Final rant on the elections before we get back to better subjects:
It boggles the mind (though sadly, not all that much) that the far left has already staked out two positions: They refuse to work with President Bush or the GOP; and it's not their fault that they won't get anything done the next two years because President Bush is in power and the GOP seems to have the Senate. Ugh. You *won* the House. You almost got (may even have got) the Senate. Show people why you're there, or they'll show you the door in 2008 just like they did to the GOP yesterday. If there are two more years of whining, you know what will happen in 2008? The GOP will not only win the Presidency and take back the House, they will win so many seats in the Senate they'll come close to having 60 seats. At that point, the Democratic Party may need to dissolve.
Stop making excuses in advance. CWY noted the Times piece yesterday that basically excused the Dems in case they didn't win. Enough. The only impressive Democrat yesterday was the one who ran their House campaign who insisted that he would do his job and win enough seats. That's what we need more of: People who carry out what they say they're going to do, not make claims and then give excuses and point fingers about why they won't be getting it done before they've even tried. Shut up and get to work.
You parrot the GOP's talking points and it sounds like the Dems don't have a plan. Shocking.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems do plan to get to work. Raising the minimum wage, cheaper prescription drugs, checking the president's excesses, etc.
That's *not* what I said. I glanced around quickly and people are already giving reasons why nobody should be surprised that nothing gets done over the next couple of years. It's pathetic.
ReplyDeleteAs for the specifics you mentioned...
1) Big mistake.
2) Great! Without ruining the economy and the ability of companies to develop better products, how do you plan on doing that?!
3) Such as...? If you mean spending, I'm all for it.
1) Yeah, because the last time we raised it, the economy really tanked. *eyeroll*
ReplyDelete2) Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies.
3) Starting more premature wars, for example.
1) Raising it during a bubble worked out nicely. You know, until the bubble burst.
ReplyDelete2) In what way?
3) Premature? Better too early than too late.
1) We're not going to get anywhere on this. It doesn't matter. With a Democratic Congress and the support of an American majority, it'll happen.
ReplyDelete2) Pelosi supports allowing government to negotiate Medicare drug prices.
3) False dichotomy much?
1) I'm hoping you're wrong.
ReplyDelete2) What does that mean exactly?
3) Not at all.
1) Actually, it just happened in a few states as referenda.
ReplyDelete2) A quick google:
Currently, Medicare is explicitly barred by law from negotiating for lower drug prices. States, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains and the Veteran’s administration all use their bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent. Medicare should have the same ability.
In particular, Larson points to the example of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which leverages the power of its purchasing population (6.9 million) to negotiate with prescription drug manufacturers to obtain substantially lower prices for seniors enrolled in its healthcare system. The VA also makes heavy use of generic drugs and mail order purchasing. An investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services in 2001 found that the VA paid, on average, 52% less for a list of 24 drugs than did Medicare.
3) Ok, then your original statement "better too early than too late" was just a non-sequitor.
1) I know. I'm curious how it will affect those economies.
ReplyDelete2) Cool. I'm for that. The government should always be able to look for the lowest prices - I think a huge percentage of government waste is in their getting tied to terrible contracts.
3) Nope. I think that it was only a matter of time until something needed to be done. The government (and the world) thought that that time was imminent; in the end, it wasn't as imminent as originally thought. Does that mean it would never have happened? Of course not.
I've given the analogy before: If your crazy neighbor, who has threatened, abused, and even killed people in his own family, and has broken into houses around him and started fights, hates you and would like to kill you, and claims he's on the verge of finding bullets for his gun, do you wait until he shoots until you do something about it? No. If you do, it will be too late.
By your logic, we should invade North Korea and Iran, yes?
ReplyDeleteWe might have to, yes. Is that surprising?
ReplyDeleteWould your stance be that we absolutely should not? I hope not.
My stance is that it's wildly impractical to invade every country that may develop nukes. As an absolute last resort, it may be necessary, but resorting to that should be seen as an enormous failure. Bush didn't wait for the last resort -- not even close -- AND he bungled it when he went in.
ReplyDeleteMy stance is that it's wildly impractical to invade every country that may develop nukes.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
As an absolute last resort, it may be necessary, but resorting to that should be seen as an enormous failure.
I disagree. Doing what needs to be done is not a failure. I'm not sure it should only be a "last resort", either.
Bush didn't wait for the last resort
Not sure I agree with that. At what point do you call it "last resort"? I don't think a country can be allowed to keep telling the UN Security Council to **** off and have the UNSC keep saying, "Next time, we're going to sanction you!" It doesn't accomplish anything.
I don't think he bungled it when he went in. I think he bungled the management in certain areas once they were already in.
His "Mission Accomplished" incident gave false hope that things would be faster than originally stated. People knew going in that this would take years, maybe decades; now, everyone seems to have forgotten that. That's partially their fault, but it's the fault of the administration for losing that focal point. And, of course, they botched certain things on the ground in terms of fighting in their rush to build up the government. Noble, but stupid. Had the government taken another few months to get off the ground, it could have been more stable, with a stronger economy, and less fighting.
I disagree. Doing what needs to be done is not a failure. I'm not sure it should only be a "last resort", either.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, if you're forced to invade it's because you didn't do what needed to be done earlier. War has such an enormous cost, I fail to see how it could not be a last resort.
At what point do you call it "last resort"? I don't think a country can be allowed to keep telling the UN Security Council to **** off and have the UNSC keep saying, "Next time, we're going to sanction you!" It doesn't accomplish anything.
They could have gotten inspections without resorting to war. Blix asked for more time. There were no WMDs.
I don't think he bungled it when he went in. I think he bungled the management in certain areas once they were already in.
The initial invasion was a great success. However, they failed to plan for the aftermath from the very beginning.
People knew going in that this would take years, maybe decades; now, everyone seems to have forgotten that.
WaPo:
In the months preceding the war, President Bush was largely silent on the subject of the conflict's cost, duration and dangers, while key administration officials and advisers presented upbeat forecasts. Vice President Cheney, for example, predicted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's troops would "step aside" and that the conflict would be "weeks rather than months," a phrase repeated by other top officials.
The point is, if you're forced to invade it's because you didn't do what needed to be done earlier.
ReplyDeleteThat's simply not true. Sometimes, no matter what you do, your opposition will not listen.
They could have gotten inspections without resorting to war. Blix asked for more time. There were no WMDs.
How many times!? Give me a break. All those were done again and again. When do you draw the line?
That's a nice WaPo article, but watch the news from back then, the statements from back then. It's simply not true.
That's simply not true. Sometimes, no matter what you do, your opposition will not listen.
ReplyDeleteThe most powerful nation in the world should be able to accomplish those ends without war.
How many times!? Give me a break. All those were done again and again. When do you draw the line?
Considering the head of inspections thought they were working and the fact that there did not in fact turn out to be WMDs, I think we drew it too soon.
That's a nice WaPo article, but watch the news from back then, the statements from back then. It's simply not true.
Fox agrees, as does USA Today. You're wrong on this one.
Rumsfeld Is Gone
ReplyDelete-------
The most powerful nation in the world should be able to accomplish those ends without war.
ReplyDeleteWithout the threat of war, the most powerful nation is as strong as any other. It can't be a bluff, either, or it will be called - as Saddam tried to do. That the US invaded Iraq should make it less necessary in future situations... unless everyone thinks we can't stomach doing it again.
Considering the head of inspections thought they were working and the fact that there did not in fact turn out to be WMDs, I think we drew it too soon.
That's easy to say now. Looking at it from what we knew (or thought we knew) then, I don't think so at all.
You're wrong on this one.
I don't believe so. I remember reading about it then, writing about it then (in an essay for school), and discussing it then. The big concern among some was that people would act as they have: Forgetting within 2-3 years that this will take a long, long time. Unfortunately, that was correct.
I remember reading about it then, writing about it then (in an essay for school), and discussing it then.
ReplyDeleteYou "remember reading about it" and I'm showing you actual articles from back then from several mainstream news sources including FOX. There were also the "greeted as liberators" comments and the claims that the war would pay for itself. Then there were the ridiculously low estimates for the financial cost of the war.
Those are facts, not opinions.
I've read from several sources that they DID find evidence of WMDs in Iraq, but they'd been moved to Syria during the time we wasted trying to get the UN to grow a backbone. Unfortunately I don't have the references, but I've read this several times.
ReplyDeletekiwi:
ReplyDeleteThose must be the same books Ezzie was reading. ;-)