http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:51:42 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10857 Alan K. Henderson Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:32:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10857 The capture certainly cements our good relations with the new Iraq (excepting the insurgents, of course). The capture certainly cements our good relations with the new Iraq (excepting the insurgents, of course).

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10856 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10856 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10854 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10854 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10855 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10855 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10853 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10853 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10851 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10851 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10852 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10852 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10850 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10850 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10849 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10849 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10848 Dick Fitzgerald Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:49:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10848 Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period. Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10847 Zizka Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:39:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10847 I have suggested that Iraq after Saddam might not be dominated by those who have been hoping for democracy, but rather by those who aspire to be the next Saddam. My guess is that even when he was free Saddam had lost control of his forces, and that all of his former supporters were biding their time and following their own agendas. (To say nothing of his enemies). The next couple of months should be a test of my suggestion. If things do quiet down significantly in Iraq, and the US is able to withdraw without significant embarassment, Bush will be very tough to beat. We Democrats are being slimed for thinking about the political consequences of this, but the mainstream media Sunday was an orgy of assertions that Bush is now unbeatable. The people I know who are wired or who read British media are hip to what Bush really is, but the ones who are dependent on American newspapers, television, and radio are completely fooled. I don't think that Democrats can expect even a minimally non-partisan press in 2004; it looks to be even worse than 2000. Any of you Euros over there need a housesitter, gamekeeper, or free-lance alienated intellectual for your country estates? I have suggested that Iraq after Saddam might not be dominated by those who have been hoping for democracy, but rather by those who aspire to be the next Saddam. My guess is that even when he was free Saddam had lost control of his forces, and that all of his former supporters were biding their time and following their own agendas. (To say nothing of his enemies). The next couple of months should be a test of my suggestion. If things do quiet down significantly in Iraq, and the US is able to withdraw without significant embarassment, Bush will be very tough to beat. We Democrats are being slimed for thinking about the political consequences of this, but the mainstream media Sunday was an orgy of assertions that Bush is now unbeatable. The people I know who are wired or who read British media are hip to what Bush really is, but the ones who are dependent on American newspapers, television, and radio are completely fooled. I don’t think that Democrats can expect even a minimally non-partisan press in 2004; it looks to be even worse than 2000. Any of you Euros over there need a housesitter, gamekeeper, or free-lance alienated intellectual for your country estates?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10846 james Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:05:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10846 "...Gephardt, who has vacillated on the war..." Surely Gephardt was the only candidate bar Lieberman to vote for the Iraq money, for which he deserves great credit (and which puts Kerry and Edwards to shame). “…Gephardt, who has vacillated on the war…” Surely Gephardt was the only candidate bar Lieberman to vote for the Iraq money, for which he deserves great credit (and which puts Kerry and Edwards to shame).

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10845 Thomas Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:49:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10845 My understanding--and I could be wrong--is that Dean is in favor of higher taxes and more spending, which wouldn't solve any long term fiscal problems we face. Isn't that right? Doesn't have favor increased spending on Medicare and Medicaid, increased spending on Homeland Security, increased spending on education, and so on. Dean's website says as much: "Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans." If the tax cuts are repealed and the funds are used for new spending, where does that leave us? My understanding—and I could be wrong—is that Dean is in favor of higher taxes and more spending, which wouldn’t solve any long term fiscal problems we face. Isn’t that right? Doesn’t have favor increased spending on Medicare and Medicaid, increased spending on Homeland Security, increased spending on education, and so on. Dean’s website says as much: “Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.” If the tax cuts are repealed and the funds are used for new spending, where does that leave us?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10844 Matt Weiner Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:44:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10844 I didn't see John as advocating early withdrawal, simply saying that it's politically inevitable. This is largely the fault of the feckless Bush Administration, which spent too much time switching between different justifications of the war, and has thus left the American people unconvinced of any rationale for us to leave troops in there to get shot at now that Saddam is captured and there are no WMDs. <i>The American people may think they can go home now, but many in the Bush Administration do not.</i> Nor do I, but many in the Bush Administration seem to, and they wield more influence. The accelerated transfer to Iraqi sovereignty looks to me like cover for a withdrawal before the election. (At least, I think you ought to address that concern before you start patronizing John.) John, dead right on N. Korea and the U.S. domestic situation. Bush's insouciance in the face of N. Korea's nuclear program has been horrifying. And I don't think that the economic situation will be the most important issue electorally, but I think it will be the biggest problem the new President faces. The Bush Administration's irresponsible foreign policy initiatives can be unilaterally abandoned; the irresponsible fiscal policy will be much harder to fix. I didn’t see John as advocating early withdrawal, simply saying that it’s politically inevitable. This is largely the fault of the feckless Bush Administration, which spent too much time switching between different justifications of the war, and has thus left the American people unconvinced of any rationale for us to leave troops in there to get shot at now that Saddam is captured and there are no WMDs. The American people may think they can go home now, but many in the Bush Administration do not. Nor do I, but many in the Bush Administration seem to, and they wield more influence. The accelerated transfer to Iraqi sovereignty looks to me like cover for a withdrawal before the election. (At least, I think you ought to address that concern before you start patronizing John.) John, dead right on N. Korea and the U.S. domestic situation. Bush’s insouciance in the face of N. Korea’s nuclear program has been horrifying. And I don’t think that the economic situation will be the most important issue electorally, but I think it will be the biggest problem the new President faces. The Bush Administration’s irresponsible foreign policy initiatives can be unilaterally abandoned; the irresponsible fiscal policy will be much harder to fix.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/implications/comment-page-1/#comment-10843 Andrew Boucher Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:23:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=752#comment-10843 No problem with looking at the situation without rose-tinted glasses. And it probably always is better to be a pessimist: if things turn out that way, at least one has the satisfaction of being right; while if they turn out better, at least one can be pleasantly surprised. Still, let's hope for better than your post. The American people may think they can go home now, but many in the Bush Administration do not. For them establishing a democracy in Iraq is still the lynchpin of their grand-vision strategy - establishing democracy (for the cynical, American client states) throughout the Middle East. On the Iraqi side, I don't think the Shias ever feared the return of Saddam. And the basic facts of Iraqi politics remain: the Sunnites fear the retribution of the Golden Rule, with the Shias doing unto them what they did to the Shias. A U.S. presence serves to stabilize the situation. No problem with looking at the situation without rose-tinted glasses. And it probably always is better to be a pessimist: if things turn out that way, at least one has the satisfaction of being right; while if they turn out better, at least one can be pleasantly surprised. Still, let’s hope for better than your post. The American people may think they can go home now, but many in the Bush Administration do not. For them establishing a democracy in Iraq is still the lynchpin of their grand-vision strategy – establishing democracy (for the cynical, American client states) throughout the Middle East. On the Iraqi side, I don’t think the Shias ever feared the return of Saddam. And the basic facts of Iraqi politics remain: the Sunnites fear the retribution of the Golden Rule, with the Shias doing unto them what they did to the Shias. A U.S. presence serves to stabilize the situation.

]]>