Mickey

I am told that you are an example of a good little liberal while I am a baaaad liberal. So I am reading your posts closely hoping some of the goodness rubs off. It is probably too late for me but maybe others can learn from my wickedness. I guess that makes you Joe Lieberman and me Ted Kennedy.

I'm not sure how they are going to manage it but at some point they are going to blame liberals for the Iraq disaster assuming it doesn't turn around soon. I already saw a thing on Fox they entitled "Civil War in Iraq, made up by the media?" We have 49% of the vote, 3% of the power and 100% of the blame. Honestly, I don't know where we find the time.

Exactly. Just when I think they are making sense, they say something crazy. Not all Libertarians you understand, but enough to notice. They leave me scratching my head on the environment for example. The party web site says: "Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield." Okay, they think that selling public land to private interests will improve the environment. But then they say this: "Do you remember the movie, Medicine Man, where scientist Sean Connery discovers a miracle drug in the rain forest ecology? Unfortunately, the life-saving compound is literally bulldozed under when the government turns the rain forest over to corporate interests." What the heck? I thought they said turning over public lands from government to control to private interests is a good thing? So what is their position on this? I also don't like their take on social security either but that is too complicated to go into.

I thought they were pretty awol in the run up to the war. Didn't the NYT even apologize for their crappy coverage of the WMD issue? They have had their moments of sycophancy. Since Katrina they have been pretty feisty.

Same kind of thing happens with high profile cases and gag orders. They have tried every which way to stop the practice but nothing ever works. Price of a free society. I have no data to back it up but I am willing to wager we have been more damaged by skullduggery that was not leaked or otherwise exposed than by leaks damaging national security. This is likley the point where someone will bring up the bugging of Bin Laden's phone thing so I will pre-emptively link to the debunk of that story: Cell Phone and here: Satellite Phone. Of course, I could be wrong, maybe there have been some leaks that were just as bad as the Osama cell phone thing, had it been true. Just my sense of things is all.

Iraq is the gift that keeps on bleeding.

There are leaks and there are leaks, and then there are leaks. If you classify something that has nothing to do with security, just politics, then sooner or later someone is going to leak it because it never should have been classified to begin with so its easy for them to justify it. If you declassify intel info A and classify intel info B because A supports your argument and B contradicts it, who is the greater crook, you for the bogus juggling of classification to suit your political needs or the yahoo who leaks it so that you get caught? Isn't that how we heard all about aluminum tubes and yellowcake and none of the intel that contradicted that info? Damn, I wish someone had leaked that stuff back then, might have saved us a heap of trouble, a heap of money and a heap of lives. It is a complicated issue in any event. If you can't stop the leaks, maybe you can at least let the leakers leak on one anther so the whole sorry mess comes out and just go after those who have really endangered security. That is kind of why we have laws about not leaking classified info and whistleblower statutes, we recognize the competing goals of keeping secrets that should be kept and exposing the ones that should be exposed. This one is an easy one, what national security interest is involved? The NSA stuff, not such an easy call. That is why the NYT sat on it so long and I'll bet that not all they knew was put in the story based on security concerns. If it turns out that they were breaking the law, does that retroactively make the leak okay? Leaking isn't bad, bad leaks are bad and good leaks are good but you can't determine the goodness or the badness until it is out and then it is too late. The only solution I can think of is discriminating prosecution. Go after leakers who really have endangered security and lives, not people who leak tapes showing that the President was told the levees might break days before he told the public no one expected the levees to break.

How are state and commerce involved in fighting the insurgency in Iraq? Besides, Rummy is going to be gone in another year anyway, 18 months tops. The big hondos usually start resigning about 6 months or more before the end.

You know bib, that part about being forced into a less violent course sounds right to me, like when I finally get the "G" string on my guitar properly tuned. However, I am not sure there really is much of a reason based on their history and their apparent goals, as to why they would become less violent. They have received plenty of support from other Arabs for years despite their violence and they haven't changed. We have seen creepy regimes remain creepy regimes even after the became responsible for fixing the roads and putting chickens in every pot.

People often ask, assuming this thing is a failure and that we can't just up and leave, what should we do? Maybe fire someone, Rumsfeld would be a candidate, who has screwed up and hope that some new blood will not only signal a beneficial change but actually result in one? I can't beleive there isn't someone out there with some ideas that is eager to have the power to implement them. Just a thought. If Bush is not going to change the policy, maybe he should change the people who are implementing it so poorly. McCain would do a jig.

I have no idea. I think that the notion of the troops being pro-Bush or pro-war or whatever has been advanced by administration defenders and the administration itself. Apparently, from a political perspective, it is considered advantageous to have the troops support you as much as it is to be preceived as one who "supports the troops". To that extent, what the troops really think is a political asset that could benefit one side or the other on the war. I think the sides on the war are becoming less and less of a mirror image of the parties. People are starting to cross party lines when it comes to the war. LeMoyne is a religious school devoted to strict academics and though they tend to be conservative, they are a different kind of conservative. They are not Tom DeLay conservatives or Ralph Reed conservatives, if that makes sense. They are pro-life but not just for fetuses, thus they don't like the death penalty anymore than they like abortion. That kind of thing. More traditionally catholic, not christian soldier catholic, more Jesus-turn-the-other-cheek catholic. Their dedication to academics though is pretty absolute, so I don't see them bending the findings one way or the other. As for Zogby and who might have commissioned them on this, I don't know.

Pragmatist. And here I thought you were dedicated to the extension of the universal rights of mankind to all the enslaved peoples of the Earth. The idea that democracy (Hamas), if planted in the middle east (Hamas) would naturally lead (Hamas) to nations that are less (Hamas) hostile to the west (Hamas) and our allies (Hamas) might not actually be true (Hamas). Sorry, I appear to have a Hamas stuck in my throat.

Yeah, I had the same sense that he was distancing himself from what others have done with his philosophy. What I don't know is whether he is justified in doing so or not. Is there a difference between his philosophy and the Bush Doctrine or is he just looking long enough to find one to distance himself from the Iraq debacle (so far anyway)? Crap, I might have to actually read his book.

It seemed to me that he was trying to build some separation between his theories and what others, Bush, did with them. He might be right but it might just be a clever way to shift blame. I don't know enough about his original philosophy to be able to judge whether the Bush administration misapplied them. One point I thought made sense was that democracy is not so easily imposed or delivered by military force. It needs to follow a more natural course with democratic institutions, customs and practices evolving over time. The idea that you can just send troops somewhere, plant some seeds and watch a democracy spring full blown does seem pretty optimistic. Then again, it worked in Japan. It seems to be doing fairly well in Afghanistan or at least better than in Iraq. Were those societies somehow more ready for democracy than Iraq? I do note that he has little to say about Iraq now. His point appears to be that it was a botched job from beginning to end but we have to stay based on his version of the Powell Pottery Barn Rule. In a certainly unscientific but well informed opinion, John Pace the UN Human Rights Chief in Iraq up until he quit last month says that torture and killings in Iraq now are worse than under Saddam due to the lawless chaos there. His interestingly direct way to gauge the violence was to regularly visit hospital morgues Pace. I wish Mr. Fukuyama had some thoughts on how to fix this though I guess this might help the next time around.

Given our situation at DT, I really thought Adams wasn't going anywhere. Could this mean we are going to a 3-4? It is what we played throughout Marv's tenure as HC and it is being played by a lot of winning teams. On top of that, Ngata is supposed to be a prototype NT for a 3-4 defense. I think Crowel did a decent job last year, maybe we are deeper at LB than at DT so it makes sense to make the switch. In releasing Adams, Milloy and Campbell, Marv referred to the styles of offense and defense we were going to play and those guys not fitting in. Are we going 3-4? Should we go 3-4?

You are a very suspicious man. I think that given a whole bunch wanted to double troop strength while at the same time a whole bunch wanted to be out in a year meant that the poll had pretty mixed results as far as should they stay or should they go. I was trying to think of how those seemingly opposite numbers could be reconciled. I also thought that in terms of morale and fatigue, the poll was revealing. Beyond that I hadn't drawn many conclusions from it. On the left we are often accused of not "supporting the troops" so I thought posting and disucussing the first hard poll taken in theatre of those troops would help to dispel that ridiculous slam. Mostly though, I was just proud of the locals at little LeMoyne College. Its a Syracuse thing.

What am I right on? I wasn't aware of having argued a point of view other than ask that rather than dissect the poll's accuracy or lack thereof, discuss its findings? I do recall saying that a bunch want to leave within a year and they are likely going to be disappointed. Is that what I am right on? I also mentioned fatigue based on those numbers as well, was that it? Lastly, I also mentioned that those who want to see our troop strength doubled would also be disappointed. Is that where I was right? You said: "I think this was another effort to say that since troops don't like being in combat, given the choice between being shot at or not, our "policy" should be to call it off because the troops don't like being there." Honestly bib, where did you get that from? I didn't say that. There were a lot more issues polled than "do you want to go home", are they also not worth discussing? I guess its fine to shunt aside the poll as meaningless based on an armchair review, its what we do around here for the most part. I have no objection just as long as it isn't a double standard and we are all just as quick to dissect the accuracy of other sources such as anecdotal stuff and the like. I seem to recall a lot of posts in the past about how things are going great but the media is hiding it based on anecdotes allegedly from soldiers. As long as we are consistent, and this isn't being ignored because it doesn't fit in with a rightsided viewpoint, I'm cool.

Francis Fukuyama, one of the founders of the neo-con movement, wrote this essay for the NYT which was adapted from his new book, America at the Crossroads, which is coming out soon. I heard him on the radio this morning so I looked up the essay which can be read here: After Neconservatism A sample: "Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support." Whoa. I am still thinking about the issues he raises. I don't know enough about him to tell whether he is just blaming Bush and making excuses for why his neo-conservatism is failing. He seems to be saying that the same restraint neo-cons had for grandiose social engineering should have restrained them from grandiose nation building and democracy creating. Kind of an accusation that Bush didn't follow true neo-con principles with regard to Iraq. He also doesn't have as much to say about what we do now as he does about the mistakes that were made that got us here. I thought this was well put: "The war's supporters seemed to think that democracy was a kind of default condition to which societies reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred, rather than a long-term process of institution-building and reform. While they now assert that they knew all along that the democratic transformation of Iraq would be long and hard, they were clearly taken by surprise. According to George Packer's recent book on Iraq, "The Assassins' Gate," the Pentagon planned a drawdown of American forces to some 25,000 troops by the end of the summer following the invasion." I also think this was well stated: "The belief in the potential moral uses of American power, on the other hand, implied that American activism could reshape the structure of global politics. " I think that raises a major question, one, I think, bib and others were trying to get at, the idea of being proactive. Maybe that is really the overarching question, is the belief that American activism can reshape the structure of golbal politics a sound one? What philosophy justifes that kind of global social engineering but condemns social engineering and "great society" type adventures on the domestic side? I'm still thinking this out, its a long essay.

Prove it, use examples of opinions from each Judge. I'll expect that on my desk by close of business. Welcome to the life of an underpaid associate.

Here are the Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Which ones are okay and which are the nutcases? Mary M. Schroeder MMS Chief Judge James R. Browning JRB Senior Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin ATG Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace JCW Senior Circuit Judge Joseph T. Sneed JTS Senior Circuit Judge Procter Hug, Jr. PRH Senior Circuit Judge Otto R. Skopil ORS Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher BBF Senior Circuit Judge Jerome Farris JF Senior Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson HP Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon ALA Senior Circuit Judge Warren J. Ferguson WJF Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson DWN Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby, Jr. WCC Senior Circuit Judge Robert Boochever RB Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt SR Circuit Judge Robert R. Beezer RRB Senior Circuit Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall CHH Senior Circuit Judge Melvin Brunetti MB Senior Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski AK Circuit Judge John T. Noonan, Jr. JTN Senior Circuit Judge David R. Thompson DRT Senior Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain DFO Circuit Judge Edward Leavy EL Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Trott SST Senior Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez FFF Senior Circuit Judge Pamela Ann Rymer PAR Circuit Judge Thomas G. Nelson TGN Senior Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld AJK Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins MDH Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima AWT Senior Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas SRT Circuit Judge Barry G. Silverman BGS Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber SPG Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown MMM Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw KMW Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher WAF Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher RCF Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould RMG Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez RAP Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon MSB Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman RCT Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson JBR Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton RRC Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee JSB Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan CMC Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea At least twenty of them were appointed by Republican Presidents for whatever that is worth to you. They have had some unique decisions but the reversal rate is no worse than most circuits and sometimes, they get reversed when they make a conservative decision. For example, in Raich, a medicinal pot case, they sided with recent Supreme Ct. precedent sharply limiting the scope of the commerce clause. Yet they were overruled by the Supremes but it was the liberal that overruled them. Thomas, Rhenquist and O'Connor dissented, siding with the Ninth Circuit. For an article on the Ninth Circuit: Myth of the Liberal Ninth Circuit As bad as the pledge case was, they were overturned on a technicality. The litigant didn't have standing. The merits of the case were, perhaps as a mercy to us all, were never reached. Because they didn't however, the issue is not settled law and will pop up again sooner or later. Later if we are very, very lucky.

I don't know if we really can consider JP a long time starter yet. That is the hope and the expectation but he has not yet proven that he is good enough...yet. I can see why Marv wants to develop a third option in case JP doesn't work out and given what is available, there are worse options than Ramsey. What I don't like is the idea of another QB controversey. Man, I miss the days when there was simply no question who our QB was. What a pain.

That is a good sign. On terrorism, here is a scary thought: Israel has dealt with this for a long, long time and they have never been able to either end terrorism or make themselves immune from attack. I have an enormous amount of respect for them and their abilities. They have as much or more experience fighting terrorism as a free society than anyone anywhere. And yet, they have not "won" their war against terrorism. Is it realistic for us to think that we will succeed where they have failed? Tell me it is so I can sleep tonight.

I wanted to know what suckincincy's belief on the matter was since he is the person with whom I was having the discussion. Maybe we have the same belief and thus I could skip it.

I used to read her even though she infuriates me most of the time because, say what you will, the woman has wit and I like that. Of course, now it costs $50 a year to read her and the rest of the op-edders at the NYT so I don't bother. She does seem to be popping up on TV more often now than I remember. She is not bad on the eyes.

I was hoping to discuss his opinion after first seeing the reactions/opinions of others. I posted his take, a conservative whose opinion can't be dismissed easily as partisanship, hopefully to force a discussion of his point. The first post was from someone claiming that the war was over. He didn't address Buckley's point. I replied to the one he did make about the war being over. The next post was an attack on the credibility of Buckley as being anit-bush, his points again unaddressed. The next post was from you which was "mickey suks" or something like that. I took the high road and didn't reply at all. Next was a long post from bib which had some substance but also included some stuff about "rambling fool" and "you used to be better". I explained why my style had changed since he brought it up and then I discussed the merits, the substance of Buckley's opinion. For those willing to discuss the merits, I responded in kind. As I did here: "Is there sectarian violence? Not even arguable. Is it being controlled by the presence of our troops? Less clear but certainly a reasonable conclusion. Has it led to failure? Much less clear but..." And here: "There is sectarian violence, that is a point that is not even arguable. This morning, even George Will called it a civil war, in fact, he almost bust a gut laughing at the notion...." And here: "I personally think that if we haven't "failed" in Iraq, we are going to if this keeps up. What better course should be pursued, I have no concrete, ready for prime-time suggestions. I do believe however that..." And here: "Buckley is right, there is violence, we aren't controlling it and it is leading to failure. Is it a done deal? I hope like hell that it isn't but..." And here: "Reality is the overarching thing here. You are right, there are larger problems at stake. However, the reality is that we are failing in Iraq. So whether we should be there, shouldn't have gone there, whatever, doesn't really matter. We are not achieving our goals..." So, what was that you were saying about how I failed to actually discuss the topic of Buckley's article?