Jack's Blog

Since you didn't have any North Korea retort for me, I'll have to keep pointing out your flagrant partisanship. Since I've "crossed the line to the Dark Side", and warranted the DeepPink, I may as well go all out.

Here's are the things that prominent Republicans were saying publically about Clinton and the war in general while US troops were engaged in Bosnia and Kosovo:

Senator Richard Shelby (R AL) “Obviously, we are not winning the war.”

Republican Senator Bob Smith: "[T]he US should pull out now rather than get 'bogged down in wars that are not winnable.'" Smith said, "I don't have a lot of confidence in the President in this matter at all."

Tom Delay: "“America needs to quickly change directions and leave behind this chilling comedy of errors that has defined our foreign policy.”

Tom Delay again: "[In the Balkans] we have a president I don’t trust, who has proven my reason for not trusting him: had no plan. We have a civil war that was falsely described as a huge humanitarian problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing.”"

Senator Judd Gregg
"I don't believe that a ground war in Kosovo using American troops is going to be very successful." [NBC, "Meet the Press," 4/18/99]

"Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough response. 'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said." [Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99]

Attorney General (then-Senator) John Ashcroft
"A lackluster air campaign has given the Serb dictator Milosevic time to achieve most of his strategic goals in Kosovo." [New York Times, 4/8/99]

House Majority Leader (then-Whip) Tom DeLay
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy... But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent." [Congressional Record, "Removal of United States Armed Forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia," 4/28/99]

House Speaker Dennis Hastert
"Many may question the path that has taken us to this point. I have my own questions about the long term strategy of this campaign." [Dallas Morning News, 3/25/99]

Senator (then-Assistant Majority Leader) Don Nickles
"The Administration, and NATO as a whole, greatly miscalculated the response Slobodan Milosevic would have to a bombing campaign. As I predicted, the Administration has escalated what was guerilla warfare into a much more serious conflict. The bombings have unleashed an evil reign and resulted in a humanitarian disaster." [Senator Don Nickles, Press Release, 4/21/99]

Senator Richard Lugar
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." [New York Times, 5/4/99]

Dan Quayle: "The handling of the situation in the Balkans reflects the inattention of the Clinton Administration to foreign policy. … You have the same situation [as Vietnam]. Ambiguity, no stated, clear cut mission and then you are going to have to be there quite some time."

Pat Buchanan:
"I believe it is an unjust war. I think we have failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a war to save NATO’s credibility and NATO’s face."

Kosovo/Bosnia was a NATO engagement, not a US one.

Relative to the argument at hand, I think thats splitting hairs. By your logic, the Iraq war then wouldn't count as a US engagement either; its a multi-national "Coalition of the Willing", a fact oft used as a defense by the Bush Administration when facing criticism that we were acting unilaterally in Iraq.

Seriously, I think you forgot Poland.

As usual, Ian gets by making up meanings I didn't author or intend.

What I said, is that compared to Lincoln's day, there is a great deal of tolerance of dissent in our government. Compared to one of our most respected Presidents, the current administration is a paragon of inclusiveness and open-mindedness.

So how do you refute this? By providing a half dozen examples of people who were free to disagree with the current policy of the President. You think it clever that they're Republicans going after Clinton's move in Kosovo. Problem is, I'm not challenging the notion of dissent. What I'm challenging is the notion that Ted Kennedy, or whatever othery whining liberal, is being silenced. They're not being silenced, they're given a soapbox from which to yammer their scotch scented idiocy all day long.

Urm. Can you explain where Ted Kennedy is whining about how he's being silenced?

Cause as usual, it appears you're trying to get by on changing your meanings as the argument progresses.

1st you state that in Lincoln's day, the President felt that anyone who undermined the military or damaged morale was a saboteur who should be treated as a traitor and hanged.

You then insinuated this definition of traitor applied to Kennedy, ignoring that the same behavior applies to all sorts of Republicans as well, as I later demonstrated.

This is where your original argument ended, implying that Kennedy is a traitor, by Lincoln's definition, for being critical of the Administration in a time of war.

GHC then noted that Kosovo wasn't a solely US action, implying that maybe said Republican criticisms don't really count.

Shown that Republicans have been every bit as critical of a Democratic Administration during times of war when it suited them politically, you went ahead and embraced the idea of dissent. This is a change for you, given your past ideological positions, ie, criticism of US policy in time of war is unpatriotic. So hurray for that at least.

Now you go ahead and put up some strawman argument about how Ted Kennedy is whining about his rights to free speech being supressed, or something.

You and I are in total agreement that no one's rights to free speech, *especially* those of Ted Kennedy, are being supressed. What does that have to do with treachery, again? And again, where is Ted Kennedy complaining about how he has no voice?

Will you guys stop, this isn't GNN, you are friends. Agree to disagree and leave it at that.

The point about NATO vs. a US-lead armed engagement is splitting hairs only if we're talking about the meaning of the world "war," which, honestly, is really what I think we're talking about. For what it's worth, there was no War Powers Resolution in Lincoln's day, and any armed engagement initiated by the US could probably be lower-case-w war. Clinton allowed his 60-day no-need for WPR by utilizing the non-WPR-bound NATO, Bush hasn't done that wrt Iraq.

"Cause as usual, it appears you're trying to get by on changing your meanings as the argument progresses."

The first thing I said was that "I find this quote particularly ironic, given how much time modern liberals whine about their voices being silenced."

That's the first thing I said. How are you going to tell me I'm changing my meaning?

Ted Kennedy is not "modern liberals." He's one of their numerous and infighting leaders. He's who they're talking about when they say "we're being censored." Like the good representative that he is, he has parsed this complaint and voiced it from his soapbox. Or, if he hasn't, some other senator as. They say things like "this administration has not listened to our awesome suggestions," or "this administration has been bullheaded and stubborn," or whatever version of their idiot constituency's line they can get themselves to repeat without feeling too stupid for doing it.

I don't know what to tell you. The post speaks for itself. Lincoln would have had Kennedy deported at best. Today, he gets to talk all he wants. My point was pretty clear. I started out saying what I find noteworthy. Then I pointed to a real world example.

munk: we like arguing. but if anyone is getting feelings hurt, tho, I apologize and quit.

hus re: lincoln: I don't think the meaning that Lincoln was getting at would somehow be subverted by WPR vs. no-WPR. Lincoln was intending, IMO, that damaging morale while US troops were at war was essentially treasonous. I don't think he would've added a disclaimer that said if troops were fighting at the order of the US Government but without an official constitutional declaration of war, then feel free to damage morale all you want cause its not really technically war.

jack: lincoln would've have kennedy deported at best, true. also, i would argue, he would've have tom delay, dan quayle, and a whole host of prominent republicans deported as well.

the reason i post is that you seem to apply one set of standards to actions by liberals/democrats but hold no standard to actions by conservatives/republicans.

You argue essentially, both here and re: North Korea, that "liberals are bad cause they've done/do Behavior X". Then when pointed out to you that
"Republicans also have done / do Behavior X" under exactly the same circumstances, and you hold them as Good, you either ignore that point or restate that liberals are bad because of Behavior X.

which leads me to question what you believe, since your standard for moral behavior only seem to apply to one-half of the political equation. that's what I find problematic; not your argument about how how to have political discourse in this country, cause on that we mostly agree, but how your "standards of proper behavior" only seem to apply to one particular set of people.

like:

Kennedy bitching during Iraq = you comparing him to a definition of traitor.

Republicans bitching while America troops are fighting in kosovo = you support the right of dissent.

that a political party complains about how the opposition Administration isn't listening to their awesomeness is not symptomatic of liberals. that a political party complains about justifications for war during a time of war is not symptomatic of liberals. that people complain about their ability to have their opinion heard is not symptomatic of liberals.

if you disagree, ask yourself what the "liberal media" argument really means, when you unpack it. is it not a criticism, valid or otherwise, that conservatives cannot have their opinion heard cause the channels of communication are inherently biased against their viewpoint? is that not essentially the same complaint that liberals make when they complain that the Administration is inherently biased against their liberal opinions?

as i've stated before, my opinion is that political discourse in this country is getting dangerously retarded, in no small part because of the polarizing effects of Rush/Hannity/Air America/Al Franken, whoever. This left vs. right shit is terrible, imo, and that's why I rag on you when I see it. good government and good decisions are made by both parties, and bad government / bad decisions have are made by both parties.

"the reason i post is that you seem to apply one set of standards to actions by liberals/democrats but hold no standard to actions by conservatives/republicans."

Have you read your own blog lately? It's nothing but anti-neocon, all day long. Why's it like that? Well, I'd guess it's cause you find neocon bashing the most interesting and most relevant topic. It doesn't mean you're blindly partisan, and totally incapable of reflection, it's just what you choose to talk about. Given that, it's a wonder to me why I don't get the same cred extended me.

re: Behavior X

I simply don't agree with you here. The Republican actions you've highlighted are not X = X to what Clinton did. Based on everything I've seen, you've got Republicans trying to prevent the DPRK from getting nuclear technology. Bungled or otherwise, their attempts were at least motivated by something smart. Clinton just GAVE the DPRK nuclear technology. That's not X, that's some other shit entirely. I have to assume that somewhere in the Idiot's Guide to Statesmanship, it actually has the SAME picture from my blog, and says "don't give nuclear technology to people that look like this." If that's not in there, it should be.

Now, again, I'm not saying that Clinton, in that one decision, became "parsifant so bad, no other parsifant ever need be judged." I'm just saying "hey, that's so fucking patently retarded, how come I don't hear about it more often?" A fucking liberal gets a flat tire, and it's "well, that's the GWB presidency for you." The DPRK gets nukes, and nobody, not even fucking conservatives, is saying "hey, remember when Bill gave them nuclear technology?" I mean, what the fuck? Madeline Albright can say "it's GWB's fault," and not just get laughed at? How does that work? Bush points to elections in Iraq, and people laugh at him. Is my perspective just that skewed? Is giving the DPRK nuclear technology somehow really fucking clever?

"This left vs. right shit is terrible, imo"

Well, I agree, but I fail to see how this is my problem. I'd again refer you to your own blog. Then I'd ask you to note how you came here, and tried to refute my arguments by saying "well, Republicans are just as bad!" I was bitching about liberals. If you agree they do bad things, what's the disagreement? Why does showing Republican failures demonstrate a lack of partisan viewpoint? I'm just hating on liberals. I'm not propping up conservatives and hating on liberals. I'm just hating on liberals. In my world there's only hate, so there's only liberals. You come along with conservatives and make it partisan, and then tell me I'm being partisan. No. I just hate liberals. I could write a hundred posts bitching about how GHWB didn't finish the job in the first Gulf War. I just don't enjoy harping on conservatives.

I apologize, I thought you like the goading and back-and-forth more than I thought. I'm out. Didn't mean to upset.

For the record tho, the last 3 weeks of my blog have been:

- RIP Hunter S Thompson
- Weekend plans
- How I can't remember my own street address
- Gay hookers as White House journalists
- Things that suck (Feith is on that list, so you've got one there)
- Eating skittles for lunch

You guys are huge fags.