Backporch Beer - WE'VE CLOSED! THANKS FOR YOUR PATRONAGE!

Comment from Jank
Time January 13, 2004 at 9:50 am

And This from Retired Gen. Clark:

“Certainly there’s a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda,” he said in 2002. “It doesn’t surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don’t have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?”

Comment from etrigan
Time January 13, 2004 at 12:55 pm

Dean changed his mind. That’s different than spreading rumors that the majority of the intelligence community had discredited — and then using those rumors as a basis to attack another country.

Clark’s supposition is pretty clearly a “what if”. You will soon get to the part of Al’s book where one of the radio assholes calls out a guy from New York’s Department of Education for asking the question “What are our students learning?” Rhetorical questions and “what if“s can’t hold as much weight as a State of the Union address.

And before you start that “saying he lied is ineffective” b.s., call Bill Clinton and ask where lying gets you. (unless you are suggesting that only liberals care if their POTUS lies…)

Comment from Jank
Time January 13, 2004 at 7:33 pm

>“call Bill Clinton and ask where lying gets you”

Two terms in the White House, a wife away in the Senate, and a pretty swanky house in NYC’s ‘burbs last I checked. And I thought that the Party Line during the impeachment was that the majority of the country didn’t care that he’d lied…

Or did you want to use Nixon as an example. It’s only admitting you lied and taking your lumps like a man that gets you tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion. Or possibly being a Republican who gets caught.

>“spreading rumors that the majority of the intelligence community had discredited”

Like yellowcake in Niger, which contrary to Ms. Plame’s husband’s accounts most likely WAS sought by Iraq (And a claim that UK’s version of the CIA still stands by)? Or that Iraq had shown continued defiance of over a dozen UN resolutions requiring disarmerment and cooperation? Or continuing to import weapons prohibited by the UN’s embargo from countries who (curiously) were in favor of leaving Hussein in power?

I’m not meaning to browbeat you over this – you’ve been pretty clear that liberating Iraq was a good thing regardless of the stated reasons. And I think I’ve shown that I am none too fond of the Pres. But (and it seems to me that many on the left are starting to “get it”), there are better arguments against re-electing him (and better arguments against Dean and Clark) than “he lied.”

I was going to address this in Reeder’s thread about “Bush in 30 seconds”, but I like the track that thread is taking, so I’ll drop this thought here: I’m thrilled that MoveOn.org chose the ad about the deficit and kids to spend their money on. First, that ad could have been run by the “Reagan in ’80” bunch, so as a solid (I think) fiscal conservative it appeals to me. Second, it isn’t an attack on the Pres as a person. There’ll be no knee-jerk reaction to back the president by folks not politically savvy. Third, “Do it for the children”, while a cheap political argument in most cases, isn’t in this case (Though it kind of is – I’ll address that in a bit), and again, with non-politically savvy voters it is effective. Lastly, and I think I argued to this effect a while ago, it’s non-specific on how to avoid the deficit which is good – it will lead to a new round of raise taxes/cut spending debate.

While being one of the few cases in which I’ll even cotton a “let’s do it for the children” argument without retching, the idea the “deficits have no long-term economic impact” does have some truth to it. In deficit spending, we are spending current dollars and paying them off with future dollars. To put it in concrete terms, my folks had a chance to buy a house with a fair amount of land in South Austin back in the ’70s for about $50K worth of debt. If they’d held onto it, the Doc and I could have more than a little bit of cash. In the long term, the short-term deficit would have more than paid for itself. Provided the debt incurred provides positive payoff (Winning the Cold War in the case of the ’80s, unknown at this time), we are making an investment for our children that will seem trivial when it comes time for them to pay it off.

Comment from etrigan
Time January 13, 2004 at 10:24 pm

> Like yellowcake blah blah blah?

He used the State of the Union to scare the American public with fairy tales of WMD. He did. Whether we find them or not, most of the people he should have been taking advice from were at the very least not sure of the evidence and advised him not to speak about it in public. That is lying. If someone tells you: “I can’t be sure but Kobe Bryant is sleeping around on his wife.” and you go around saying “Kobe Bryant is sleeping around on his wife”, you are lying. Even if it turns out eventually to be proven true, you are lying.

> buy a house with a fair amount of land in South Austin back in the ’70s for about $50K worth of debt. If they’d held onto it, the Doc and I could have more than a little bit of cash

Yes, and if your parents had purchased a small bit of land just east of Waco or just south of Harlingen, TX you’d still have something worthless today.

America is on top today but if we’re paying for manned moon missions when a violent and active group of the world wants us razed, I don’t think America’s future is a good investment. Hedging our bets in hopes of another internet boom is re-dick-ulous.