Ritter Redux

[marksman]

I'm not complaining about it, since I'm a centrist and generally prefer when Dems adpopt GOP stands and vice versa (although I couldn't care less about the Clinton scandals and I hate DoMA). You just asked what I meant by my original comment.

 

[Tricky]

If Joe Lieberman, who failed to win his own party's nomination is your idea of a "popular" Democrat, you've set the bar mighty low!

Popular among the entire public, not just with Democrats. He's likely to win the election.

 

[marksman]

He's popular, in part, because of the ways in which he departs from the Democrats.

 

[Mephisto]

I remember once long ago, I brought up Scott Ritter's objections to this war and the fact that this administration had NO military experience among them and I was promptly told (by the Bush supporters here) that military experience isn't a prerequisite to be President, nor was it necessary to be competent enough to lead troops. We can see now that while this is a true statement military experience MIGHT have made them more empathic with the plight of the everyday troopie.

As an ex-soldier, I can attest to the fact that it's much easier to follow a combat veteran into battle than a cherry-idiot with glory in his eyes.

It should be a shame to this administration that Scott Ritter has been correct in his predictions far more than those who scoffed at his assertions.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As an ex-soldier, I can attest to the fact that it's much easier to follow a combat veteran into battle than a cherry-idiot with glory in his eyes.

It should be a shame to this administration that Scott Ritter has been correct in his predictions far more than those who scoffed at his assertions.

LBJ was in the military. Joy. Likewise Nixon. BFD. GWB was for a short time an Air Force fighter pilot. JFK was a PT boat skipper. Truman an artillerist. Clinton a draft dodger, Wilson (IIRC) had no military experience, but was rather an overambitious lawyer-academic.

Mixed bag.

We did a seminar on this topic once, at staff college, about the necessity, or not, of the Chief Executive having military experience. The analysis was "if he didn't have it, he needs to be sharp enough to find smart generals and secretariat officials."

Experience per se was no guarantor of competence as President, which has uniuqe job requirements.

Ulysses Grant for 50, Alex.

DR

 

[Mephisto]

So is it any wonder the Democrats have been so reluctant to put forward concrete proposals?

Maybe the Dems "concrete proposals" are already in print? It's a forgotten document called, The Constitution.

Maybe they don't endorse:

spying on the American people
torture
creationism in schools
unnecessary war
chipping away at civil liberties

 

[Mephisto]

I was thinking more along the lines of empathy - an ex-soldier might know more about what soldiers need, want or think.

We did a seminar on this topic once, at staff college, about the necessity, or not, of the Chief Executive having military experience. The analysis was "if he didn't have it, he needs to be sharp enough to find smart generals and secretariat officials."

(bolding mine)

He should also be smart enough to listen to them when he has them. Colin Powell was the token smart-guy at least until he realized that he'd been duped along with the rest of us.

IMO, Bush was immediately disqualified at, "he needs to be sharp enough . . "

 

[DavidJames]

He's popular, in part, because of the ways in which he departs from the Democrats.

He is a Democrat, so by definition you're wrong. I think what you are really saying is

He's popular, in part, because of the ways in which he departs from the stereotype I apply Democrats.

Which would apply to the comments about Clinton's policies as well.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think the most important message Dems can deliver now about their plans is that as long as Bush will be president for the next 2 years, they're going to get the Congress back up and running, providing oversight on policy and government operations.

Appropo of nothing, I just want to reiterate this point here.

HGC hits the nail on the head. The democrats message, right now, is that they are going to bring some control back to congress. They are going to start providing some oversight over the war (there have been no hearings of any sort where anyone involved with DoD has had the opportunity to stand before congress and say, "here's what we see, and here's what we think we need to do, and here's what we need from the government and the people;" all we have heard is from the president's office). They are going to have real debates over the president's initiatives, to determine whether they are really to the benefit of the citizens of the US, as opposed to the current process of congressional rubber stamping everything that the president wants to do. In short, they are going to return our government to the system of checks and balances, in which congress actually has the ability of their own to govern. Having too much power in a single party leads to corruption, and the Foley case has illustrated that. The republicans have made the government a single party institution, and they have actively worked to prevent the democrats from having a voice. This is great for them when they get to make laws. However, this same policy is what has turned around to bite them on the arse in the Foley case. Instead of treating it as a congressional problem, and involving the democrats (for example, notifying the democrat on the page oversight committee), they did their usual and tried to handle it among the republican members. Unfortunately, now that it has all come to light, it falls solely on them.

Realize, had they informed a single democrat on this matter, there would not a coverup scandal in the republican leadership. But their MO of insisting on doing everything themselves has gotten them hoisted on their own petard.

 

[Crossbow]

There have already been numerous press accounts from soldiers slogging out on the ground all the way up to the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff saying that the war is going very badly, is likely lost, and the Bush Administration is to blame.

While this Ritter report does codify things yet further, it does not seem to really present anything that has not already been reported for quite some time.

 

[marksman]

He is a Democrat, so by definition you're wrong. I think what you are really saying is Which would apply to the comments about Clinton's policies as well.

Actually, I should just have changed the word "the" to the word "other" and it would have been fine. Sorry for omitting two characters.

 

[Mycroft]

Maybe the Dems "concrete proposals" are already in print? It's a forgotten document called, The Constitution.

Maybe they don't endorse:

spying on the American people
torture
creationism in schools
unnecessary war
chipping away at civil liberties

Right. Because Republicans don't value the Constitution.

 

[fishbob]

Right. Because Republicans don't value the Constitution.

All Republicans are not necessarily lying (&^$#^# weasels who don't value the constitution, it is just that the most egregious lying *&(&#$# weasels at this time happen to be Republicans.

The shameful part for the Republican party is that the non-lying @(&##@ weasel Repblicans have laid low or played politics instead of standing up the the lying (&#(*& weasels.

The Dems have their own problems, but, at least for now, being the lead lying #&*)&$ weasel is not one of them.

 

[Mephisto]

Right. Because Republicans don't value the Constitution.

Well they ARE the ones trying to change it to reflect their views on what marriage should be, and they ARE the ones who are ignoring the Bill of Rights in order to spy on innocent Americans. What can you point at to prove the Republicans value the Constitution?

 

[Mycroft]

Well they ARE the ones trying to change it to reflect their views on what marriage should be, and they ARE the ones who are ignoring the Bill of Rights in order to spy on innocent Americans. What can you point at to prove the Republicans value the Constitution?

1) Arn't Democrats trying to do that too?

2) Which parts of the Bill of Rights are being ignored in your opinion?

3) You are making the claim, you can back it up with something more substantial than partisan rhetoric.

 

[Darth Rotor]

1) Arn't Democrats trying to do that too?

2) Which parts of the Bill of Rights are being ignored in your opinion?

3) You are making the claim, you can back it up with something more substantial than partisan rhetoric.

Dems are big on repealing the second amendment via legislation.

Oh, they love the Constitution, as liner for their bird cages.

DR

 

[marksman]

Well they ARE the ones trying to change it to reflect their views on what marriage should be

But they are trying to change it in accordance withthe provisions the document itself contains for its own amendment. how could that possibly be disrespect for the document?

Unless you contend the Constitution is sacrosanct and should never be amended. That would be an unusual attitude from you, given the contempt you have expressed for those who consider other written documents (such as the Bible) sacrosanct.

they ARE the ones who are ignoring the Bill of Rights in order to spy on innocent Americans.

Evidence, please. (That they are ignoring the Constitution, not the spying, of which I am well aware.)

What can you point at to prove the Republicans value the Constitution?

Well, your own post evidences it, in that they are attempting to amend the Constution in accord with its terms, rather than simply ignoring it.

I find your sudden and inexplicable enshrinement of the Constitution rather odd, Mephisto. I mean, I think the domestic spying program is unconscionable, but that doesn't mean every criticism of it make sense. Yours doesn't.