Speechless

[barking_iguana]

Sy Hersh gave the speech. I can't, even in writing. Just read Brad DeLong's notes

And onecrazymother, would it be appropriate for me (or you) to ask 1cmf at what theoretical point he would start to take seriously the erosion of the rule of law that the Shrub Administration is perpetrating?

Comments

[onecrazymother.livejournal.com]

Oh, I can ask him, as long as I'm willing to listen to his answer.

This week I'm just wishing that all of the intelligent people I personally know and respect could agree politically so I could avoid have to think about the issues myself.

[1cmf.livejournal.com]

I do cath your journal from time to time.

Hmm, what theoretical point? If, at sometime in the future, I find that the claims being made are significantly substantiated such that they are no longer credibly explained as simply partisan sniping, then I suppose that would change my evaluation of the current adminstration.

So far the only credible thing the administration seems to be doing that I'm signifanctly displeased with is working to erode Choice. However, ther degree to which they're going about it is still such that it hasn't amounted to much, and I'm far more concerned about what a putative Kerry administration would do wrt the RTKBA where I suspect that they would be far more successfull eroding that area than the current administration is in eroding choice.

On Iraq, I find myself in agreement with the general thrust of the administrations actions even if I do feel that they could have done better. Kerry's claims of opposition seem to be far more opportunistic than genuine when you compare the current claims to his arguments in favor of the war when he voted in favor of it. _That_ Kerry I could get behind. I would have been far happier had the D's selected Dean, who, while I disagreed with his foriegn policy posoition, I at least felt his position was genuine, and his domestic agenda was pretty good. Or Leibermen, who had the integrity to stay honest with his foriegn policy issues (and were in agreement with my own by and large) even if I disagreed with much of his domestic agenda. But the D's selected a guy that they seemed not to particualrly like (and I agree) on the bassis that he is "electable" ie that they think the ignorant middle amercians who voted for Bush could be persuaded to vote for. The result is less than palatble: bad forign policy (assuming he is now being genuine) or possibly a distinct tendancy to allow foriegn policy to shift in the breeze of the latest opinion poll (to judge by the swinging views) along with a domestic agenda that I can't really suport. Not that Kerry's as bad as I feel Kucinich would have been
(someone I felt I would have to actively oppose rahter than simply root against) but I think he's a definite downgrade from the current admnistratrion (not that they're tops in their feild or anything). I also think that a Kerry victory would be credibly read by our enemies as a weakening of our resolve to fight the war on terror: allowing the US to follow Spain's lead, giving new resolve to the terrorists to keep up the fight.



Raven

Re: A simple test

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

I have a simple test to show the foolishness of Bush's invasion. I write this as someone who has changed course on Iraq.

Before the war, the "hawks", as well as myself, made predictions, very few of which have come to pass. The only prediction I made that has come true might be my claim that Bush would botch the job.

The "doves", on the other hand, made accurate predictions. For instance, Jonathan Schell of The Nation knew what he was talking about, but only later would I bother reading him. I thought he was just being contrary.

The ability to make predictions is a measure of competence in journalism and government.