Bush Fails To Deliver Again

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
We have contingency plans to invade every country on th planet.

It’s not ambition - its good defense strategy.

It’s good OFFENSE strategy too!

Defense strategy - as in Department of Defense.

Are you seriously arguing semantics?

Semantics? We have invasion plans for every country on the planet, and have had for decades. It is what a strong military does.

Maybe you and vroom want to call it imperialist pig planning. Go ahead. But I can promise you that, regardless of who wins in 13 months, they will have the same plans in place. What will you call it when Hillary has the same military contingencies? A stroke of genius?

[/quote]

Probably the only one during her tenure, if she wins…

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I say we collectively pinkie-swear not to vote for Bush in the next election.

Can we do that for Clinton while we’re at it? [/quote]

Oh I swear I won’t vote for that old stale pussy.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I say we collectively pinkie-swear not to vote for Bush in the next election.

Can we do that for Clinton while we’re at it?

Oh I swear I won’t vote for that old stale pussy.[/quote]

This article,IMHO, does a fair job of describing the state of Hillary’s campaign. The headline says it all.

However, I believe that unless Algore runs against her, and if the GOP doesn’t get their shit grouped a little tighter, she’s going to be the first female president. Not that I have anything against a female president, it’s just that I’m more of a Condi person rather than a Hillary person. Political ideology trumps gender in my book.

Anyways, I’m rambling. Read on…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=&sid=aOOcRBgoYXPw

[b]Hillary's Campaign Is Efficient, Tough, Joyless: Albert R. Hunt[/b] 


[i]Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- During the past 15 years, I've been to three small dinners with Hillary Clinton. As expected, her substantive command of whatever the topic was impressive. 

More surprising was that each time I came away struck by her ability to charm, and even by her decent sense of humor. So did the others, including a cadre of hack political journalists like myself who attended two of the sessions. 

It is surprising because this isn't the Hillary Clinton, the leading presidential candidate for 2008, who most Americans see out on the stump. 

Her campaign has been brilliant. It is great at small stuff like bracket scheduling -- making sure she or a surrogate appears right before and after a major appearance by an opponent. It is equally good on big stuff. Eight months ago, Clinton, 59, was bedeviled by the party's antiwar base for her initial support of the Iraq conflict; today it's practically a non-issue. 

The Clinton campaign is efficient, effective, disciplined and tough. 

It also seems to be joyless, humorless and lacking in heart and soul. 

A take-no-prisoners, us vs. them mindset has served her well. She has widened her lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination; most polls show her defeating any Republican in the general election. 

No More Easy Ride 

Still, there is unusual hostility from neutral, and even some ostensibly pro-Clinton, people, and especially in the press. The media has its sights on Hillary, and scrutiny during the next month promises to be more vigorous than the relatively easy ride she has gotten so far. 

That naturally happens to a front-runner. It will be with more vehemence in this case because of greater enmity. 

It may not matter now. But invariably there will be a crisis -- losing the Iowa caucuses, perhaps a general election upheaval, or some cataclysm early in her presidency -- and the sharks will be in the water. 

Her campaign is tailored to that approach. There are lots of titles and talk of a diverse set of decision-makers. The real impresario is Mark Penn, a brilliant, socially inept disciple of Dick Morris, the scandal-tainted former guru to Bill Clinton. 

Penn has written a fascinating new book, ``Microtrends,'' in which he slices and dices the American electorate: Protestant Hispanics, vegan children, unisexuals, the upscale tattooed. 

No Sense of Mission 

He has an unsurpassed grasp of the many parts of the American electorate; not as clear is whether he understands the whole. And that's the way he's directing the campaign. It is unequaled for 14-point programs. Yet other than offering voters a Clinton restoration, there's little sense of mission. 

The Penn political model isn't Bill Clinton's successful 1992 challenge for the presidency. It is more Karl Rove, who masterminded George W. Bush's victories. Devise a comprehensive game plan replete with exhaustive numbers and historical context, and execute it with iron discipline. 

The problem comes when something unforeseen develops. Great political strategists are like great football coaches; they have to be able to throw out the game plan when exigencies arrive. For you non-fans of American football, that was true of the greatest coach of them all, Vince Lombardi, who totally revised the Green Bay Packers game plan in a fabled 1966 championship contest against the Dallas Cowboys. 

It's also the trademark of political strategists like Ronald Reagan's Stu Spencer or Bill Clinton's James Carville. 

The People Problem 

Rove, for all his genius, wasn't good at adapting. That almost cost Bush the 2000 election and doomed the president's top second-term domestic priority, the overhaul of Social Security, a campaign Rove also orchestrated. 

The hunch from other political experts is that Penn, a public relations man when he isn't directing the Clinton campaign, has the same weakness. He is the best at data and demographics, not so great at understanding people. That's fine as long as you control the agenda; political campaigns have a way, however, of spiraling out of control. 

Campaigns, it is said, are a reflection of the candidate. Senator Clinton herself is often a control freak. That trait was honed during the Clinton administration controversies -- some really were attributable to what she called the ``vast right- wing conspiracy'' -- but she came to the White House with much of that state of mind. 

``Over the years she had become extremely careful about what she revealed,'' author Carl Bernstein writes in a biography; and that was in the pre-White House years. 

Hostile `Establishment' 

She really believes the Washington ``establishment'' is hostile. Indeed, in Georgetown salons, you don't hear a lot of pro-Hillary chatter. Yet whatever the establishment is, it surely includes figures like Vernon Jordan, America's most prominent uber lawyer/investment banker, and Strobe Talbott, head of the Brookings Institution, both Clintonians. 

The Clintons have the capacity, it seems, to create their own establishment. 

Moreover, the griping about the media isn't without merit. She is a target of some of America's bloviating television pundits. 

Yet the Clinton campaign often sees a monolithic media -- whether mainstream print, broadcast or even Internet bloggers -- and it's the enemy. That produces a pervasive cynicism. 

Ultimately, that may cause problems for her campaign; it certainly will make it harder to govern if she wins the presidency. 

No Softness Here 

There's a lot to dislike about the media, and more openness isn't without a downside. Witness the flak that Barack Obama is taking for his honesty in saying he stopped wearing an American flag lapel years ago because he viewed it as cheap symbolism rather than a genuine show of patriotism. 

Clinton has conquered the liability that many thought would doom the first serious female candidate -- softness, especially in a security-conscious era. 

That gives her the chance to be a bit less controlled, to reveal a few more real emotions. That might produce a gaffe or two. It might also reveal a Hillary Clinton who's better and more attractive than her campaign. 

To contact the writer of this column: Albert R. Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net . 

Last Updated: October 14, 2007 09:36 EDT [/i]



[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
We have contingency plans to invade every country on th planet.
[/quote]

Not to quibble, but, we didn’t have those plans in place for france until the recent elections. In the event of conflict, we just planned on asking politely to please surrender.

Same goes for an independent quebec.

Otherwise, your comment is quite correct.

JeffR

T-dolt, you might have noticed that I haven’t tried to offer an analysis, spinning it to support left or right claims. Whether or not Weasily is a dick or not isn’t really the point.

I’ve been asking a question. Maybe you’d care to put some thought into the question?

Alternately, as seems to have become the case, you can all sit around in a big right wing circle jerk and pat each other on the back for thinking the same way.

Is that really so fun or are some of you so desperate to find similarly minded people that it works for you?

[quote]vroom wrote:
T-dolt, you might have noticed that I haven’t tried to offer an analysis, spinning it to support left or right claims. Whether or not Weasily is a dick or not isn’t really the point.

I’ve been asking a question. Maybe you’d care to put some thought into the question?

Alternately, as seems to have become the case, you can all sit around in a big right wing circle jerk and pat each other on the back for thinking the same way.

Is that really so fun or are some of you so desperate to find similarly minded people that it works for you?[/quote]

Your question has been answered; you just didn’t like it. It was answered by knocking out your assumption that it was an actual plan.

If you want to start with the ridiculous assumption that there was an actual plan, then we can all follow with some ridiculous speculation as to why it wasn’t followed. If you accept what Clark himself implied that it was a wargaming scenario, then your question doesn’t make any sense.

[quote]vroom wrote:
T-dolt, you might have noticed that I haven’t tried to offer an analysis, spinning it to support left or right claims. [/quote]

Correct, I noticed - nothing unusual here. Par for the course: you offered no insight and instead opted to insult me by cleverly (hint: sarcasm) manipulating my name. Congratulations on living up to expectations.

I never said he was a dick, I said:

  1. Clark’s assertions seem dubious given that he had no access to the memo and began to qualify his statements

  2. I looked for an alternative reason why Clark may be trying to gain some traction with a dubious story

I even gave Clark the benefit of the doubt, noting that the Angry Left’s criticism of him in the Balkans may be unfair.

It was an objective analysis - I merely noted that Clark may be trying to trade on a speculative story for personal reasons. No more, no less.

[quote]I’ve been asking a question. Maybe you’d care to put some thought into the question?

Alternately, as seems to have become the case, you can all sit around in a big right wing circle jerk and pat each other on the back for thinking the same way.[/quote]

Wow, Vroom - you never change, do you?

Because I noted that Boston Barrier had a pinpoint analysis on Clark’s problematic claim, you suddenly dissolve into a tantrum?

Here, I’ll make it all better:

BostonBarrister, you are an idiot and your analysis made no sense.

Feel better, Vroom?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom wrote:
T-dolt, you might have noticed that I haven’t tried to offer an analysis, spinning it to support left or right claims. Whether or not Weasily is a dick or not isn’t really the point.

I’ve been asking a question. Maybe you’d care to put some thought into the question?

Alternately, as seems to have become the case, you can all sit around in a big right wing circle jerk and pat each other on the back for thinking the same way.

Is that really so fun or are some of you so desperate to find similarly minded people that it works for you?

Your question has been answered; you just didn’t like it. It was answered by knocking out your assumption that it was an actual plan.

If you want to start with the ridiculous assumption that there was an actual plan, then we can all follow with some ridiculous speculation as to why it wasn’t followed. If you accept what Clark himself implied that it was a wargaming scenario, then your question doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

LOL

Boston, are you insane? That analysis is laughable. First of all, there was a plan…even though Clark himself said there wasn’t. How do I know? It’s Bush - c’mon. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, lawyer boy. The fact that you won’t concede there is a plan just shows you refuse to think for yourself. Learn to be an independent thinker, dude.

Second, you sir are a cheerleader, you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and I have seen you kick homeless puppies while regurgitating right-wing talking points. Have you no decency with your making excuses for the neocons?

Pretty good TB.

You got in a “Kool-Aid” reference, and a combination “right-wing” and “talking points,” along with a “cheerleader” accusation. The pitch was near perfect – my only complaint was that I wasn’t accused of “spinning” everything as an explanation of why I’m incorrect – then it would have been perfect.

Good show.

Bush can piss off lefties and even disenchant them from their own party. This must count for something…

Bush? Nation building?

Naah, that can’t be. He’s a Republican, a conservative. He’s all about small governemnt, fiscal responsibility and all that.

Boy, he fooled you good, didn’t he. He probably did more damage to the US than your worst ennemy ever could. And it will decades to recover. If (big if), if you ever will recover completely.

Hey, if you really hate America, you voted for Bush.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Bush? Nation building?

Naah, that can’t be. He’s a Republican, a conservative. He’s all about small governemnt, fiscal responsibility and all that.

Boy, he fooled you good, didn’t he. He probably did more damage to the US than your worst ennemy ever could. And it will decades to recover. If (big if), if you ever will recover completely.

Hey, if you really hate America, you voted for Bush.[/quote]

We’ll be weakened so much, we won’t be able to rescue Belgium, for the 3rd time in a hundred years.

Learn to speak Arabic, Wreckless.

An interesting piece in the LA Times of today.

Straitjacket Bush

The president’s warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he is psychotic. Really.

October 25, 2007

Forget impeachment.

[i]Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn’t be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.

Because they’ve clearly gone mad. Exhibit A: We’re in the middle of a disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration’s interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look around and decide it’s a great time to start another war.

That would be with Iran, and you’d have to be deaf not to hear the war drums. Last week, Bush remarked that “if you’re interested in avoiding World War III . . . you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” On Sunday, Cheney warned of “the Iranian regime’s efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power . . . [we] cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions.” On Tuesday, Bush insisted on the need “to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat.”

Huh? Iran is now a major threat to Europe? The Iranians are going to launch a nuclear missile (that they don’t yet possess) against Europe (for reasons unknown because, as far as we know, they’re not mad at anyone in Europe)? This is lunacy in action.

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush’s invocation of “the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon,” Zakaria concluded that “the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?”

Planet Cheney.

Zakaria may be misinterpreting the president’s remark about World War III though. He saw it as a dangerously loopy Bush prediction about the future behavior of a nuclear Iran – the idea being, presumably, that possessing “the knowledge” to make a nuclear weapon would so empower Iran’s repressive leaders that they’ll giddily rush out and start World War III.

But you could read Bush’s remark as a madman’s threat rather than a madman’s prediction – as a warning to recalcitrant states, from Germany to Russia, that don’t seem to share his crazed obsession with Iran. The message: Fall into line with administration policy toward Iran or you can count on the U.S.A. to try to start World War III on its own. And when it comes to sparking global conflagration, a U.S. attack on Iran might be just the thing. Yee haw!

You’d better believe these guys would do it too. Why not? They have nothing to lose – they’re out of office in 15 months anyway. Après Bush-Cheney, le déluge! (Have fun, Hillary.)

But all this creates a conundrum. What’s a constitutional democracy to do when the president and vice president lose their marbles?

The U.S. is full of ordinary people with serious forms of mental illness – delusional people with violent fantasies who think they’re the president, or who think they get instructions from the CIA through their dental fillings.

The problem with Bush is that he is the president – and he gives instructions to the CIA and military, without having to go through his dental fillings.

Impeachment’s not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant. But despite their impressive foresight in other areas, the framers unaccountably neglected to include an involuntary civil commitment procedure in the Constitution.

Still, don’t lose hope. By enlisting the aid of mental health professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law is already in place: If a “court or jury finds that [a] person is mentally ill and . . . is likely to injure himself or other persons if allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization.”

I’ll even serve on the jury. When it comes to averting World War III, it’s really the least I can do.[/i]

The LA Times should be embarrassed publishing a piece like that.