A tale of a war won, then lost.

[ndebord]

A tale of a war won, then lost.

(No...not Iraq, but Afghanistan)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10469334

[Judy G. Russell]

A tale of a war won, then lost.It was clear that we'd lost, and lost big, when Karzai ended up inviting the Taliban back into the government... and they said no.

[ndebord]

It was clear that we'd lost, and lost big, when Karzai ended up inviting the Taliban back into the government... and they said no.

Judy,

Yup. We have managed to outsource State Department expertise to NeoCons in the Pentagon and VP's office. None of whom have a clue.

[Judy G. Russell]

Yup. We have managed to outsource State Department expertise to NeoCons in the Pentagon and VP's office. None of whom have a clue.And now we're rattling sabres at Russia. Geez Louise...

[ndebord]

And now we're rattling sabres at Russia. Geez Louise...


Judy,

And North Korea.


:-(

[Judy G. Russell]

And North Korea. :-(Didn't we just (amazingly) reach some sort of agreement with North Korea???

[ndebord]

Didn't we just (amazingly) reach some sort of agreement with North Korea???

Judy,

That was "just" before the IDF hit the Syrian nuclear reactor built by the North Koreans (mainly). SIGH

[Judy G. Russell]

That was "just" before the IDF hit the Syrian nuclear reactor built by the North Koreans (mainly). SIGHAmazing how the Israelis seem always to be able to take out the nuclear reactors we can't hardly even locate.

[ndebord]

Amazing how the Israelis seem always to be able to take out the nuclear reactors we can't hardly even locate.

Judy,

Who said we are or were competent in the spy game? The Brits, the KGB, Mossad (even DGSE), all put us to shame.

[Judy G. Russell]

Who said we are or were competent in the spy game? The Brits, the KGB, Mossad (even DGSE), all put us to shame.Competent? Us? The "there are weapons of mass destruction" types???

[ndebord]

Competent? Us? The "there are weapons of mass destruction" types???

Judy,

We are a young Republic (or Empire, depending upon your point of view) and we make missteps. The Church commission was just such an overreach by our civilian masters. It killed off our covert ops which were not much to start with (google mistakes made with West German spys and how much of our CIA ops were fed directly into KGB headquarters).

MI5, even with Philby, etc., was and is much better.

We will improve (or sink). It depends upon the Republican Party sinking into obscurity. They have lost the right to rule imo by the sheer magnitude of their incompetence, propensity for corruption and cooption by nondemocratic elements in society.

[Judy G. Russell]

We are a young Republic (or Empire, depending upon your point of view) and we make missteps....We will improve (or sink). It depends upon the Republican Party sinking into obscurity. They have lost the right to rule imo by the sheer magnitude of their incompetence, propensity for corruption and cooption by nondemocratic elements in society.I certainly hope you're right about both improving and the GOP...

[Lindsey]

I certainly hope you're right about both improving and the GOP...
Well, there are sure a lot of Republican Congressmen deciding it's time to retire. I think they can read the handwriting on the wall. And talk about the world turned upside down: the Democratic presidential candidates are beating the Republican ones at fundraising hands down.

And to think that not three years ago, they were saying that the 2004 election meant the end of the Democrats as a viable party...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, there are sure a lot of Republican Congressmen deciding it's time to retire. I think they can read the handwriting on the wall. And talk about the world turned upside down: the Democratic presidential candidates are beating the Republican ones at fundraising hands down. And to think that not three years ago, they were saying that the 2004 election meant the end of the Democrats as a viable party...I never believed the "end of the Democrats" bit... but I wouldn't be so quick to count the GOP as down and out. I can't imagine Hilary being anything but vulnerable, on several counts, so a lot will depend on who the candidates are.

[Lindsey]

I never believed the "end of the Democrats" bit... but I wouldn't be so quick to count the GOP as down and out. I can't imagine Hilary being anything but vulnerable, on several counts, so a lot will depend on who the candidates are.
I didn't think the Democratic party would disappear entirely, but it certainly did look like they might be in for a several decades long minority. But that all got up-ended when Bush decided to spend the tons of political capital he didn't have to go after Social Security. First he goes after Social Security, then he gives the finger to a city levelled by disaster, now he's going after health insurance for needy children; is the guy completely politically tone deaf??

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I wouldn't be so quick to count the GOP as down and out. I can't imagine Hilary being anything but vulnerable, on several counts, so a lot will depend on who the candidates are.
I forgot to address the second part of your messge.

I'm not counting the Republicans out of anything, especially since they are a much more effective minority than the Democrats are. (Of course, they've had more practice at it ...) But I take a bit of a contrarian view on Hillary Clinton. I'm inclined to think that rather than being so vulnerable she really has two great advantages over anyone else in either party right now: (1) all of her negatives are out and have been for a long time; Republicans long ago drove them as high as they are going to go; and (2) years of trash talk painting her as Lady Macbeth have lowered expectations about her to such a great degree than when non-Kool-Aid drinkers encounter the real person and find out that she is actually a warm and gracious human being, their opinion of her soars upward.

The greatest problem she is going to have is not with the Republicans, but with an embittered hard-core left who cannot understand why everyone is not flocking to the Nader camp.

I say all that as someone who is not entirely sold on Hillary as president, though I certainly think she would be a better one than anyone in the Republican presidential field. (It goes without saying that she would be a great improvement on the present holder of that office.) John Edwards has been my first choice for a long time, but when he decided to opt to use public funds, I think he doomed any chance he might have as a presidential candidate, though not necessarily as a nominee. There's no way he can hold to those spending limits and remain a viable general election contender in the current political arena. It's sad that is the case, but I think that is the truth of it.

So I don't know; Obama doesn't seem to have been able to sustain his initial fire, Richardson has a distressing tendency to swallow his foot whole (not to mention that he often comes across as a bit goofy), and while Chris Dodd has been winning cheers from the Democratic base lately, I'm not sure I can see him bowling the electorate over. Hillary, by contrast, has shown herself to be a very capable candidate. She has run a nearly flawless campaign so far, and she is beating all the Republican candidates in the polls. Giuliani seems to be the best candidate the Republicans have against her, but the evangelicals seem determined to take him down. Odd that they seem to prefer Mitt Romney, whose past positions on social issues would seem just as problematic for them as Giuliani's, but I guess they sense that Romney is a more reliable flip-flopper than Rudy is, and that Mitt was really just faking being a moderate in Massachusetts.

--Lindsey

[ktinkel]

I forgot to address the second part of your messge.

I'm not counting the Republicans out of anything, especially since they are a much more effective minority than the Democrats are. (Of course, they've had more practice at it ...) But I take a bit of a contrarian view on Hillary Clinton. I'm inclined to think that rather than being so vulnerable she really has two great advantages over anyone else in either party right now: (1) all of her negatives are out and have been for a long time; Republicans long ago drove them as high as they are going to go; and (2) years of trash talk painting her as Lady Macbeth have lowered expectations about her to such a great degree than when non-Kool-Aid drinkers encounter the real person and find out that she is actually a warm and gracious human being, their opinion of her soars upward.

The greatest problem she is going to have is not with the Republicans, but with an embittered hard-core left who cannot understand why everyone is not flocking to the Nader camp.

I say all that as someone who is not entirely sold on Hillary as president, though I certainly think she would be a better one than anyone in the Republican presidential field. (It goes without saying that she would be a great improvement on the present holder of that office.) John Edwards has been my first choice for a long time, but when he decided to opt to use public funds, I think he doomed any chance he might have as a presidential candidate, though not necessarily as a nominee. There's no way he can hold to those spending limits and remain a viable general election contender in the current political arena. It's sad that is the case, but I think that is the truth of it.

So I don't know; Obama doesn't seem to have been able to sustain his initial fire, Richardson has a distressing tendency to swallow his foot whole (not to mention that he often comes across as a bit goofy), and while Chris Dodd has been winning cheers from the Democratic base lately, I'm not sure I can see him bowling the electorate over. Hillary, by contrast, has shown herself to be a very capable candidate. She has run a nearly flawless campaign so far, and she is beating all the Republican candidates in the polls. Giuliani seems to be the best candidate the Republicans have against her, but the evangelicals seem determined to take him down. Odd that they seem to prefer Mitt Romney, whose past positions on social issues would seem just as problematic for them as Giuliani's, but I guess they sense that Romney is a more reliable flip-flopper than Rudy is, and that Mitt was really just faking being a moderate in Massachusetts.

--LindseyNice summary. I have some of the same positions.

[Judy G. Russell]

First he goes after Social Security, then he gives the finger to a city levelled by disaster, now he's going after health insurance for needy children; is the guy completely politically tone deaf??He just hears a one-note band, I'm afraid.

[Judy G. Russell]

I take a bit of a contrarian view on Hillary Clinton. I'm inclined to think that rather than being so vulnerable she really has two great advantages over anyone else in either party right now: (1) all of her negatives are out and have been for a long time; Republicans long ago drove them as high as they are going to go; and (2) years of trash talk painting her as Lady Macbeth have lowered expectations about her to such a great degree than when non-Kool-Aid drinkers encounter the real person and find out that she is actually a warm and gracious human being, their opinion of her soars upward.I sincerely hope you're right on that, and agree that she's run essentially a perfect campaign so far. I just think that once the GOP gets finished savaging each other, she's going to be their great uniter -- as much as they dislike each other, they dislike her more.

[ndebord]

He just hears a one-note band, I'm afraid.

Judy,

And perhaps it is because he has just a one-note brain.

[Judy G. Russell]

perhaps it is because he has just a one-note brain.One cell for sure...

[Lindsey]

I just think that once the GOP gets finished savaging each other, she's going to be their great uniter -- as much as they dislike each other, they dislike her more.
Well, I think they'd unite in opposition to any Democrat at all, but you have a point that Hillary could serve as a motivator to get out the base. But that's why the discipline she has shown is all the more important; both Kerry and Gore stumbled in the course of their presidential campaigns and gave the Republicans openings to savage them. Hillary Clinton is not likely to make the same kind of mistake. And she was a great motivator for Democrats when she was campaigning for her husband -- she was the best fundraiser the Democratic party had.

As I said, I'm not entirely sold on Hillary Clinton as a presidential possibility, because she's too far into the "business as usual" camp to suit me, but I'm not against her, either.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

you have a point that Hillary could serve as a motivator to get out the base. But that's why the discipline she has shown is all the more importantIt's certainly important and, quite frankly, I don't understand the absolute vitriol with which the GOP and the right in general speaks of Hillary. But it's there, and it's something we may have to confront.

[Lindsey]

It's certainly important and, quite frankly, I don't understand the absolute vitriol with which the GOP and the right in general speaks of Hillary. But it's there, and it's something we may have to confront.
She seems to have learned the lesson on that score quite well. When she's attacked, she responds immediately and aggessively. It's why Obama is having a hard time zinging her on anything, even when he has decent grounds for complaint, like with her vote on Kyle-Lieberman. (Of course, the fact that Obama himself missed that vote makes it a little hard for him to complain about anyone else's. His supporters will say that he got burned when Harry Reid scheduled a vote at the last minute after saying there would be no vote any time soon, and Obama was campaigning in New Hampshire. Perhaps so, but I can't help but feel that was a novice mistake.)

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

She seems to have learned the lesson on that score quite well. When she's attacked, she responds immediately and aggessively.If she wins the nomination, I hope she's able to keep it up AND that somehow the depth and breadth of the absolute hatred the right has for her won't mire us all...

[Lindsey]

If she wins the nomination, I hope she's able to keep it up AND that somehow the depth and breadth of the absolute hatred the right has for her won't mire us all...
Yeah, I hope so, too. There are obviously no depths to which the dirty tricksters of the right will not sink. And while not all of the political right could be said to be in league with the dirty tricksters, they don't seem to mind benefitting from their activities.

The 2008 election will be a real test, because the "loyal Bushies" have been hard at work trying to subvert the entire U.S. government and make it a political arm of the Republican Party. This election is going to be rugby with the referees all working for the other side.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The 2008 election will be a real test, because the "loyal Bushies" have been hard at work trying to subvert the entire U.S. government and make it a political arm of the Republican Party. This election is going to be rugby with the referees all working for the other side.I wish I saw a reason to disagree with you on this one...

[Lindsey]

I wish I saw a reason to disagree with you on this one...
And they are still busy stacking the decks: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004651.php

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

And they are still busy stacking the decks: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004651.phpThey'll be busy at that task right up until January 20, 2009, I expect.

[Lindsey]

They'll be busy at that task right up until January 20, 2009, I expect.
I'm afraid you are probably right. :(

--Lindsey