a.SafaLab
The Neolibertarian NetworkI’m Not Taking Sides Here…
… but bipartisanship seems to me to be as valuable as multilateralism. Andy McCarthy says this about the Iraq Study Group:
Here’s to Bipartisan Consensus! [Andy McCarthy]
Memo to the Iraq Solipsism Group:Let’s say 10 sages get together and are asked, “What is 2 + 2?” If half of them say 4 and the other half say 2, it is not admirable that, in order to achieve consensus, they unanimously agree to tell everyone that the answer is 3. It is, to the contrary, moronic — and, if the said consensus error is to be the foundation of national security policy, it is perilous.
I just don’t get how the media and the solons themselves are willing to celebrate error as triumph, in a life-and-death matter, simply because everyone is willing to be wrong together. I’m trying to figure out whether that is more craven or dumb — I’ll be back to you once I’ve reached consensus.
I haven’t read the report, but from what I heared it seemed much less than what it’s made out to be – except the part about the members sitting in the glow of self-congradulatory pomposity.
The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of Dave Budge and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated.
Print This Post
I’d say their analysis of the situation is reasonably good. The total lack of any useable ideas to solve the problem says a lot though. Everyone jumps on Bush for how he is doing things, but there are ZERO good ideas of what to do differently. Talk to Iran, Syria and the insurgents themselves to ask for help? Are these fools serious?
Dave-
I thought this situation was too complicated for you to wrap your mind around? I thought you weren’t taking a position on the Iraq war because it was too complicated? These guys might have slivers in their ass from sitting on the fence, but at least they had the balls to approach the fence in the first place.
In any case, their reccomendations provide some type of change. While it may not be extreme enough for either side, it is change. Our present course isn’t quite working.
One thing that Baker did that you may appreciate: He says that the funding for the war needs to go through the normal appropriations process, not pushed through in the late hours of the night with no oversight. This forces the Democrats who will be in control to take a position on the war and on the funding for it. They can’t keep straddling the fence on this thing, which may help the Republicans in ‘08.
Rocky- When you’re losing a war, you talk with your enemies. Blame the ones who got us into this for forcing us into this situation. But it must be done.
Did I take a position? Let me know if I did.
And by the way, the supplemental funding bills were never done in the late hours of the night with no oversight. They were debated as special appropriations bills in the full light of day. You better check your facts before spinning off. That said, I agree with Baker on the issue. The problem with supplementals, if you know jackshit about the federal budget, is that they are not included in the budget deficit. Neither are emergancy bills like Katrina relief funding, 9/11 relief, etc. That’s why, when we were running “surpluses” in the Clinton era the national debt went up. It’s just another good way to pull the wool over citizen’s eyes.
“Did I take a position? Let me know if I did.”
Well Dave, you post an article that says:
” just don’t get how the media and the solons themselves are willing to celebrate error as triumph, in a life-and-death matter, simply because everyone is willing to be wrong together.”
and then you talk about the members and their pomposity. So, silly me, I assumed that you were posting that excerpt because you agreed with its clear disagreement with the Baker-Hamilton report.
But then again, I guess you didn’t just come out and say “I disagree with the findings of the report.” You just IMPLIED it. Kind of like you imply all of the time that you agreed with the decision to go to war in the first place while pretending to have this modest, I don’t know everything, self-congratulatory air of neutrality. It’s clear that you agreed with the decision but don’t have the balls to say so. I just assumed the same thing was happening here. Once again, silly me.
I’ll just go ahead and say that “in the dead of night” was a figure of speech that essentially means that they lacked sufficient review by our government. and then I’ll just go ahead and quote the report, which, if you know jack shit about it, actually says essentially the same thing I did:
“This means the funding requests are drawn up outside the normal budget process…and move quickly to the White House with minimal scrutiny. Bypassing the normal review erodes budget discipline and accountability.”
…”authorizing committees are bypassed.”
The commission report, if you know jack shit about it, does not say that the problem with these appropriations is that it’s not included in budget deficits. The key word here is oversight. It was lacking. That said, I’m glad we agree on this issue, but you’re still a dick.
I said I didn’t read the report. I also just quoted one person’s opinion with out comment. I liked the thought.
But as always, you “T” fellas are full of good manners.
“Without comment?” Good one, Dave.
Anyways, good manners don’t work with you. You see, Craig and I disagree all the time and even resort to a little name-calling here and there, but I still think we get along just fine. I even posted an affirmative comment on Mike’s blog once, and he took it pretty damned well for all the rancorous arguments we’ve had in the past.
You? Well, you prefer to tell me that I don’t know jackshit about the budget process and then cry like a girl when my manners aren’t respectful enough towards your superior intellect (even when you’re wrong…)
I’m perfectly willing to get along with you, Dave, and I’ve even tried to in the past. But you just can’t get over yourself, and you seem to like these highschoolish long-lasting blog-feuds. Fine by me, I suppose. I still enjoy arguing with you, even if you are a dick.
I rest my case.
Double Dick. I enjoyed this. I’m proud of that boy.
Ah, pride in opprobrium. Classy.
I guess arguing with Dave is now “shameful conduct.”
Personally, I feel terrible. How could I have thought to question this irreproachable genius who has no fault and never resorts to name-calling or childish antics?
My God, what have I done?
Let’s just set the record straight. First, my post intended to make the point that bipartisanship, in and of itself, is a moronic goal and that commissions, such as these, get so full of themselves that their egos tend to overshadow their creditability. If I failed that point (which obviously went over your head) I guess it’s my fault.
Secondly, my point about the commissions notice of the use of supplemental appropriation bills to fund the war is pretty much in line with the commission – regardless of how you interpret it. The “lack of oversight” meme, however, is something of a red herring. Congress has the final oversight, and policy wonks in committees are available to legislators to give advice (and supplementals also don’t have the proclivity of pork stuffing as do regular appropriations bills – one reason that presidents use the process.)
Next, if you’ve ever noticed, unlike the “T” boys, I don’t make it a habit of going into other’s blogs and engage in churlish name calling. I think of it as rude, ill-mannered behavior. (Well, with the exception of calling Larry Kralj names inasmuch as he always starts it.) But I do reserve the right to make any comments here – in any context – as do you on your blog.
Additionally, unlike you, I don’t enjoy arguing with you or the other “T”. Neither of you can seem to stand back and make a critical analysis of what I’m saying. Your pathologies include putting words in my mouth, name calling, taking up issues both tangential and off point and arrogantly assuming that you know how “I really feel about things.” On the other hand, every time either one of you shows up here my first inclination is to bait you – which you always take.
Last, your final comment is illustrative of your obtuse nature. That comment was not at all about your arguing with me, but about the other “T” taking pride in you calling me a dick which, however hyperbolistic my use of the term “opprobrium” may have been, shows that perhaps DNA is the greater cause of your lack breeding and inability to think.
I understood the point of your post, Dave. This is a huge part of your problem. You assume that those who disagree with you have NO understanding of the issue, as opposed to a DIFFERENT understanding of the issue than you.
One of my points in the first comment (which obviously went over your head)was that the committee is choosing a solution that works down the middle, and that it’s better than nothing. In other words, I was disagreeing with your obvious point that bipartisanship doesn’t work. But yes, Dave, your point went over my head.
Second, calling oversight a “red herring” may be true, and humorously enought that was kind of why I brought it up. My point in mentioning it (which obviously went over your head)was that having more “oversight” will force Democrats to take a position on the funding for the war, which may be something that appeals to Baker (and you, for that matter). This caused you to imply that I know “jackshit” about the budget process. If that was bait, then I took it. It definitely wasn’t productive.
After that, things went downhill. But what on earth did you expect, Dave? I’ve never said that you’re not perfectly free to say such provocative and condescending things to me on your blog, but I sure think it’s funny that you don’t expect the favor to be returned, location be damned.
As for my Dad, do you think he came on here and said he was proud of me because I called you a dick? If my original comment in this thread would have been, “Dave, you’re a dick,” and that ended it, that would have been a subject of pride for him? You think that’s it? Who’s being obtuse?
“Rocky- When you’re losing a war, you talk with your enemies. Blame the ones who got us into this for forcing us into this situation. But it must be done.”
You really expect any good to come from talking to the “insurgents” (terrorists, by my definition) or the two countries supporting them? I question your view of the world as unrealistic. These people will only see weakness and opportunity should we follow that path. What will it take for you to get it- another attack here in the US? Weak kneed “please don’t hurt me” talk is ignorantly foolish. Would you like to sell out Israel while you’re at it?