William F. Buckley

[Ghost of BiB]

What was the situation left to Bush by Clinton or even to Clinton by Bush I?

613129[/snapback]

 

Read Ken's post, it's pretty accurate. Of course, he's only obtaining an aditional graduate degree in Security and Intelligence studies with a special concentration on North Korea, so what does HE know. Not like he has read about it, or anything.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But its the purpose of the board to place an issue on the table and debate it?

 

You don't have to make a counter-argument, but perhaps comment on what WFB said, what/if any impact does it have, what if/any does it say about the American political landscape.

 

If not worthy of ones brain power, then don't touch it.  Above all, why disparge someone for putting it up for discussion?

 

It's not unreasonable to believe that when a traditional stalwart of American conservative thinking crticizes a Republican President it could stir a rational debate. 

 

Never has before. Anywhere. Every time I hear something like that (a partisan commentator breaking ranks with his party on an issue) brought up, the discussion is invariably about the commentator and his partisanship, not the issue.

 

For myself, it does open it up to interesting questions about GWB's positoin among the "old guard" conservatives and if even a small fraction of so-called sure-fire Republican votes simply stay home in disgust, it could mean the difference in a handful of key races.  The deeply partisan nature of the US today means that "independents" and the enthusiasm of a Party base are even more pronounced in non-presidential year politics. 

 

However, it remains to be seen if WFB's comments are indicative of his "factions'" thinking or if he alone in this assessment.  I'm not sure, but THAT has to be another relevent question, don't you think?

614034[/snapback]

 

Relevent to what? Iraq? Hardly. I don't see where it's relevent to anything except partisan politics...which is how this whole stupid thread started out, with Mickey discussing partisanship and not any real or substantive issues.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes, you emphasized his "credentials" in a sarcastic manner...and, in discussing Buckley, failed to actually discuss the topic of Buckley's article yourself.  Thus my point, you !@#$ing idiot. 

613978[/snapback]

Because CTM would never ever discuss anyone's credentials in a "sarcastic manner" right off the bat. That's the most amusing statement in this whole thread.

[Max Fischer]

Never has before.  Anywhere.  Every time I hear something like that (a partisan commentator breaking ranks with his party on an issue) brought up, the discussion is invariably about the commentator and his partisanship, not the issue.

Relevent to what?  Iraq?  Hardly.  I don't see where it's relevent to anything except partisan politics...which is how this whole stupid thread started out, with Mickey discussing partisanship and not any real or substantive issues. 

614049[/snapback]

 

We must be talking about different things. Isn't partisan politics, politics? Isn't Iraq about politics? How do you separate the two? Good luck, but I don't see how it's possible unless you purposely ignore the giant election thing in the middle of the room.

 

I don't think it's possible to "discuss Iraq" without the overbearing partisan political implications and before you dismiss it you have to dismiss WFB comments as having NO impact on Iraq policy. Which is very unlikely since I believe you have sidestepped what WFB represents in the debate about, tada, Iraq.

 

Ah, another debate topic! Doesn't politics always drive policy?

[Ghost of BiB]

We must be talking about different things.  Isn't partisan politics, politics?  Isn't Iraq about politics?  How do you separate the two?  Good luck, but I don't see how it's possible unless you purposely ignore the giant election thing in the middle of the room. 

 

I don't think it's possible to "discuss Iraq" without the overbearing partisan political implications and before you dismiss it you have to dismiss WFB comments as having NO impact on Iraq policy.  Which is very unlikely since I believe you have sidestepped what WFB represents in the debate about, tada, Iraq.

 

Ah, another debate topic!  Doesn't politics always drive policy?

614079[/snapback]

 

Yeah, it does, but not over anything Buckley has ever said.

[Kelly the Dog]

Two things about this thread:

 

1] I am not a big fan of just linking an article from anyone, and then not commenting on the article yourself. I do, however, do it on occasion, and it's actually a better way to get people talking sometimes about said article in their own opinions on it, versus debating your opinion on it. So it CAN serve the thread better if you just post it first and then offer your opinion on it after 10 or so responses. I have done that intentionally on this board and others.

 

2] I must think that if Maureen Dowd or Michael Kinsley wrote a column stating that the war in Iraq is going swimmingly and they are all for following GW's lead in this watershed event, you righties and you righties thinning veiling yourselves as moderates would be fellating yourselves.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

We must be talking about different things.  Isn't partisan politics, politics?  Isn't Iraq about politics?  How do you separate the two?  Good luck, but I don't see how it's possible unless you purposely ignore the giant election thing in the middle of the room. 

 

Yes. No, it's policy, IMO. Simply: politics vs. policy, policy is not required to be political or partisan.

 

I don't think it's possible to "discuss Iraq" without the overbearing partisan political implications and before you dismiss it you have to dismiss WFB comments as having NO impact on Iraq policy.  Which is very unlikely since I believe you have sidestepped what WFB represents in the debate about, tada, Iraq.

 

I do dismiss Buckley's comments as having no impact on Iraq policy. What media pundit's comments have had an impact on Iraq policy? None that I can think of...though the debate on policy is heavily partisan (and needlessly, I think - it's entirely possible to discuss the policy on Iraq in and of itself without getting into the whole "Democrats suck!" "No, neo-cons suck!" nonsense. It just never happens.), the policy itself seems pretty damned politically agnostic - particularly in that it now seems to be pissing off everyone. Maybe I'm being too idealistic about it...but ultimately, Republican vs. Democrat isn't going to make a damned bit of difference in the outcome of events in Iraq, so why link the two?

 

Ah, another debate topic!  Doesn't politics always drive policy?

614079[/snapback]

 

Good topic. I'd say usually, but not always (it doesn't now; this administration's attitude seems to be "Here's our policy, all y'all can !@#$ off." Clinton's policies, on the other hand, were excessively driven by politics, to an inarguably unhealthy degree in some cases - such as Afghanistan.)

 

I think an even better topic would be: should policy be driven by politics, and under what circumstances is it appropriate and inappropriate? I can certainly think of situations where letting politics drive foreign policy is a bad idea - hell, this whole port issue right now is a perfect example: the world's perception that we're trying to control and block the economic activities of independent foreign entities, one of whom just happens to be affiliated by name with Arabs and Islam, could end up making us less secure in the long run than just letting the deal go through would have done...and the main drivers of that are exclusively political: Congress wanting to look tough on national security going in to mid-term elections, and Congress getting into a pissing match with the executive over separation of powers.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

2] I must think that if Maureen Dowd or Michael Kinsley wrote a column stating that the war in Iraq is going swimmingly and they are all for following GW's lead in this watershed event, you righties and you righties thinning veiling yourselves as moderates would be fellating yourselves.

614101[/snapback]

 

Yeah.

 

And they'd be just as !@#$ing stupid.

[SilverNRed]

2] I must think that if Maureen Dowd or Michael Kinsley wrote a column stating that the war in Iraq is going swimmingly and they are all for following GW's lead in this watershed event, you righties and you righties thinning veiling yourselves as moderates would be fellating yourselves.

614101[/snapback]

Seriously, no.

 

Maureen Dowd has the least insight of anyone who has ever written an opinion piece for a newspaper. And this includes high school newspapers. Most of the columns from her that I've read break down into "______ is creepy and old" and "Why don't men like me?"

[Kelly the Dog]

Seriously, no.

 

Maureen Dowd has the least insight of anyone who has ever written an opinion piece for a newspaper.  And this includes high school newspapers.

614124[/snapback]

That statement says a lot more about you than it does about her.

[SilverNRed]

That statement says a lot more about you than it does about her.

614148[/snapback]

She doesn't impress me. She never has.

 

If she ever endorsed something that I liked, I wouldn't care. And there's no way I'd start a thread about it as a means of celebration.

[X. Benedict]

She doesn't impress me.  She never has.

 

If she ever endorsed something that I liked, I wouldn't care.  And there's no way I'd start a thread about it as a means of celebration.

614165[/snapback]

 

Agree with her or not, I tend to think that Dowd is about the only female Op-Ed columninst worth reading.

[erynthered]

She doesn't impress me.  She never has.

 

If she ever endorsed something that I liked, I wouldn't care.  And there's no way I'd start a thread about it as a means of celebration.

614165[/snapback]

 

 

I kinda like Michelle Malkin

[KRC]

I kinda like Michelle Malkin 

614182[/snapback]

 

I pictured you as more of a Coulter fan.

[Kelly the Dog]

She doesn't impress me.  She never has.

 

If she ever endorsed something that I liked, I wouldn't care.  And there's no way I'd start a thread about it as a means of celebration.

614165[/snapback]

You don't have to like her. I don't usually like her. A lot of times I hate what she writes. But what you said was that she had the least insight of anyone who has ever written a column in the history of the world, and that she isn't as good as even one high school newspaper columnist in the entire country. So that tells me either you're a moron or you never read anything she wrote, or both.

 

And yes, I do understand sarcasm.

[X. Benedict]

You don't have to like her. I don't usually like her. A lot of times I hate what she writes. But what you said was that she had the least insight of anyone who has ever written a column in the history of the world, and that she isn't as good as even one high school newspaper columnist in the entire country. So that tells me either you're a moron or you never read anything she wrote, or both.

 

And yes, I do understand sarcasm.

614224[/snapback]

I am not big on credentials, but she does have a Pulitzer.

[KRC]

I am not big on credentials, but she does have a Pulitzer.

614228[/snapback]

 

Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

But seriously, I have never read her columns. I make it standard practice to avoid all opinion columns, regardless of political persuasion.

[SilverNRed]

You don't have to like her. I don't usually like her. A lot of times I hate what she writes. But what you said was that she had the least insight of anyone who has ever written a column in the history of the world, and that she isn't as good as even one high school newspaper columnist in the entire country.

614224[/snapback]

And I totally meant that literally.

[Mickey]

Yes, you emphasized his "credentials" in a sarcastic manner...and, in discussing Buckley, failed to actually discuss the topic of Buckley's article yourself.  Thus my point, you !@#$ing idiot. 

613978[/snapback]

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?

[Mickey]

I am not big on credentials, but she does have a Pulitzer.

614228[/snapback]

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.