-How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war -- or the dubious claims leading up to it?

Because that dichotomy was mostly political rhetoric, that's why. It was meant to move Obama to the left of Clinton for the primary and it worked.

Add some 20-20 hindsight and some warmed over VRWC propaganda, and voila!... you have some very disappointed far Lefties.

Hey look, somebody gets it!

Well Katrina my dear, that's because we aren't ending this war and we're expanding to another front.

When that happens, the few will kick and scream with Katrina...and the sheep will line up behind the shepherd.

The situation is as it is now, not then. Now we need an orderly planned withdrawal from Iraq. That's why we elected the calm and competent Obama and the experienced Biden rather than the hothead McCain and the know-nothing Palin. That's why we need Gates to stay on so that he can continue to clean up the mess left behind by Rumsfeld and Bush.

It's futile to say how much better off we'd be if we had never invaded Iraq. We were stupid enough to elect and re-elect Bush and allow him to do it and we've been living with his disaster for nearly six years. Now we have to end it as best we can and at least recover something from the ashes.

Ah.

Katrina vanden Heuvel.

America's answer to a question no one asked.

you have some very disappointed far Lefties.

If by far lefties, you mean people who've wanted an end to this war since the "mandate of '06", you would be correct.

No, I mean people who were dumb enough to buy that there was some major difference between Obama and Clinton on most policy issues and who are going to bitch and moan because Obama isn't acting like Noam Chomsky.

You know, people like you.

Katrina vanden Heuvel.

America's answer to a question no one asked.
posted by Pinche Mao

Pinche, I gotta say, for the most part I cannot stand you. But #4? That, sir, gets a golfclap and no mistake. Bravo!

When is that angry negro radical Marxist socialist who pals around with terrorists going to name a single progressive to his cabinet? Some of us here said all along that Obama was a centrist.

It appears the DR Right is going to have to eat a lot of crow, starting with Nanc, Murphy, and Pinche "see you in November" Mao.

Meh, still too early to tell.

Gates is being kept on as a sop to the right and in the interests of "projecting continuity".

Obamam re-iterated his goal of a sixteen month draw down in Iraq in today's conference but did mention stepping up the pace in Afghanistan and possibly in Pakistan's lawless western FATA.

He also sed that he was commited to keeping the American military the biggest in the world.

/Not too hard a promise to keep.
//Hell, you could cut the Military Budget in half and you'd still be the biggest.

He also talked about keeping a residual "training force" in Iraq after the drawdown.

Perfect?

Not by a long shot.

A disapointment to the true Anti War left?

Undoubtedly.

Miles and days better than Yawn "10,000 Years in Iraq" McLame?

No shiat, Sherlock.

Be Well.

America's answer to a question no one asked.

~Pinchaloaf.

Nope, that'd be you, Pinchy.

KVH is good people in "Spud's Big Book of Good People".

KVH is right to ask these question and these are the right questions to ask right now.

Be Well.

Katrina vanden Heuvel.

America's answer to a question no one asked.

What a sanctimonious know nothing bitch. She and Arianna could be the bread in a Chavez sandwich.

"Gates is being kept on as a sop to the right and in the interests of "projecting continuity"."

That's funny, I missed the part where Obama based his campaign on "appeasing the right" and "projecting continuity." For some reason I only heard him talking about "change." Is Gates change?

No, I mean people who were dumb enough to buy that there was some major difference between Obama and Clinton on most policy issues and who are going to bitch and moan because Obama isn't acting like Noam Chomsky.

You know, people like you.

That's what I've been saying all along. I jumped off the political hack bandwagon in '06 (the last time I heard the war was ending as soon as we get some Dems in there)...just trying to bring as many along with me as I can.

Hey, Hillary Clinton just farted, I think it's time for you to write a new blog entry.

What's that on your face?

For some reason I only heard him talking about "change." Is Gates change?

What he is actually doing is change from what is coming out of his mouth...so in that sense, yes.

What's that on your face?

A smile from me repeatedly kicking your ass today?

-I jumped off the political hack bandwagon '06

Translation: I have no clue about any kind of solutions, I just like to bitch and moan. The hemorrhoids are from sitting on that damn fence!

PS I am a Rhodes scholar, all the girls like me, and I voted for myself. - Iraqis Cream on My Face

To grasp the logic of this strategy, start with the fact that Obama's likely national-security picks don't actually disagree very much with the foreign policy he laid out during the campaign. Jones is on record calling the Iraq war a "debacle" and urging that the detention center at Guantnamo Bay be closed "tomorrow." Gates has also reportedly pushed for closing Gitmo and for faster withdrawals from Iraq. He has called a military strike against Iran a "strategic calamity," urged diplomacy with Tehran's mullahs and denounced the "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy. (You don't hear that from a Defense Secretary every day.) For her part, Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign embraced an Iraq-withdrawal position virtually identical to Obama's. And although they fought a sound-bite war over sitting down with the leaders of countries like Iran, the two candidates' actual Iran policies were pretty much the same. Both wanted intensive diplomacy; both wanted to start it at lower levels and work up from there.

On key policy issues, Jones, Gates and Clinton aren't significantly more hawkish than Obama. What they are is more hawkish symbolically. Gates is a Republican; Jones is a Marine general who once worked for John McCain; Clinton, as Senator from New York, has gained credibility with hawkish pro-Israel groups. In other words, what distinguishes Gates, Jones and Clinton isn't their desire to shift Obama's policies to the right; it's their ability to persuade the right to give Obama's policies a chance.

-Obama's view of foreign policy has always been different from Hillary's as it regarded using diplomacy over force.

Ridiculous. Clinton was championing diplomacy over force before we ever heard of Obama.

Obama had to strain in that debate to try to find some nuanced difference between his policy and Clinton's, and he settled on going out on the idiotic "no preconditions" limb, which he later modified.

Some people just swallow political rhetoric hook, line, and sinker as real policy differences.

Others can't tell who's baby is who's.

That's funny, I missed the part where Obama based his campaign on "appeasing the right" and "projecting continuity." For some reason I only heard him talking about "change." Is Gates change?

~Joe

Ever watched a political campaign before Joe?

In the Nom race Dems run to the left and Reps run to the right with their rhetoric.

In the General both run to the center and claim it as their own.

After the election or "accountability moment" is over they run back to DC and listen to the lobbyists and do wotever the fuck they are told.

That's been pro forma fer a while now.

In that any Change is possible within that corrupt system Obama will bring it. Anyone who thought he was gonna clean up DC overnight was dreaming.

Spud never mentioned much of this in the run-up to the election because fer the most part Americans "don't do nuance" and it would have been counter productive.

That sed, Spud is willing to give Obama a brief Honeymoon period to show that he's not a complete sell-out to his rhetoric of Hope and Change rather than dump all over him before he even takes office as a lot of folks seem all too eager to do.

Spud's big Hope here is that Obama has read about and learned from the lesson of Jimmy Carter. Spud means in that Carter tries to bring in a shiatload of outsiders into DC and achieve real Change and he ended up being balked at every turn until his admin, despite it's noteworthy ideas, became bogged down in ineffectualness due to resistance.

Obama needs to realise that in order to effect Change he must do so with the best and the brightest players already in play and known in DC. Then he can bring them to bear on the problems that confront both him, as POTUS, and the nation more generally.

That all sed, you are right about one thing.

That Fat Stomach google ad is GRIM!

Really puts one off their feed.

Blech.

So do not want!

Be Well.

#13 | Posted by JOE

Cranky because the guy plays the game better than anyone you've supported, ever?

I'm not crazy about some of these appointments but, then again, I never thought of Obama as a man of what I would call the Left. I think he's more in a Progressive Democrat mode.

But I do know one thing: Having Obama in the WH for the next eight years---no matter how many sops he tosses out to build coalitions---is going to be a whole lot better than having another GOPiggie in there.

Here's my mantra: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia. Four of them's quite enough, three would be better.

Translation: I have no clue about any kind of solutions, I just like to bitch and moan. The hemorrhoids are from sitting on that damn fence!

You still think there is a fence? Back to the short bus with you Corky.

Ridiculous. Clinton was championing diplomacy over force before we ever heard of Obama.

Not as it regarded invading Iraq. And you know that this is the point I'm making. I don't dislike Hillary, but her voice would have been too loud to ignore in the run-up if she'd had assessed the risks as Obama did and as he articulated in October 2002. Both Hillary and Bill joined in agreement with the neo-cons because this fit their own visions of US policy and in their belief of Saddam as an ongoing threat to this nation and Israel.

Its poor sport to rewrite history Corky. Obama was right for all the right reasons including disbelieving the rhetoric of immediacy being propagated by the Bushies in their rush to war. The funny thing is that far too many think this made him anti-war. As I've said since day one, Obama is a pragmatist and a realist. He doesn't wax idealic about the threats facing the US or shirk from confronting them with force if necessary. But in contrast, he doesn't use bluster and arrogance in setting forth the next direction of US foreign policy after the debacle of Bush's stewardship, if one can call it that.

Change will be defined as LISTENING to competing views and balancing them as best as intellectually possible, WITHOUT a preconcieved conclusion having already been reached by stifling all debate, into a coherent policy that minimizes risk and accenuates positive outcomes. Change NEVER meant only listening to specific voices from outside the usual channels. Those voices will be heard if they indeed produce the answers required by the problems seeking solutions, but the times still require the wisdom, both right and wrong, from experience. Those who've been wrong before sometimes articulate the best reasons for not repeating mistakes.

"Obama was right for all the right reasons including disbelieving the rhetoric of immediacy being propagated by the Bushies in their rush to war."

And yet, he's keeping a Bushie on as Secretary of Defense.

Two party system: Bought vs. Paid for.

Pigs at the trough...

By the way, what happened to this?

"And yet, he's keeping a Bushie on as Secretary of Defense.

#25 | Posted by JOE "

That's true. Unlike Losertarians, Democrats have to make real decisions and can't allow ideological purity to get in the way.

"Is Gates change?"

Yes.

He's actually competent.

Palin was so deep into the conservative ethos of no-sex-before-marriage that she lied about and covered-up her own daughter's teen pregnancy for the sake of her political standing.

Palin did try to keep her teenage daughters pregnancy quiet and then when the press got wind of it and made it national news she did an about-face and tried to use the fact as proof of her "Pro-Life" cred.

She demanded a shotgun weding between the two and thereby achieved massive cred in the eyes of "no abortion even in the case of incest, rape or the life of the mother" crowd, ie. her pals in the hilariously inaptly named "Feminists Fer Life".

Of course, getting knocked up out of wedlock is a Palin family tradition.

/Sarah Palin married Todd on August 29, 1988.
//Track was born on April 20, 1989.
///U Do the math.

Wotta machinating li'l hypocrite, eh?

Be Well.

"Democrats have to make real decisions and can't allow ideological purity to get in the way."

This has nothing to do with "ideological purity." Obama has criticized the direction of the Iraq war for years, including the years during which Gates was defense secretary. Obama also opposed the surge, which Bush came up with while Gates was his top adviser on the Iraq war. To pretend that a decision to keep Gates on as Defense Secretary in the face of those supposed positions is some sort of "brave" decision is beyond pathetic.

Democrats have to make real decisions and can't allow ideological purity to get in the way.

Uh huh.

They blame their post-2006 inaction on obstructionist Republicans, yet when Republicans point out numerous attempts to reign in Fannie and Freddy, un-biased Drudgies like Danforth blame the Republicans for not overcoming the Dems' obstructionism - clearly on an issue where action might have truly made a difference.

The Democrats used every weapon in their arsenal to halt any regulation of Fannie and Freddy; yet many of you blame the Republicans for this shit.

The Democrats used every weapon in their arsenal to halt any regulation of Fannie and Freddy; yet many of you blame the Republicans for this shit.

"To pretend that a decision to keep Gates on as Defense Secretary in the face of those supposed positions is some sort of "brave" decision is beyond pathetic."

Not as pathetic as booing a smart decision. Besides, Obama promised to have a mixed cabinet. Why aren't you applauding him for keeping his word?

Oh, that's right...he has a (D) after his name.

Joe,

You have to excuse Null.

His ever-increasing anger has become legendary in these parts.

It's like watching Annakin become Darth Vader.

Rumor has it he dropped Das Kapital into the shitter immediately after taking a dump.

It was his best copy - the one he successfully shop-lifted from those evil capitalists at Barnes and Noble.

Now, you and I would call such an act "theft"; however Null calls it "Social Justice."

"They blame their post-2006 inaction on obstructionist Republicans"

How else would you characterize more than doubling, and almost tripling the all-time record for filibusters?

Doesn't anyone around here know how government actually functions?

"Drudgies like Danforth blame the Republicans for not overcoming the Dems' obstructionism"

WTF is with you lately? Why do you keep assigning positions to me I never took? Either link to proof of your bullshit claim, or retract.

"Besides, Obama promised to have a mixed cabinet."

Fact remains that he has opposed the war and he opposed the surge, both of which Gates has presided over. Perhaps Obama could have had a "mixed" cabinet in areas that didn't show such an obvious contrast between his own supposed positions and those of the Bush appointee.

"His ever-increasing anger has become legendary in these parts."

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-12-01 07:02 PM

*Yawn*...If you spent one tenth the time you spend commenting on Drudge personalities as you do commenting on issues, one of these days you might say something worth responding to.

Obama could clone Scalia and appoint the clone to the SC and tools like Danforth would be here excusing the lack of "change," saying things like "Oh well, Obama promised to work with the right. This is actually a smart decision!"

"The Democrats used every weapon in their arsenal to halt any regulation of Fannie and Freddy"

And where did the Democrats force banks to lend like idiots? Where were the banks required to give out 125% LTVs, or interest-only loans, or repackage and re-rate loans and leverage bad paper against bad paper?

The Republicans were in control for 6 years, and in the interim they broke---no, shattered, the previous record for obstructionism. There wasn't a single Dem bill passed regarding banking, and evidence is coming out the Republicans stripped important regulations from the 2005 bill. The Dems haven't had control of the legislative process for over a decade.

Which means, obviously, everything is the Democrats' fault.

Quick, blame it on something a Dem said in 2003 when he was a minority member on a majority-Republican committee, which was chaired by a Republican who set the agenda. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about how RROR works knows how powerless a minority member of a committee truly is, but that won't stop members of 'the party of responsibility' from shirking all responsibility.

"Obama could clone Scalia and appoint the clone to the SC and tools like Danforth would be here excusing the lack of "change"

You're a liar.

#38 | Posted by nullifidian

Lighten up, Francis!''

I was joking! Do you even remember what that is?

Why do you keep assigning positions to me I never took? Either link to proof of your bullshit claim, or retract.

You have been very clear on this. When someone like Moneywar blames the post-2006 Dems for inaction, you blame Republican obstructionism. However, when Republicans CLEARLY tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie you blame them for NOT overcoming blatant Democratic obsctructionism.

You've come accross as Dems = always right
Repubs = always wrong.

I am more than willing to have you clarify your position on this. However, as it currently stands, it is very hypocritical.

"Fact remains that he has opposed the war and he opposed the surge, both of which Gates has presided over"

Fact remains Gates initiated neither of those, he merely brought a slice of competence to the mix.

"Fact remains Gates initiated neither of those, he merely brought a slice of competence to the mix."

What are you basing that on? He was the top advisor on the war when Bush decided to go through with the surge.

"However, when Republicans CLEARLY tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie you blame them for NOT overcoming blatant Democratic obsctructionism. "

Then it should be really, really easy to link to proof. Have at it.

"What are you basing that on? "

The surge was not Gates' idea.

If I criticize a football team for their bad offensive play-calling, then I become head coach, it's a brilliant move to keep the same offensive coordinator on staff.

-Danforth

"The surge was not Gates' idea."

Did he oppose the surge, or did he think it was a good idea?

In other words, was his position on the surge in any way similar to that of Obama?

If a play caller is winning, the new owner should throw him out---recent Super Bowl rings notwithstanding.

-Joe

Then it should be really, really easy to link to proof. Have at it.

#45 | Posted by Danforth

What proof are you looking for?

More than once Republicans introduced legislation to reign in Fannie and Freddy only to be killed by Dems in committee.

Is your love of Democrats so great that you are simply unaware and/or unwilling to acknoledge this fact?

"Did he oppose the surge, or did he think it was a good idea?"

Don't be a doofus. He was agreeing with the assignment from his boss. You're pretending the SecDef calls his own plays.

"If a play caller is winning, the new owner should throw him out---recent Super Bowl rings notwithstanding."

This coming from someone who has said you cannot define what a "win" is in Iraq. Apparently our position in Iraq is now that of a champion!

"He was agreeing with the assignment from his boss"

But secretly, he opposed it. Is that your position?

"you are simply unaware and/or unwilling to acknoledge this fact?"

Show me where I blamed the Republicans for the Dems obstruction on the Fannie and Freddy issues and I'll concede.

Link or retract.

"But secretly, he opposed it. Is that your position?"

He's the SecDef. He's not allowed an opinion.

Reference Colin Powell if needed.

"This coming from someone who has said you cannot define what a "win" is in Iraq. "

Where and when did I say that?

If you spent one tenth the time you spend commenting on Drudge personalities as you do commenting on issues, one of these days you might say something worth responding to.

#38 | Posted by nullifidian

Like you??

"He's the SecDef. He's not allowed an opinion."

Gee, that's funny. His opinions seemed to be the only thing anyone cared about at his confirmation hearings.

" His opinions seemed to be the only thing anyone cared about at his confirmation hearings."

Keep pretending his opinions still carry the day after his confirmation. I can use the laugh.

"someone who has said you cannot define what a "win" is in Iraq."

Joe, have you found a link to where I said that yet, or were you lying again?

His opinions seemed to be the only thing anyone cared about at his confirmation hearings.

~Joe the Dumber

Spud has watched folks patiently try and explain to Joe the difference between those who originiate policy and those who implement it.

Now Spud has got a question.

Hey Joe... did you graduate from Regent the same year as Monica Goodling or afterwords?

/Only possible explanation.

Be Well.

Show me where I blamed the Republicans for the Dems obstruction on the Fannie and Freddy issues and I'll concede

It's a full-count and you throw a slow-curve???

Seriously, EVERY time this issue has been raised in terms of Democrats blocking Republican initiatives to reign in Fannie and Freddy you've ALWAYS pointed out that the Republicans had considerable power and, at the very least, insinuated, if not outright stated that blaming Dems in any way, given their level of power, was excuse-driven.

I can easily link this, if that is the route you'd like to take. Howver, for me, this isn't about proving you wrong. This is about getting to the core of your opinion on this without falsely assigning a position to you.

If you want to deny recent history - fine. I will be more than happy to link your prior comments. Having said that, I prefer to move past such trivialities and get to the root of the matter - your actual thoughts. It's pretty clear to me that I've construed your thoughts differently than you intended. Let's cut through the BS - just clarify your position. That's all I ask.

"EVERY time...you've ALWAYS pointed out"

Then ONE link should be really, really easy.

"I can easily link this, if that is the route you'd like to take."

Please do.

"Where and when did I say that?"

Perhaps I'm mistaken - do you or do you not think there is a definition of "win" in Iraq, and that by that definition, are we "champions?"

"difference between those who originiate policy and those who implement it."

Trying to explain to a Canadian the advisory role a Defense Secretary plays in American politics is useless. I suppose all you stupid fucks who hated Rumsfeld will now say he was "just doin' his job."

63 | Posted by Danforth

Again - I am not trying to play "gotcha".

Based upon your reactions, I've clearly misconstrued some of your comments. All I am looking for is clarification.

For the last time - if you want me to link the comments in question - fine, I will do so. However, I don't bring this up to try and trap you. I bring it up because you seem to have an extremely inconsistent stance depending on the political party involved.

I am simply trying to get to where you truly stand. That is all.

I'm curious - did Donald Rumsfeld play an advisory role in the Bush administration, or was he simply implementing policies that were handed down to him by higher powers?

"Perhaps I'm mistaken - do you or do you not think there is a definition of "win" in Iraq, and that by that definition, are we "champions?""

Why don't you link to where you believe I said that first.

"Why don't you link to where you believe I said that first."

I don't feel like wasting the time, so let's take a shortcut. Do you or do you not think there is a definition of "win" in Iraq, and that by that definition, are we "champions?"

From the article--

By keeping Gates on Obama worsens the Democratic image on national security--- sending the message that even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military. And even more troubling for our future security, Gates has sounded ominous notes about how more US troops can pacify Afghanistan. Speaking only days after a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the US was caught in a "downward spiral" there, Gates asserted that there is "no reason to be defeatist or underestimate the opportunity to be successful in the long run." Extricating the US from one disastrous war to head into another will drain resources needed to fulfill Obama's hopes and promises for economic growth, health care, energy independence and crowd out other international initiatives.

I think this is the crux of the deal here with keeping Gates.

First --it reaffirms that Bush is doing something right.

Second--there are no qualified Dems to be Sec of Defense.

To suggest Hagel is further confirmation.

What are you basing that on? He was the top advisor (sic) on the war when Bush decided to go through with the surge.

#44 | Posted by JOE

Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group, who's recommendations called for a drawdown of combat forces.

It took Congress flipping in 2006 for Bush to finally ask Rumsfeld to find the door. Had that not happened Rumsfeld would still be arrogantly hemming and hawing with phrases like, "that's just ridiculous" in answer to questions about strategy and tactics now viewed as "not ridiculous after all".

Gates is a pragmatist. He's also very correct in calling for a better ratio of military to diplomatic corp and the use of 'soft power', which has proven highly effective since WW2, but which Bush dismissed out of hand in favor of unilateralism at the end of a gun.

Why is Dan trying to get Jeff to do a Hans?

All Dan has to do is reply to the post?? Jeff has a question and so does Joe it appears?

What is the big deal?

MURPHY

You are so clueless!

Gates wasn't going to stay on - that is, until he met with Obama. Says a lot about what he thought of Obama.

Enjoy the next 8 years darlin'

"clarify your position. That's all I ask."

RROR rules the day. In the last 8 years, Rs had the WH, and, for the most time, a (R) Congress. If they thought anything was THAT wrong, they always had the nuclear option, and a like-party President. The Dems, during their 2 years, not only faced record obstructionism, but an opposite-party WH, so their "nuclear" bar would be 67 vs. the Republican "nuclear" bar of 51. It makes a huge difference, and anyone who doesn't realize that ought to be forced to take a civics class, and pass it this time.

Add to that the history of the parties: which of them has a lengthy history of resisting regulation?

"Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group"

"I don't feel like wasting the time"

Translation: I lied about you, but I don't want to admit it.

Either link to what I said, or admit you made it up.

Trying to explain to a Canadian the advisory role a Defense Secretary plays in American politics is useless. I suppose all you stupid fucks who hated Rumsfeld will now say he was "just doin' his job."

Again, Joe, there is a difference between advising on policy or implementing a given policy and originating policy.

Why can't you wrap yer wee mind around that simple fact?

Ronald Dumbsfilled?

S'rsly. You cite that guy as an example?

Did you hear Obama's press conference today?

Did you hear his references to "groupthink"?

Who the fuck did you think he was talking about?

BushCo went into office all on the same sordid page.

The only thing Donnyboy brought to the table there was the "do more with less" Rumsfeldian doctrine that overtook the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.

Powell was right, of course.

If BushCo wanted it done right in Iraq they coulda followed the Powell Doctrine and gotten some early successes that they could have capitolised on and turned into sommat positive perhaps.

Trouble was "doing it right" was never part of the BushCo playbook. Deliberately fucking up and letting the place descend into chaos to in order to give them a perpetual reason why "We Can't Leave Yet!" (TM) was.

/That's a page out of the playbook the Israeli Warhawks have used to keep Palestine in a constant state of enraged chaos fer thirty plus years, btw.

Anyhoo, to sum up, ...yer a moran.

Spud thanx you fer yer kind attention.

Be Well.

"Either link to what I said, or admit you made it up."

There's no need to - it would take you five seconds to state your position without digging through years of posts. Do you or do you not think there is a definition of "win" in Iraq, and that by that definition, are we "champions?"

In the last 8 years, Rs had the WH, and, for the most time, a (R) Congress. If they thought anything was THAT wrong, they always had the nuclear option, and a like-party President. The Dems, during their 2 years, not only faced record obstructionism, but an opposite-party WH, so their "nuclear" bar would be 67 vs. the Republican "nuclear" bar of 51. It makes a huge difference, and anyone who doesn't realize that ought to be forced to take a civics class, and pass it this time.

Add to that the history of the parties: which of them has a lengthy history of resisting regulation?

~Danforth

Good stuff, Dan4th, and well worth a repeat.

The fact that Dumbya stood ever-ready with his Veto pen should prolly also be noted as well.

Be Well.

/Outtie fer a bit, as ya do
stage left.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-12-01 07:55 PM

Fair enough, I guess.

I understand and agree with the notion that Republicans didn't do enough - they didn't push hard enough to try and halt this. However, you STILL haven't acknowledged the fact that the Dems used EVERY bit of power they had at the time to de-rail any crackdown on Fannie and Freddy as they saw these institutions as a measn to an end - making housing affordable for those who couldn't afford housing.

"there is a difference between advising on policy or implementing a given policy and originating policy."

I know there is. Your original post said there is a "difference between those who originiate policy and those who implement it" and that Gates was in the latter category. The point, dumbshit, is that Gates advised Bush on our war policy and Obama criticized that same policy. Unless Gates' advice was contrary to everything Bush did, Obama is full of shit.

"Ronald Dumbsfilled? S'rsly. You cite that guy as an example?"

He held the same position Gates does. Lefties trashed him on a daily basis for our policies in Iraq. Now, apparently, the defense secretary only takes orders and grabs lunch for the president. Convenient, isn't it?

JOE:

"Why is Dan trying to get Jeff to do a Hans?"

I don't type stuff unless I've done my homework.

"Gates sat as an expert on the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group (ISG) until his nomination as Secretary of Defense. "

"Gates sat as an expert"

Apparently "doing your homework" does not involve differentiating between someone "sitting as an expert" and someone "acting as a member" of the Iraq Study Group. The ISG website has a specific list of its MEMBERS. Gates is not a MEMBER like you said he was.

Semantics, JOE, semantics.

"semantics."

Wrong. Someone can sit as an expert and tell you that you are wrong. Experts act as impartial sources of technical information. Experts do not necessarily agree with everything Members think, write and say. Therefore, your characterization of Gates as a "Member" of the ISG is misleading and incorrect, and is more than mere "semantics." You'd be better off admitting so.

he members of the ISG (in addition to the two chairs) were:

* Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former U.S. Secretary of State ;
* Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Senior Managing Director, Lazard, Freres & Co. LLC;
* Edwin Meese, III, former U.S. Attorney General;
* Sandra Day O'Connor, former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice;
* Leon E. Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff;
* William J. Perry, former U.S. Secretary of Defense;
* Charles S. Robb, former U.S. Senator;
* Alan K. Simpson, former U.S. Senator;
* Former Director of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates was also a member of the panel until he was replaced by Lawrence Eagleburger on November 10, 2006. Gates resigned because he was nominated by President George W. Bush as US Secretary of Defense on 8 November 2006, replacing Donald Rumsfeld.

"There's no need to "

You lied about me, and when asked for proof, you turn into a pussy.

Either "dig" through those posts to prove what you said, or admit you lied. It's quite simple. The issue isn't what I think of it; the issue is your blatant bullshit. Now you've been called on it. Either produce proof, or admit you were pulling the lie out of your ass the whole time.

Keeping Gates makes sense on two fronts. He's a competent administrator with a traditional conservative view of foreign adventures. Second, he's supervised the "surge" and it's success or failure going forward will be his and not someone whose first priority would be ordering new office furniture.

What galls me is Napolitano at DHS. She's about one rung up from Jamie Gorlick. We might as well build a one-way highway from Mexico City.

Membership of the Iraq Study Group
The ISG is co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, a Republican and former chairman of the House International Relations Committee Lee Hamilton, a Democrat. Other ISG members as of Nov. 13, 2006 included:

* Sandra Day O'Connor, former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice,

* Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former U.S. Secretary of State (replaced Robert M. Gates),

* Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Senior Managing Director, Lazard, Freres & Co. LLC,
* Edwin Meese, III, former U.S. Attorney General,

* Leon E. Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff,

* William J. Perry, former U.S. Secretary of Defense,

* Charles S. Robb, former U.S. Senator,

* Alan K. Simpson, former U.S. Senator.

Lawrence S. Eagleburger was selected to replace Robert M. Gates after Mr. Gates? nomination as Secretary of Defense.

"Recommendations of The Iraq Study Group 2006"

Funny - the "source" they cite for the claim that Gates was a member doesn't indicate he was a member. No matter - when you can't even differentiate between experts and members, what's the difference? Everyone's a member!

Baker and Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who also co-chaired the independent 9/11 commission, declined to give their views on the Iraq war.

Hamilton called Iraq a "formidable challenge" but said, "We make no judgment right now."

The group will be made up of five Republicans and five Democrats.

They include: former CIA Director Robert Gates; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican; former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan; former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta; former Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Perry; former Democratic Sen. Chuck Robb; and Alan Simpson, a Republican former senator from Wyoming.

"Either produce proof, or admit you were pulling the lie out of your ass the whole time."

The "fact" that you said something remains a "fact" without it being re-printed. My guess is that you do not have an answer to the question, which is why you seized this opportunity to stall the discussion.

Bush's nominee to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Director of Intelligence Robert Gates, was a panel member. Last Friday, Baker and Hamilton announced that Gates had resigned from the group and been replaced by former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.

No matter - when you can't even differentiate between experts and members, what's the difference? Everyone's a member!

JOE

Huh. An original "member" of the 10 person bipartisan panel.

Man, you really like to argue don't you?

Is it so hard to admit you were wrong? It's not like a big deal or anything.

"The "fact" that you said something remains a "fact" without it being re-printed."

Fine, here's a "fact": You're a liar, and if you went through every one of my posts in the 3+ years I've been here, you wouldn't find a single post stating what you claimed.

You made the claim. Link or stink, liar.

You're right, JOE. Everyone involved was a "member".

Gates was one of the original 10 members of the panel.

It expanded to include several panels in different areas of review and study.

"No matter"

It's always "No matter" to Joe once he's been proven wrong.

AU- You're right, Gates was a member. That's all I asked you to show since the Iraq Study Group's own website didn't list him as a member. Thank you for doing so.

"It's always "No matter" to Joe once he's been proven wrong"

I wasn't wrong, because I never said Gates wasn't a member. I simply found it odd that he wasn't listed as one on the ISG website. Try to learn the difference.

Hey Hans--how is it going?

Write anything recently?

Danforth,

I understand and agree with the notion that Republicans didn't do enough - they didn't push hard enough to try and halt this. However, you STILL haven't acknowledged the fact that the Dems used EVERY bit of power they had at the time to de-rail any crackdown on Fannie and Freddy as they saw these institutions as a measn to an end - making housing affordable for those who couldn't afford housing.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ

What galls me is Napolitano at DHS. She's about one rung up from Jamie Gorlick. We might as well build a one-way highway from Mexico City.

#91 | Posted by ozarkaggie

Actually Oz--Napolitano put the NG on the border.

The National Security team assembled is terrific.

"Team" being the key word. Not led by ideology, but full of brilliant people who can provide sober, experienced, and reasoned advice.

Gen. Jones probably didn't vote for Obama either.

Gates has been a proponent of "soft diplomacy" which served us well since WW2, and increased the positive image around the world. It took someone like Obama, who wants the best and the brightest, to get Gates to stay on. Gates and Jones hold each other in high regard. Their acceptance of these positions reflect their respect for Obama as well.

Danforth, if you'd like to return to the discussion about whether we can define "victory" in Iraq and whether Obama's retention of Gates is intelligent or consistent given their apparent differences in policy, that's fine with me. If you want to sit around bitching and moaning that I'm not going to dig through years of your posts to prove a claim about you that is hardly insulting or slanderous, you don't need me for that.

If you want to sit around bitching and moaning that I'm not going to dig through years of your posts to prove a claim about you that is hardly insulting or slanderous, you don't need me for that.

It's late and given the participants I would like to believe that those present are above petty semantics.

C'mon Danforth! You don't need to defend yourself - just clarify your positions.

I wasn't wrong, because I never said Gates wasn't a member. I simply found it odd that he wasn't listed as one on the ISG website. Try to learn the difference.

Funny - the "source" they cite for the claim that Gates was a member doesn't indicate he was a member. No matter - when you can't even differentiate between experts and members, what's the difference? Everyone's a member!

#93 | Posted by JOE

I found his name on the ISG site. He wasn't included in the final report because he'd been appointed Sec Def by that time and replaced by Eagleburger.

No big deal, man. I don't come to DR looking for arguments. I knew Gates was an original member. I'm also glad he's staying on as Sec Def. We need the continuity, the military really respect him, and they've been hoping he'd have a freer hand with a new President should he decide to stay on.

Again, JOE, I'm not arguing with you. Merely pointing out Gates was an original member.

"C'mon Danforth! You don't need to defend yourself - just clarify your positions."

I never stated a position to clarify. Joe willingly lied about me, and when called on it, pretended it was my fault for knowing the truth.

A few nights ago you retracted when you put something in my mouth I never said. Joe could learn a thing or two from your classy behavior. Instead, whenever he's wrong, it's "no matter".

JOE

I've read a lot of Gates speeches and comments over the last couple of years. I'd say he and Obama are more on the same page than you might suspect.

What Gates had to publicly state as Bush's Sec Def, and comments attributed to him in private are a couple of different things.

Gates has seen the military put under duress because of Iraq, and also knows the tremendous value of "soft power". Only because Bush was intransigent on that issue has it not been restored to it's previous place of prominence in our overall national security plan.

One example of where Gates finally started getting some traction is in North Africa, where Marines travel from village to village doing simple goodwill building things like digging wells, fitting people for eyeglasses, and providing rudimentary medical care.

JeffJ,

Re: #80

"I found his name on the ISG site."

"Write anything recently?"

Like I said Danforth, if you'd like to return to the discussion about whether we can define "victory" in Iraq and whether Obama's retention of Gates is intelligent or consistent given their apparent differences in policy, that's fine with me. If you want to sit around bitching and moaning that I'm not going to dig through years of your posts to prove a claim about you that is hardly insulting or slanderous, you don't need me for that.

"whenever he's wrong, it's "no matter"."

I wasn't wrong about anything when I said "no matter" because I never said Gates wasn't a member of the ISG. Apparently your own whiny standards of proof don't apply to yourself.

JOE

www.usip.org

That isn't the website of The Iraq Study Group.

I've known Gates was an original member since he was appointed with the other original 10.

Danforth,

The thread you linked didn't have a post from you - probably a simple mistake.

No hurrires or worries. I've gottat run in a few minutes so I can't see your clarification(s) until next time.

In regards to clarifying what I've pointed out as a seeming contradiction, it's important that you realize that it wasn't just me who saw this - 101Chairborne and Live_or_Die saw it as well.

Later!

Oh my gosh--

Hans--that is the funniest cat trick!

FF--my son liked it too!

"Apparently your own whiny standards of proof don't apply to yourself."

So does that mean you've found any proof, or are you still a liar?

/Sarah Palin married Todd on August 29, 1988.
//Track was born on April 20, 1989.
///U Do the math.

Wotta machinating li'l hypocrite, eh?

Be Well.

#30 | Posted by dethspud
-------------------------
So spud, I guess by saying that, you've already ruled out premature birth. Hey I don't know, I wasn't in the bedroom during conception but it could be a possible answer.

I'm not sure if she tried to hide her pregnant daughter, I mean her daughter was present when she made her first public appearance at the RNC. If I were trying to hide something like that, I wouldn't have her in the crowd but in the VIP area backstage. Just my thoughts on the subject, nothing more.

Lonnie

"vs. the Republican "nuclear" bar of 51."

Qu'elle horror!

The Republican nuclear bar would be 50. My mistake.

I think Gates is a very good choice at this time. If nothing else, he will provide counterpoints to positions of other cabinet members. The critical question is how much Obama will listen to those views.

It is my belief that the stupidist action a new president can take is to break _all_ ties with the previous administration, no matter how wrong that administration may have been. Some form of continuity, especially in critical areas, is very needed inside the beltway. Going in with an entirely new (outside the beltway) team is merely a recipe for disaster. Because the major battles which are fought are those against entrenched bureaucracies and policies. Even of your own party.

No, I mean people who were dumb enough to buy that there was some major difference between Obama and Clinton on most policy issues and who are going to bitch and moan because Obama isn't acting like Noam Chomsky.
#6 | Posted by Corky

Why TF do you have to bring Chomsky into this, Cork?

You're killing me.

It is my belief that the Repubs didn't really want to win this election. Having set the country up to fall over a cliff, they wanted the Dems to be in charge for the long fall down.

Keeping Gates on shows Obama's recognition that the fall is coming, including that the Repub-born defense "strategies" in Iraq and elsewhere have failed past the point of no return, and will finally disintegrate. When that happens, and the Repubs guy is still be in charge of Defense, they won't be able to say "see, we were doing it right, it's Obama;'s fault".