasion would increase, not decrease, the likelihood of terrorist attacks on Americans.

    I know you're upset that the memo linking Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda turned out to be a cheap forgery. But is this really the most you can fall back on

    • There have been plenty of news accounts pointing out that al-Qaeda recruitment is up thanks to the war in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is actively using the U.S. attack on Iraq as propaganda to recruit more terrorists. Which isn't a surprise. The CIA said before the war that an invasion would increase, not decrease, the likelihood of terrorist attacks on Americans.

      We've been having this bogeyman waved in our faces since the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Don't! You'll only make them angrier! Cycle of violence!!! M

      • "the 'We'll only make them angry!' bit is getting more threadbare by the month."

        You don't have an understanding of either this argument, or what I'm saying.

        I would like us to win the hearts and minds of people who might become terrorists, true. That might mean fewer terrorists in the future, which I think the next generation of Americans would appreciate.

        If someone is bound and determined to kill Americans, I don't much care whether they are angry or how angry they are, as long as we stop them from d

        • No gain for our security, and an obvious loss. That's not smart.

          An obvious loss? So removing an evil man from power and probably creating a huge democracy in the middle of the Middle East, destroying many terrorist cells, isolating Syria, these are not wins? No gain to our security from these things? That is just entirely ridiculous. It makes no sense on any level, except for the "anything Bush does is wrong" level.

          Yes, it is an obvious loss if the main point of Iraq was to get rid of al Qaeda, but s
          • Of course removing an evil from power is a great thing, as I've said before, and your taking me out of context to imply otherwise is not helpful. And you're arguing with the CIA, not me. Go complain to them.

            the war on terror isn't just about al Qaeda

            It's them who keeps attacking us.

            • Of course removing an evil from power is a great thing, as I've said before, and your taking me out of context to imply otherwise is not helpful. And you're arguing with the CIA, not me. Go complain to them.

              I am not arguing with the CIA. And YOU are the one who keeps framing the war in Iraq in terms of how successful it is at battling al Qaeda.

              It's them who keeps attacking us.

              Yes, and?

          • The President needs no permission from the U.N. to do what he thinks is in the best interests of the security of the United States.

            It may be so as far as permission is involved, but your president's and you people's error has been and still is equating permission with consensus. The day you unstick your collective head from the sand and see this simple truth would be the day you understand why the rest of the world doesn't really think the world of you.

            Because the war on terror isn't just about al Qa

            • It may be so as far as permission is involved, but your president's and you people's error has been and still is equating permission with consensus.

              I am having trouble parsing this sentence. Are you saying the U.S. requires consensus to do what it did in Iraq, or simply that there was no consensus? I deny the former and concede the latter. Yes, much of the world dislikes it when we act without their approval. And?

              If only you wouldn't have used that phrase ("the war on terror"). It's way below any th

              • I'm baroque, and I apologize for my baroque syntax (and for the unintended flammage). I don't think the US needs anything; but I think that the first rule of the diplomatic game is to be a willing player. Of course any nation is expected to try to extract as much leverage out of its position as it can, and arguably the US is the most able in that regard (i.e., in being able to leverage itself in the diplomatic concert). However, kicking the board and running away with it is not Being A Player, hence the ove

                • However, kicking the board and running away with it is not Being A Player, hence the overwhelmingly negative image the US garnered abroad.

                  Yes, of course. But sometimes you do what you think is necessary. Could the U.S. have been more diplomatic to accomplish the same goals in Iraq? I think so, but on the other hand, nothing the U.S. could have done would have appeased Russia and France.

                  Also, that charcterization is IMO undeserved. The U.S. did act essentially on its own, but it also included anyone w
        • Who's watch was the first Trade towers bombing?

          Embassey Bombing?

          USS Cole?

          Who had a better handle on Al-Queda?
      • And al-Qaeda is setting off bombs in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Tunisia, Kenya -- is that the best they can do with all their new super strength?

        Given the low risk involved, I would suggest that bombing places where westerners and Muslims meet in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc. might be a very cost-effective way to further their goal of radicalizing the relatively moderate Muslim nations.

        By implying that they are limited to such foreign terrorist acts, you assume their only goal is to kill Americans
        • Speak of the devil -- I was just reading what the al-Qaeda folks themselves have to say about the targeting of Muslim countries [memri.org].

          Beyond that, though, I'm skeptical that they're more concerned with carefully carrying out a strategy than with apocalyptic megastrikes against Satan. I'm pretty sure they're picking targets of opportunity because they've been shattered, not because they're working from a position of sudden new strength.

          • I'm pretty sure they're picking targets of opportunity because they've been shattered, not because they're working from a position of sudden new strength.

            I am pretty sure of nothing in regard to al Qaeda, except that anyone who IS sure -- including you and jamie -- are full of it. ;-) But yes, this seems likely to me. They certainly lack much of what made 9/11 possible: their funding less available, their freedom to move around/train/communicate in Europe and the Middle East is diminished; their leaders
            • I am pretty sure of nothing in regard to al Qaeda, except that anyone who IS sure -- including you and jamie -- are full of it. ;-)

              That notwithstanding, I've thought about this a little further. It occurs to me that al-Qaeda has two very different activities:

              1) Complex terrorist attacks around the world by small, highly trained cells.

              2) Conventional military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have the capacity to create trouble for Karzai and drag in more US troops but which ultimately will be cru

    • Jamie, you're misinterpreting my intention of "key in Libya's surrender of its NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) weapons programs." I didn't mean Libya suddenly had a change of heart because of the force of the US/UK military might. From what I've heard, from Kadaffi himself and elsewhere, Libya has been gradually coming to the position that if it wants to move forward in this world, it must be accepted as a part of the world community, which means renouncing terrorism, giving up its NBC weapons programs,

      • Yes, it is possible terrorism activity is going up. But you don't know that, Dean doesn't know that.

        But Tom Ridge knows that:

        Terror threat to extend through January [msn.com]

        ...operatives of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network, possibly trained and licensed to fly passenger jets, may now be pilots for some foreign airlines, ideally positioning them to carry out suicide attacks... Reinforced cockpit doors intended to thwart hijackers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would now protect any terr

        • But Tom Ridge knows that

          Yes, of course. I don't understand the point of what you're saying. Are you saying that Ridge is saying that the threat is greater now than it was before we attacked Iraq? He isn't. So I don't see your point.

          But yeah pudge, you're right, nobody could possibly know if we're safer or not. Nope, no way to tell. Never will be. All criticism and questioning is useless! Do not think! Vote Bush!

          Yawn. It would be more powerful if you had a real, intelligent, point in there. I am
          • You make this argument so much that I guess you believe it.

            You see someone else saying "X has led to Y," and you proceed to explain that, in this world of uncertainty and imperfect knowledge, one cannot be absolutely, 100% sure that in the counterfactual world without X, the alternative reality would be Y' and not Y''.

            Duh. That's always true. That means nothing.

            I've given you several good reasons that back up what I say. Most notably, the removal of resources from the actual war on terror to do the ex

            • You see someone else saying "X has led to Y," and you proceed to explain that, in this world of uncertainty and imperfect knowledge, one cannot be absolutely, 100% sure that in the counterfactual world without X, the alternative reality would be Y' and not Y''.

              Duh. That's always true. That means nothing.

              Whatever. It's one thing to say you believe we are less safe. When you say it is "truth" or a "fact" that we are less safe -- as you did -- when you can't possibly know that, you are full of shit. Perh

              • When you say it is "truth" or a "fact" that we are less safe -- as you did -- when you can't possibly know that,

                you are full of shit.

                "We've never quite seen it at this level before," said Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge. [salon.com] "The strategic indicators suggest that it is the most significant threat reporting since 9/11." According to White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "terrorists abroad are anticipating attacks that they believe will rival or exceed the scope and impact of those we experienced on

                • Right, and? You keep forgetting to quantify this. You keep forgetting to show how any increases, when also taking into account measures that make us safer, make us less safe on balance. You are only showing one side of the story, and completely ignoring that the other side exists.
                  • Yeah, I'm pretty tired of this discussion, so I'm not running down every blind alley.

                    For the last few exchanges (maybe longer) you've been implying Dean said we are now less safe. He didn't. Since you posted the journal entry, you've been implying he was talking about the war as a whole or the Bush strategy as a whole (you slyly switched from Saddam's capture to "the war in Iraq" in your very next sentence). He wasn't.

                    What he said was this, and it's true:

                    Dean told a Los Angeles audience that capturin

                    • For the last few exchanges (maybe longer) you've been implying Dean said we are now less safe.

                      I implied no such thing. What I said is he could not know we were not safer now.

                      you've been implying he was talking about the war as a whole or the Bush strategy as a whole

                      You were assuming -- incorrectly -- that I was talking only about a single, specific quote.

                      However, I will back off here, because the specific quote I was thinking about was from Gephardt, not Dean, where he said, "George Bush has left us [foxnews.com]
                    • Just because the terror alert level has gone up after Saddam's capture, that
                      cannot mean we are less safe. It also cannot mean we are more safe. In this regard, it means absolutely nothing.

                      You're getting silly, pudge. It means there is an increased, quote, "risk of terrorist attacks." [dhs.gov]

                    • You're getting silly, pudge. It means there is an increased, quote, "risk of terrorist attacks."

                      AND? How does this necessarily mean we are less safe? I might be at greater risk from contracting influenza than people were 100 years ago, but I am much safer from influenza than they were. Simply stating there is an increased risk of attack does not mean we are not safer, or that we are less safe, because it does not take into account that we also have increased protections from those potential attacks. Y
            • You know, I think I got what pudge was saying, and it really isn't what you were thinking he was saying (I think).

              Suppose Howard Dean makes it through the primaries and continues making statements about how he wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, and continues condemning Bush's choices regarding foreign policy. Suppose even that he wins the election. It is entirely possible that after his first in-office security briefing that the first words out of his mouth are "Holy Shit!," because he has just learned
    • The point is that Bush's policies have caused a known world leader, who when bombed during the Reagan administration and rolled over, to roll over again. This time where Libya actually had a nuclear program pre-emptively decided to end that program, because he knows that the US is willing to go out of its way and smack around guys who persue nuclear, chemical, and bio weapons.

      But it's been an embarrassing week for the administration, with the head of the 9/11 investigation saying the attack "could have a

      • As far as the link between Saddam and Al-Queda? Who cares. We know that he supported the palstiniens by giving cash to the families of the suicide bombers there, that alone is a link to supporting terrorism. We know there have been training camps in Iraq for terrorist organizations.

        The former is true of Saudi Arabia -- official, above-ground, fully-admitted, government fundraisers for the families of suicide bombers. And 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

        The latter is true of Pakistan, which still refu

        • Classic argument, but a red herring anyways. Easily countered with, why go after murders, since there will always be murders.

          With SA we have ties into the country, specifically the government there, they have helped us with many other endevours in the region. We use the carrot there as we have seen they work better that way.

          Pakistan is a little further off and India is in the region. We would rather not unsettle that area by further interfering as India has a kind of touchy trigger finger on a couple n
        • Obviously we've set the invasion bar a little higher than you imply...

          Absolutely. And this is why it is kind funny to hear people attack Bush for a simplistic "cowboy" foreign policy of "you're with us, or you're against us," because -- despite the fact that he talks that way -- his policy is obviously quite a bit more complex than that.
      • There have been plenty of news accounts pointing out that al-Qaeda recruitment is up thanks to the war in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is actively using the U.S. attack on Iraq as propaganda to recruit more terrorists. Which isn't a surprise. The CIA said before the war that an invasion would increase, not decrease, the likelihood of terrorist attacks on Americans.

      Al-Qaeda was using the status quo as a recruiting tool. The UN was reporting that 10,000 people every month were dying due to sanctions. Bin Laden was

  • I like 'em. Keep 'em coming (even if I am a card-carrying Deaniac).

    So, pudge: Rollback of sanctions against Libya in exchange for Qaddafi (or however you spell it) acceptance of weapons inspectors is (a) progress for arms control, (b) capitulation to a known terrorist whom we'd go after with guns blazing if he were in Afghanistan, or (c) both? (I vote c.)

    • I can't see how it can be called capitulation. Hell, I was all in favor of this sort of "capitulation" with Iraq, if only they would comply with all of our demands, and they were far less removed from their most recent acts of terror and mayhem than Libya, which has been rather silent in the last decade or so.

      What I call it is evidence that the West is winning the war on terrorism; I would NOT attribute this solely to Bush or even the U.S. What I see in Libya is the same sort of thing we are seeing in Jo

Slashdot Top Deals

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Close