Plan9

They won't bow down, they'll fight for freedom, they won't stop...

...

Wait... what are they actually doing, again? I mean, I did the patriotism thing once... I didn't see any of them there.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

Stop ignoring the means to attack. You're the same kind of person who says "they've build a nuclear weapon, all they're missing is the uranium and a delivery system". The Taliban completely and totally lacked the ability to do any damage whatsoever to the US. They weren't even a threat to our allies. They were only a threat to Afghanistan. That's sad, I feel for those Afghans that were under Taliban rule, but even if they were hell-bent on destroying America (and they weren't, btw), they lacked the means.
Can you demonstrate that they were "a baby crocodile"? I don't know why you expect that everyone automatically buys this idea that because someone threatens us we're actually in danger.

BTW, do you know how many baby crocodiles we don't act on? Like the one in Mexico? If you were serious about this, you'd want us to go after crocodiles based on how immediate the threat is, right? The most immediate threat to the US is Mexican instability, followed by domestic terror, followed by North Korea selling nuclear weapons. Even back in 2001 after 9/11.

Hey, wait a second, you forgot to respond to my main point: Demonstrate to me why you considered the Taliban to be a CREDIBLE threat. Do it.

aceventura3

Trust you? It is better that way? Let's not get carried away.

Being humble has never been a strong point for me, but I have been working on it. Let me simply say, for the record your arguments have been anything but clear. Your last post was a confused conflation of many random bits of information used to promote a baseless premise.

---------- Post added at 07:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------

No. Some want to restrict freedom. However, in my view defending freedom is not a restriction of freedom, it is a prerequisite for freedom. The fight continues.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

The fact that you've backed into a position of defense and fighting is exactly what they want. They want a world where you're afraid of them and forced to be aggressive. You're furthering their agenda, with your attitude. They win.

And the fact that you're doing it in the name of freedom is the work of another terrorist named George W. Bush.

aceventura3

As I understand the Taliban, one of their goals is to enforce Sharia Law. I do not want to live in a world bound by Sharia Law. If their goal is to force that upon me, I consider that a threat to my freedom of religious choice. If they are willing to coexist, I have no problem with them, but that is not what they want. It doesn't matter if they have nukes, AK47's, or cap guns, their stated goal as I understand it is not acceptable to me. So, if the problem is mine and I don't understand Sharia Law or their intent, I need help getting educated, otherwise there is a conflict that will lead to violence.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

I am not afraid and I am not being forced to defend freedom. Being free and defending freedom is my choice, and it is not a cause that I not willing or afraid to commit my life to.

I think their goal goes beyond simply creating "terror", I think "terror" is their tactic to accomplish their goal.

George Bush is perfectly willing to let people make a choice on how they live. Islamic extremist and those who employ terrorism in the name of a holy war do not.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

You don't. You're willing to kill them, but you're ass-end-of-nowhere ignorant about them. You can quote Fox News, though, so at least there's that.

aceventura3

You can be judgmental, that is o.k., but don't ignore what I wrote. I clearly stated that if the problem is mine that I need to get educated. Your judgment has not helped. If the Taliban is willing to coexist, I have no problem with them. Are you suggesting that they are willing to coexist with those not willing to follow Sharia Law?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Whoa, wait a second. All radical Islamic groups are not the same. The Taliban did not necessarily want to spread Islamic law to the US. They wanted to have their own special brand of Islamic law rule Afghanistan (and now Pakistan).

In fact, the Taliban were fairly recently very pro-America. Sure, they don't like modern things and are partial to a particularly serious brand of Islamic law, but until we started bombing them under Clinton, they had nothing but nice things to say. We helped them drive out the Soviets.

aceventura3

The Taliban was pro-American because at one point America was pro-Taliban. The US has a poor history of picking the theoretical lesser of two evils when it comes to the ME. I admit that the US has made mistakes, but we can not undo what has been done. Today, my view is clear. I am willing to work peacefully with any group or nation willing to peacefully coexist with others. Those who have a goal of imposing their will or way of life on me are a threat.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

But seriously, Ace, the Taliban doesn't want to force you to live under Islamic law. They're fine operating in their own country. I can't remember ever seeing anything about how they intend to spread Islamic law to the west. They're not expansionist and are only in Pakistan because they don't recognize the border.

aceventura3

Sorry, but I don't believe that. To me, we have a baby crocodile living under our house. Today, all the baby croc wants is its own little place grow and thrive. However, the path is clear - at some point the conflict with the croc will be one that needs to be addressed.

Life Rule # 3,427 - Don't trust crocodiles.




And Native Americans thought the "white man" would honor peace treaties. You are far more trusting than I am. Or, perhaps I am just paranoid. Could be a combination of both, and I actually hope you are correct unfortunately I am not willing to take the risk.

Life Rule # 3,428

Don't take risks with crocodiles.

Warning - don't watch this if you don't think you should.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

This isn't about beliefs, ace, this is about facts. The fact is that it is not a goal of the Taliban to force Islamic law on the West. What you're suggesting—attacking and killing people that are not a threat because of an unsupported belief—is premeditated murder.

ratbastid

Well, that's true. Tragically, you don't see it as a view. It's The Truth, to you.

You're talking out your ass here, hoss. And you're willing to commit major military effort and sacrifice hundreds or thousands of lives to enforce the conclusion that your ignorance draws you to.

Derwood

I don't see how anything the Taliban has done or is doing is in any way impinging on YOUR freedom, Ace.

FoolThemAll

Given that you continually find both the time and the inclination that you don't have to respond to his 'stupid' posts in ways that aren't helpful to anyone, perhaps you should start trusting yourself on that.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

roachboy

how nice, fta.
at least i made a general indication in the direction of actual content--in the post above the one you removed from it's context.
but it seems that you didn't feel so moved. pity, really. it's generally better to do so. just saying.

btw i didn't refer to ace's posts as stupid--in general i find them logically consistent but based on premises that i find arbitrary--but that's to be expected as it's part of the game of political discussion. i would prefer discussions about premises, how they're arrived at, which more accurately refer to agreed upon descriptions of the world--to the extent that such descriptions go beyond simple rhetorical exercises (generally they don't but that's another matter)--but for whatever reason, these discussions never seem to happen. personally, i think it's because folk who hold more conservative views either cannot defend their premises, or they conflate their views with the order of things as they imagine it to be such that they don't think they have premises.
either way, there's rarely such a discussion and so these debates don't really move.
restatements of starting points: that's all these "discussions" amount to.
which gets tired.


sometimes, though, there are arguments that are so thoroughly absurd that they seem to me to invite ridicule--and try as i might, i sometimes succumb to the need to say as much---mea fucking culpa---the conservative meme of the moment that's recycled in the op--that obama represents an extension of the bush administration and thereby some kind of confirmation of the necessity of the policies that are continued--is an example of such an argument.

but if you want to play with me, go ahead and defend the premise of the thread.
if you're not going to participate in the game of the thread, i don't see you having fuck all to say about what happens in it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

FoolThemAll

Nah, I have neither the time nor inclination.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

roach, you've got the idea, you just need to take it to its logical conclusion. restatement after restatement, again and again and again, all on an internet forum. in the end, comrade, it's nothing to get worked up about. there's nothing to get angry about because there's nothing of consequence. it's a pass-time, this forum thing of ours. we're not on capitol hill. our shouts don't ring in the halls of academia. our points aren't published in our nation's (shrinking) publications. our discourse may survive the test of time, but that's a consequence of the medium, not the importance of the content. it's just a forum.

if something impressive or original or interesting happens, great, but it's just a forum. if something horrible or redundant or ignorant happens, oh well, it's just a forum.

aceventura3

Your position is weak.

I am willing to live in peace with those who respect the right of me and others to practice the religion of their choice, or practice no religion. I will not live in a world bound by Sharia Law. And because I want that freedom, I feel obligated to come to the defense of those who want the same freedom. It doesn't matter if they live next door to me , on the other side of the globe, or in the ME. If the Taliban respects this, there is no conflict. Period, end of story, but they don't.

If I were a free black man in the US in 1860, my freedom would mean little if other black men were still enslaved, and I would feel obligated to fight for freedom of all men.

If, I get your point - that its o.k. for the Taliban to force some people to live under a law that restricts their right to religious choice as long as it is not the west, I think you are wrong.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

I clearly made an offer, an offer in sincerity. If I need to be educated on the Taliban, Sharia Law or the intent of the Taliban, I am open to that education. However, that opportunity has been met with ridicule, and condescension.

So, yes. I am willing to commit major military effort and sacrifice hundreds or thousands of lives to enforce the conclusion that you claim my ignorance has lead me to. So, if there are people like me in the world and you have the opportunity to influence us with your knowledge, but choose instead to simply call us ignorant, who really has the problem? Who is really at fault?

I have laid out my position. All the Taliban has to do is prove their intent is not to do what I think they want to do. If they can't or don't want to, then the path to conflict is clear.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

See the above.

And to be clear, I am not suggesting we take any extreme measure today, however, the path we are on is one that will not end favorably. Wise people need to intervene, or step aside and let the matter be resolved.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

If you're out to defend "freedom" (meaning your own subjective interpretation of freedom shaped at least in some part by American societal rules), there are places a lot less free than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a paradise compared to some places on our planet. Darfur, Burma, Somolia... shoot, even North Korea is likely less free than Afghanistan. And don't get me started on how the US invading Afghanistan helped to keep the Taliban in power.

If your position is that you want to attack anyone that makes people less free, that's a formidable list, a list in which we couldn't make a dent in 100 years.

All of this is moot, though. We are in Afghanistan because we wanted to get Osama Bin Laden, and when we invaded the Taliban and militant insurgents engaged us. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom. It still doesn't. In 4-8 years, we'll pull out of Afghanistan just like we're pulling out of Iraq, just like the Soviet Union pulled out a generation before. Just like the next sucker to invade will have to pull out.
There's no need for strawmen. It's not okay, but there are certain things that are beyond our ability AND there are better ways to go about assisting progressive change. We, the US, likely don't have the military ability to defeat the Taliban, and our presence increases their recruitment. Eventually, either we'll elect an even more liberal leader or we'll wipe out the people of Afghanistan. We support progressive change by being smart. We support progressive imams. We support women's organizations. We cut off the opium trade by suggesting to our allies that legalizing and taxing opium in Asia will do more to damage the Taliban than a million bombs. There are a thousand more ideas like this, waiting in the wings.

I want a free Afghanistan. I want the Taliban to be disbanded. We won't be able to do that until we stop pretending that our presence will lead to it.

aceventura3

Why do you want the Taliban disbanded?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

The Taliban, not unlike like Hezbollah, does a lot more ultimate harm than good and has demonstrated even during what we might consider peace times that they're unwilling to set aside their violent, extremist fundamentalism. They're welcome to their religious beliefs so long as those beliefs don't extend to violence, but since they do unfortunately, they demonstrate that their organizations do not have a constructive place in society. Still, while I think it's the job of every human being to help police ourselves, we have to respect international boundaries. I won't go as far to say, "It's not our problem, therefore we should do nothing about it," but there have to be realistic limits to policing the world. We can't be international peacekeepers everywhere at once when we can barely do it in one country.

aceventura3

I am more confused regarding your position and the position of others on this subject now than when we started. My position is that I don't trust the Taliban, that I am not willing to risk the future based on a perception that they can not harm us, and that their goal of having free people bound by Sharia law is unacceptable. On one hand people suggest that I am ignorant and then on the other you write what you wrote above.

But getting back to the subject in the OP, my reasons for not liking the Taliban are clear, at least to me, however, I still don't know what Obama's cause is for escalating the war in Afghanistan. We don't need more troops to find Osama, that is pointless. Is he sending more troops to chase nuclear weapons? Is he sending more troops to promote democracy and religious freedom?

And, if the logic was - our military presence causes people to become terrorists, why is sending more troops going to solve the problem of ridding the world of terrorists?

So many questions, to bad no one is asking those questions and too bad Obama is not making his intentions clear. So, again agree with Bush or not, at least we knew what his intentions were.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I'm just guessing, but it seems pretty obvious that he's fallen victim to staying the course. On the campaign trail, Obama's key to looking tough on terror was his talk on Afghanistan. He won, but now he's stuck with a campaign promise that I don't think he believes in. Still, it's a mistake to drop all of this on Obama's shoulders alone. Yes, I know early on I seemed mad, and I am, but Obama inherited Afghanistan from the previous administration. Even if he wanted to pull out, it wouldn't have happened by now.
It's possible the president and I don't see eye to eye on that issue.
We didn't know Bush's intentions until after we were already in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, information is still coming to light that changes our collective perception of what Bush actually wanted.

Slims

Counter Insurgencies are tricky things. Sometimes an increased presence is the worst possible option, and sometimes it is essential.

We have a new commanding general who has served in SOF units for nearly his entire career. I would assume he knows which option is appropriate for each region of Afghanistan.

In friendly areas, an increased presence allows more civic functions, police patrols, stability, and an opportunity for a free(r) society to grow, prosper, and become immune to the insurgency.

In unfriendly areas, an increased presence may well encourage resentment and provide a good recruiting tool for the insurgents (as well as more targets).

I know one of the big sticking points in Afghanistan has been a lack of air assets and a substantial part of the 'mini-surge' has been aviation...which would allow our soldiers to fly directly to strongholds rather than drive mined roads.

One of the tendencies of any major power is to consolidate into large bases, but in FID and/or COIN missions the emphasis needs to be in many, smaller outposts that are more 'among the people' where the units living there get a very good local perspective and are able to influence their areas all the time. This is one of the directions we seem to be going now, but it requires more support, people to stand guard, set up electricity, etc.

The surge in Afghanistan is very dissimilar to the one in Iraq. They are both complex strategies with very different overall approaches, though there is some overlap.

In Iraq, the surge was intended to be part of a large effort at hitting the critical mass necessary to actually contain the violence enough to allow things to settle down. Afghanistan has been under-manned since the conventional army got involved in 2002, and has been basically on-hold since the kickoff of Iraq in 2003. Now our military is finally able to give it the attention they would have years ago if other events had not prevented them from doing so.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Marvelous Marv

For some reason, the big 3 networks are no longer interested in opening each show with a casualty count. This is probably a good thing, since as was noted, Obama has no stated goal in Afghanistan, other than to station more of our troops there. He also has no exit strategy that I am aware of.

By the way, I had this av first.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

roachboy

the absurdities continue. so the bush administration lost interest in afghanistan for the most part after it launched it's pseudo-directed military adventure there because it had shiny new neo-con toys in the iraq debacle---but the problem now with afghanistan is obama. astonishing. i guess meme-repetition is easier than thinking.

at the same time, though, there are things that take place that i have a really hard time understanding. this morning, for example, senate democrats voted to strip out the money required to shut down yet another bush-administration gift that keeps on giving in guantanamo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us....html?_r=1&hpw

this, from harry reid, is about as foul a thing as i've seen emanate from this general sector:

people who have not been charged, not been brought to trial--who have been kept in a legal black hole for years now---not prisoners quite but "detainees"---many of whom have been tortured---the democratic leader in the senate declares "terrorists" and then scuttles into a good old fashioned bourgeois nimby thing.

it's a shame obama is not what the far right thinks he is. having to make nice to the center-right, allowing its discourse to continue framing debates--none of this is good. if obama was, in fact, anything like what the right pretends to itself he is, there'd likely be a much greater shift in the language of politics and with that new ways of framing issues and with that more room to manoever.

the stinking pile of wreckage left behind by the bush administration clings too much because the way of talking about issues has not yet adequately marginalized the right.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

My license and usage check is in the mail.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Aladdin Sane

Meanwhile, back on the transparency in government front, President Obama whistles past the grave yard:


Obama signing Friday breaks transparency pledge
Posted: 04:00 PM ET

From CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry

WASHINGTON (CNN) – President Obama will quickly sign the credit card legislation that just passed through Congress at a White House ceremony on Friday, according to White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

One problem: this means the President will again break his campaign pledge to post legislation online for five days for the public to comb it over in the interest of transparency before he signs it into law.

Obama has an out, however, because he has always suggested he would waive the self-imposed rule for an emergency situation, such as his quick signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill earlier this year.

While the President has not previously declared an emergency on credit card reform, Psaki told CNN "the urgency of the situation" for credit card users dictates that it should be signed rapidly.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

roachboy

o i take it that you think the credit card industry is just dandy and that there's no particular need to put the law into effect, right?
you couldn't be as shallow as the cnn article is and think that the 2 and opposed to 5 days in the context of a pretty urgently needed change in how credit cards operate is real important, could you?
why that you imply that it's all form over substance for you, as a representative conservative?
how's that work if in other contexts, conservatives have lately been also claiming that the bush administration policies were swell because they recognized a substantive reality?

wait i know---it doesn't work. it's just more cheap conservative meme-level opportunism.
well you just go ahead and have fun with that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Aladdin Sane

I'm beginning to think I should have voted for Mr. Obama:

1. President Obama is keeping George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists."

2. Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out renditions. Current U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role under the Obama administration.

3. He insisted in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. He agreed on April 23 to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Then he announced he wouldn’t.

5. Mr. Obama condemned Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, Mr. Obama ordered more troops to Afghanistan. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

6. And just this morning (from the NY Times)—
WASHINGTON — President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.
***
The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.
***
“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantnamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan…

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Baraka_Guru

1. Since when is Afghanistan anything like Iraq?

2. Obama has made it clear he hasn't made a decision on the detainee program. He's mulling it over—weighing the factors. This isn't quite cowboy style, is it?

What are we seeing here, really? That Obama is a centrist? That he's right wing?

But I thought he was a socialist....

Oh, wait. Protecting consumers from credit card companies is completely socialist! (I'm so confused, the Canadian Conservatives are legislating something related....)

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

well, the other confusion comes from the fact that conservatives seem to operate with a special definition of time. obama is not being consistent at this moment. now at this moment. now at this one. look how many moments pass while inconsistency obtains. that way, the space between, say, yesterday's senate vote and this morning's speech about gitmo can appear to be made up of millions of individual inconsistencies. so what might appear to other people as a mere 24 hours to the right is now as many things as they decide they want.

same thing with the logic that informs comparisons for other people. if conservatives say that oranges and wombats are elements of the same set, then goddamn it they are. afghanistan, iraq: same thing. well, to the outside world, what these two fine situations have in common is that they're debacles brought on, cultivated and brought to a glorious fruitition by that special brand of utter incompetence that was the bush administration. but in special land, they are essentially alike and it's all obama's fault.

in special world, conservatives who opposed even talking about the torture carried out by the bush administration can complain about the stoppage of photo releases.

while i have been typing this, another Mountain of Inconsistencies has piled up.
there's another one.
there's another.
such a Big Mountain made up of so many moments.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Good point, roachboy. And it made me think of this:

Is it too early to create the acronym WWDD (What would Dubya do?)?

Concerning these issues, if he were still in power...WWDD?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Aladdin Sane

And there's this:

Tracking Stimulus Spending May Not Be as Easy as Promised

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 21, 2009

Shortly after the economic stimulus bill was signed, Vice President Biden was talking up the administration's Web site to track the spending, Recovery.gov, when he accidentally directed people to Recovery.org.

As slip-ups go, this one had an upside: Unlike the government site, the privately run Recovery.org is actually providing detailed information about how the $787 billion in stimulus money is being spent.

To build support for the stimulus package, President Obama vowed unprecedented transparency, a big part of which, he said, would be allowing taxpayers to track money to the street level on Recovery.gov. Together with a spruced-up WhiteHouse.gov, the site would inject the stodgy federal bureaucracy with the same Webby accessibility and Facebook-generation flair that defined the Obama campaign.

But three months after the bill was signed, Recovery.gov offers little beyond news releases, general breakdowns of spending, and acronym-laden spreadsheets and timelines. And congressional Democrats, state officials and advocates of open government worry that the White House cannot come close to clearing the high bar it set.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dksuddeth

well, I must say that i'm not terribly surprised at the apologist postings concerning the numerous 'promises' made by the Obama campaign that are now being ignored by the Obama administration. You guys sound just like the republican apologists. same coin, different side is all. It's no wonder the country is coming apart at the seams.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

actually, dk, i'm not apologizing for the obama administration at all--i just think that the carping from the right is absurd. brand triage uber alles---you conservative folk find yourselves in a world of shit and are transparently using anything and everything to try to dig your way out of it. the main tactic, of course, is to subdivide time so as to create a greater---and entirely imaginary---distance between yourselves and the bush administration. no-one, except maybe the conservative faithful, is fooled.

i have alot of problems with the obama administration--but i was a lukewarm supporter all along.
i figure he's nowhere near far enough away from the sucking sound that is conservative language, conservative views. the guy's a moderate---always was, always will be, it seems. he's paying the price for being a moderate.

but this has nothing to do with the imaginary world the right inhabits.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Might I remind the TFP that there were few of us here who expected a post-Bush presidency to be daisies and butterflies.

That Obama didn't have a crystal ball while campaigning should come as no surprise. How many presidents had one?

The president needs to compromise as he comes across certain realities. I'm sorry...how is this like Bush?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

yes, you are.


yeah, ok. Thats precisely what 'I'm' doing.

better the slow ride to hell than the fast one? If that isn't being an apologist, nobody will know what is then.

---------- Post added at 10:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

With Obama now following quite a few of the 'same' actions and policies that Bush had implemented, All of those on the left that castigated the Bush admin for enacting them are now forced to support those very same policies because it seems 'reasonable' or some stupid shit like that. How is that NOT like Bush?

With few exceptions on here, support for Obamas policies are being explained as necessary, yet those of you doing so were totally against them when enacted by the Bush admin. If that's not 'apologizing', again what would be?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

For Obama, it's a case of deciding between "staying the course" and "diverting the course."

For Bush it was "setting the course" and "staying the course."

The course is fucked up. Bush was taken out of the driver's seat on a ride of his choosing. Obama was put in his place. What do you expect? There is no reset button. There is no do-over.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot