Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Don't you just love rhetorical questions?

Posted by Kevin McGehee at September 3, 2003 11:39 AM

Damn straight. George Bush has done more harm to this country than the people who blew up the WTC.

The WTC terrorists killed 3000 civilians and destroyed a handful of buildings. These were terrible crimes to be sure, but our country is strong, and we could easily have withstood far worse (and some say we may yet have to, God forbid).

George Bush on the other hand has done real and lasting damage to our country, the kind of damage that the terrorists could only dream of.

He has lead us to sacrifice our freedom for security, perhaps even just for the illusion of security.

He has lead us to war with a country that we now know never did pose a threat to us. He has shown nothing but bald-faced arrogance in the face of incontrovertible proof that the reasons he gave for going to war were false. This is not to say no good has come of attacking Iraq, but the ends do not justify the means. Some of us still believe that the truth matters.

He has undermined our long-term economic future by pumping up the deficit to record levels to fund tax cuts for the rich. He has shown utter contempt for the will of the people by sending John Ashcroft to override popular initiatives in Oregon and California. I could go on and on.

As awful as 9/11 was, terrorists could never in their wildest dreams aspire to do as much harm to the United States of America as George Bush has done.

Damn straight we're angry.

Posted by Erann Gat at September 3, 2003 01:49 PM

Thanks, Erann, for making my point with that little nonsensical rant.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 3, 2003 02:06 PM

President Bush seems to be prompting the same kind of vitrolic and not-necessarily-rational contempt from some quarters that his predecessor provoked from other quarters.

Aside from being rather boring, politics that require you to sell your soul to an ideology -- and turn off your brain -- are dangerous. Clinton got it from the salivating right; Bush gets it from the salivating left. The danger doesn't come from their certainty of belief. The danger comes from their willingness to use government to compel behavior in keeping with their beliefs.

Posted by enloop at September 3, 2003 02:16 PM

There's something to what enloop says, but it's still significant that Clinton was (IMNSHO justly) reviled for mendacity and untrustworthiness, whereas Dubya, who has spoken the truth as he knew it from Day One, is reviled simply for doing what he's said he'll do.

I can't approve of Bush Administration domestic policy to any great extent. Once we pass from the tax cuts, Bush has signed on to a liberal / statist agenda. Yet, nothing he's initiated was unforeseen; he promised every element of it during his presidential campaign.

The willingness to keep one's word, even when given unwisely or against one's better judgment, is itself praiseworthy...but that's what the Left hates most about President Bush. Go figure.

Posted by Francis W. Porretto at September 3, 2003 02:32 PM

Funny how during the 90's the "angry white male" was an object of ridicule, a bunch of kooks and weirdos and losers. Now we've got a bunch of angry white Leftists, and this time we are supposed to treat their anger as an indication of how morally correct and superior they are.

The problem with anger is that it's negative, it offers no solutions for any problems. The best Leftists are offereing is the status quo ante, which is a polite way to say they will pretend it's still the booming (in more ways than one), carefree days of the 1990s. Unfortunately for them, too many people see that it's an offer they can't deliver on. They can't specify how they will fix the terrible mess they think Georgie has made, because they have nothing to offer. Worse, they won't even recognize the part they played during the 1990s in getting us to this point.

(I like the bit about Ashcroft overriding "popular initiaitives." Considering all the initiatives which have been invalidated by leftist lawsuits and their judges over the years in states like Colorado, Washington and California, to get all upset about medical quackery and dopesmoking shows where leftists priorities really are.

And ain't it interesting how in the early ninties it was "angry white males" who voted for Perot who were all upset about deficits? It went nowhere because it was a stupid, narrow thing for stupid, narrow people to get all upset about. So of course the Left, which takes pride in having learned nothing from the right's failures of the 1990s, pick it up as a major theme.)

Posted by Raoul Ortega at September 3, 2003 02:38 PM

And ain't it interesting how in the early ninties it was "angry white males" who voted for Perot who were all upset about deficits? It went nowhere because it was a stupid, narrow thing for stupid, narrow people to get all upset about.

It went nowhere, huh...

I seem to remember this mythical being known as the "Surplus".....

...maybe another urban myth....

Posted by Duncan Young at September 3, 2003 03:02 PM

> Dubya, who has spoken the truth as he knew it from Day One

That truth includes such statements as, "I?m the commander. See, I don?t have to explain why I say things. That?s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don?t feel like I owe anybody an explanation." Yep, gotta hand it to Dubya. He's very straightforward about his contempt for democracy.

> he promised every element of it during his presidential campaign.

That's right, which is exactly why most Americans didn't vote for him.

Posted by Erann Gat at September 3, 2003 03:38 PM

Erann, you are an absolute scream. Just as with well-known trolls "Barney Gumble," "Kimmitt," and Bill Quick's pet goblin Tony Foresta, if you didn't already exist, it would be necessary to invent you.

Posted by Francis W. Porretto at September 3, 2003 03:49 PM

Duncan: The "surplus" that was a combination of internet bubble and fancy accounting?

The "Surplus" that was, of course, immediately spent by the Federal government, before the 2000 election, even though it was pretty much imaginary to begin with?

Oh, yeah. THAT Surplus.

Surpluses are one thing that Governments are very good at making go away. The executive has little to do with this part of the State's ability, except to sign off on it (and, well, in cases of "surplus" it's especially politically suicidal to not sign the budget - does the President want poor children to starve or be uneducated to maintain a surplus?BURN HIM!).

Blaming Bush for making the "surplus" go away is either vastly naive or vastly cynical. (To be fair, blaming Clinton for it would also be either naive or cynical, but nobody here was even implying that...)

Posted by Sigivald at September 3, 2003 04:29 PM

Sigivald,
The surplus was a symptom of a non-Trust budget that was, in reality, pretty close to balanced, and was benefiting from the capitial gains the bubble produced. The Perotists had a hand in setting up the climate that forced the balanced budget - which was the point I was making to Raoul's post.

Notice I didn't explicitly blame Bush in there. Given events since 2000, a temporary pause in balanced budgets is reasonable (even if Bush continous to being disingenuous about breaking election promises - "trifecta" my arse).

What the Bush administration has done with these tax cuts (sold on the basis of the temporary surplus) is to return to structural deficits in the non-Social Security portion of the government; the drop in top marginal rates - where the benefits of a recovering economy will primarily go - means that even when the economy recovers, the deficit will not be affected that much - especially when the AMT gets fixed.

In addition, the Iraq war comes at a time when the costs add directly to the debt and thus ongoing interest payments.

And if there is an attempt to "privatize" Social Security, there will be a need to come up with about a terrabuck from somewhere.

Right now, you could zero out just about everything outside of the non-discretionaries and the military and still be in the red.

And all this mean bad, bad things when Social Security cashflow starts going negative.

Posted by Duncan Young at September 3, 2003 05:44 PM

It takes a Democrat to announce that $500 billion in tax CUTS is evil and damaging to the economy because it runs up a deficit... and the only sure cure is to immediately enact over $1 TRILLION in extra spending.

So, Duncan: How are you going to vote in '04? Democrat... or American?

Posted by David Paglia at September 3, 2003 06:24 PM

David,
Neither - I'm a conservative leaning New Zealander.
I am motivated on this issue by the selfish fact that a crappy economy for the US is a crappy economy for everyone. And I also like most of the people I've met over here.

Tax cuts are not evil; but in the middle of a war they are fiscally stupid, and just another gutless political maneuver.

And David, I'd advise you not to look at how much your president has spent on non-military handouts when compared to alleged big spenders Carter and Clinton - your head might explode.

It's tax and spend vs. lie and spend - you get to pick one.

Posted by Duncan Young at September 3, 2003 07:05 PM

Duncan, I actually agree with most of what you say (except for the part about tax cuts during a war, because it isn't clear that this war has to be all that expensive, relative to past ones).

The Bush administration is a disaster domestically, to either conservatives or libertarians, but, sadly, it will probably help it get reelected next year, which is a good thing from the standpoint of the war, which to me is the primary issue right now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 3, 2003 07:43 PM

Rand,
What put me off the war was Jim Fallows' The 51st State" from last year.
I reread it recently - right now the fiscal picture is a lot worse that he predicted.
And with the CBO estimate that this deployment is sustainable for only six more months...
I think this is going to be expensive. A minimum of a half trillion over the next decade. I think it is too late for the U.N. to mitagate this.
FasterBetterCheaper does not work for millitary occupations. And the sooner the adminstration wakes up to this, the better.

Cheers,
Duncan

Posted by Duncan Young at September 3, 2003 08:21 PM

> The Bush administration is a disaster domestically

I'm glad to see we agree on something other than space exploration.

Posted by Erann Gat at September 3, 2003 08:37 PM

You folks have it good.

In this reality, the choice is not between Bush and something better, it's between Bush and a bunch of Dems whose most prominent characteristic is that they're even worse than Bush.

As far as the "civil rights" and "liberties" argument goes, you don't have much credibility on that issue unless you opposed those measures when they were proposed during the previous administration.

Yup, the "Bush evil" is merely recycled Clinton.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 3, 2003 09:01 PM

In this reality, the choice is not between Bush and something better, it's between Bush and a bunch of Dems whose most prominent characteristic is that they're even worse than Bush.

In this reality, the choice is between unified government and a president who can kill spending bills and blame it on gridlock.

Gridlock: your fiscal friend!

Posted by Duncan Young at September 3, 2003 09:26 PM

> The Bush administration is a disaster domestically.

I'm glad to see we agree on something other than space exploration.

Erann, while we agree on the general statement, I strongly suspect that we'd find difficulty agree about to which specific aspects of the policy that it applied.

;-)

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 3, 2003 09:31 PM

The Left and the Right are all the same to me. Rants, threats, and blurbs fired at each other. A rhetorical Israel-Palestinian situation.

As far as President Bush goes. I don't have a major problem with him. I think he gets a too grandiose in his speeches (especially concerning the war and economy). And we don't see him as much as past presidents. As far as the lying goes. Well, I didn't think Bill Clinton's affair was worth all the fuss and I don't think the infamous "words" are going to sack Bush.

I just have a general problem with all presidents: a seemingly aloofness when it comes to domestic affairs and social policy. Like it isn't taken as serious as foreign policy.

Posted by S-Train at September 4, 2003 02:59 AM

> The Bush administration is a disaster
> domestically, to either conservatives or
> libertarians, but, sadly, it will probably help
> it get reelected next year, which is a good
> thing from the standpoint of the war, which to
> me is the primary issue right now.

Actually, the Administration's international campaign ("War on Terror") has been pretty disastrous for the last twelve months or so as well. Want evidence? Well, everyone agrees the political preparation for war in late 2002/early 2003 (=persuading other nations and the UN that the supposed WMD threat was real) was a fiasco. The only disagreement is who deserves the blame. The neocons blame Powell and the State department. Anti-war activists say the problem starts right at the top, in the Oval Office. The alleged WMDs have not been found despite the capture of many key Baathist officials. As a result, Tony Blair is hanging by a thread.

More recently, there is near-universal agreement that the Administration's planning for the post-Iraq period has been inadequate. Afghanistan (which *was* a comparative success story for a year or so) is also slowly starting to slide back towards chaos for largely the same reasons. Even the pro-war types agree the U.S. urgently needs more troops and resources, so the President is now being forced to go back to the supposedly "irrelevant" U.N. (read: Russia/France/Germany) for economic and military help.

So what's left? Two glorious months in March and April. Hardly very impressive, when one considers the massive military-technological advantage enjoyed by the US (e.g. the Americans spend 400 times as much on defense as the Iraqi). And in any case, MILITARY victory was always a foregone conclusion -- the only question was how long Saddam would survive and his capability of inflicting damage. The "quagmire" predictions mainly concerned the post-war period, which requires totally different skills and capabilities.

It always amazes me how incredibly *NAIVE* people such as Paul Wolfowitz are. Do these guys seriously believe Shiite fundamentalists will greet infidel Yanks as "liberators??" Half a million Iraqis attend the funeral of Ayatollah Baqr al-Hakim -- a relative moderate who was tortured by Saddam and reportedly had more than 20 relatives killed by the old regime. Most likely, the mosque bombing was carried out by ex-Saddamites as well. So what does his brother say? Does he call for Jeffersonian democracy and "freedom?" No, he blames the Americans for his brother's death and demand that they immediately leave Iraq!

When will intelligent libertarians and small-government conservatives wake up and see the neocon "democratic imperialism" pipe dream as it actually is -- a misguided big government project... It will reduce personal freedom at home as well as result in a bigger federal government while accomplishing nothing useful abroad. Do you really think the Neocon bureaucrats know best how to decide the future of a sovereign state located thousands of miles away on the other side of the globe, whose religion, languages and customs are barely known to most Americans?

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at September 4, 2003 07:39 AM

Erann Gat, its common to put a /sarcasm tag at the end of your post when you post something mind boggelingly stupid or else people might think you're serious.

Posted by Yank at September 4, 2003 12:16 PM

Left, right, it doesn't matter. There will be serious repercussions and long lasting ramifications regardless of the actions. I am no fan of Bush, but I do not hate him. Yes there could have been alternatives to everything he did, if we want an alternative we must vote for someone else (with the system we have in place). Plain and simple. We have a president who saw it fit to do what he did. For better or worse he is our president. We cannot expect perfection, or even great wisdom. We can only hope that he has the best of intentions, and only guess at why he felt this was the best course of action. Let history judge whether he was right or wrong. We can only choose an alternative in the future. Besides, there is plenty of past scenarios that show the alternative solutions that were proposed would be just as ineffectual. Who knows, the man may be a genius in the long run. Another president that had half the country mad at him, and caused more domestic damage than probably anyone in history is Abraham Lincoln. Although I suspect most people would agree that his actions have done more good than harm......

Posted by Richard at September 4, 2003 05:22 PM

ERANN GAT = ANGER ANT

Therefore, intellegence = null

Posted by Dave at September 4, 2003 10:19 PM

Can we hang a QED on this one, or does it need to simmer a bit longer?

C'mon, folks, you can do better than that. I haven't even heard Halliburton mentioned once.

Posted by David Perron at September 5, 2003 01:17 PM

> Can we hang a QED on this one, or does it need
> to simmer a bit longer?

> C'mon, folks, you can do better than that.

Maybe Rand feels like writing another confident WW II-is-really-exactly-like-Iraq methaphor now?

Or maybe not anymore...

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at September 6, 2003 06:51 AM

Duncan, I actually agree with most of what you say (except for the part about tax cuts during a war, because it isn't clear that this war has to be all that expensive, relative to past ones)

Written post-Bush speech:

After six months we are now half way to the Korean War in terms of cost.

I think beating Vietnam is very possible

Posted by Duncan Young at September 7, 2003 06:41 PM

After six months we are now half way to the Korean War in terms of cost.

I seriously doubt that. Have you accounted for inflation? Also, you're not considering the (relatively) trivial casualties, or the fact that we won, rather than stalemated...

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 7, 2003 08:03 PM

Rand,

Not only is there an inflation factor, but there's also the RELATIVE cost. What is the size of the US GDP today versus 1967, never mind 1951? Costs of war must be measured, not simply in absolute terms, but in terms of the ability of the economy to sustain it. I'd be very surprised if the US economy today were LESS capable of sustaining a war effort than in 1951.

Posted by Dean at September 8, 2003 07:24 AM

Rand,
My statment does account for inflation as noted here .
However, I actually *lowballed* the relative cost by not accounting for interest on debt.

And as you have so correctly noted for STS-107, the lives lost, while tragic, do not represent not the most important implication of operations.

In many ways (total debt, current account deficit, size cf the global economy, and, of course, federal deficit) the United States economy is in a more fragile position than it was during the fifties.

It is not enough to win the war - you must survive it too (see British Empire and World War II)

Cheers,
Duncan

Posted by Duncan Young at September 8, 2003 10:12 AM

In many ways (total debt, current account deficit, size cf the global economy, and, of course, federal deficit) the United States economy is in a more fragile position than it was during the fifties.

That's certainly a debatable proposition.

And as you have so correctly noted for STS-107, the lives lost, while tragic, do not represent not the most important implication of operations.

Lives of seven astronauts lost pale compared to the relevant hardware issues. Lives of tens of thousands of soldiers killed and permanently maimed don't. Consider the future cost to the economy of the loss of productivity and medical care.

And again, we won in Iraq (at least militarily). We stalemated in Korea.

I expect to spend much more on this war over the next years, or decades. It is as serious a fight as the Cold War is. I think that people who call it World War IV are perfectly justified in doing so. Fortunately, we have the national wealth to wage it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 8, 2003 10:56 AM

And again, we won in Iraq (at least militarily). We stalemated in Korea.
The Soviet Union won militarily in Afganistan in 1981. The United States won militarily in Vietnam in 1968.

In other words, too early to tell.

(And to counter the inevitable "superpower support" arguement, in a globalized world and with the irregular methods of the other side the support of a superpower is unnecessary. A certain royal family will suffice.)

Fortunately, we have the national wealth to wage it.
This country's total debt level is closing in on %300 of GDP.
And an overall strategy that involves reshaping societies, and therefore occupation and nation building, will be a hell of a lot more expensive than the technological face-off of the Cold War.
And to get back to my original point:
Tax cuts are not evil; but in the middle of a war they are fiscally stupid, and just another gutless political maneuver.
The national wealth is only relevent if you are willing to tax it.

Posted by Duncan Young at September 8, 2003 11:19 AM

Duncan:

The Soviet Union, at the end of the day, was not defeated in Afghanistan, in a military sense. Even WITH the provision of Stingers and better training, the Soviets, AFAIK, never withdrew a single division from the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. Indeed, they never committed anything even approaching a TVD's worth of troops---I believe their maximum commitment was closer to about 5 divisions (after the initial 1981 take-over). The US could bleed Afghanistan, but it was a political decision, as in Vietnam, that ended the war---not defeat on the battlefield.

While you are partly correct that a certain royal family could make our stay more difficult, at the end of the day, history actually shows that very, very few guerilla militaries triumph over regular forces, unless there is provision of more than simply some weapons and training. To begin with, it requires broad and general support from the population---a proposition that, at this point, is certainly debatable within Iraq. An apathetic population tends to favor the regular forces---the guerillas require ACTIVE involvement.

As for reshaping societies, the anti-globo movement, etc., have been complaining about corporations and American culture changing the world for the past decade and a half (at least). All WITHOUT military intervention. Not to say Iraq will change SIMPLY because of Coca-Cola and Disney, but it's not exactly as though we're Belgium trying to change Congo, either. And that applies to the application of wealth---which is more efficacious in the long-run, government aid or private investment?

Posted by Dean at September 9, 2003 07:00 AM

> history actually shows that very, very few
> guerilla militaries triumph over regular
> forces, unless there is provision of more than
> simply some weapons and training.

Looking at the recent history of the Middle East, I am not sure if your statement is relevant... The Palestinian terrorists (or "freedom fighters" if you prefer that point of view) have been killing Israelis for 30+ years despite countless military setbacks. They are receiving financial and moral support from other Arab nations -- which have lost every single war since Israel declared independence.
---
It seems to me as if Islamic fundamentalism (combined with pan-Arab nationalism) actually will be harder to defeat than Nazism or Communism because its followers are not discouraged by failure. We are talking about religious fanaticism here, and this ideology seems to be largely unaffected by repeated military or economic failure. 1930s fascism was always quite hollow to begin with and mostly defined by opposition to various things (e.g. certain ethnic groups). This is why German resistance collapsed as soon as the war ended in 1945. Communism, on the other hand, at least attempts to provide a constructive program for change. But most observers regard that ideology as a failure because it never produced the "materialistic" gains predicted by Marx et al.. As for militant Islam, it seems quite likely that there will *still* be suicidal terrorist attacks against Israeli targets 50 years from now no matter how hopeless the struggle appears to a rational observer in the West.
---
Frankly, I do not understand how these people reason. It is not as if they have never been exposed to modernity, capitalism and democracy before. Millions of them (including all the Sept.11 hijackers) moved to Western Europe searching for a higher standard of living, yet many (at least Arab males and older women) stubbornly refuse to accept the very modern secular values that GENERATED this wealth! Maybe things will be different if the corrupt dictatorships were removed from power, but I wouldn't bet on it.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at September 10, 2003 12:21 AM

They are receiving financial and moral support from other Arab nations -- which have lost every single war since Israel declared independence.

Yes, and the "war on terror" won't be won until that ends.

It seems to me as if Islamic fundamentalism (combined with pan-Arab nationalism) actually will be harder to defeat than Nazism or Communism because its followers are not discouraged by failure.

Actually, they probably will be eventually. They just don't perceive that they've failed. As long as we continue to reward them with things like "peace processes" they'll think that they're winning, and in a real sense, they are.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 10, 2003 04:43 PM

Post a comment