We're going to be hearing a lot of these kind of Yeah, but... lines from Democrat Party candidates as the campaign trail stretches on, amid reports of improvements in Iraq:

"The Anbar Awakening has been a rebuff not only to the extremism of al-Qaeda, but to democracy itself." --Robert Kaplan, theatlantic.com

Long ago, when graying liberal Democrats were waging war and nation-building crusades, we didn't bother ourselves with this kind of sissy-filled concern for Krauts, Nazis or Nips. It was well understood that "making the world safe for democracy" simply meant making a real bloody mess of those who had other ideas, like al Qaeda terrorist.

Ah, but those poor little Indochinese "gooks" made these liberal Democrats see the Great Awakening-error of their gawd-forsaken crusading ways. Making the world safe for anything -- let alone "democracy" -- must be performed cleanly, painlessly, or simply not at all. In our present-day McGovern world, we want it all now, and easy on the bad guys while yer at it, buster! Sheesh, and to think that some folks still can't figure out how Hitler, Tojo and that little fat Italian ended up causing so much trouble.

Well, actually that number of "some folks" is dwindling every single passing day, as our generational memory is flushed six-feet under. "Appeasing evil, hell! What evil?", they ask today. Their retort is clear: living with the "extremism of al-Qaeda" is a small price to pay for making the world safe for democracy itself.

What I see happening in Iraq is essentially the same kind of process that went on as feudalism became formalized during the Dark Ages in Europe. I fully approve! Now all Iraq needs is a King!

Originally Posted by zilch

We're going to be hearing a lot of these kind of Yeah, but... lines from Democrat Party candidates as the campaign trail stretches on, amid reports of improvements in Iraq:

"The Anbar Awakening has been a rebuff not only to the extremism of al-Qaeda, but to democracy itself." --Robert Kaplan, theatlantic.com

Long ago, when graying liberal Democrats were waging war and nation-building crusades, we didn't bother ourselves with this kind of sissy-filled concern for Krauts, Nazis or Nips. It was well understood that "making the world safe for democracy" simply meant making a real bloody mess of those who had other ideas, like al Qaeda terrorist.

Ah, but those poor little Indochinese "gooks" made these liberal Democrats see the Great Awakening-error of their gawd-forsaken crusading ways. Making the world safe for anything -- let alone "democracy" -- must be performed cleanly, painlessly, or simply not at all. In our present-day McGovern world, we want it all now, and easy on the bad guys while yer at it, buster! Sheesh, and to think that some folks still can't figure out how Hitler, Tojo and that little fat Italian ended up causing so much trouble.

Well, actually that number of "some folks" is dwindling every single passing day, as our generational memory is flushed six-feet under. "Appeasing evil, hell! What evil?", they ask today. Their retort is clear: living with the "extremism of al-Qaeda" is a small price to pay for making the world safe for democracy itself.

There is some aspects here that do resonate with me. However, the fundamental foundation is shaky.

As Richard Clarke suggested, invading Iraq was as if we responded to Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico. Then your analogy would hold, except it would have us being contrasted to the non-sissies who bombed the crap out of Mexico City in the 40s. Of course, that would likely have meant a German-speaking Britain today as well as us needing a Japanese visa to enjoy the lovely Hawaiian Islands (if not California) – but perhaps that is akin to having Osama running free now and Pakistan on the brink. So you see, with just the appropriate twist, your analogy can work just fine.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Personal abuse instead of arguments, ego tripping instead of trying to comprehend what's going on. Behaving like a sulky teenager is not impressive to anyone but you.

Now, I didn't say that the casualities had been steadily declining for a year, I said that the improving trend in Iraq goes back more than a year, to the turnaround in Anbar, which is true. The total casualty rate doesn't define success or failure. You implied that the 'one month decline in casualties' was the sole and only reason why the public didn't rally to the Democrats to pull out of Iraq, you implied that the decline in casualties was an isolated event unrelated to the rest of what's going on, and you implied that a concensus for surrender existed in the United States. You were wrong in all three assessments.

Incidentally, you implied upthread that the plan is to 'transfer responsibility' to the Iraqis. Yes. That's always been the goal, it's not secret or sinister. What changed over the last year (and which may yet change back, nobody knows yet) is that the chaos unleashed by the destructon of the Golden Mosque has receded, in response to changed tactics and strategies on the American forces' part, and on overreaching by the insurgents.


http://icasualties.org/oif/




More hollow insults, accompanied by a post that completely misses the point of what's been going on.

I accept your concession of defeat.

HC, sorry for the long absence, but I’m back now to help build on your new found capacity towards rubbing two sticks together i.e., developing a good cogent argument.

What you have begun to exhibit is the ability to organize an argument. And, as I pointed out in my last post, this is quite unique amongst you merry men. However, while a foundation for building a good argument, good organization also has the inherent downside of more readily highlighting muddled thinking in regard to the relationship of elements of an argument – and, unfortunately, that is the case for your post.

In my original post, I suggested that some believe the following 'A indicates B' relationship' -- "one month drop in casualties as the definitive smell of victory." I countered by postulating a 'C indicates not B' relationship' -- "Foreign Service officers protesting their stationing to Baghdad indicates things are not going so great." These are rather simple relationships that, while one may not agreed with, one can at least readily comprehend. From there, one can then offer evidence of accuracy or prediction – pretty straight-forward stuff.

In contrast, we have this -

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You implied that the 'one month decline in casualties' was the sole and only reason why the public didn't rally to the Democrats to pull out of Iraq, you implied that the decline in casualties was an isolated event unrelated to the rest of what's going on, and you implied that a consensus for surrender existed in the United States. You were wrong in all three assessments.

Here, you have interpreted my rather straight-forward assertion to instead be 'A alone is insufficient for X and therefore no Y' relationship. Also, you drew from my assertion a condition of 'A is an element of a set of an unspecified number (n) of GOs (“going on’s”)' with the “GO’s” having unspecified characteristics. Finally, you also drew from my rather straight-forward stated assertion the existence of another condition of 'S in the all of P' where 'S' is surrender and 'P' is total US population.

Now not only are these relationships and conditions muddled and unsubstantiated by any referenced material, you attribute these statements to me – to be kind, you are “conflating” my rather simple (as in elegant) presented assertion. Unfortunately, these aspects of your post are not conducive to a good cogent argument. So -

C+ for organization, but D for relational presentation. Sorry.

But again, you're still far ahead of the rest of the other merry men.

However, your post concerning the Plame affair is much more problematic. There, you are apparently having difficultiy with a special notion called "truth," which if not critical, is of key importance to any good cogent argument. In that regard, as time permits, I’ll be back to provide you further instructions on such things. In the meantime, you might want to study what a Butler or an Alexander has provided on this thread as examples of some good stuff. Good luck to you!

Originally Posted by playwrite

As Richard Clarke suggested, invading Iraq was as if we responded to Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico.

By present-day liberal standards WWII ended for America the day we avenged Pearl Harbor by sinking the four Japanese carriers that enabled the attack, a mere five months later at Midway Island. I'm sure you'd readily agree.

Furthermore, by present-day liberal standards, the U.S. President responsible for these memorable speech lines...

My fellow Americans:

I have just returned from Berlin, the city from which the Germans intended to rule the world. It is a ghost city. The buildings are in ruins, its economy and its people are in ruins.

Our party also visited what is left of Frankfurt and Darmstadt. We flew over the remains of Kassel, Magdeburg, and other devastated cities. German women and children and old men were wandering over the highways, returning to bombed-out homes or leaving bombed out cities, searching for food and shelter.

War has indeed come home to Germany and to the German people. It has come home in all the frightfulness with which the German leaders started and waged it...

... We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. -- President Truman (Radio addresses to the nation, Aug 6-9, 1945)

By present-day liberal standards, President Truman would not only be impeached as a meanie, he would be turned over to a World Court in the Hague to be tried, convicted and shot at sunrise.

Period.

Originally Posted by zilch

By present-day liberal standards WWII ended for America the day we avenged Pearl Harbor by sinking the four Japanese carriers that enabled the attack, a mere five months later at Midway Island. I'm sure you'd readily agree.

That's true, Pearl Harbor was avenged at Midway. But Japan nabbed the Phillippines too. Remember the Bataan death march? And then there were all the casualties and expense incurred just getting back what was ours. The Japs owed us for that. Lots more to avenge than just Pearl Harbor. Don't you know anything about WW II?

Originally Posted by zilch

Long ago, when graying liberal Democrats were waging war and nation-building crusades, we didn't bother ourselves with this kind of sissy-filled concern for Krauts, Nazis or Nips. It was well understood that "making the world safe for democracy" simply meant making a real bloody mess of those who had other ideas, like al Qaeda terrorist.

Here you see the mind of a true conservative. Zilch thinks it's 60 years ago.

A classic case of fighting the last war (or in this case the last 4T).

You guys have figured out the right response for the last crisis. Back then you had it wrong. But so far, as Bob Butler points out, American conservatives have managed to get it wrong every time.

In other countries they get it right sometimes, but not here. Maybe that's part of what they call American exceptionalism. America is Great because our conservatives never win the great crisis struggles.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is some aspects here that do resonate with me. However, the fundamental foundation is shaky.

As Richard Clarke suggested, invading Iraq was as if we responded to Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico. Then your analogy would hold, except it would have us being contrasted to the non-sissies who bombed the crap out of Mexico City in the 40s. Of course, that would likely have meant a German-speaking Britain today as well as us needing a Japanese visa to enjoy the lovely Hawaiian Islands (if not California) – but perhaps that is akin to having Osama running free now and Pakistan on the brink. So you see, with just the appropriate twist, your analogy can work just fine.

Well, Richard Clarke is obviously dazed or confused or unwilling to associate or acknowlege Iraq as being an Islamic nation geographically located within the boundaries of a region nicknamed the Middle East. I suppose Richard Clarke would have balked at the idea of invading Germany via invading France, Holland and North Africa as well.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That's true, Pearl Harbor was avenged at Midway. But Japan nabbed the Phillippines too. Remember the Bataan death march? And then there were all the casualties and expense incurred just getting back what was ours. The Japs owed us for that. Lots more to avenge than just Pearl Harbor. Don't you know anything about WW II?

zilch treats liberals solely as strawmen to be set up for easy deconstruction. That liberalism has a long and glorious history and has shown great ability to adapt to changing conditions and national character demonstrates its viability. It has survived fascism and communism, in fact becoming the default alternative after the downfall of those morally-bankrupt ideologies. Liberalism has another great virtue: liberal societies have never waged war against each other. The closest exception is some British attacks against some German economic interests in democratic Finland. Countries as disparate in culture as Japan, India, Botswana, and Costa Rica have succeeded with liberalism.

After World War II we imposed liberalism upon Italy, Japan, and the parts of Germany in which we (and the French and British) got post-war control. That was wise policy, as events have shown. We would have more ease in Iraq if wee tied to establish a liberal society instead of a puppet state; but Dubya is a fool and no liberal, so we so far have failed.

I predict that by January 21, 2009, Dubya will have been completely discredited (see John James Buchanan), and liberalism will have returned with a new vibrancy in America. Is zilch ready for that?

You liberals have just demonstrated a ridiculous level of arrogance by claiming that conservatives are always wrong. zilch ain't my favorite person, but he does have a little wit. He is also a leftist. Like all neo-cons.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That's true, Pearl Harbor was avenged at Midway. But Japan nabbed the Phillippines too. Remember the Bataan death march? And then there were all the casualties and expense incurred just getting back what was ours. The Japs owed us for that. Lots more to avenge than just Pearl Harbor. Don't you know anything about WW II?

The Phillippines? That's American bully imperialism at it's worst. Just like today's Middle East, we had no business being there in the first place.

As far as American prisoners go, diplomacy and negotiations with a weakened Japan would be the preferred choice for today's liberal Democrats. Don't you know anything about your party?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Here you see the mind of a true conservative. Zilch thinks it's 60 years ago. A classic case of fighting the last war (or in this case the last 4T).

War of any kind is always messy (Clinton manged to bomb quite a few innocent targets even with his sissy "30,000 feet" approach). But conservatives have understood the difference fighting this war from day one:

I understand this is a unconventional war. It's a different kind of war. It's not the kind of war that we're used to in America. The Greatest Generation was used to storming beachheads. Baby boomers such as myself, were used to getting caught in a quagmire of Vietnam where politics made decisions more than the military sometimes. Generation X was able to watch technology right in front of their TV screens -- you know, burrow into concrete bunkers in Iraq and blow them up. This is a different kind of war that requires a different type of approach and a different type of mentality.

And so we're going to slowly, but surely, tighten the net on terrorists, wherever they live. And it's essential to do so now. It's essential to do so now. The actions my government takes, in concert with other countries, the actions we take at home to defend ourselves will serve as a go-by for future presidents, or future prime ministers in Britain, for example, or future FBI directors. It is important that we stay the course, bring these people to justice, to show -- and show others how to fight the new wars of the 21st century. --Pres. Bush Press Conference (October, 2001)

Funny, I don't recall any conservative (of any stature) who's called for a WWII-style military draft... however, I've heard plenty of calls from those in your party. Furthermore, had Bush and conservatives opted for a WWII-style approach to either Afghanistan or Iraq, they'd both parking lots today.

Fact is, you're simply projecting here, I suspect, because you know what a dismal failure Clinton's nuanced legal approach to WOT was, along with your Party's constant waffling today as they "vote for it" right before they "vote against" it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In response:

1. You are backing away from your absolutism. Good. That shows maturity.
   
   
2. Stalin had stand-off allies. Would he have allowed Churchill to set up shop in Leningrad? Of course not. Then why assume Saddam would allow something equally self-defeating.
   
   
3. No, they aren't. The only thing the Legislative Branch can do is determine how many inferior courts there will be and what they are allowed to do.
   
   
4. I as merely pointing-out your incorrect statements. Do you wish to offer alternate scenarios based on fact, or are you satisfied with your current answers?
   
5. Thanks, I have spell check, and I'll be happy to use it liberally.

1. M&L, in order for one to step back from a position of absolutism, one must take the initial step forward, so to speak, in the first place.

2. You must've forgot that Stalin original stand-off type partner was Adolph Hitler.

3. The imformation you produced actually prooves that my comments/assertions were basically accurate.

4. Funny, I was merely pointing out to you a moral inconsistancey.

5. Well, just don't get overly liberal and drift into correcting other things as well.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well, Richard Clarke is obviously dazed or confused or unwilling to associate or acknowlege Iraq as being an Islamic nation geographically located within the boundaries of a region nicknamed the Middle East. I suppose Richard Clarke would have balked at the idea of invading Germany via invading France, Holland and North Africa as well.

Islamic? - Check
Middle East? - Check

Okay, boys let da shock n' awe commence. Yuck, yuck yuck. Them thar Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians, Syrians, Kuwaities, Iranians, Lebanese, Qatar, those U.A.E. types, etc, etc won't know what hit 'em. Dang, I love the smell of cruise missiles in the morning! Smells like mission accomplished.

-- Hey, KIA, if your kook meter's going full tilt, try putting it in the other room; you know, the room your not in.

Originally Posted by zilch

By present-day liberal standards WWII ended for America the day we avenged Pearl Harbor by sinking the four Japanese carriers that enabled the attack, a mere five months later at Midway Island. I'm sure you'd readily agree.

Furthermore, by present-day liberal standards, the U.S. President responsible for these memorable speech lines...

My fellow Americans:

I have just returned from Berlin, the city from which the Germans intended to rule the world. It is a ghost city. The buildings are in ruins, its economy and its people are in ruins.

Our party also visited what is left of Frankfurt and Darmstadt. We flew over the remains of Kassel, Magdeburg, and other devastated cities. German women and children and old men were wandering over the highways, returning to bombed-out homes or leaving bombed out cities, searching for food and shelter.

War has indeed come home to Germany and to the German people. It has come home in all the frightfulness with which the German leaders started and waged it...

... We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. -- President Truman (Radio addresses to the nation, Aug 6-9, 1945)

By present-day liberal standards, President Truman would not only be impeached as a meanie, he would be turned over to a World Court in the Hague to be tried, convicted and shot at sunrise.

Period.

If you want to keep up the WW2 analogy (as properly corrected, with our attacking Mexico on 12/08/1941), I am a liberal living in Pearl who lost some close friends in the attack AND I'm plenty pissed that my idiot leaders are bombing Mexico when they should be destroying the SOBs that killed my friends.

As history abundantly makes clear, most liberals/progressives have no problem with taking on and finishing off evil f--kers, but we do have a problem with stupid third-rate leaders (conservative or not) that not only bungle the job but make matters a whole lot worst. ¿Comprende?

Originally Posted by zilch

... Just like today's Middle East, we had no business being there in the first place....

This is a rather surprising statement from you;very much out of character.

Originally Posted by zilch

....Funny, I don't recall any conservative (of any stature) who's called for a WWII-style military draft...

And you're the one who brought up the WW2 comparison.

--- Are you lossing it?

It would be a shame; you've made some real progress here from your fixation on sux, sux, sux.

Originally Posted by sean '90

You liberals have just demonstrated a ridiculous level of arrogance by claiming that conservatives are always wrong. zilch ain't my favorite person, but he does have a little wit. He is also a leftist. Like all neo-cons.

No, conservatives aren't always wrong. They are the appropriate response to populists who threaten property rights, populists who fail to understand that entrepreneurs at their best are creators of wealth that does good for all, populists who would tread on civil liberties for achievement of economic follies.

The neo-cons are a different matter.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If you want to keep up the WW2 analogy (as properly corrected, with our attacking Mexico on 12/08/1941), I am a liberal living in Pearl who lost some close friends in the attack AND I'm plenty pissed that my idiot leaders are bombing Mexico when they should be destroying the SOBs that killed my friends.

As history abundantly makes clear, most liberals/progressives have no problem with taking on and finishing off evil f--kers, but we do have a problem with stupid third-rate leaders (conservative or not) that not only bungle the job but make matters a whole lot worst. ¿Comprende?

To someone like zilch, a modern-day liberal is a person who, upon wondering why anyone would so hate us as to seize a jetliner and crash it into a skyscraper, would convert to the ideology of the perverts who did such a thing.

In fact we liberals thought that Dubya would follow a predictable script that results in the decisive obliteration of the entity culpable of the 9/11 attack, and would stay on the script until the job was done. To our regret Dubya failed to complete the job. Even in Iraq, Dubya said "Bring 'em on!" when asked about extreme America-haters throughout the Islamic world -- to the detriment not only of our troops, but also of the Iraqi people who have endured the worst effects of the civil war that followed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Dubya, as usual, doesn't have a clue.

Let's not hear any more talk about "fighting them over there" or "spreading democracy." We are there for the oil.

announcements in Baghdad and Iraq that there is a quid pro quo deal in which the U.S. will babysit the Shiite-dominated Al-Maliki regime indefinitely in return for giving U.S. entrepreneurs first crack at Iraq’s riches, which lest there be any doubt are its vast untapped oil reserves and not figs or palm-frond chachkes.

The arrangement carries the weighty title of a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America.” It is described as a work in progress but in reality is an all-but-done deal.

Any questions?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To someone like zilch, a modern-day liberal is a person who, upon wondering why anyone would so hate us as to seize a jetliner and crash it into a skyscraper, would convert to the ideology of the perverts who did such a thing.

It's not as if there's not a strong precedent for this kind of conversion to perversion. I mean, liberals were, at one time, quite fond of "uncle Joe."

Thus, for "modern-day liberals," a renewed fond friendship with the perverted fellow found speaking in my signature is not all that far off the mark, historically speaking of course. History does tend to cycle in "rhymes" you know?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

3. The imformation you produced actually prooves that my comments/assertions were basically accurate.

It does not. Congress established and currently funds the court system, but judges do not work for Congress or any other legislative body. They are judicial employees, and in the greater sense, they are public servants working for We the People.

Congress can impeach federal judges for misconduct in office, and it gives advice and consent to the executive who is responsible for making the appointments.

I suppose one could take this to an extreme and say that if Congress funds any agency, it employs it. Which would mean that some (if not all) Executive Branch personnel work for Congress, since Congress appropriates the cash.

I find that absurd. I am a government employee, but I do not answer directly to the legislative body that funds my agency. I answer to a director and an appointed board. And I serve anyone who comes into my building or calls my number.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Let's not hear any more talk about "fighting them over there" or "spreading democracy." We are there for the oil.



Any questions?

Rick, I'm in the midst of listening to this audiobook. It's appalling stuff. We never heard about most of this in history classes, or if we did, it was dressed up as American exceptionalism.

It's not about spreading democracy, but about spreading corporate power and exploiting the natural resources of other nations.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It does not. Congress established and currently funds the court system, but judges do not work for Congress or any other legislative body. They are judicial employees, and in the greater sense, they are public servants working for We the People.

Congress can impeach federal judges for misconduct in office, and it gives advice and consent to the executive who is responsible for making the appointments.

I suppose one could take this to an extreme and say that if Congress funds any agency, it employs it. Which would mean that some (if not all) Executive Branch personnel work for Congress, since Congress appropriates the cash.

I find that absurd. I am a government employee, but I do not answer directly to the legislative body that funds my agency. I answer to a director and an appointed board. And I serve anyone who comes into my building or calls my number.

Kiff, you basically presented a theorectical perspective type argument while tip toeing acknowleging the facts. OK, you admit the Legislative branch established the federal legal system. You also admit that the Legislative branch confirms their appointments. You admit the Legislative branch has the power to terminate their employment. You even admit the Legislative branch pays them to basically serve We The People. The evidence slants heavily in favor of my so-called assertions being quite accurate, don't you think.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiff, you basically presented a theorectical perspective type argument while tip toeing acknowleging the facts. OK, you admit the Legislative branch established the federal legal system. You also admit that the Legislative branch confirms their appointments. You admit the Legislative branch has the power to terminate their employment. You even admit the Legislative branch pays them to basically serve We The People. The evidence slants heavily in favor of my so-called assertions being quite accurate, don't you think.

No, I think you are stretching the facts to suit your belief that the courts don't have the right to put curbs on the executive branch, and you still have not shown a legal or constitutional basis for this.

Bush's surveillance programs are questionable (at best) under the US Constitution. The judicial system is set up to make that call. That is its responsibility -- even if Congress does fund it, and even if the Executive appoints its members. It is an independent branch of government.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiff, you basically presented a theorectical perspective type argument while tip toeing acknowleging the facts. OK, you admit the Legislative branch established the federal legal system. You also admit that the Legislative branch confirms their appointments. You admit the Legislative branch has the power to terminate their employment. You even admit the Legislative branch pays them to basically serve We The People. The evidence slants heavily in favor of my so-called assertions being quite accurate, don't you think.

I can't stand it anymore. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

KIA please read this:

United States Constitution




Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Lest you think that I'm taking Mr. Madison's work out of context,
here is the rest of the document