A Challenge for the Lefty Commenters Here
Interesting exchange in the comments at that Hiltzik post I discussed yesterday. The first commenter, a lefty appropriately named Asinistra, made the patently absurd suggestion that I consider the real enemy to be, not the terrorists, but the L.A. Times:
Patterico’s take makes perfect sense when one factors in that in his world the real enemy is not Hamas, but the LA Times. I suspect the Times’s dedicated Zarqawi, Hugh Hewitt, will be getting his listeners strapped up with explosives to visit you later today.
(All emphasis in this post is mine.)
This is ridiculous on its face. I may not like the L.A. Times, but I know who the real enemy is. The question is, do leftists? I ultimately decided to make this point explicit in this comment:
By the way, the first commenter could not be more off-base. In my world, the real enemies are terrorists, not newspapers. Unfortunately, I see far too many on the left (and I don’t include Hiltzik in this sad group) for whom the real enemy is not the terrorists, but rather George W. Bush.
Guess what? Lo and behold, the leftist who made the original comment comes back and admits that she is among the group of people who consider George W. Bush to be a bigger threat than the terrorists are:
Patterico says:
“I see far too many on the left…for whom the real enemy is not the terrorists, but rather George W. Bush.”On behalf of this “sad group,” let me briefly outline for Patterico why we see George W. Bush as the real enemy rather than the terrorists.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Asinistra follows with reasons 1 through 6 why Bush is the real enemy, and near the end of her comment makes this observation:
I could go on. The bottom line, Patterico, is that as an enemy Mr. Bush acquits himself unusually well (and I will resist anything so inflammatory as to match his body count of dead Americans against Osama bin Laden’s.)
She “will resist” — but she clearly doesn’t want to.
“Asinistra” thinks the real enemy is, not the terrorists, but George W. Bush. I wonder how common this sentiment is among the left?
I despised Bill Clinton, but I recognized that he was trying to do what he thought was best for this country (as long as it didn’t interfere with what he thought was best for Bill Clinton). I can’t imagine saying that he was a bigger danger than the enemies of this country, who want to kill us all. At worst, he enabled our enemies; that doesn’t make him worse than they are.
Yet I see this sentiment expressed about President Bush fairly often among elements of the unhinged left.
So I throw it open to the lefties here. Can I get a clear statement from you that you consider the terrorists to be a bigger threat, and a bigger enemy, than George W. Bush? Nobody is asking you to say you like Bush or his policies. We just want to know whom you consider to be a bigger threat.
For some of you, this will be easy. For others of you, making a clear statement to this effect will be well-nigh impossible. I think that I could easily predict who falls into which category, but it would be more interesting to sit back and watch how it plays out.
What do you say, lefties? Who is the bigger enemy? Osama bin Laden? Or George W. Bush?
OK, I feel kind of dumb doing this Patterico, but I’ll do it just for you.
President George W. Bush is less of a threat to America than terrorists are.
Comment by Psyberian — 1/29/2006 @ 11:40 am
Psyberian, I had you pegged as the first lefty out of the box who would say so. It may seem silly now . . . but it will seem less so as we watch the other lefties either ignore the post or snark their way out of a clear statement. Unless Tom Hoberg comes back for a return visit, I’m not sure anyone else will say it as clearly as you just have.
But thanks for doing so.
Comment by Patterico — 1/29/2006 @ 11:43 am
Actually, I retract that. I had forgotten about some other frequent lefty commenters here . . . you won’t be the only one, I predict.
Comment by Patterico — 1/29/2006 @ 11:45 am
This should be interesting….
Comment by Specter — 1/29/2006 @ 11:48 am
What disturbs me about “Bush is worse than the terrorists” is that in almost all cases, the speaker is not really strongly opposed to the terrorists as all. The speaker usually finds the terrorist acts unpleasant but understandable, and the desired response is to give the terrorist what (Chomsky says) he wants.
Comment by LTEC — 1/29/2006 @ 12:12 pm
I always try to make a distinction in my speech/writing between “liberals,” whom I consider to be leftward but reasonable people with whom I disagree, and “lefties” or “leftists,” who are, in my estimation, total whackjobs.
I think it’s fairly easy to guess which commentators around here fall into each category. I tend to be nicer to the former too.
Comment by Angry Clam — 1/29/2006 @ 12:24 pm
I think this is a pretty good test for whether someone deserves respect. If you can’t bring yourself to say this, I will have a hard time respecting you.
Comment by Patterico — 1/29/2006 @ 12:27 pm
I think Patterico’s right, that it’s an issue about earning respect. Debra Saunders earns respect; Ann Coulter doesn’t. Those on the left who say that George is worse than Osama do not earn respect.
I also think Pat’s pegged Bill Clinton; to a substantial extent, he thought he was doing what was right. As does Bush. We can argue whether they are correct - and those discussions might be fruitful in some places - but arguing that they are evil trolls agaainst America isn’t true and doesn’t help.
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 1/29/2006 @ 12:51 pm
It would be interesting to pose this question on Democratic Underground. The responses would be overwhelmingly in favor of Bush being the bigger threat. It wouldn’t even be close to being a contest; it’d run 90% Bush easily.
Comment by Voice of Reason — 1/29/2006 @ 12:58 pm
Patterico - Osama Bin Laden is a much bigger threat to the country than President Bush. President Bush is often, IMO, wrong, and his administration has done some things which I think are problematic for the long-term health of our system, but he is generally trying to do what he thinks is best for our country. Osama bin Laden is trying to destroy it.
[I had you pegged as another reasonable lefty who would have no problem saying this. -- Patterico]
Comment by aphrael — 1/29/2006 @ 1:34 pm
Patterico’s question
After reading a posting from Asinistra who “see(s) George W. Bush as the real enemy rather than the terrorists,” Patterico set up the following section on his site:
So I throw it open to the lefties here. Can I get a clear statement from…
Trackback by Common Sense Political Thought — 1/29/2006 @ 1:49 pm
I don’t even approve of the premise that President Bush could be “an enemy”. Sure, he was my political opponent during an election; and I strongly dislike his politics and am often in disagreement with his administration … but he’s not an enemy. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that.
Comment by aphrael — 1/29/2006 @ 1:50 pm
Your question is well-put, Patterico. There will be plenty of lefties, and some liberals, sadly, who answer in behalf of OBL but maybe they will have to stop and think for a minute once they send off their post and see it in print.
Reflexes are quick on all sides and I’m glad to see that you sometimes smack righties who get carried away with their own vituperation. Ann Coulter ought to run Disk Doctor on the hard drive in her head before she says too much more.
We all could run a good utilities program once in a while on our minds.
Comment by Evan Maxwell — 1/29/2006 @ 2:53 pm
Remember when extreme Clinton-hatred became a cottage industry in certain quarters about 10 or so years ago? I think we’re seeing almost the mirror image of that now.
It was ugly and scary then, and it’s just as repulsive in its current incarnation.
The main difference I see is that the obsessive Clinton-hating nut jobs came mostly from the fringes of politics, i.e., Falwell, ultra gun freaks & the black helicopter boys. And a multi-millionaire magazine publisher.
But this intense Bush-hatred now emanates from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party — folks who are normally considered to be within the mainstream of political thought.
My country is more important to me than any political party affiliation — and this polarizing vitriol weakens us at a time when we are facing an enemy who will be empowered by our political division.
The Democratic activists are already buzzing about impeachment. And if they can capture enough seats in November, I have no doubt they will push for it in ‘07.
Let’s take cautionary lesson from the Palisinian election results: Those who sow hate reap a harvest of woe.
Comment by Dennis Mosher — 1/29/2006 @ 3:00 pm
I agree with Patterico’s assessment of the Bill Clinton era. I was one of those souls who voted for him in 1992 thinking he would be a moderate who worked on issues that were important to me. By 1996, I had become extremely disenchanted with the way he ran the White House, but I found the nutjobs who accused him of having various people offed just as distasteful. And even as I deride the mission in Bosnia as a pseudo-war, I was glad to see us DO something, since the U.N. and Europeans are unwilling to do anything, even when the aggression is in their backyard.
Just as I never understood the deep, dirty hatred of Bill Clinton, I am completely mystified by the people who despise George W. Bush. If Clinton (or any Democrat, for that matter) had been president on 9/11 and done everything Bush has done since, I would be standing behind him/her, too. It’s difficult to comprehend emotion that trumps reason.
As for Ann Coulter, I will confess I absolutely love her because she can drive liberals nuts. However, it’s difficult to pick out the portions of her writing which are simply laser-like accurate from the vitriol (such as the joke about poisoning a Supreme Court justice). It may make me rethink my liking her.
Comment by sharon — 1/29/2006 @ 3:15 pm
If leftists don’t respond, can we make it up for them? For example, Bush is a bigger threat because he is a Capitalist, and Osama, enc., is not - Capitalists being, by Marxist definiton, evil, and anyone opposing them, good.
Or, Global Warming is, by definition, bad; therefore, anyone who opposes the Kyoto Protocol is bad. Osama supports it, if I recall correctly, therefore he is good.
Or, white males are bad by definition. Therefore, Bush is bad. Osama is not “white”, therefore, he is good.
Or, the Jews are bad, by definition, therefore anyone who supports Irael is bad. Osama and the terrorists want to destroy Israel and all Jews; therefore they are good. “Good” = “less threat”. And so on.
Comment by J. Peden — 1/29/2006 @ 3:30 pm
After passing this on to some of my wild-eyed leftist whacko friends, I got this back in an e-mail:
The person who wrote that has his own (almost never visited) website, and has been writing bovine feces like that about Republicans since at least 1994, but, for some strange reason, hasn’t been thrown in jail yet, yet he still believes it.
Obviously, since it was a private e-mail, I won’t reveal the writer’s name.
I also suggested this thread to the site owner of The Liberal Avenger, to see if he wanted to publicize it for the moonbats there.
Comment by Dana — 1/29/2006 @ 4:32 pm
I am increasingly of the opinion that some on the “left”, particularly the anti-globalization left, view al Qaeda as allies, not enemies.
That they call Bush a terrorist isn’t surprising as they oppose anyone remotely allied to the capitaist West. Osama hitting the Pentagon and World Trade Center was something they didn’t have much problem with. If anything, they regretted the people on the airplanes. But they got over it.
THese are the people you see with Pacifica Radio bumper stickers or lambasting politicians for corporate ties. I suspect most of them vote Green, not Democrat.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/29/2006 @ 4:55 pm
I note almost a total lack of response from the “left”. Why am I not surprised?
Comment by Bill M — 1/29/2006 @ 5:10 pm
I’ve always suspected that fringe-leftists hate Bush mostly for domestic social issues (abortion, gay rights, religion, etc). In my opinion, they fail the intellectual honesty test when they automatically transfer that hatred into opposition of the president’s foreign policy actions.
The two aspects, simply put, are not connected. We can argue all day about domestic issues, and while there are political winners and losers, American life goes on. But, if we lose this War on Terror, life gets…inconvenient for everyone.
Comment by Jal — 1/29/2006 @ 5:17 pm
There aren’t really that many of us around. Actus drops in intermittently; I don’t know what happened to Biwah. The new Blubonnet might pipe up here any second. (Aphrael’s already commented.) Other than that, there aren’t many more who regularly comment here that I can think of.
Comment by Psyberian — 1/29/2006 @ 5:23 pm
The anti-globalization left and Pacifica radio listeners are a marginalized, radical cult.
The problem is, their ideology is infiltrating into the liberal wing of the Democratic party. The religious right wants to dominate the Republican party.
Center-right vs Center-left is a good thing. The conflict usually results in a compromise that most Americans can live with.
Radical-right vs Radical-left is a bad thing. These groups refuse to compromise, so the conflict usually results in street riots, tear gas, and martial law.
Centrism is a good thing. Vote McCain/Leiberman
Comment by Dennis Mosher — 1/29/2006 @ 5:25 pm
I voted for Bill Clinton twice. On balance, I think he was a good President. Not without faults in a number of areas, chief among them the inability to blast out the lunatics from the Party as Reps did after the Pat Buchanon “cultural war” fiasco in the 1992 Rep Convention.
NOW you have Cindy Sheehan calling Bill Clinton a mass-murderer of Iraqis. Totally off the sanity map.
I disagree with GWB on taxes, quite a bit of the implementation of the War on Terror (not hardline and enough resources for my taste, I’d prefer an FDR-style mobilization). That being said, I support his foreign policy generally and consider him wrong politically on some issues.
Osama bin Laden and Ahmadinejad are the two greatest mortal threats to the lives and livelihoods of Americans today. They want to kill as many Americans as possible and enslave the rest. Is this feasible? No but they certainly have the ability to kill lots of Americans. Lots defined as tens of thousands to millions.
Something happened to the Left a long time ago. Pacifica Radio is now being run by a lunatic conspiracy theorist who believes “the Jews” i.e. GWB, Mossad, and the CIA brought down the Twin Towers not the saintly Osama. A belief shared btw by John Conyers, Cynthia McKinney, Jim Moran, and other Democratic Congressman.
It’s just … the lunatics have taken over my Party. I don’t even recognize it anymore. I used to be proud to be a Democrat. We used to stand for things. Now it’s just … lunacy.
Comment by Jim Rockford — 1/29/2006 @ 6:37 pm
Pray for Hillary. Or for the Kossacks to take over the Democratic Party and nominate some McGovernite who will crash and burn in ‘08. Either way centrists will still either be in control or will take control back from a defeated fringe Left that (more likely than not) humiliated itself during the campaign. Except for True Believers like George Soros, the big moneymen of the Democratic Party won’t back a losing horse and local candidates will distance themselves from the national party and national party figures, just like the GOP is worried about large contributors being frustrated with Bush and about Bush’s potential negative impact on local races in November.
Comment by Chaos — 1/29/2006 @ 6:49 pm
There aren’t really that many of us around. Actus drops in intermittently; I don’t know what happened to Biwah. The new Blubonnet might pipe up here any second. (Aphrael’s already commented.) Other than that, there aren’t many more who regularly comment here that I can think of.
Off the top of my head, there are also m.croche and Tom Hoberg.
Comment by Patterico — 1/29/2006 @ 6:56 pm
Psyberian has a good point. There really might not be enough of those of the opposing view who even watch this site. Somehow, I don’t really buy this - though it still might be true.
Because, what you want to do with your intellectual enemy if you think you have a just cause, is to beat your enemy on its own territory, showing it that your cause is the correct one, and in the processs justifying it to yourself also.
Imo, Patterico is well enough known that those of the opposing view should be more present than we have seen and should want to beat him intellectually.
This does not refute Psyberian’s point, but I still consider it strange that there are not more Liberals out there who will engage Patterico’s challenge. I would, if I were one. And even the Democratic Party will not do it, either. Imo, this is a pattern.
Comment by J. Peden — 1/29/2006 @ 7:56 pm
LAT lefty Michael Hiltzik reads every word, and he has commented before. Let him make the statement.
Comment by Patterico — 1/29/2006 @ 7:59 pm
Next time a lefty leaves a comment on another post on the site, I’ll remind them that this one is here.
Comment by Patterico — 1/29/2006 @ 7:59 pm
Terrorists are an infinitely greater threat than Bush.
Ask ‘Black Jack’ if Hillary Clinton as president would damage America less than Osama.
Comment by steve — 1/29/2006 @ 9:48 pm
I will post about this tomorrow on my site per Dana’s encouragement for me to do so.
Comment by The Liberal Avenger — 1/29/2006 @ 10:02 pm
Both parties do.
Bush is no exception.
Comment by SoCalJustice — 1/29/2006 @ 10:16 pm
I think it is interesting that Bush family and bin Laden family are great old friends/business partners. I think it’s interesting that a bin Laden met with Bush shortly after 911. I think it’s odd that every time Bush’s ratings get extremely low, the threat of bin Laden by tape or some other terrorist focal point emerges. I think that it is odd that as many times as NORAD worked like a dream, in the course of a couple hours two attacks occured when our national defense systems failed. I thought when Bush stood on the mound of debris with his arm around the firefighter, he looked really squirrelly and shifty eyed. I actually thought to myself “What is he hiding?” If any one has the guts to pursue it, there are a huge number of sites out there covering the massive evidence showing complicity. There were 53 warnings that were ignored. I don’t understand it. I know that it was an undertaking and a half to try to start an investigation. I know that at least half of New York City believes that the neo-cons were complicit in it. I know that in the Project for the New American Century, it was stated, that to carry out the agenda for the acquisition of resources in the middle east, they needed a “New Pearl Harbor” for the population to accept their agenda. I am afraid you just can’t fathom the power of money, the military industrial complex. Our country has killed thousands of innocents in South America in the Reagan era. Many of the signatories of PNAC are in the underworking machinations in Washington DC now. You just need to fathom that the the War Profiteer in Chief is more of a Criminal than you could have ever imagined. It takes a while to wrap your mind around it. But just google up 911truth or some such thing. There’s a massive movement out there now growing all the time. There is just too much evidence for an objective person to ignore. Of course the great insulation for them is the unwillingness to fathom it. Hitler said, “It’s easier to get away with a big lie than a small one”. Ex CIA agents will tell you that there is alot of wild and unscrupulous things our government has done. Also, another interesting point is that Osama bin Laden was at least at one time on our CIA payroll. Also, Bush’s grandfather was a Nazi war profiteer. There is so much more you don’t know. Have the guts to start looking.
Comment by blubonnet — 1/29/2006 @ 11:27 pm
Ooh, nice troll, blubonnet. Very nice. A little obvious, though.
Comment by See Dubya — 1/30/2006 @ 12:16 am
I’m going to chalk up blubonnet as a lefty who declines to state that Osama is worse than Bush.
Comment by Patterico — 1/30/2006 @ 12:20 am
Patterico:
Does it count for me — a fellow who takes a backseat to no one in my hatred of Hillary Rodham Clinton Rodham — to announce publicly that she is less of a threat to the United States than are Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppetmasters, Zarqawi, Sadr, Kim Jong Il, and probably even Vladimir Putin?
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd — 1/30/2006 @ 1:12 am
In case you weren’t aware, the bin Ladens are one of the largest, busiest, most pro-American families in Saudi Arabia. And they have disowned Osama.
Can you name any time in the last several years that an Osama tape could have surfaced when the left would not have claimed it wasn’t a distraction from the scandal du jour? Gannon, Plame, Fitzgerald, Abramoff, DeLay, Diebold, you name it, the left always has a brush to tar Bush with and would excuse any resurfacing of Osama as tacit support for him.
NORAD exists to protect our airspace from external invasion, not from our own planes. Just what would you have had NORAD do? Shoot down the planes? When? Plenty of the fringe left accuses the administration (without evidence) of doing just that to Flight 93, and not in a complimentary way.
A statement that says a lot more about you than it does about President Bush.
53, huh? Care to list them?
“Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” Yeah, there’s a real specific warning for you. I’m sure that if, in response to that warning the President had ordered draconian airport security measures including forbidding blades of any kind and forcing passengers to remove their shoes, the left would have cheered him for his foresight and his diligence in protecting us from terrorism, right? Meanwhile, back on this planet they’d be busy shrieking about incipient fascism… as they’re doing about every single post-9/11 attempt to find the terrorists before they strike.
In case See Dubya is right and your post is a troll, I’ll cease wasting time here. If you were sincere let me know and I’ll continue to rip you to shreds.
Comment by Voice of Reason — 1/30/2006 @ 1:28 am
Be nice to BluBonnet, y’all: she’s my site’s resident moonbat!
Comment by Dana — 1/30/2006 @ 4:45 am
Dana, blubonnet makes moonbats seem rational.
I have seldom seen more non-sequiturs, unsubstantiated allegations and just plain nonsense in one whole thread and bb managed to get it into one posting. Oops, forgot to mention urban legends.
Cue up Twilight Zone music …
Comment by Harry Arthur — 1/30/2006 @ 6:23 am
“Cue up Twilight Zone music …”
Harry,
Maybe “Lost in Space” music would be more appropriate?
Comment by Rovin — 1/30/2006 @ 7:33 am
Rovin: With a video clip of the arm-waving robot spinning around saying “Danger, Danger”.
Comment by Old Coot — 1/30/2006 @ 9:13 am
Rovin, Dana, VoR, et al, I’m more than willing to follow any facts where they truly lead, including those embarassing to my particular political philosophy and the administration now in office.
In this particular case, everyone agrees that neither the Bush or the Clinton administrations took the AQ threat seriously. Heck, even OBL was surprised by the success of the 9/11 attack.
To actually suggest that any American president, republican or democrat would stand by, no, actually take part in a conspiracy of the magnitude suggested by the “911truth” website, is so far beyond the realm of reason and common sense as to render it completely absurd on its face.
One only need to review the material on the “911truth” (ironic title that) site for a few minutes to realize that the truth has been stretched to the breaking point and beyond to support the lamest, most ridiculous, illogical, and just plain demonstrably wrong conclusions.
Pathetic in the extreme.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 1/30/2006 @ 9:26 am
What is disturbing to me, at least, is that the blubonnets and their ilk have so stretched and broken not only the truth but also the political center and common ground that, while all might agree that they are in the extreme, those who are only slightly less deranged (as in Bush Derangement Syndrome) appear sane by comparison.
While most would agree that Bush LIHOP is lunacy, apparently the “No war in Afghanistan for Unocal” and “Fallujah Massacree” brigades are now able to appear almost sane, b/c they haven’t quite marched off the cliff.
I’m not sure that I’m comforted by this….
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/30/2006 @ 9:41 am
I live in DC. Which makes it more likely that I will feel the hit of a terrorist strike vs. if I lived in flyover country. It also makes it more likely that I am negatively affected by security measures and the like — though being a bycicle rider a lot of these measures make it better for me. I do travel out of the country sometimes, though I think that’s a wash, as I don’t really go to high-risk places, but am as likely to go to places with risk similar to DC as I am to go to places with low risk — like latin america.
On the other hand I am in position where bush’s policies have a negative effect on me. If his plan to wipe out social security had worked, that would have helped f-over my retirement. These HSA’s are also bad. So is shifting the tax burden to the future, when I’m earning income, as opposed to it being paid now, when I’m in school. This medicare thing doesn’t hurt me now, but might in the future, and in any case hurts me by adding to the deficit i’m going to have to pay, as well as adding to interest groups that are against me, such as Insurance and PhARMA.
I don’t know how to balance the high-probability (almost certain) low-damage (in terms of money) threat that Bush represents to my interests against the very low-probability high damage threat that terrorists do. They’re different things. Its not just an expected value judgment, but also has to do with my risk tolerance. I don’t think I could do it even if I had accurate numbers on both of the threats.
Comment by actus — 1/30/2006 @ 10:13 am
Don’t you just love to watch Lefties tap dance and double talk in order to try and have it both ways?
BTW, with all the layoffs and lost jobs in the Antique media lately, one might expect there’s loads of Lefties with time on their hands who could respond to Patterico’s Challenge.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/30/2006 @ 10:40 am
Was just dropping in and was surprised to see myself mentioned (#21). So just for that, and to keep the door open for Patterico’s respect, sure, i’ll take the Oath of Bush’s Lesser Evilness. Just don’t ask me to say it, it feels too juvenile.
I will make the caveat that it’s apples and oranges. The danger of Executive supremacy (and Executive deception & bumbling) is different from the danger of armed terrorists.
With respect to both dangers, I would humbly submit that we have seen, and survived, worse.
Comment by biwah — 1/30/2006 @ 10:40 am
Y’know, Black Jack, I more enjoy watching right-wingers scream themselves hoarse and (sprain their wagging fingers) trying to paint it as a black and white choice between good government and survival.
But I’m funny like that.
Comment by biwah — 1/30/2006 @ 10:43 am
Whoa, actus, you’re in school, not yet working and you think private accounts instead of social security would have been BAD for your retirement?! Do you have any idea how bad SS is as an investment? I understand that misinformed senior citizens oppose social security reform, because AARP has lied about it and convinced them that it means cutting off their benefits (it doesn’t). But you’re probably the only person younger than 30 (I presume you are younger than 30) who thinks social security is a good deal.
What this tells us is that there’s hope for actus. With a bit more life experience, an older, wiser actus may abandon the leftishness of his youth, and embrace a sane, principled (i.e., conservative) worldview. Don’t worry, actus. It happens a lot more often than you might think.
Comment by TNugent — 1/30/2006 @ 10:45 am
Yeah, biwah, it must be an apples and oranges, “nuance” sort of thing Lefties are always going on about, and which you just can’t quite bring yourself to actually say. Seems like a juvenile dodge to me.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/30/2006 @ 10:55 am
Further than Patterico’s challenge to the left, I made another challenge over on Hiltzik’s site. We were debating the recent polls and I pulled 20 issues out of the recent LAT/Bloomberg poll that mainstream america - the majority of Americans - support. I challenged Hiltzik et. al. to decide whether they agree with the statments or not. My contention is if they do not, they do not represent mainstream America. So far, as was expected, nobody has responded. Here are the issues:
According to the LAT/Bloomberg Poll most Americans belive:
That the economy is doing well; that their personal finances are secure; feel about the same level of financial security or that they are more secure than when Bush took over; that the Patriot Act should be reauthorized; that Americans should be willing to give up some civil liberties for safety; that it is ok for Bush to have authorized agencies to gather intelligence data without getting warrants; that they would not mind having their phone calls monitored in the fight against terrorism; that there is no difference when it comes to honesty and integrity between the two main political parties; that the war in Iraq has stabilized the situation there; that the insurgents are not winning the war in Iraq; that the war in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism; that most Americans would support military action against Iran if they continue producing material that could be used for nuclear weapons (which is in direct contrast to the ABC/WaPo poll); that the war in Iraq is as important as Health Care domestically; that they want a smaller government with fewer services; that they approve of the way that Bush is handling the war on terrorism; that they disapprove of the way Congress is handling their responsibilities; that they have unfavorable opinions of both Republicans and Democrats; that Bush is a strong leader; that Bush’s policies on terrorism have made the country more secure; that Bush will do a better job of protecting the nation against terrorism than the democrats.
Anybody here want to take the challenge? I had to laugh over there though…what’s Hiltzik gonna do - say his own paper’s poll is wrong?
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 10:56 am
TNugent - the thing is that, no matter how bad the return on SS is, SS has lower risk. Someone invested in the stock market as their only retirement vehicle could very well find that they are wiped out and are retiring on nothing.
Proponents of social security think it is important that people be protected from that risk, and found the proposals to revamp it wanting in that regard.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 10:58 am
Spectre I’ll bite. I believe the economy is doing well. I do not believe my personal finances are secure, but that’s because of something I’m planning to do that will put me in great debt for some time. I feel less secure than I did when Bush was elected, but at the time I wasn’t going to be doing the thing i’m planning to do now.
I do not think the Patriot Act should be reauthorized in its current form; I am not willing to give up civil liberties for safety; I do not believe it is ok for Bush to authorize agencies to conduct wiretaps without warrants. I would mind having my phone calls monitored. I agree that there is no difference when it comes to honesty and integrity between the two main parties. I do not think the war in Iraq has stabilized the situation (given that the situation is less stable than it was before the war started). I do not believe that insurgents are winning the war in Iraq. I do not believe that the war in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism. I might support military action in Iran if they continue producing nuclear material (I am undecided on this issue still). I do not want a smaller government with fewer services. I do not approve of the way Bush is handling the war on terrorism. I disapprove of how Congress is handlign its responsibilities. I have unfavorable opinions of Republicans and Democrats. I agree that Bush is a strong leader. I do not know if Bush’s policies on terrorism have made us more secure, but I do not think they have made us less secure. I am not convinced that Bush is doing a better job of protecting the nation against terrorism than the Democrats.
I don’t know that I would characterize my positions as out of the mainstream; I think the mainstream entails a certain measure of debate on most of these issues. Taking, as an example, “would not mind having their phone calls monitored in the fight against terrorism”, I see a number of possible positions:
1. Phone calls should never be monitored under any circumstances.
2. Phone calls should only be monitored in an emergency.
3. Phone calls should only be monitored in an emergency or with a court order.
4. Phone calls should be monitored in an emergency, with a court order, or to prevent terrorism.
5. Phone calls should be monitored in an emergency, with a court order, to prevent terrorism, or whenever the executive determines it is in the national interest.
6. Phone calls should always be monitored.
Your post suggests that *only* #4 is in the mainstream. I think 3-5 are in the mainstream, and that the mainstream allows debate on the issue; but 1-2 and 6 are outside the mainstream.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 11:06 am
aphrael, you’ve got to be smarter than that, right? Social security benefits aren’t guaranteed, they’re not debts of the government. They could be eliminated entirely by an act of Congress, and even if they won’t be eliminated altogether, they’re sure to be dramatically reduced — don’t be surprised to find those on the upper end of the income scale means tested right out of all of their benefits. That’s going to reveal social security for what it really is — a welfare program, not an investment program. It merely transfers wealth from younger, working citizens to older citizens who no longer work. All it’s going to take is a slight change in the worker to retiree ratio, then social security as it is now misunderstood by many people (you included, apparently) will be gone. There’s no “trust fund”; it’s just money in the government’s general fund.
If you think the riskiness of the stock market makes private accounts a bad deal, then put your savings into obligations of the federal government, which, unlike social security benefits, are debts of the government. Or corporate bonds. The return will be better, and, if the investment is made in bonds that earn interest at a fixed rate, the return will be guaranteed, albeit without the cost of living adjustments.
Some adjustment of benefits in any defined benefit plan like SS is inevitable when the population ages. The only question is how soon and by how much. What we’re seeing from corporations with defined benefit plans is a preview of what will happen when the cost of SS benefits overtakes the willingness (not necessarily the ability) of the US taxpayers to pay the bills. It would be better to remove pensions from the reach of Congress, who will always find an excuse to put their hands in the till, and the way to do that is to make the investments private property, not funds entrusted to a Congress that has shown little inclination toward fiscal responsibility when controlled by Republicans and none whatsoever when controlled by Democrats.
Comment by TNugent — 1/30/2006 @ 11:19 am
Aphrael writes:
TNugent - the thing is that, no matter how bad the return on SS is, SS has lower risk. Someone invested in the stock market as their only retirement vehicle could very well find that they are wiped out and are retiring on nothing.
Proponents of social security think it is important that people be protected from that risk, and found the proposals to revamp it wanting in that regard.
Well, A, if you look at Social Security actuarily, it might not seem like as risk-free an investment as you think. There is already talk about being able to pay only 70% of currently promised benefits in the outyears.
Social Security is a huge ponzi scheme, one that would be illegal in any other situation. It is simply unsustainable, as the ratio of people paying in versus people drawing out of the system continues to shrink.
Comment by Dana — 1/30/2006 @ 11:23 am
P is making a point about certain lefty mantras, which I have no problem with. But answering his question doesn’t really flesh out anything. “Enemy” is a fluid label, and the U.S. has been quite fluid in its application of that label to various scoundrels.
There are many people and orgs in the world contributing to the instability, nuclearization, and militarization that ultimately threaten our safety, whether out of malice, religious zeal, negligence, or greed. Within this mosaic, for every OBL there are a lot of unscrupulous characters in the background, and many of them look a lot like our allies, our corporations, and/or our own.
Bush costing us many lives through his incompetence does not put him on par with sworn enemies of the United States. He is a drunk driver to OBL’s serial killer. But it doesn’t exonerate him either.
Apologies to anyone breaking out in hives from all this nuance.
Comment by biwah — 1/30/2006 @ 11:30 am
Biwah - I find that there is an important distinction between those who are intending to cause harm to the United States and those who while intending to do what they believe is the right thing for the United States, are in fact harming it.
I have a very difficult time classifying the latter sort as “enemies”.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 11:32 am
Thanks for an answer aphrael. But you see I was quoting from a poll a poll whose other results have been splashed around by MSM as being - this is what mainstream America believes in. Yet they cherrypick the questions that only highlight their veiw of the world.
And yes there could be some ambiguity in it. But the actual question was, “Would you mind if you found out that your phone calls were being monitored by the U.S. government as part of the fight against terrorism?”
Not much ambiguity there and the majority of the respondents think it is fine. The real problem should be do we trust polls to begin with…they all basically ask the same questions but have different results.
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 11:34 am
Which is why P’s question is a no-brainer, but the answer has little value.
Comment by biwah — 1/30/2006 @ 11:35 am
Dana, the biggest risk for social security is political. That’s the one that is most egregiously misrepresented by opponents of social security reform. They would have us assume that US taxpayers will have unlimited patience with an increasingly burdensome wealth-transfer program unrelated to means. One would have to be an idiot to accept such an assumption as valid or, one would have to be so selfish as to condemn one’s children and grandchildren to being the ones left holding the bag when the ponzi scheme collapses. It’s more charitable to describe opponents of social security reform as idiots.
Comment by TNugent — 1/30/2006 @ 11:50 am
TNugent - according to the ssa.gov website, see here, FICA taxes in excess of current expenditures are placed in one of three trust funds which are a “seperate account in the United States Treasury”. Either the Social Security Administration is lying, or you are mistaken about the existence of a trust fund.
The money in that trust fund is invested in “interest-bearing Federal securities”, which is what you recommend for those who are uncomfortable with stock market risk. But either those securities are a safe investment, in which case it’s perfectly safe for the social security trust fund to have invested in them, or it’s not a safe investment, in which case individual account holders shouldn’t invest in them either (and, incidentally, if federal securities aren’t a safe investment, we’ve got many other things to worry about).
My understanding of the crisis in Social Security is that people are concerned about one of two things:
(a) Congress may choose to default on the bonds in the social security trust fund;
(b) the social security trust fund will run out of money at some point no earlier than the middle of the 2030s.
(a) is basically a political risk: that, when social security expenditures exceed social security revenues, and the trust fund administrators attempt to call in the bonds, Congress will decline to redeem them. I find this unlikely in the extreme; not only will the increasing average age of the population mean that the relative political power of the retired population is greater then, but anyone proposing such a thing will be skewered in the press and on the campaign trail.
At first glance, (b) seems like a bigger problem, but I’m skeptical. By the time the bonds in the trust fund are exhausted, the Congress will already - for many years - have been redeeming the bonds out of the general fund. Presuming that the amount that Congress has to contribute to continue funding social security after that point is no greater than before that point, it is hard to imagine much of a political issue arising at all; a general fund subsidy will already have become the status quo.
Essentially, it seems to me that the argument that Congress will default on the bonds in the trust fund depends on some politician putting together a political coalition that rallies around breaking an obligation to retirees; I find the existence of such a coalition unlikely, and the success of such a coalition even more unlikely. I am not persuaded that the political risk outweighs the risk of the stock or corporate bond markets, and I perceive little to no distinction between the political risk in the trust fund and the political risk in general-issue federal bonds.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 11:50 am
Biwah - I disagree that the question has little value. There are those - see bluBonnet above - who quite clearly believe President Bush to be an enemy. Patterico’s question helps distinguish them as being outside the realm of reasonable debate.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 11:53 am
Aphrael, you’re right, it does serve its purpose of culling the demented from the flock. I just meant that it’s unilluminating in any larger context, i.e. it “solves” nothing.
Observing the SS debate with interest…
Comment by biwah — 1/30/2006 @ 11:58 am
Specter:
Your characterization of the response to the surveillance question in the LAT poll is absolutely, incontrovertibly, 100% WRONG.
The question was:
Q35. Would you mind if you found out that your phone calls were being monitored by the U.S. government as part of the fight against terrorism?
The response was: 53% of all respondents “would mind.” Of registered voters, 52% “would mind.”
How can you conceivably describe this as:
“The majority of respondents think it is fine”?
Comment by Mikekoshi — 1/30/2006 @ 12:36 pm
Specter:
While we’re on the subject, you state that the LAT poll shows that “most Americans believe” that “the war in Iraq has stabilized the situation there.”
In fact, the poll shows that ONLY 36% of all respondents believe that to be true. 58% believe it has destabilized the situation (34%) or had no effect (24%).
You claim the poll shows “most Americans believe” that “the insurgents are not winning the war in Iraq.”
Survey says: 62% believe no one is winning (55%), or the insurgents are winning (7%).
You say “most Americans believe” that “it is ok for Bush to have authorized agencies to gather intelligence data without getting warrants.”
Most? The survey says 49%. On the other hand, 57% want Congress to hold hearings on this very subject.
What’s that that just whizzed out the door? It’s your credibility, Specter.
Comment by Mikekoshi — 1/30/2006 @ 12:54 pm
Its not ‘not yet working’ but actually not working now. I worked for a bit before I came to law school. More than my average classmates.
I do have an idea about how bad SS is as an investment. I also have a good idea as to how good it is as an insurance scheme. Which is what it actually is. And I’d rather it not get effed up.
I don’t know why everyone thinks that as there is more demand for SS it will be cut. Sounds like exactly when it will be funded — because that’s a lot of voters whose checks you’re destroying. If SS is cut it will be cut now, not in the future when its actually paying more people.
Besides. If you’re worried about funding SS just end the medicare boondoggle. That made a hole in our finances twice the size of the worst estimate of SS.
An Act of congress can end those too.
What makes you think that Congress doesn’t touch private property? Do you pay taxes?
What this is about is ending the most successful social program in this country. Something that insures that we live in a society where the able care for the aged and infirm. Apparently to some people this is bad.
Comment by actus — 1/30/2006 @ 12:58 pm
aphrael, Congress “borrows” from the trust fund all the time. There’s no property interest in unpaid benefits that Congress has any Constitutional obligation to honor, nor is it a debt owed to the beneficiaries. The investment of the money in the fund is just a way of the federal government letting itself use the money at a minimal cost. Congress can’t just eliminate debt of the nation, but it can, at any time, reduce or even eliminate the class of beneficiaries of the “trust fund”.
The government can and will impose means testing, and it can and will push the retirement age further and further away from where it is today, which of course has even a greater effect than just cutting the amount of the benefits (it eliminates the earlier payments altogether, which are the most valuable ones, both in terms of time value of $ as well as likelihood of payment). All for the sake of preserving a short-sighted tax and welfare program in order to avoid pissing off AARP and its deluded membership. That might be ok with the left, who often confuse “equality” and “fairness,” and therefore favor wealth redistribution programs, but it won’t be ok with those suddenly disqualified retirees who will have paid thousands of $ into a black hole.
Call it what it is now — a supplemental income tax to enrich the government’s general fund, coupled with a welfare payment, and justify it as such, both morally and economically, or phase it out in favor of increasingly deregulated privately owned investment accounts.
Comment by TNugent — 1/30/2006 @ 1:00 pm
Patterico asks:
Acthole responds:
I think we have our answer.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/30/2006 @ 1:00 pm
This is another reason why the general fund ought to repay it the trust fund: because the taxes that fund the trust fund are more regressive than the ones that fund the general fund. So having the general fund borrow from the trust fund and not repay is a regressive tax shift. And now tell me about ‘fairness’ and ‘equality.’
X
I told you that its impossible to tell. Didn’t you go to school and learn to read? Statistics? I’m saying that even if both have the same expected value damage, they have wildly different variances. And I don’t think I could decide even if I knew the numbers accurately which one is worse to me.
Comment by actus — 1/30/2006 @ 1:08 pm
actus, we know you can read, now show if you can respond with a straight answer.
Enough of the tap dance and double talk. It’s time to stand up and be counted.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/30/2006 @ 1:22 pm
Oh, brother, not that I’d expect anyone here to admit it, the righties, generally don’t go too far off the beaten path, out of fear of being (God forbid)a conspiracy theorist, or any thing but “normal”. But, I think you are just going to love tearing me up, proving how “ridiculous I am”. But, you do have to look at what is presented. So, start by going to:
http://www.911truestory.com/
Comment by blubonnet — 1/30/2006 @ 1:38 pm
mikekoshi,
You are right on question 53. Apologies.
You said:
That would be called cheating Mikekoshi. If 24% believe it has no effect it cannot be added to either side. I could just add it to my argument too and then you’s look even sillier. So my resoponse - Oh no - you are wrong. 60% show that it either has been stabilized or had no effect. Only 34% said that it destabilized the situation. You see Mikekoshi, the answer for the “no effect” is a separate answer not to be combined. And guess what - I was right. The majority of Americans polled think it has stabilized the situation.
You irrationally said:
So let’s examine what I said. Only 7% of Americans believe the insurgents are winning the war. Logic dictates that most Americans (upwards of 93%) don’t believe that the insurgents are winning the war. So where was I wrong in this?
You said:
Let’s see now. You are combining results from two different questions to prove your point that I was wrong with the one question? How do you figure? 49% of Americans believe that it was ok for Bush to authorize agencies to gather intelligence data without getting warrants. Did I say something wrong there? Something incorrect?
And you are right that the majority of Americans want hearings. That is a different subject. But, if you had read the next question you would have realized that 57% of Americans don’t think it is an impeachable offense (Q37). So where did trying to compare two different questions get you?
And whose credibility flew out the door? You tried the same tricks to slant data as MSM.
Got anything better?
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 2:23 pm
bluBonnet - in order for your premise to be true, you need to, at a minimum, have complicit in the nefarious deed all of the following individuals:
(a) the president
(b) the chief of staff
(c) the individuals actually involved in setting and detonating the bombs
(d) whoever the intermediaries between them and the president are
(e) all of the members of the 9-11 investigative commission.
The burden of proof for such an allegation is stunningly high. You’re talking about Lee Hamilton, a dedicated public servant who has spent his entire life working for the cause of America.
I will admit to generally taking a dim view of conspiracy theories, on the grounds that keeping a conspiracy secret is much harder than conspiracy theorists would prefer to believe. But I’m open to persuasion; it’s possible, even if I think it’s unlikely, for a wide-scale conspiracy to have happened.
But the burden of proof is on the person making the allegation; and when the allegation requires the complicitly of eminently honorable men, the burden of proof is high.
You haven’t met it.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 2:28 pm
Actus is sadly still too lefty. He can’t conceive of bin Laden actually being DANGEROUS. Despite obvious and massive evidence to the contrary: 9/11, Bali (twice); Beslan; London (twice); Madrid; Istanbul; Tunisia; the aborted Milan cell to “outdo 9/11 in America”; Amman; New Delhi; Thailand; Bangladesh; and elsewhere killing about 3-4,000 people total (off the top of my head estimates) for some reason Actus doesn’t believe that it’s HIGHLY PROBABLE that bin Laden will strike again.
Bin Laden has SAID he will strike again. EVERY TIME he has made these statements, he had backed them up. NOTHING has changed. He’s even offered us a “truce” if we surrender, which is typical practice for him and other tribalist terrorists to presage an attack from a “superior moral position.”
GIVEN: bin Laden has killed thousands around the world since 9/11 (excluding btw Iraq and Afghanistan); has threatened to strike again; is protected by either the Pakistanis or the Iranians in their territory; and retains control over Al Qaeda; I don’t know how any non-partisan driven person could not conclude that it is highly likely bin Laden will strike again somewhere in the US soon with devastating results. I really just don’t see how you can conclude his threat is not massive.
Isolationism? Deaths outside the US “don’t matter?”
This points to something serious and defective in Democratic Politics. A delusional “Small World” singing happy viewpoint of people outside the US, instead of a serious appreciation that the confluence of tribalistic politics/culture and modern technology can easily lead to a 9/11 unless the price is simply too steep for those sheltering tribalistic terror leaders. The troll’s worn-out Marcuse style Communist rhetoric referencing “Why We Fight” (the stupid Dem Lefty film not the classic) in a rational Democratic Party not controlled by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists would be shouted down as a Pat Buchanon-style Kultur Kampf mixed with Duke-style Klansmen (yes David Duke endorses Cindy Sheehan). Defense Spending is STILL about 40% of what it was under Reagan-Bush 1; we have gone from 10 divisions under Desert Storm to FOUR. Our Navy and Air Force is about half the size as it was under Reagan. And most Defense Contractors are merging or branching to other areas as spending has collapsed post 1992 and has not recovered.
If ANYTHING GWB has spent Clinton-like peanuts for defense instead of Reagan-like sums of money.
Comment by Jim Rockford — 1/30/2006 @ 2:31 pm
actus, no one suggested that the government wouldn’t repay money borrowed from the so-called trust fund. The fraud isn’t in how the government deals with the fund, but in how the classes of beneficiaries and the amounts of the entitlement are subject to manipulation. I expect to receive nothing from SS, even though I will have likely paid the maximum amount of SS Taxes by the time I reach retirement age. It’s a little harder for the government to maintain the ruse as far as self-employed folks like me are concerned — what we pay isn’t called a “contribution” or anything of the kind — it’s a self-employment tax and it’s just an addition to the income tax I pay every year. The money all goes to the same place — the general fund. I expect that by the time I retire, there’ll be enough pressure on the system so that those prudent enough to have accumulated some savings will have their SS “contributions” reallocated to other folks’ payments. Don’t think you’ll ever see a dime in benefits, either.
Btw, I don’t have a problem with a regressive tax any more than a so-called progressive tax. Both are equally unfair. A flat tax would be more fair than either.
And actus, if you (or biwah) are continuing to confuse “left” and “liberal,” just take a look at the link that bluebottle provided. Let’s make sure that we don’t dismiss bluebottle as mentally ill or otherwise not responsible for the ideas he or she puts out there. Get those ideas out there, bluebottle, to be given the ridicule they deserve.
Comment by TNugent — 1/30/2006 @ 2:38 pm
Specter:
In what system of mathematics does 49% equate to “most”? So, um, well, you said something wrong there.
Even more egregiously, you claim that “most” Americans believe the war has stabilized the situation in Iraq. The survey says 36%. In what universe is that “most”?
Comment by Mikekoshi — 1/30/2006 @ 2:40 pm
What you have to look at is the number of people paying into social security for those taking out has dropped an incredible amount. And as the Baby Boomers get older and retire, this will just get worse.
See this.
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 2:43 pm
Ok mikeyoshi…the word i used more often than not is “majority”. You knew what I meant. More people than any other option that was given in the response - therefore more people believe it.
Why in the world are you trying to play a semantics game? How petty is that? Oh I know…because you have no other way to argue against what I posted. Get a grip…..
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 2:45 pm
Or better yet look at it this way:
If I have people over to watch the Super…well you know…that football game - to watch the Steelers beat the Seahawks. We are going to order pizza. There are 10 people there. 4 want pepperoni, 3 want vegetarian, 2 want cheese, and 1 won’t eat pizza. Now comes the big question - what is the answer that most people support?
Gotta laugh at pitiful attempts to turn the data any other way. And BTW - I noticed that you did not respond to my comments about how you tried that mikekoshi. Why not?
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 2:51 pm
Specter:
You’re clutching at straws. “More people than [selected] any other option” is a PLURALITY, not a “majority.” And the way I’m arguing against what you posted is to show, by reference to the original, that you’re wrong. In fact, judging from your pathetic attempts to twist your own words, you’re not only wrong, you’re dishonest.
Comment by Mikekoshi — 1/30/2006 @ 2:52 pm
Specter - in your example there is no answer that most people support.
more people support pepperoni than any other option, but “most people” don’t support pepperoni, even if you ignore the person who isn’t going to be eating pizza.
the distinction between a plurality and a majority is a useful one, and attempts to elide it are misguided.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 2:54 pm
So what you are saying mikekoshi is that in the answers to the questions on the poll, the response that gets the highest percentage has no meaning? Maybe I don’t use the words you do, but I am right in this.
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 2:56 pm
Sorry…I don’t play semantics games….Whichever answer gets the highest percentage is the way the biggest number of people believe. Otherwise, why bother polling at all?
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 2:58 pm
This isn’t a semantic game, Specter. There is a difference between “the way the biggest number of people believe” and “the way most people believe”.
If you have three options, for example, it is relatively easy for it to simultaneously be true that “the largest number of people believe option [a]” *and* “most people don’t believe option [a]“.
See, for example, the recent Canadian elections, where the largest number of people voted for a Conservative candidate, but most people voted for one of the members of the other major parties.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 3:01 pm
Listen - this is ridiculous. It is a semantics game because those that objected to my maybe careless wording of things are trying to negate my arguments by playing with words. The results of the polls supposedly show what people believe. When you look at a question in a poll there are various answers. The reponse with the highest percentage is deemed to reflect what the sample population believes is the right answer. No matter what you call it - and that is semantics - the leading answer (with the highest percentage) is what the majority of the people in the survey believed. And if the sample population is supposed to match the demographics of the country then the answers speak to to what most people believe. Again, maybe I’m saying it wrong, but trying to use words to negate my argument is somewhat disingeuous.
Add to that when mikekoshi tries to add separate answers together; or compare two different questions together to disprove what I said - and then ask who is being dishonest.
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 3:11 pm
Mikekoshi:
I suspect it’s the same sort of mathematics that sez that Bill Clinton had a mandate, while polling fewer votes (both absolute and percentage of voters) than Dubya, who does not have a mandate.
Which is to say, a plurality, in a first-past-the-post system, or the highest rating among a limited set of polling answers.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/30/2006 @ 3:16 pm
Specter - I am most certainly not trying to negate your argument regarding the poll. I have no dog in that fight.
What I *am* trying to do is convince you that the distinction between a plurality and a majority, and that this statement: “he leading answer (with the highest percentage) is what the majority of the people in the survey believed” is demonstrably false.
“Majority” is the word used in academic political science, and in common vernacular, to refer to “more than 50%”. “Plurality” is the word used to refer to “more than any other”.
They mean different things. The distinction is important, as otherwise there is no reasonable way to describe the difference between - for example - Harper’s victory (in which a plurality voted for his party and a majority voted for some other party) and Bush’s victory (in which a majority voted for him).
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 3:23 pm
Specter:
Why on earth not? You made the ridiculous claim that “The majority of Americans polled think it has stabilized the situation,” when in fact 58% believe it has not. And you accuse others of cheating?! Give me a break.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/30/2006 @ 3:28 pm
BlackJack.
I told you: I don’t know.
Jim Rockford:
I said I can’t conceive how dangerous. Of course there’s a risk I’ll die from a terrorist attack. But how much of a risk, I don’t know.
TNugent
Anyone who tells me there is nothing in the trust fund, or that it is worthless, or that SS will be out of money when we have to dip into the trust fund (like dubya used to say), is suggesting it won’t be repayed.
Part of dubya’s plan was doing this: turning it into a means tested welfare payment rather than what it is now. The people supporting social security fought that, because they know keeping it like this is the way to keep social security.
I think you have me confused with someone else.
Comment by actus — 1/30/2006 @ 3:32 pm
no Xrlq….58% did not say that. 24% said there has been no effect one way or the other. That is different from saying that it either stabilized or did not stabilize.
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 3:33 pm
thanks aphrael…learned something….
Comment by Specter — 1/30/2006 @ 3:34 pm
Lurking Observer - I think the distinction between Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2000 was clear, and to Clinton’s favor: Clinton had a plurality of the popular vote (because he had more votes than any other candidate) without having a majority (because more people voted against him than voted for him). Bush, on the other hand, had neither a plurality nor a majority of the popular vote (because more people voted for Gore than voted for him); he was the first President in more than a century who had failed to achieve a plurality of the popular vote.
The situation is different if you look at 2004, when Bush won an outright majority.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 3:37 pm
FWIW, Clinton’s position in that regard most resembled Nixon’s in 1968; he, too, was elected by a plurality that wasn’t a majority.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 3:40 pm
Specter, perhaps you should quit while you’re behind. If someone thinks the war in Iraq has not affected stability in the region, then by definition, he also believes that the war in Iraq has not stabilized the situation there. To argue that a majority thinks the war has stabilized the situation, when in fact a majority thinks it has not (though they disagree as to whether it has made matters worse), is not just disingenuous on your part; it’s a flat-out lie.
By defending your indefensible comment, you might as well argue that a majority of Americans think snake oil cures cancer. After all, hardly anyone really believes that, but even fewer people believe that it causes cancer, while the vast majority know it has no effect on cancer one way or the other - and therefore, under your tortured logic, shouldn’t count.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/30/2006 @ 3:56 pm
With a little bit more research, it seems that the elected-with-a-plurality-not-a-majority situation is decently common, having occurred in 1996, 1992, 1968, 1960, 1948, 1916, 1892, 1884, 1880, 1860, 1848, and 1844.
The elected-with-neither-a-majority-nor-a-plurality situation is significantly less common, having occured in 2000, 1888, 1876, and 1824. The latter two of those, of course, were highly irregular elections for other reasons.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 4:17 pm
Nice research aphrael!
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/30/2006 @ 4:35 pm
“See, for example, the recent Canadian elections, where the largest number of people voted for a Conservative candidate, but most people voted for one of the members of the other major parties.”
Or the mandate–or lack thereof–of Bill Clinton who only drew 43% of the vote but we were told everybody should respect.
As for Actus’ non-answer, it’s typical of law school students who are taught to ride the fence until they support the one who can pay the biggest fee. It is pretty amusing watching him try to equate ANYTHING George Bush has done with running airplanes into buildings.
Comment by sharon — 1/30/2006 @ 4:46 pm
Sharon - sorry, but if Clinton didn’t have a mandate because of his non-majority plurality, then neither did Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, Wilson, or Lincoln.
Do you really want to argue that?
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 4:48 pm
Aphrael noted:
This is wonderful news! The Electoral College definitely favors Republicans (as it should; our Founding Fathers were wise men!), given that the non-plurality winners were all Republicans, save for 1824, before the GOP was founded.
Comment by Dana — 1/30/2006 @ 4:50 pm
Dana - the election of 1824 was not decided by the electoral college, and arguably neither was the election of 1876. In 1824, the electoral college failed to produce a majority, and the election was decided by the House. In 1876, several states were (mis)represented by two groups of electors claiming to be the legitimate electors; the House got the onerous task of deciding which set of votes to count.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 5:04 pm
I don’t recall anyone claiming at the time that Clinton had a respectable mandate. On the contrary, I remember everybody saying that his mandate was so meager he had no choice but to govern from the center, which is exactly what he did.
Comment by Mikekoshi — 1/30/2006 @ 5:06 pm
Mikekoshi - perhaps, but when people made a similar argument about Bush in 2000, there was a loud echoing of “but if Clinton had a mandate, Bush does too” from the right side of the aisle.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 5:11 pm
The difference was that CLinton governed as though he had only a slim mandate; Bush, also with a slim mandate, governs as though he won in a landslide.
Comment by Mikekoshi — 1/30/2006 @ 5:20 pm
Mikekoshi - while i think it is arguable whether or not Bush had a mandate in 2000, he clearly has one now. The 2004 election was reasonably decisive.
Comment by aphrael — 1/30/2006 @ 5:22 pm
You haven’t been paying attention to what I said. I said they can’t be compared, or equated.
If it could be equated, then the decision would be easy.
Comment by actus — 1/30/2006 @ 5:42 pm
Mikekoshi wrote:
Don’t know if I’d agree with that first, at least not prior to the 1994 elections. After that, President Clinton had to deal with opposition party control of the Congress. President Bush, for the most part, hasn’t had that problem.
But, regardless of victory size, a President is expected to lead: he should attempt to lead, on the positions and beliefs he campaigned, regardless of hos slim his margin.
Comment by Dana — 1/30/2006 @ 5:51 pm
Actus,
I had you pegged as one of the folks who would dodge this simple statement. But I didn’t say so because I didn’t want to prejudge.
It’s amazing how well this separates the nonserious commenters from the serious ones.
Comment by Patterico — 1/30/2006 @ 6:24 pm
Nice talking points, but utterly devoid of fact. The first half of Clinton’s first term brought us Robert Reich’s “stimulus” package, Hillary Care, the Brady Act and the “assault” weapons ban, among other things. Some passed, others failed, but all were attempted by the administration, which emphatically was not attempting to govern from the “center,” unless by “center” you mean “center of the Democratic Party.” Only after the Republicans took control of Congress did the federal government go centrist, and even then it was generally over Clinton’s objections, not because he made any concerted effort to “govern from the center,” as the revisionists so fondly claim.
Contrast that with the No Bureaucrat Left Behind Act, the Medicare payoff to the AARP, or the Administration’s refusal to even acknowledge the mass vandalism at the end of the prior administration, and the notion that Bush governed from the far right becomes especially laughable.
A more likely explanation is that both Bush and Clinton governed as though they’d been elected President. Which is exactly what both of them should have done.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/30/2006 @ 6:29 pm
I have no problem arguing that there’s no mandate without a majority victory. This is why in other countries you end up with coalition governments. I agree with Xrlq, that all the mentioned presidents governed as though they had been elected President, which is as it should be.
Actus,
I find it most interesting where you decide that someone is comparing apples and oranges when I’ve pointed out rather frequently that you do the same. I guess it’s apples and oranges when you’d rather not give a straight answer.
Comment by sharon — 1/30/2006 @ 6:38 pm
Whats nonserious about not being able to decide among incomparable — and incalculable risks? What risk do you think terrorism presents to you?
You’ve got to be joking.
How so?
Comment by actus — 1/30/2006 @ 7:35 pm
I’ve never commented before (I just found this site recently), but I guess I have to since I’m a ‘lefty.’ Otherwise I won’t be taken seriously by you ‘righties’. Some threat that is.
Anyhow, I have absolutely no qualms about stating that OBL is the bigger enemy. I mean, which one would I rather run into accidentally while spelunking? The answer is obvious: the one who won’t behead me.
I think where the distinction comes in, and I believe many on the left unconsiously confuse this with the idea of enemy, is in who will do greater harm to this country. Frankly, I agree with President Bush (he took some heat for the comment during the election) when he says that he’s not worried about OBL, because he’s likely hiding off in some cave. OBL did his damage, and we chased him down and have done a pretty decent job dismantling his rathole in Afghanistan, something the president should rightly get credit for (a job that would also have been done by almost any Democratic or Republican administration). However, I have many problems with much of the President’s other policies. In other words, I don’t spend much time worrying about OBL, but I do spend a considerable amount of time worrying about our President’s actions. That doesn’t make him an ‘enemy’ or ‘evil’, but it makes him a bigger problem, threat, or whatever word you want to use.
Anyhow, I think that’s the point that majority of the “Move-on Left” and “Deaniacs” etc (those on the left side of the democratic party) are actually trying to make, but it sort of gets caught up in silly emotional language. The people on the left who actually think the President is the enemey and would have him executed or whatever are a tiny fraction, no bigger or more powerful, than those on the right who believed that Clinton was a murdering drug dealer.
Comment by Adam — 1/30/2006 @ 8:10 pm
Lets turn this on its head: Would President Ralph Nader and Vice President Michael Moore would be less of a danger to America than al Qaeda?
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/30/2006 @ 9:41 pm
Kevin Murphy:
Feel free to do so—at your own site.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/31/2006 @ 3:37 am
“How so?”
Actus,
On another thread on a diff board, you had no problem comparing black people traveling to gay marriage. When I pointed out the difference, you insisted for 15 posts that it was not an apples to oranges comparison. Yet here, you can’t even admit that the president of the U.S. isn’t as big a threat as a known terrorist. Your rigid insistence that you can’t make that distinction speaks volumes. While I disagreed quite a bit with Bill Clinton’s policies, I knew who was a bigger threat.
Comment by sharon — 1/31/2006 @ 3:54 am
Yes, Bush is less of a threat, but I think the right is being hysterical about how great of a threat the terrorists are thus far. Here is Greenwald on the subject:
The total number of Americans killed by Islamic terrorists in the last 5 years — or 10 years — or 20 years — or ever — is roughly 3,500, the same number of deaths by suicide which occur in this country every month.
…
And yet, one almost never hears anyone arguing that the terrorism threat, like any other threat, should be viewed in perspective and subjected to rational risk-benefit assessments. That’s because opinions about terrorism are the new form of political correctness, and even hinting that this threat is not the all-consuming, existential danger to our Republic which the Bush followers, fear-mongerers and hysterics among us have relentlessly and shrilly insisted that it is, will subject one to all sorts of accusations concerning one’s patriotism and even mental health.(http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/putting-terrorist-threat-into.html)
I agree with Greenwald on this.
Comment by Psyberian — 1/31/2006 @ 5:02 am
Well you think gay people shouldn’t marry or have relationships, while thinking that black people should be able to travel and force privately owned hotels to accept them. To you those are different things. To me they’re both things that people choose to do, and thus while not ‘immutable’ are still how they express themselves and get by in modern society.
I know. Someone else pointed out its the new PC. Someone up above called this blog post the time to ’stand up and be counted.’ How martial!
Comment by actus — 1/31/2006 @ 6:36 am
Hmmm. Rational calculus of risk, psybterian?
Does that apply to the arsenic standards that Bush rescinded–you remember, the ones that simply put back in place the arsenic standards that had held for the Clinton administration, except his last 60 days or so?
Somehow, terrorism never quite makes it to a “rational calculus of risk,” at least when done by foreigners—which didn’t keep liberals from declaiming, after Timothy McVeigh’s blowing up of the OKC buildings, that right-wing terrorists were the problem (along with talk radio).
So, how many people have abortion clinic bombers killed? Are they more or less of a threat, to liberal minds, than foreign terrorists?
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/31/2006 @ 6:54 am
It’s amazing how nuclear weapons aren’t entering this discussion. G.W. is not trying to nuke the city I live in. The terrorists are. That, to me, is the difference — and that’s why backwards-looking analyses of the numbers involved are misleading and meaningless.
Comment by Patterico — 1/31/2006 @ 7:10 am
Exactly. And what are the forward looking numbers? Also meaningless.
Comment by actus — 1/31/2006 @ 7:15 am
Psy,
Thanks for the Greenwald post. It’s an excellent example of the Lefty pre 9/11 mindset.
Comment by Black Jack — 1/31/2006 @ 7:29 am
Patterico:
I think nukes haven’t entered the discussion for two reasons:
1. If they did, liberals would really have to decide on just how wacky a conspiracy they’re prepared to countenance. (Fear not—if Manhattan disappears in a mushroom cloud, the Left will happily claim that Bush LIHOP, b/c Manhattan is filled w/ Democrats, and besides, it’s a kulturkampf.)
2. Liberals would also have to face the stark reality that some people are prepared to use nuclear weapons—which in turn would call into question many of their finer shibboleths from the Cold War (”the Russians love their children, too”) and their utter refusal to countenance thinking about the unthinkable.
This latter aspect, I think, is enormous.
If nukes are useable, what measures are justified in preventing it? Might explicit violation of FISA (versus what we’re seeing now, which is at the margins) be acceptable, if it was aimed at preventing a nuclear attack?
If nukes are useable, who might use them? Might thinking about nuclear use in the context of the Korean peninsula or Iran become acceptable? So much for limited retaliation or thinking about “why do they hate us”!
If nukes are useable, would we retain them? Wouldn’t this put an end to the longstanding liberal pipe-dream of denuclearizing the world? Would Jonathan Schell jump off an ICBM? For that matter, it might mean that Israeli possession of a nuke might not be the moral equivalent of Iran possessing them.
So, opening up the Pandora’s Box of nuclear-use, even conceptually, is utterly unacceptable. Again, the one exception would probably be the prospect of right-wing nutcases nuking abortion clinics—something that is outright laughable.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/31/2006 @ 7:34 am
I’d springboard off Patterico’s point and say it’s hardly zero sum decision between one bad actor and another. The dynamics causing the greatest danger are more complex than that, and a graphic example is the winding path of nuclear weapons technology, e.g. from the French and Swiss to Pakistan, to Iran and N.Korea.
But doesn’t that underscore the relative unimportance of a stateless, homeless (if well-funded) fundamentalist guerrilla like OBL? OBL surely has more malicious intent than Bush or any other national leader. But whose actions are causing the most danger?
That’s where the rational risk analysis becomes anomalous from the original question. The reference to “enemies” clouds the issue with the suggestion that bad intent, or evilness, is more central than hazardousness. But to many (and apparently more so on the left), lack of bad intent doesn’t exonerate incompetence, recklessness, and ethical conflicts. Bush’s best defense is that he’s not evil. Other than that, he’s not looking too good.
I think Adam suggested that this cross-bleeding of issues gets turned into mud for political slinging, even though it originates as a legit and defined question of where the real dangers are coming from.
Comment by biwah — 1/31/2006 @ 7:49 am
Lurking Observer,
Perhaps you can explain why then, in the name of going after Iraq (non-nuclear), we took the heat off and indeed cozied up to Pakistan, which was doing a sweet little business brokering bumper to bumper nuclear weapons programs between Iran and North Korea?
Think about the conservative ridicule of multilateralism as namby-pamby liberal dovishness, and then consider the stupidity of not dealing multilaterally. We continually protect the worst (most dangerous, evilness be damned) actors to go after small relative small fry.
We are discovering that we cannot line em up and knock em down. Nor will they all fall in line and surrender their nukes when they witness our glorious military in action. I share Bush’s (and your) disappointment at this, but not his surprise.
Bush came in late, sat in the back of the class, and was throwing spitballs when most of the serious nuclear horsetrading was going on. Now, we’re trying to play catch up, but the nuclear rogues are not going to oblige our requests, even accompanied by bombs and manichaean rhetoric.
So, opening up the Pandora’s Box of nuclear-use, even conceptually, is utterly unacceptable.
Unacceptable, eh? Is that an attempt at humor, or are you really that deluded?
Comment by biwah — 1/31/2006 @ 8:07 am
Biwah - what are you talking about? To the extent that we “cozied up to Pakistan”, we did so because the Pakistani-Afghani border is porous, and we can’t hope to control Afghanistan without either (a) some sort of alliance with Pakistan, or (b) control of the Pakistani frontier provinces.
Finding some sort of modus vivendi with Pakistan was essential to the success of the effort of toppling the Taliban and (hopefully) finding bin Laden.
Comment by aphrael — 1/31/2006 @ 8:31 am
Yes. That modus vivendi included turning a blind eye to their trade in nuclear secrets.
So, the decision to go after the Taliban and Saddam is not as simple as deciding they are “bad”, when you consider that we had to set larger priorities on their ear to do so.
Comment by biwah — 1/31/2006 @ 8:37 am
Nor is it clear that the extent of the AQ Khan ring was understood before the war w/ Iraq (or even just when it was understood).
While the story remains remarkably murky, it would appear that at least some of the understanding of just where Khan’s network ran was courtesy of the Libyans (who, of course, seemed to be influenced by the Iraq War, in their decision to hand over their WMD plans and parts).
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/31/2006 @ 8:42 am
It has been acknowledged, though - and I can;t give cites at the moment - that the U.S. was cognizant of the Khan situation before the war, and that the info was suppressed for domestic political purposes.
We probably disagree about the likelihood of this, but I beleive it. Given everything that was known about Khan and Musharraf and Pakistan’s burgeoning nuke program andPakistan’s ties to terrorism, it would seem incredibly glib to have looked past the likelihood of Pakistan as a hub between Europe and the rogues. The best the admin can claim is (once again) ignorance in the extreme.
And for what did we give Pakistan a pass? Musharraf and Saddam were not all that different in their leadership - swaggering but calculating, generally brutal, thoroughly corrupt, and lending at least passive support to terrorists - but Pakistan was bigger, had nukes, and hadn’t snubbed the U.S. as openly.
So why did we ally ourselves with one to got after the other again? And what have we reaped? Stay tuned.
Comment by biwah — 1/31/2006 @ 8:52 am
We allied ourselves w/ Musharraf in order to go after Saddam??
I would suggest, biwah, you take a look at a map, then take a look at the logistics requirements to sustain any kind of substantial forces in Afghanistan.
Without Pakistani acquiescence, exactly how does one go about operating in Afghanistan?
I suppose it’s possible to simply stand off and fire some cruise missiles at some tents. But then the effectiveness might be in question, no?
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/31/2006 @ 8:59 am
Sorry, Afghanistan and Iraq were separate and isolated military operations, totally unrelated, right?. My bad.
Okay, I acknowledge that we didn’t soften relations with Pakistan in a vacuum. There was a reason. I’m calling attention to the potential price we paid, and asking if it was worth it, and if our priorities were not f’d up. But granted, an easy answer does not present itself.
Now that we’re staring the consequences in the face, it seems like some of these questions might be worth asking. It doesn’t seem that the admin didn’t, back when it could have made a difference. There were many critics accusing them of tunnel vision at the time, and those criticisms now seem well founded.
Comment by biwah — 1/31/2006 @ 9:09 am
I don’t understand bringing up the Nukes questions. I mean, it’s actually one of the things that liberals have been fighting over for a long time. The prevention of nuclear proliferation is a ‘lefty’ cause. It was a major part of John Kerry’s platform in the last election. He said, and I agree with him, that the biggest threat would be terrorists getting ahold of a bomb from the old Soviet Union, and he proposed spending considerable amounts of money ensuring that those weapons be secured. You can disagree with the approaches liberals have taken to reducing nuclear proliferation, but I think it’s pretty hard to argue that they aren’t concerned about the problem.
If you’re asking, who would I rather have a nuclear weapon, George W. Bush or OBL? Well, that’s an obvious answer. However, who’s more likely to use one, and who’s policies continue to encourage proliferation? Also an easy question to answer.
Once again, though, the real debate isn’t about who wants to hurt America more (we know it’s OBL), it’s who is currently doing more damage (intentional or not).
Comment by Adam — 1/31/2006 @ 9:18 am
Wow, proliferation is a liberal issue. And George Bush is more likely to use a nuke than Osama bin Laden.
Hoo-kay.
And biwah, nice attempt at mousetrapping, but the reality is that Pakistan, which you brought up, is related to Afghanistan, not to Iraq. Just as, say, Iwo Jima was part of the war in the Pacific against Japan, as part of a larger war that also included Germany.
Note that, in that same war, the US said it was fighting for the “Four Freedoms” while sacrificing American lives to keep a bloodthirsty dictator who killed more of his own people than Hitler did in power. Couched in those terms, I’m sure someone in 1946 could have said:
And unless AQ started his side business after January 21, 2001, it would seem that papering over Khan’s activities (assuming they, as opposed to overall Pakistani stances, were known) has been a longstanding habit, of both conservative and liberal Presidencies. Of course, the nuclear test back in 1998 by both Pakistan and India was said to have been something of a surprise to us, at the time, perhaps it wasn’t even then?
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/31/2006 @ 9:28 am
I think Adam was saying it’s a no-brainer that Bush would be a more restrained holder of nukes than OBL, obviously. But wouldn’t it be fun to jump on him if he said otherwise though?
Much of Khan’s business was after that time. Of course, the decision to improve relations with Pakistan took place after then as well. Your position is not so bad that you have to resort to the “Clinton did it too” argument, is it?
The comparison btwn Musharraf and Saddam is not really central to what I’m saying. In the various value judgments (or lack thereof) that we made during Bush’s presidency, Pakistan somehow was an attractive partner in the GWOT, and the Taliban and Saddam were obvious targets.
Of these three, only one was selling nukes to our biggest enemies. This was a major oversight contributing greatly to the potential disaster we have now. How would you like to obfuscate the issue this time around?
As Adam points out, Kerry staked a lot on stopping nuclear proliferation. He was roundly ridiculed for his focus on prevention, when everyone knows the U S of A’s forte is in kicking ass after the fact. Oh well.
Comment by biwah — 1/31/2006 @ 9:37 am
Biwah - in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, there was nobody in Washington who would have been willing to pay the political price for not going after the perpetrators; and the connection between bin Laden and the Taliban was well established. Hell, it wasn’t limited to this country — *every member of NATO* is on record as having supported that operation.
When a country has attacked you, dealing with them immediately becomes your highest priority. You do what you can to not upset the other applecarts, but you don’t let the fear of upsetting those applecarts interfere with your actions.
There’s a lot of post-facto second-guessing which I think is useful and reasonable. What you are engaging in here isn’t.
Comment by aphrael — 1/31/2006 @ 9:51 am
Lurking Observer - proliferation is traditionally a liberal issue; both the NPT and the CTBT were conceived by liberals. On a side note, while the public disclosure of Pakistan’s nuclear capability was something of a surprise, the existence of that capability wasn’t; it had been an open secret in some circles for years. (I remember first hearing about Pakistani and Indian nuclear technology in the late 1980s).
Comment by aphrael — 1/31/2006 @ 9:51 am
biwah:
Adam wrote:
(Emphasis added.)
My reading of English says that, while Adam might prefer Bush to HAVE a nuclear weapon, his use of the term “however” means that he believes that Bush is more likely to use a nuclear weapon. But YMMV.
And is it obfuscation to suggest that a comparison between Musharraf and Saddam is utterly inappropriate? That, to begin with, we improved relations with Musharraf in no small part b/c we went after the Taliban first?
Now, apparently in your view of the world, we should have dealt with Musharraf first. Leaving aside the question of a casus belli (Was Osama hiding in Pakistan, or Afghanistan? Were his main training camps in Pakistan, or Afghanistan?), one wonders whether it is ultimately more or less stabilizing to enter a country that already has nukes, and which might choose to use them on its neighbors? Or whether this would improve or lessen the chances of lost nukes (consider that Russia is at least a relatively functioning country, with nuclear weapons equipped with PALs, compared with Pakistan, with a much less mature nuclear capability and unknown PAL installation)?
Of course, once we’d entered Pakistan and toppled the government, we could then have blithely marched into Afghanistan, yes? Indeed, as per the Left’s incessant calling for more troops for Afghanistan, perhaps we could have supplied three or even four divisions in Afghanistan, by way of Karachi, through the resulting chaotic aftermath.
No problemo.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 1/31/2006 @ 9:54 am</