President Lieberman

If Lieberman and his independent run doesn't make him a closet Republican, it definitely makes him a Republican dupe. Rove knows that when your enemy is self-destructing, stand out of the way.

A modest proposal: There is a House seat in Texas that badly needs a write-in candidate. Let Joe run there.

SCC my prediction post yesterday. I accidentally typed "Lieberman".

Reposted (and slightly corrected) from the previous Boodle:

On a slight tangent, but to Cassandra's comment ('morning, Cassandra), Lieberman lost the Conn Dem primary to anti-warrior Lamont.

1. Should Republicans be concerned?
Yup, if you're not in an district where you have to fight to be more conservative than the next guy to win, you're going to be facing some unhappy voters in Novemeber.

2. Should Democrats be concerned?
Yup, here's the opening Democrats needed to spilt their party, dilute their current advantages, and once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

As long as Lieberman's going to run as an Independent (trying not to think of him as joining *my* club) , he should completely sell out and market sponsorships for his campaign. He's not beholden to the DNC anymore, is he? Let him wear a NASCAR driver's suit and a hat with sponsor logos (paid for by sponsor advertising, natch) all over it, and start sound bites with something like, "The AETNA/ESPN Independence Campaign powered by Colt and United Technologies ran pretty good today, we got some good campaigning done in the southern end of the state and picked up a big push going through Bridgeport, Stamford and Danbury, but we're going to need to make some adjustments to fight a loose condition going through Waterbury, Hartford, and New London on the run back to New Haven. I'd like to thank General Electric and Playtex for their support, we couldn't have held up our end of the deal without them."

bc

Hey, Lieberman does not have the DNC behind him anymore, he's going to need all the help he can get and an Indy. If he's going to be perceived as a sell out, he might as well go all the way.
He's going to need to grab all the cash and business support (and who knows what else) he can get with both hands.

bc

That's dedication on the SCC front, SoC...

:-)

Interesting turnabout, yellojkt.

Presidente Arbusto was born in Connecticut, but is politicially a Texan.

Can Lieberman follow in GWB's tired tracks, and become a Connecticut Yankeee in King George's Court?

bc

I think since Kinky Friedman is running for Governor of Texas as an Independent, he and Joe should campaign together. I'm going to let someone else, preferably Mel Gibson, make the Texas Jewboys joke.

Two things struck me last night, waiting for the count tallies for Lieberman and Lamont to roll across the papers of record on the Internet, as well as checking in with the Hartford Courant.

The Courant reported that the ballroom of Hartford's Goodwin Hotel was jam-packed with reporters, representing 25 differnet media outlets--both national and international. The Courant mentioned how interested the Japanese, in particular, are in the Lamont-Liberman race and what Americans citizens/voters are currently thinking about the Iraq war.

The other is a paragraph, p. 61, from Thomas Ricks' book, "Fiasco," about the National Intelligence Estimate, issued by the CIA in the fall of 2002:

Congress goes along

Coongress wasn't looking for a fight with the president.

The National Intelligence Estimate, in its full, ninety-two page classified form, contained a host of doubts, caveats, and disagreements with Bush's assertions. Copies of that long form of the NIE were sent to Capitol Hill, where they sat in two vaults, under armed guard. Yet only a handful of members of Congress ever read more than its five-page executive summary. Delving into the dissent in the intelligence community would only have gotten a politician on the wrong side of the issue with the preident. (Many months later, after the U.S. military invaded Iraq, White House officials would disclose that neither Bush nor Rice had read the entire NIE.)
***

Certainly, there must have been a sign-in list to enable our elected representatives to view those documents? Can Ricks disclose it, or the Washington Post? I think every citizen ought to have access to information about what senator or representative was interested enough to search out the facts for herself or himself in the run-up to war. (The passge occurs in the chapter Ricks titled,"The Run-up.") Has this information about who in Congress read the full NIE been put forward in print? Too much to ask?

I think that when my husband travels on business next week and things slow down in Lamont's campaign headquarters, I shall call Connecticut and offer whatever assistance I can.

SCC in my prediction post yesterday. I accidentally typed "Lieberman".

SCC: "Yankee". Sheesh.

bc

SoC,
I did a headscratch at your prediction yesterday--given that independents came out in droves to register as Dems. Glad to know it was a SCC. You had me worried there for a moment.
***

Amusing photo on the Web last night at NYT. Liberman camp calls in a programmer to fix its broken wedsite--the lad looked all of 14 years old--possibly as old as 18, but I'm doubtful that he was out of his teens. Really, I wonder how much bandwidth ol' Joe really bought?

Kinky better get his act together. Carol Keaton Strayhorn--she has McClellan as one of her married names but has dropped it--recall her sons--Bush's *former* press sec Scott and his bro-doc over at the FDA?--was in town last night at a public hearing poo-pooing Perry's trans-Texas corridor and defending those homeowners who stand to lose their homes under eminent domain. Kinky better stop joking around and begin to start coming out with positions on issues. His latest book of Texas aphorisms continues to sell well here in the state.

It was reported this morning that bloggers had a strong hand in Lieberman's defeat. If that's true, and I believe it is to some extent, are you folks ready to impact the next election, and if so, where might I ask do you fall, Iraq or no Iraq?

SCC:
Ich liebe *Lieberman*--nicht!

Cassandra,
These were bloggers across the Internet, to clarify the extent of the unhappiness with Lieberman.

The question you ask is an excellent one and a very difficult one. We've had the NYT Tom Friedman in the last week and WaPo's Richard Cohen, also in the last week, advising a pullout. Friedman's column was excellent, listing the reasons why. Ricks, in his concluding chapter, advises that a premature withdrawal likely would have severe consequences. There are also proponents for a phased withdrawl. The rosy scenarios painted by Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld are not longer realistic or credible, however.

Ricks surprisingly (to me) ends his book with a possible scenario painting the emergence of a powerful Middle Eastern leader, a unifier--and uses as a basis of comparison--Salah-al-din. I didn't know whether to laugh or not...shades of Richard I!

I must do some important errands. Others here should weigh in on your question and the conundrum the Democratic Party--as well as the Republican Party--faces.

Loomis, unfortunately it wasn't a "real" SCC. I just thought I'd go against the common wisdom. I wonder if this is an example of a shift that will alienate a critical amount of the centrists that might otherwise go Dem.

The trouble with conventional wisdom is that it is neither.

that's all we need is another dem split in voting a la nader... this lieberman guy seems to have a little bit o trouble letting go! i think he looks foolish and that no one will take him seriously (even tho he got the required # of petitions)

cassandra - i would say no iraq but we can't pull out now - i truly believe doing so would make us look weak to the extremists and they will take that opportunity to hit us even harder... we shouldn't have gone in the first place...

You know, Joe may have lost the primary because, well, he's kind of a jerk. He's got a mean, sour streak that he displayed in this debate with Lamont. And his attitude toward his own constituants has seemd imperious and detached. People tend to vote for people they like personally. And Joe is hardly huggable, except by, um, youknowwho.

My take on it is that Lieberman is a full of himself jacka$$.

Cassandra, on Iraq I think Meyerson has one of the best opinon pieces yet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800941.html

I suspect that bc has described the situation correctly -- this is an opportunity for Dems to turn on themselves in a search for ideological purity and thereby self-destruct, siezing defeat from victory and giving us 2 more years of the Bush Administration status quo.

Now that Lamont actually has gone and won the Connecticut primary, what does it mean? I gather that Connecticut is a very Democratic state. If Lamont gets every single registered Democrat and nobody else, is that enough to win? If the Republican challenger gets every single Republican and half the independents, while Lieberman gets the other half of the independents and half the Democrats, who wins? In the last scenario, it sounds like it would be Lieberman, but how close are the numbers? I suspect the least likely situation is for Lamont to win the statewide general election. Is it more important to eliminate Lieberman than to keep a Democratic seat in the Senate? The Republican that replaces him is sure to be more conservative than Lieberman.

The Republicans have the strategic advantage of possessing a very narrow set of core beliefs that demand certain political stances, most importantly the belief that party unity trumps all other considerations. The Dems have a broad set of beliefs that also demand certain political stances -- e.g., protections for personal liberties, respect for the rule of law, the value of substantive debate, and so forth. Lieberman's loss is an example of the Dems destroying each other because of a disagreement in individual beliefs. The most rabid have won the war, and quite possibly will lose the battle to maintain the political liberties that make it possible for us to disagree with each other.

There is strenuous disgreement with Lieberman over some very important things, but in general, his record is one of being a sturdy political liberal (or, so I hear). That's not so bad. So long as the Republicans maintain control of the legislature, you won't even get the chance to vote on the war, or anything else important, because the Republican leadership only brings to a vote those things that are favored by a majority of the majority -- the most conservative 25-30% of Congress defines the entire agenda. The Republicans work in lockstep. The only chance that the Democrats have to break that unity and to seize even the opportunity to have a substantive debate and a real vote, is if they can gain the legislative majority. To do that, they're going to need every Democrat that they can get into office, including the ones that are more conservative than the rest. A demand for ideological purity is an admission that you would really rather remain powerless and pure than to compromise by even a titch and thereby win some victories.

I have a brilliant back-of-the-envelope calculation that illustrates the absolute necessity for outside-the-box thinking on Iraq, complete with a brilliant outside-the-box solution that gets at the problems in Iraq from a novel direction. However, I have to get some work done after my previous political post that everyone will soon tear apart, so I gotta go do the work thing. Titan awaits. Maybe I'll come back and dazzle you later with my brilliance.

Let Lieberman run for major of HAIFA.

Let Lieberman run for major of HAIFA.

This is like the anti-RoveStorm. In the four hours since Joel posted it, it has garnered 22 comments. Catblogs do better than this. I say us Boodlers need to take matters into our own hands and hypothesize how the world would have been different while run by Vice President Lieberman.
...
Sorry, I dozed of there for a minute. As you were.

Let Lieberman run for major of HAIFA.

Larry Sabato probably said it best this morning--"Hubris will bring you down every time". Joe campaigned like he deserved the nomination, not just seeking it. Too late, he woke up to the fact that issues do matter sometimes, and you better be able to explain and defend your positions, not just presume yourself to be on the right side and others should respect that.

ebtnut;

True, Lieberman didn't take Lamont seriously until it was too late, but Tim's got a point. All the coverage I've seen suggests Lamont's battle cry was "No More Iraq War/Lieberman's Not Really a Democrat." Seems enough of the electorate felt strongly enough about the former to not delve too deeply into the latter. We'll see what November brings.

Boy, I just don't see Lieberman as POTUS. Right now I don't have a favorite but I don't think he could bring me around. John Edwards? I could vote for him. Hillary? I'm lukewarm. Mark Warner? I know his name and who he is...I might vote for Kerry but would prefer not to. I just hope the Democrats find someone who can really see what needs to be done and really make the effort to do it. You know, like Bill Clinton, minus the escapades.

ok - i need some levity! i've been reading the reviews about world trade center which led me to read accounts of survivors of 9/11 and now i'm really really sad!

anyone here going to see world trade center? i was amoung those that thought that united 93 came out too soon and my co-worker said "the difference is that this movie has a happy ending" but i still think the whole 9/11 tragedy is just too much to handle (for me at least)

Cassandra, the largest voting block in Connecticutt are independenets and moderates/centrists. The people who vote in primaries tend to be the hard-core party people, so I would caution against over-analyzing the implications nationwide. The only thing we can say for sure is that the hardcore Dems in Conn. are very anti-war, and are sizable enough to control the Conn. Dem. party.

The problem is, all the pundits will try to extrapolate the hell out of the results, which I personally don't think is valid. We can talk all we want about Conn. ut it tells us very little about Nevada or Oregon or Vermont, or wherever.

In Conn. the GOP guy, Schlesinger, is very weak, but of course he'll get his hard-core GOP voters. Lieberman will pull a lot of moderates and centrists, and a fair number of Republicans who think maybe they can mess up the Dem. party by voting for Lieberman. Lamont, of course, will pull his hard-core Dem supporters, and a good bit of the remaining Dems as well. The question is, how many moderates/centrists/independents does he also need? The big point is, at this point in time, NOBODY KNOWS! It is too soon to start pulling numbers out of the air. It will take a few weeks for things to settle out, and pollsters to start getting some decent poll numbers on who is splitting which way, who is likely to vote, etc. We might have a better picture a month from now, but right now, my contention is, nobody knows squat. And October in Conn. is going to be MIGHTY interesting.

I was frankly surprised Lieberman declared he's still going to run; I would have thought he'd take a few days to "think it over" and "test the waters," blah blah. I think he may still drop out if over the next few weeks his support whithers away (which I hope it will). But what do I know? He seems remarkably stubborn about this, in the face of considerable opposition, and to me it's starting to look like it's more about ego than it is about politics. The guy lost; he ought to sit down and shut up now. He's either a Democrat or he's not. He can't have it both ways.

On Iraq, we need to get out, ASAP. The trouble is, nobody has a good grasp on what "ASAP" means, or how to do it. But I agree we can't just pull out "immediately" or even "soon," whatever that means; we have to do something to stabilize things first. From the git-go, I was in favor of partitioning the damn place in three parts: let the Kurds have their 20 per cent up north, and we should do whatever we can to support them and help them become independent; god knows, they deserve it. Then, divide the rest, with the western third or so going to the Sunnis, and the remainder going to the Shiites. If we can do that, then we should try to ally ourselves with the Sunnis, only because they are more moderate, more secular, and not quite as batsh-- crazy as the Shiites, who are basically the Iranian-backed jihadists and Islamists. And now that Bush has let the Shiite geni out of the bottle, nobody can put them back. With the Kurds and the Sunnis, there's some chance of keeping the peace and maybe helping them morph inot a stable, reasonable society. The Shia, unfortunately, are not salvagable, IMHO, and if they want to keep murdering each other, then the only thing we can do is get out of the way. But the only way to keep them from killing the Kurds and Suunis is to separate them somehow.

Unfortunately, I kinda agree with Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule: we broke, so now we own it and have to fix it. The problem is, I have approximately less than zero confidence that the people in the White House and Pentagon have any competence whatsoever. So basically it is a hopleless, hopeless mess, thank you very much Mr. Bush and your neo-con pals.

But yeah, we got to get out ASAP. But it'll never happen. People say there's no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, but they're wrong. It was obvious in 1969 we should have gotten out of Vietnam, and it took two (count 'em, two!) administrations and two blinded idiots in the White House and four YEARS before it happened.

So I get nothing but the worst kinda deja vu from the whole sorry, stupid mess. Which I think is partly why there hasn't been nearly as much outrage and protesting against Iraq as there was against Vietnam: bee there,done that, pretty much didn't work then, pretty much won't work now. Just have to ride it out until '08, sickening as that alternative is. (I have an outside hope that a pretty massive Demo sweep in November might just be enough to get Bush to throw in the towel, but I'm not betting the farm.)

mo;

Ain't a-gonna see neither of 'em. My memory of the day (and the following few months) needs no help.

As for levity...

*faxin' mo the picture of me in cummerbund and swim flippers*

*no, wait, that's 'Mudge's pic, we're doing that transference thing again*

*faxin' mo the picture of me in the Frazetta outfit*

*WAITAMININT...*

:-)

I hope the Dems back a dark horse this time, and I don't mean any senators. I think Dem voters need to vote for who they REALLY like, not who they think could win against the republican. Those who won't listen to a democratic candidate won't listen to a moderate/pseudorepublican candidate anyway.

In other words, I feel Kerry was a compromise vote. I liked Kuchinch, I liked Wes Clark, I liked Edwards. They had definite opinions on some issues that I liked a lot.

Wasn't Leiberman working off of his 'elder statesman credentials'? If he has elder statesman credentials, that is.

See there is still part of me that rebels at Ted Kennedy having elder statesman credentials. Elder statemen should be really elderly and crochety, and should look like Tip O'Neill, or Robert Byrd Fred Dalton Thompson.

Who hands out these elder stateman credentials anyway?

Meyerson, in his column today, has it about right. The Pres & his cronies recognize privately that Iraq is a collosal blunder, but they can't acknowledge that it has become a civil war because in that light we have no standing to be there at all. They just want to keep the curtain in place until '08, then blame the inevitable mess on the next administration. Partition would likely leave a large Shiite state that would align itself with Iran and Syria, further adding fuel to the witch's brew that is Isreal and Lebanon.

Me neither, Snuke, I've had quite enough of the 9/11 story without revisiting it in the movies.

Omni, I read your link, and think Iraq needs a neutral Peace Keeping force - but whom? Perhaps even a Muslim coalition force might work, at least they would have a better understanding of the issues but not sure how practical that is. At some point in the west I would like to hope we will stop expecting people to become like us. I would rather see the west push for basic human rights/equality for all, than I would democracy for all. Let them decide on their own forms of government, let us lead by example on human rights (although we have some work to do ourselves).

My only comments on Lieberman, and it is limited, is that he just is a hard person to like. My personal preference for elected officials would be to elect people you wish to discuss issues with, that are passionate in their beliefs but not closed minded. I have a lot of people I can have beers with very few of them I would want as elected officials.

Mo, I did not see United 93 and I don't think I could watch the World Trade Centre movie. I was on maternity leave when it happened and spent much of the day glued to the TV, it upset me a lot and haunted me for a long time and just don't think I could bear to watch again, maybe in time.

As for whether to leave Iraq or not, its a mess. I cannot see the situation improving quickly whether you stay or go. It seems to me the point in going in was to remove Hussein, that was accomplished, the rest is up to the Iraqi's. The democratic process is rarely easy, often has conflicts along the way, I think its time for a different approach.

um, I read in the Post today that 30% of Americans don't recall the year of 9/11. Are we a sad lot or what?

SCC from my 10:37 AM: "as an Indy." KaFeh!

Mudge, I was on the same boat, saying that the breakup of Iraq is inevitable, since our Adminstration has demonstrated that it's sophisticated enough to have understood or planned for the eruption of sectarian and warlord-type violence.

bc

The biggest problem with giving the Kurds their portion is that you would be greviously angering an ally. Turkey does not want a separate Kurd nation, because it would be faced with open rebellion of its population of Kurds. As would Iran, and Syria, who also have a huge population of Kurds. To break the nation along religious lines is not going to work in the long haul. India and Pakistan still have problems 50 years later. Iraq would surely too.

Colin Powell's pottery barn rule is right. The problem is the breaking of the pottery happened a lot longer ago than most people want to look, as was the case in Vietnam. Breaks of these kinds, messes of these kinds, will keep on happening until American foreign policy, until ALL nation's foreign policy is not built on self interest but global well being.

As to replacing the current involvement with peacekeepers, peacekeeping doesn't work unless the parties fighting actively want peace and need help finding it. Otherwise we go and we waste time and effort and a whole lot of money. If its a police action, fine lets call this that, but it seems to me, police actions have not worked very well either.

For an intelligent species, we sure keep repeating our mistakes.

omni, Isn't this a trick question like "Do the British/Candians have a July Fourth?" There's a 9/11 every year.

I wish we could come up with a better shorthand for the day. Just calling it 9/11 all the time seems disingenuous like we want to remember the day without ever mentioning what really happened. We call December 7 Pearl Harbor Day. How about Militant Islamic Suicide Plane Day? Or Everybody Learned Osama Bin Laden's Name Day? Or All Of Western Civilization Got Caught With Their Pants Down Day?

dr, I've used that last sentence of yours (1:51 PM) for years now, except that I leave out the word "intelligent".

bc

haha, yello, now I'm laughing and crying.

Here is the "Worlds Smallest Political test" will show where you land on the political spectrum.

Myself - Centrist, just slightling left of centre

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

History will settle what it is to be called eventually. 9/11 caught on because of the 911 connotations.

I'd like to call it "One of the worst days in modern aviation", just because I wanna practice the art of understating stuff like the Brits.

Mudge,

The deadline in Connecticut to file as an Independent for the general election is today. So Lieberman had to do his thinking beforehand.

Lieberman only lost by four percentage points in a Democratic primary. He will pick up a lot of votes from moderate and even conservative Independents and probably some liberal and moderate Republicans. I would not rule his winning the general out of the question. One question will concern money. I don't know how much money he has or how big of a fundraising apparatus he has. (He won't have access to the DNC's, obviously.) If he can get the money he needs, I think he stands a good chance of winning.

My reaction to 9/11 movies is the same as Scottynuke's.

How about "The Last Time George W Bush Read a Book" day?

Seriously, omni, GWB won the 2004 presidential election didn't he (2000 preidential election conspiracy theorists, here's your opening)? He got more than 50% of the popular vote, IIRC.

No surprise to me that 30% of the folks in that poll don't remember that (day that yellojkt wants to rename) happened in 2001.

I can't even remember what I had for lunch an hour ago, or if I'm wearing underwear right now.

bc

I checked, results are inconclusive.

bc

I am Centrist right on the Libertarian/Liberal border. I'm fairly distraught about that since I consider myself a Safire Republican (except that he supported invading Iraq, and I did not). I'm not so sure my beliefs have changed over the years as the ground has shifted under me.

Mudge, re: verklempt

I didn't mean to question your word and language power. Your comment about Joel peaked my interest in the word verklempt. I googled it and just cut and pasted the first definition I came to. Then the definition reference to 'fake' got my twisted mind wondering if you were truly emotional or just faking emotion. Didn't mean to start uproar. Sorry I know nothing about languages vocabulary or intelligent composition. Although I did have to take and pass two semesters of Spanish to get into college and earn a BS in industrial injunering. The 1959 program didn't require much in the way of the written word.

I didn't watch much SNL after Jonh Belushi departed the seen. I can't stand Meyers so I tuned out when ever he appeared. And as I said above not knowing anything about the language I couldn't understand the comedy.

Strange though when I attempted to submit the comment yesterday I got a yellow moving type admonishment that there was no name or comment. When I got the same thing the second time I quit the blog only to find it there this morning.

Don't need to take that test, but I did.

I'm a pinko liberal one heartbeat away from liberterian (and incidentally centrist as well).

Just because I believe we should heed the bill of rights and because I don't buy in that crap everybody should plan for their own retirement and social security should be privatized.

That is gonna pull the rug out for many people and have the wolf packs of "financial advisors" circling them for a bite or two. There are people out there ready to con people, imagine the Nigerian scams with "retirement planning" that would escalate.
I know somebody a long while ago who was ready to seek out a tax shelter in the bahamas. If she did, she landed in deep, deep tax fraud trouble and is probably doing 5-10. That is kind of nice to think about (I didn't like her much), but the point was it was not her idea, her tax advisor told her it would work.

America is simply not that socially stable that everybody has a social network or other safety net for them. Only for rich frat-boys like W does that exist.

Nor is there exactly a booming employment industry for the disabled who can barely work. Job hunting is murder enough without being disabled. Yeah, everybody should take care of their own.

That's why there are 10,000 kids in jail from being seriously screwed up and far more in the foster care system, living the life of Dickens in their souls.

Ideals are nice, but what works with what we have is more important, and attempting to see some social equity so there aren't countless homeless people out there.
This is why I don't consider myself a liberal or anything. Just somebody who doesn't want drastic overhaul of current safety nets or restrictions or jump over to tight control of society and fascism.

Nothing's perfect in life.

Yes, bc, but what does that say about you? That you're forgetful, or what?

dr, I agree that Turkey is/would be a big problem, but I say the hell with them; they'll just need to suck it up. The main reason they have a problem with their own Kurds is they've treated them so badly over the years. But if handled properly (not that the incumbent gang has a remote chance of doing that), Turkey could be made to suck it up and deal with it, in the name of a greater good.

I'm not sure I agree with your point about India and Pakistan, though. Yes, they haven't resolved their differences for 50 years, but with a few exceptions, they basically haven't been shooting at each other, either, and when one or the other of them gets a little crazy--as has happened--other nations step in to try to cool them down. And yes, they have a mutual nuclear arms race going, but that doesn't bother me too much because -- so far, anyway -- the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) works. The problem with their nukes isn't that they'll nuke each other; it's that one of them (Pakistan) will sell a suitcase nuke to the really bad guys. The Indians are basically pretty rational and reasonable.

This goes to history repeating itself.

Taliban killings in Afganistan

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1155120845542&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

wilbrod, I didn't need to take the test either and it's no secret that I'm a pinko (actually I prefer "bleeding heart")liberal and proud of it. Actually, it may be that "pinko" leans more towards Communism=>Anarchism=>Libertarianism and "bleeding heart" leans more towards socialist=>statist. Aren't labels fun.

I like what Vonnegut says, when people say he's a crazy idealist/leftist/whatever. He says it's just that he took seriously what he learned in 6th grade civics class.

No, PJ, I wouldn't rule out Lieberman's chances either, which kind of was my point (badly expressed): at the moment, it looks to me a three-way split, which is why I say nobody can yet make any kind of predictions.

Mudge, I completely agree with your posts today. Not that I wouldn't ordinarily, of course (we might have been separated at birth, but I'm 3 days younger than you are and our respective moms might have not liked that).

I'm cautiously optimistic about the November elections, although I'm a bit disappointed that hurricane season this year appears to be not what it was last year. Don't get me wrong, fellow boodledomers. I don't want anyone in the path to suffer (well, maybe not *all*), but it would be a nice counterpunch (so to speak) to what Rove is planning to do. Well, dunno, really.

Lieberman should just pick up his stuff and go home. The people of Connecticut *have* spoken, haven't they? Maybe he just wants to hear it again. *sigh*

Indian-Pakistan split.

North India and Pakistan actually have more in common culturally than North India has with the rest of India. The capitals are like what, 100 miles away from each other? Also, it divided up one of the most fertile farmland regions in India-- and one that happens to be the homeland to Sikhism. Fortunately the Golden temple wound up on India's side and they can worship as they wish in India, although they have to put up with a lot of jokes in which they serve as the butt of humor... something like a combination of Polish and Scottish and "macho redneck" jokes.

Good jokes, mind you, the punjabi (their dialect) punchlines just sound funny. They also speak their own dialect (as it lacks its own country) called Punjabi.

The analogy of giving Kurds their own country would be more on the lines of having given Sikhs their own homeland where they already live and have their culture, at partition.

By the way, Santa and Banta jokes (Some Sikhs are called Santa, which does mean Saint. Banta I think is a nonsense rhyming name) are kind of like "village idiot humor". Sikhism technically prohibits alcohol consumption, but due to the history of Sikhs serving in the military all Joke sikhs seem to be hard-drinking.

My favorite is the one where Santa and Banta got accepted to the NASA astronaut program and started training. Santa and Banta learned they couldn't drink any alcohol during the whole of training in Houston. They did well, but after a month or so they started really craving a drink or two. Finally they went crazy and stole some propulsion fuel with some alcohol in it and drank it down. Terrible, but it cured their craving for alcohol almost immediately. After some jokes and chatting, Santa and Banta went their separate ways to bed. Around 4 AM Santa woke up to the phone ringing off the hook. He picked it up and was surprised to hear Banta's voice on the phone, especially as he was supposed to be right next door. "Where are you, Banta? What's going on?"
Banta's voice said "Listen, when you go to pee, face east, this is very important."
Santa: "Why?"
Banta: "I'm in Tokyo."

----

Something Joel said in the kit merits further idscussion (imagine that):

"And even when you get beaten in New Haven, which is your hometown."

If Al Gore had carried either Tennessee (his home state) or Arkansas (the then incumbant's home state), Lieberman would have become vice-president and this election would not have occurred.

Sorry to abruptly change topics but I just read this article and the question comes to mind does society so love athletes that they can do almost anything without fear of losing their jobs?

Re: Maurice Claurett

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060809/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_clarett_arrested;_ylt=Am3mta7IXaNekxeRvZ_Flh2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

Wilbrod, you're on point about the disable having problems finding work. I tried really hard to find a job, but no one would hire me.

Mudge, good explaination. But do we stay, and let the killings continue or do we go, and look like wimps? I understand it's not easy because you want those lives to mean something, yet if we continue, there's going to be more loss of life. So where does it really end? Here people are talking about we need the draft. And that's making folks go to war, and demanding their life. War is a serious, very serious, issue, and should never be taken lightly. And I really hate to say this, but so many times the folks that start wars are either too old to participate or don't have a clue about what they're getting into. But then there's that third option, don't care. Which one do you think applies here? Don't everyone talk at one time!

Or yello,
How about: bin Laden Was Simply Sick And Tired Of Countless American Administrations Supporting Corrupt Repressive Arab Regimes In Exchange For Cheap Petroleum Day?

Cassandra, a draft for this nonsence would turn the US into revolt!

I scored as a centrist right on the Statist/Big government border.

What's interesting to me is the breakdown of how all participants scored. Roughly speaking, 33% are centrist, 33% libertarian -- only 8% were conservative.

Does this mean that conservatives don't use the Internet as much as centrists or libertarians? Or they aren't interested in taking political tests?

I think Lieberman's run as an independent is damaging to the Dem's chances of holding onto that seat. He could easily pull enough voters away from Lamont to ensure a GOP victory. Or, the good people of Connecticut may decide to reject Joe completely in a general election. I think he'll act as spoiler.

All polls taken before the primary show him easily defeating the GOP candidate.

It remains to be seen what kind of general campaign Lamont runs. I don't know anything about the guy other than he's against the war. I was disappointed in the NYTimes editorial that endorsed Lamont. It was a screed against Lieberman; I learned nothing about where Lamont stood on any issues except the war.

I finished reading 'Fiasco' Sunday nite. What a terribly sad book to read. Outrageous incompetence from Bush on down to Franks and other generals.

It seems that nothing was done right. I was against the invasion. But once our forces were there they had an obligation to get it right. Fiasco reads like a 3 1/2 year keystone cops episode.

Meanwhile, Presidente Arbusto is still, as of yesterday, talking about battling "the terrorists" in Iraq -- and his responsibility to bring liberty to the whole world.

I'm beginning to think this is not just agit-prop. Optimistic simplifying, outright lying. I think he believes what he says.

Certainly his handling of the Israeli/Lebanon war indicates he cannot ascertain the difference between terrorism as a *method* of war, and the differing agendas of people who use terror to obtain their goals.

I think he cannot separate Hezbollah from al Qaeda -- nevermind that these two groups are enemies.

If this is true, to me it's much more frightening than if he were simply lying -- offering simplistic rhetoric and absurdly optimistic scenarios for Iraq.

The facts that a) he is actually on vacation and b) he has not spoken to either the Israeli or Lebanese prime ministers (Condi's doing the actual talking) are scary.

Should we stay or should we go? What is the *real* definition of civil war?

One minute I think all our troops need to leave yesterday. Then I read Fiasco, or some other article or book, and think we should at least keep some sort of force on the ground. I don't know what the "right" action is. I don't think there is a "right" action. It's a disaster whether U.S. troops stay or leave.

Richard Wolffe had an article in Newsweek (I'm sorry -- my browser does not allow me to paste links -- they end up as text with no way to click on them -- it drives me nuts!) -- that reveals plans to evacuate U.S. forces in case things get really out of control.

So I guess the thinking is that they will get the troops out if there is a "civil war." What scares me is who gets to define civil war? If it's Bush, they might not get out at all.

I watched his eyes and body language as he said, to paraphrase, "civil war this and civil war that. The Iraqi people voted not to have a civil war when they went to the ballot box last December . . ." He was angry. Angry at even having to talk about an event he regards as impossible.

He was also angry when asked if he has spoken to either the Israeli or Lebanese prime ministers. I got the impression he was miffed that someone thought he should be personally involved. Condi's good enough for him. He has brush to cut, fish to catch, bikes to ride.

I'm not being sarcastic. I really think that's how he feels. He's angry that he had to cut his vaction short.

Olbermann compared him to Chamberlain. Fineman, who was his guest, said that no one close to Bush would dare to suggest that he not go on vacation at all.

Say it ain't so Joe . . .

Didn't you learn anything from Hugh Hewitt? You're not allowed to write about this stuff.

I'm calling Hugh.

Friedman's "Plan B":

What would be the consequences of leaving without such a last-ditch peace effort, or if it just fails? Iraq could erupt into a much wider civil war, drawing in its neighbors. Or, Iraqis might stare into this abyss and actually come to terms with each other on their own. Our presence may be part of the problem. It's hard to know.

If Iraq opts for all-out civil war, its two million barrels a day will be off the market and oil could go above $100 a barrel. (That would, however, spur more investment in alternative fuels that could one day make us independent of this volatile region.)

Some fear that Iran will be the winner. But will it? Once we are out of Iraq, Iran will have to manage the boiling pot next door. That will be a huge problem for Iran. The historical enmity toward Iran by Iraqi Arabs -- enmity temporarily focused on us -- will re-emerge. And Iran will also have to compete with its ally Syria for influence in Iraq.

Yes, the best way to contain Iran would have been to produce a real Shiite-led democracy in Iraq, exposing the phony one in Tehran. But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option -- the one Iran loves -- is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes.

Finally, the war in Iraq has so divided us at home and abroad that leaving, while bringing other problems, might also make it easier to build coalitions to deal with post-U.S. Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. All these problems are connected. We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength -- and that requires a broad coalition.

The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.

nelson,
Let's get you squared away on links.

Copy the URL that appears in your browser window. Paste into into the Achenblog comments box. Then make sure you hit RETURN, and leave a row of white space after the link in order to enable the hyperlink.

Sorry no one ever answered your query sooner.

pj,
Can you help out with the names of Congress members who saw the full Fall '02 NIE?

slyness, I have no idea what that means other than I can reduce my energy footprint when it comes to washing clothes.

bc

Personally, I'm in favor of a draft. As Cassandra says, a decision to go to war never should be taken lightly. It's a lot less light when your own kids have a chance to be in the fight. Even if it's not the kids of the legislators, it's the kids of their constituents. With a draft in place, you had better have the backing of your constituents when you make a decision about war. The draft should go up to age 42 or so, too -- old enough that legislators themselves may actually be subject to it. If legislators are too craven to vote for a war based on purely personal fear, then maybe a more mature class of legislators can get voted into office. Might also change opinions on the quaintness of the Geneva Conventions.

The U.S. has assumed a responsibility in Iraq. On the other hand, it's obvious, by now, that we are not up to the demands of that responsibility. We were never willing to devote the kind of troop strength that our own generals advised would be necessary to prevent what has occurred. It's too late, now, because the insurgencies and militias are fully established, and recruiting briskly.

Our continued presence probably is not making things any worse for the Iraqis, and may be making things somewhat better, since it's obvious that there are now large, established, and heavily armed factions that would like nothing better than to kill each other and as many civilian bystanders as they can take along. Our continued presence definitely is making things worse for us and for our people, however. It may be time to cut our losses and run. Perhaps our abject failure and abandonment of Iraq may persuade the world's Osamas that we really are not capable of being the bogeyman that they want us to be.

A three-way tie for third is still third place. In no sense is it better known as "fifth place."

My cousin served his hitch and he's relieved his inactive duty status finally ended and there's NO chance he can be forced to return to duty. I really found that backdoor draft passive-aggressive.

Mind you, in Israel both men and women effectively have to serve in the military for a few years, if they are fit to do so.

I'm not sure we want to go there in that kind of mentality. Also, the younger the soldier, the more likely the PTSD will develop, and PTSD was much more common in the draftees than in the career military that served in Vietnam, possibly due to the simple age difference (no matter how slight).

I would only support a mandatory draft for 21 and over, just because many mental illness only first mainfest clearly in the teen and young adult years. This would reduce the likelihood many young people will have their first major mental illness episode when they're under combat/military duty stress.
...Which will really mess them up for life, and could lead to PR disasters for the military since mentally ill soldiers with heavy weaponry is not a good combo.

Mudge, normally I worship the screen you type on . . . but what were you smoking when you said we should make common cause with the Sunnis (vs. the Shiites)? Yeah, the Iranians are the masterminds behind the Shiite terrorists. But the Sunnis gave us Al Queda and Wahhabism. And the Iraqi insurgency is pretty much a Sunni phenomenon. A pox on both their houses, I say. And I agree that Turkey should just suck it up and let a free Kurdistan emerge.

Loomis,

I don't know if there is any public list of Congressmen or Senators who looked at the full NIE. Maybe one of us could ask Dana Priest in her next chat if she knows of a public list or one reporters compiled. If Ricks didn't mention names in his book, I would be kind of surprised if there is a public list.

Curmudgeon writes:
...the largest voting block in Connecticutt are independents and moderates/centrists. The people who vote in primaries tend to be the hard-core party people, so I would caution against over-analyzing the implications nationwide.
***

The issues that Ned Lamont was pounding the hardest are the Iraq war, energy policy and health care. These are national issues and I think we can view the Connecticut primary as a bellwether of sorts.

Is money an issue, as pj noted? No. Lamont is loaded. Where will Joe get his bucks to run a race as an independent since DNC dollars will not be availabe to him? The next Lieberman-Lamont contest needs to be a battle of ideas and Lieberman's past performance since Lieberman hopes to throw past traditional party affiliations out the window.

The Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger doesn't have much of a chance and now is in even deeper hot water after the news has come out that he was gambling at the Foxwood Casinos Resort under an assumed name--the Bill Bennet problem, essentially. See link below.

Personally, Joe has had his three terms and 18 years in the Senate--time for new blood. Curmudgeon, it may also be wise to examine Lamont's base that carried him to victory last night. If Lieberman wins as an independent, it will further clarify that he has operated as a moderate Democratic, but to many he looks like a DINO--Democrat in name only. It's very unfortunate that the old lion doesn't exit gracefully.

Sadly, because the Republicans have maintained such tight ideological ranks in the past six years, it appears that Democrats must sharply define their party platform and close ranks in advance of the midterms to achieve the same level of political power and consistent message.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/07/13/in_connecticut_republican_candidate_urged_to_quit.html

Loomis & pj -
I don't know if there's any public list, but if there's not, theoretically it could be FOIA'd, but I'd pretty much guarantee you that a couple of things would happen. 1) You would wait several months to hear any kind of response (despite the law that says they have to respond within a certain number of days - there are ways around that).
2) It would get bounced on national security grounds. Hard. National security these days means whatever they want it to, and this will fit right in.
3) You could appeal, spend several more months, basically wait and hope for a new administration, and most likely get the same response.
I'd be surprised if this route hasn't been tried already.

Jeez... Even the image of me done up as a Frazetta Amazon didn't derail the conversation.

*going back to the pile of faxable pictures*

Me and a 18-cylinder engine? No, that's bc's...

Me peering through the Hubble's eyepiece? No, that's SciTim...

Me proudly displaying the family history? No, that's Loomis...

Me gently brushing dust from a diplodocus skull? No, that's dooley...

Me complaining about it being hot? Nope, TBG...

Me and the dog laughing over that joke? Nah, Wilbrod...

Hmmmm... This transferrence stuff is harder than I though.

:-)

SciTim I think I understand your idea about the draft, would you also eliminate the deferrals for school/national guard, would you draft women. Including those items may give politicians pause for thought.

Annie, I think "common cause with the Sunnis" is a lot further than I'd want to go, but given the choice between the two sides, I think there are three arguments in favor of the Sunnis:

1) they are a statistical minority (about 1/3) of the non-Kurds, while the Shiites are about 2/3; the Sunnis need help only to avoid being genocidally wiped out by the larger side.

2) Countries like Egypt and Jordan are Sunni, and, for good or ill, are more friendly to us (and more rational).

3) Yes, al qaeda and the Wahhabis tend to be Sunni, but in Iraq, most of the secular folks tend to be Sunnis. Unfortunately, so were the Baathists and Saddam people. But given this really awful Hobson's choice, I tend to prefer the secularists over the wacko religious Islamists, which in Iraq, anyway, tends to be the Shiites dominated by Iran.

(But basically, they can all go to hell except Cave 76.)

as for mr. lieberman, in the words of the immortal emporer chas noll, "it is time for him to get on with his life's work." the people have spoken and they have indicated that mr. lieberman is done. still, it should be noted that mr. lieberman was and still is a better option than mr. cheney. has joe lieberman ever shot anyone? or told someone on the senate floor to go f himself?

re pulling out of iraq, seems to me that the sooner the better. there is going to be a 'civil war'--actually more like a free for all--there no matter how long we stay. and it sure looks like we are going to need our troops for other business elsewhere in the region.

re our troop levels, i was drafted in 1969. i did not enjoy being drafted, but i can tell you this much. it makes you pay attention to what is going on in your country, rather than going shopping. i think that if we announced a resumption of the draft today our involvement in iraq would be over in about three weeks.

re the POTUS on vacation while all this is going on, so what. as if he were anything more than a puppet. impeach bush now.

SCC: In Iraq Sunnis are outnumbered by Shiites 3 to 1, not 2-1 as I implied, IIRC (this time).

But yeah, it's about like trying to decide between Richard Simmons and Charo.

Mudge writes, But yeah, it's about like trying to decide between Richard Simmons and Charo

Very funny.

'Mudge;

Both RS and Charo jiggle around in small outfits and make odd noises. 'Zat yer point?

:-)

Yep, I favor drafting everyone who's capable of serving. "Capable of serving" will have to be graded on a curve, as we Americans get more and more obese and unhealthy. It would provide some interesting incentives -- do you want to be the fattest, slowest, and unhealthiest guy around? Because, if you fall short of that goal and you fall within the curve, you may be the fattest, slowest, and unhealthiest guy serving in the Army, also known as "The Bullet Magnet," or "The Guy to Hide Behind." On the other hand, if you keep yourself in great shape, you guarantee that you'll serve.

actually 'snuke - you had me giggling...

Wouldn't the out of shape just need to spend a little more time in boot camp?

Sorry to be the dim kid slowing down the class . . . but what do SCC and IIRC stand for?

dmd, it raises an issue, doesn't it? Now, half the draftees would have to go to fat camp before boot camp.

Personal two cents. Unless there is a critical national interest in a conflict, I would never support a draft.

dmd, it raises an issue, doesn't it? Now, half the draftees would have to go to fat camp before boot camp.

Personal two cents. Unless there is a critical national interest in a conflict, I would never support a draft.

iirc = if i remember correctly
scc = self castigation club

more achenwords here:
http://www.mortiifera.com/?p=67

On the test I was Centrist, right between Liberal and Libertarian. Probably sounds about right. Re: The draft--a few of here had to deal with that issue. If you are going to have a draft, then I'm on the Isreali side--anyone who can, serves, male and female. The world is a totally different place than it was 30 or 40 years ago at the height of the Cold War. We probably had about 3 times the number of people in uniform back then, and the draft assured the constant replenishment of personnel. In today's world, where the spectre of a true World War III against a specific country (i.e., the USSR) has receded considerably, we probably don't "need" a draft. At least the current all-voluteer services would seem to support that. One issue that is likely going to have to be dealt with is whether or not we really do have enough people in the services to do what needs to be done. Rumsfeld keeps insisting that the modern war machine can do much more with much less. However, the kinds of conflicts that we see today are very reminicent of Viet Nam. The VC and North Vietnamese understood that all they had to do was stick around, no matter the casualties. As long as they kept shooting, they didn't lose (and as long as the southern government had no incentive to stand up for itself, the US was the target). I think the Taliban understand this, and there is the very real possibility that they will reclaim Afganistan somewhere down the road. Right now Iraq is different in that the two sides are fighting each other, and we're trying to sort out who wants to just kill Americans and those who kill Americans because they are in the way.

Completely off topic, I see that James Van Allen passed away:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080900805.html

I'm wondering if he ever felt guilty about his belt catching on fire and jump starting Global Warming back in '61. Good thing Irwin Allen, Walter Pidgeon, Peter Lorre, Barbara Eden and Frankie Avalon were there to launch a nuke from the Seaview into the upper atmosphere and blow it out!

Van Allen did some great work on extraterrestrial radiation, real Pioneering stuff.

bc

By the way, I suppose I should specify that I'm not in favor of everybody being drafted so that they have a chance to kill somebody. I'm in favor of everybody being drafted so that they have a chance to worry about getting killed, and thereby learn to be more responsible in making their political choices.

The real problem in Iraq is that the Sunnis don't want to "share" power because they won't end up with any. The Shiites don't want to share power because they know they can get it all if they hang tough long enough. Garry Trudeau predicted the Iraqi Civil War (which is none of the above, discuss amongst yourselves) over a year ago.

In "Sleeping With The Enemy" Robert Baer warns of the instability of Saudi Arabia and suggests that we invade and take over the oldfields under the guise of moderate Shiite factions. Is it too late to do this? I think we got some troops in the area. Finding those mythical moderate Shiites may be a trickier problem.

First, Joel's remark about the non-linear nature of the unfolding of the future should be reinforced. Too many journalists and politicians don't realize the fundamental research that has been done in recent years to explain why the best laid plans go aglay. The Butterfly Effect is unfortunately alive and well in Iraq and elsewhere.

Secondly, calls for the progressives / democrats / non-neocons to be proactive seem to have failed thus far in regards to calling what is going on now in Iraq "war." The "war" was over shortly after Saddam's sons were killed and he pulled from the hidey hole. What has ensued for over a year now is NOT a war, it is a messy occupation in the midst of violent partisan strife. The war is over. But we, and they, are far from being okay.

Ever since the massive food aid for Afghanistan turned out to be cellophane energy bars the color of explosives, dropped from planes, I feared that US commitments to Iraq aid would be "disappeared" and that anti-war Democrats would be the engineered excuse to get out of even paying for what we really owe the Iraqi people, which is about half a trillion dollars in damages.

Lieberman? In moments of paranoia, I assume he will a. cause a Republican to be elected Senator and b. join the Republican party in between this election and the next.

I dono, I saw Charo live in Reno about 10 years ago and she really play that 12 string guitar.

SciTim, your suggestion makes sense, though it reminds me of Robert Heinlen's description of Citizenship, viz. "Starship Troopers".

You don't Serve, you don't become a Citizen with voting rights, etc.

What say you to that?

bc

scotty, you got it about right (jiggle around in small outfits and make odd noises) but I would also add that both make my gorge rise and I run screaming from the room. But yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Also, both seem to be covered in Wesson oil all the time. What's THAT all about? *shivers*

Man, oh man. End of an era.

End of an era = James Van Allen.

Gotta be in the army to be a citizen = you're talking crazy, man. Heinlein was a batsh¡t fascist loon; I wouldn't be taking my political cues from him. Anyway, there's plenty of folks who could not serve in the military, either because we don't need that many people (a standard 2-year hitch would result in a standing military of about 9 million members), or because their health and physical capability would not permit it. What we need is the threat that you or your loved ones are eligible, whether or not you actually serve.

Anybody note this story on the WaPo front page, about the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity being in a state of choas and confusion, five years after 9/11? My, my, what a surprise that was to learn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800964.html

Fording incompetents. (JW, you and your gang excepted.)

I think I hear my bus coming. Manana with that squiggle over it, muchachos.

I concur about Van Allen's passing being a big deal.

And *Tim, I was havin' a little fun with you with the Heinlen bit. I knew what you meant, that having some *real* skin in the game might give citizens (ahem) cause to consider their choices more carefully.

Makes sense to me.

bc

HEY! "No serve, no vote???"

Disenfranchising the disabled en masse? No, thanks. There are a lot of disabled people who would love to join the military but can't. So that would be doubly cruel.

So any "serve the country" theme would have to include as much disabled, somehow, as possible.

As for myself, I'm up there with the equal chance to be killed. It bugs me that people who are far from the plane crash sites are the one most hysterical about terrorism.

I was there at the Pentagon 1 hour before the plane hit. This area survived the October snipers. I know people who got out of the WTC alive.

So it really, really, really bugs me to hear people say oh I would be willing to cut my civil rights just to be safe from terrorism.

Yo, it's MY civil rights and MY risk you're talking about, not yours, like anybody is gonna bomb you in Boondock, Backwater State 3.

To all of you people, I would love to say....statistically, terrorism is much less likely to kill you than your diet of ho-hos and hysteria will. Get a grip.

Why are you saying that only young people who know how to carry a gun should be out there risking their life for democracy? They have families too. Just because they are proud to take the risk doesn't make their lives worth less than yours, or of less consideration.

Really brave, dudes. Bravo.

Be a solider for your country. Be willing to die free and proud to be an American.

Whoops, I'm getting political. Calm down boy. Bad for your blood pressure.

Just because some people have their heads up their butts when it comes to civil liberties doesn't mean they're bad.

Repeat: Head in sand is normal response. wanting other ostriches to have the target painted on their butts instead of them, also normal response.

Nobody wants to die. Normal. Everybody dies eventually. Normal. People are wicked and good. Normal.

Starting a pre-emptive war against a country with an army 50 years behind in technology because they're a "threat'-- not normal.

Ok I gotta start again. People are sick, sad, scared, and screwed up. Normal. Breathe deep. Normal....

Well actually, disabled people could be effective in federal service other than on the field of battle. The military has tons of civilian support people, yes?

Doesn't Switzerland make all citizens serve some military time, or are they all reservists? Anyway they are all trained, and can be called at any time, IIRC.

dr, some interesting reading on conscription:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

Personally, I have the volunteer's prejudice against a conscript. Most European countries that had conscription during the Cold War have abandoned it.

According to wikipedia, avoiding conscription by Russian men has resulted in this problem.

As a result of draft evasion, Russian generals have complained on numerous times that the bulk of the army is made up of drug-addicts, imbeciles, and ex-convicts, which in turn has lead to an overall decline of the morale and function of the Russian armed services. Conscripts often face brutal hazing and bullying upon their entrance into the military known as dedovschina, some dying as a result. Suicide among Russian conscripts is at an all time high.

Yikes!

Interesting how few countries have included women in the conscription, notable stand out - Egypt.

Last I was in Switzerland, dr, I read they are scaling back on their military commitments. But yes, every Swiss male serves. I'm for universal conscription, male and female, if we need to do that. And I have two children who would be prime candidates and who have many friends who would be candidates also.

OTOH, I do have a dog in this fight. My third child - best friend of oldest daughter - is engaged to a guy who's in the reserves. He did a year in Afganistan several years ago. He told me last night his unit will be called up within the next six months and will be on active duty for 18 months. We are just praying that it will be after the second week of November, so the wedding can go on as scheduled.

axe,

Your description of what would happen to a FOIA request to Congress is probably correct. However, it wouldn't even get that far because FOIA doesn't apply to Congress, only to the Executive Branch.

Mo, you rock. Many thanks for the link to the achendictionary, many mysteries have been cleared up.

More details on Schlesinger's gambling problems and how he got the Republican spot on Connecticut's Senate race:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1223918,00.html

Problem is, very few people think Alan Schlesinger -- or Alan Gold, as he used to call himself when he was gambling at Connecticut's Indian casinos -- is the right candidate. Last spring, back when Lamont was a joke and Lieberman looked unassailable, Schlesinger took the time to tour Connecticut collecting enough votes to get himself the Republican nomination. The former state legislator and mayor of Derby was not exactly a political star, but no one begrudged him the work he put in to get the party's nod. As one former GOP lawmaker put it in a recent op-ed in the Hartford Courant, "No one was very enthused about Schlesinger, but he had the virtue of wanting the nomination."

Everyone was less enthused when it emerged that at one of the Connecticut casinos Schlesinger/Gold used to patronize, he had gotten a "Wampum card" -- a kind of frequent flier bonus card issued to gamblers based on the volume of bets. Opinion dropped even further when, after he said he couldn't remember having any gambling debts, it came out that Schlesinger had paid more than $28,000 to settle lawsuits with two Atlantic City Casinos in 1990 and 1994. Schlesinger calls the gambling stories 20-year-old non-issues, and says he never broke any laws.

The day I turned 18 I very reluctantly went to the civil service office, or wherever, to register for the draft. I was politely informed that the Congress had eliminated the draft. What a birthday present. I had lived near Kent, Oh. when the demonstrators were killed, saw the beatings on the streets of Chicago two years before as a kid in the 'burbs before the move to Ohio, and was a TV spectator to all of the assasinations, race riots, etc. between '67 and '68. I hav always thught that RFK would have won the '68 election and that the country would have been different than it is at present. Long story short, I consider my politics to be liberal, but mellowed by age. Sometimes I think that mandatory service for our young'uns would be a good thing, instilling a sense of citizenship and discipline that most of the kids I come into contact with seem to lack. On the other hand, the volunteer force has served us well to this point, despite the mucking up the administration has done in the name of foreign policy. The Congress may have no choice but to reinstitute the draft, at which point the streets may very well be full of protestors of all stripes, maybe even Mr. Stripey himself. No easy answers here. Vote for the folks that best represent your interests, that have some semblance of common sense and a moral compass oriented in a fair direction. The trouble is that the pols that fit this profile are lost among the button opushers. I lose my appetite for participating in a process in which the candidates seem to have lost their focus. The folks I usually vote for lose because they tend to stay above the fray, ideolgically, in this particular iteration of democracy. I remain hopeful for someone like clinton, as slyness observed, without the doodoo.

Awright...who's messing with the format????

jack,
Do you mean Slick Willy or Slick Hilly?

Some of those all-volunteer recruits are going back for second and third tours. About 1 percent of America is truly fighting this war--and look at the demographics of those who do volunteer.

Loomis are the demographics that different than Vietnam? Due to college deferral were not a lot of white, middle class exempt?

Once had an argument with a friend who was going to register for the draft, his parents had moved to Detroit and in order to visit them and stay with them part time he had to register. I thought that as a Canadian citizen he would have been exempt. However, when I thought about this the other day I realized that I just assumed he was Canadian perhaps he was a dual citizen. My recollection is he was just a resident due to his parents status.

jack,

I thought every man had to register with the Selective Service System. It doesn't matter whether there's a draft or not. I seem to be just a few years older than you and I had to register. (I did so at a local library branch as I recall and got a draft card.) They were still holding the lottery for Vietnam at the time, but they weren't taking any from my class (or from subsequent ones) and very, very few from the previous class. So I'm confused when you say you didn't register. I agree, though, that it would be a very nice birthday present not to have to register.

Slyness, can we avoid dogfighting as a metaphor?

People who "have a dog in this fight." are the leading reason why there are a lot of dog-aggressive pitbulls out there right now. Not to mention the activity's illegal in 49 states.

Wilbrod, do you mean all pit pulls or the fact that they are so aggresive because they have been bred to fight?

Am I the only one who sees the boodle as 12 point, really pretty, completely across the page as if it was set up for printing, and no lines separating the boodlers?

A study a few years ago in the NYT concluded that in the volunteer army, while minorities were slightly over-represented in service support trades, the combat arms were moderately disproportionately white. Here's the article (archived: payment required):

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F0071EFC3E5D0C738FDDAA0894DB404482

Yes, I was the only one. After I posted, it returned to its previous form. Gosh, it was nice during the five minutes it lasted!

Sorry, Wilbrod, didn't mean to offend. Of course the issue is that I have a personal interest in what's going on with the military. Yes, it's a good thing dogfighting is illegal. Cockfighting also.

BTW, in what state is dogfighting legal?

dmd asks:
Loomis are the demographics that different than Vietnam? Due to college deferral were not a lot of white, middle class exempt?

Who's got the stats/demographics on the all-volunteer army in Iraq--levels of education, family income, age of inductees, towns vs. cities? I know the U.S. Military Academy at West Point has had some problems keeping and/or recruiting its cadets.

This data seems a liitle old, and comes from a think tank:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=85083

Note that Wyoming, Montana, Maine, Texas and Florida have a disproportionately high number of recruits, while Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Utah (odd considering Utah is a very very red state) and District of Columbia are underrepresented.

I certainly would like to see figures for 2004, 2005 and 2006--rather than these late 1990s and 2003 figures.

Wow! Some really interesting comments about Iraq and the draft. And what's with this format? My computer has been acting crazy all day so I figured it was a "goner" when I saw how the Achenblog came up. Iraq is a mess people, and somebody needs to fix the mess. Too many lives at stake. And the person that wrote about obesity is very on target. That's a national problem, and one that needs to be addressed ASAP. Good night, folks. Thanks for answering my questions.

SoC, did that study also include stats for socio-economic status as well. The reason I ask is I saw a while ago a report on how military recruiters were targeting poor neighbourhoods for recruits, the theory being the military would give them an opportunity to improve their future.

Oh, forgot. Slyness you are so right about we need someone like Clinton. I know his morals suffered, but I haven't heard about anyone dying from his foray?

O.K., here's a closer look at that article in the NYT--you linked to the abstract, SoC. Notice the dateline is 2003:

A NATION AT WAR: THE TROOPS; Military Mirrors a Working-Class America
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER AND STEVEN A. HOLMES (NYT) 4825 words
Published: March 30, 2003

They left small towns and inner cities, looking for a way out and up, or fled the anonymity of the suburbs, hoping to find themselves. They joined the all-volunteer military, gaining a free education or a marketable skill or just the discipline they knew they would need to get through life.

As the United States engages in its first major land war in a decade, the soldiers, sailors, pilots and others who are risking, and now giving, their lives in Iraq represent a slice of a broad swath of American society -- but by no means all of it.

Of the 28 servicemen killed who have been identified so far, 20 were white, 5 black, 3 Hispanic -- proportions that neatly mirror those of the military as a whole. But just one was from a well-to-do family, and with the exception of a Naval Academy alumnus, just one had graduated from an elite college or university.

A survey of the American military's endlessly compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is anything but a cross section of America. With minorities overrepresented and the wealthy and the underclass essentially absent, with political conservatism ascendant in the officer corps and Northeasterners fading from the ranks, America's 1.4 million-strong military seems to resemble the makeup of a two-year commuter or trade school outside Birmingham or Biloxi far more than that of a ghetto or barrio or four-year university in Boston.

Today's servicemen and women may not be Ivy Leaguers, but in fact they are better educated than the population at large: reading scores are a full grade higher for enlisted personnel than for their civilian counterparts of the same age. While whites account for three of five soldiers, the military has become a powerful magnet for blacks, and black women in particular, who now outnumber white women in the Army.

This blog item from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos raises interesting questions (White House [Rove?] possibly to steer $$$ in Lieberman's direction--that'd be incredible!):

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2006/08/george_stephano.html

But in a year where even some Republican candidates are running away from the President on the campaign trail, does this offer have any value to Lieberman? Still smarting from all that coverage of "the kiss" at last year's State of the Union, the Lieberman camp isn't looking for an explicit endorsement. That could create more problems than it solves.

The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate.

And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it's too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman's direction is another possibility.

This is a tricky dance for Lieberman. He needs to figure out a way to get the benefits of Bush support -- some votes from loyal Republicans -- without turning off the independents and moderate Democrats he needs to win. The safest course may be a polite "thanks but no thanks" to the White House offer.

Sorry, it's illegal in all 50 states, dogfighting, that is.

http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/animal_fighting_the_final_round/dogfighting_fact_sheet/index.html

Although dirty politics should be, too.

Hey, everyone. Too tired to boodle coherently, but won't let that stop me. Ha!

nelson, I meant to tell you to put a at the end of the url - but most likely forgot. Thanks, LL. Also, you won't see the url as a link before you submit it (not sure about preview). And, we can always cut and paste it into our browsers if it doesn't come through all "linky".

My son had to register for the draft when he turned 18, even though there is no draft. Being the procrastinator that he is, he didn't do it - but he did start getting nasty letters from the Feds, saying that it was a felony (IIRC) not to register. Luckily, you could register online, so I marched him to the computer and watched as he registered. I told him he needed to pick his battles with the government carefully, and since there was no draft and no war (this was 1999), it would be best to register. But I felt terrible that he had to do it, and still worry about the draft (especially since they keep raising the eligibility age for enlistees).

SCC - that would be put a "return" at the end - sheesh. I put "<>" around the word return and it got eaten. Must use preview.

Completely off topic,
But I saw this in Dirda's chat today (an author I recognize, know and love!) - and wanted to let Achenfan know:

Logan Circle, Washington, DC: Hi Michael - I recently picked up a novel by British mystery writer Ruth Rendell called A Sight for Sore Eyes. I've never been very attracted to mystery novels but am enjoying this very much. It seems to be more a phsychological investigation of the book's three main characters rather than a traditional mystery. Do you know her work, and can you recommend any of her other books?

Michael Dirda: Rendell is widely regarded as the greatest living mystery novelist, if not the greatest living master of psychological suspense, if not just a superbly fine novelist, period. As Rendell, she writes straight mysteries, albeit with some kinkiness to them, or certain kinds of thriller; as Barbara Vine, she writes more intricate, time-shifting investigations of mysterious events. In any of her three modes, she's the best, though she can be very chilling and seldom what you'd call uplifting or cheery. All her books are good, but I'm very fond of The Bridesmaid. Other notable titles inclde A Demon in My View and A Dark-Adapted Eye. But REndell/Vine has written many books, perhaps 40. She's worth exploring.

Me, again.
One of my favorite Rendell books is Anna's Book.

pj: IIRC, I didn't have to register at 18. It was '75. I nearly skipped out of the SSO. The Firebarn tavern was near the SSO (in Syracuse)...I might have stopped there just for gp's.

LindaLoo: Someone, with the political aplomb of the former President.

nellie: You observed correctly. The formatting changed momentarily.

Slyness & Wilbrod: We lost a dog from our yard that was a boxer mix. I suspect she looked too much like a pit. This was one of the reasons we chose Great Danes.

That sucks, Jack. Lots of dogs do get stolen as "bait dogs" by dogfighters. It's one reason why I am very cautious about my dog's safety, some dogs were stolen around here a couple years ago.

Great Danes are certainly a likable and goofy breed... expensive though.

Thanks, Jack. It helps to know others see the odd things that occur. But that was not odd, it was NICE!

I panicked. Our hard drive takes a thrashing at the hands of our son, whom only recently learned to use the start button to prompt the shut down protocol.

Wilbrod: They are goofy, but when you need a BIG hug...

Have any of you noticed since the start of the Iraq mess that most of the casualties have been truck drivers delivering supplies to the fortified bases or patrols just driving around? We are losing the thousands of young lives and hundreds of thousands of arms, legs and eyes just by being there. There is hardly any casualties because of a "battle". Fire fighting casualties usually result from a reaction to a road side bombing. This is senseless. The longer we stay the more of our troops are killed or maimed with nothing gained. Plus many of the troops were back door drafted because they were enticed into joining or remaining in the reserve to get a little extra income and maybe serve their local community in the event of a clamity like a fire flood or hurricane. Now these guys (and women) have families and job that is totally being disrupted by the callup and duty in a sand pit (not to mention being blown up driving down the road). I can't believe there hasn't been a revolution by thse citizen soldiers (I guess there was a little noise made by 5 -7 retiring army gererals a couple of months ago).
The young guys are being bribed in the armed service with promises of thousands of dollars supposed for education (sounds good in the TV commericals at home). What I hear is that most money goes directly into the local car dealerships minutes after they are released.

Loomis's data on the origins of recruits may have a simple explantation with respect to Florida. It's a state where relatively few kids go to college, and well-paying jobs are not abundant.

Utah might possibly have relatively few recruits because so many young adults are doing their mission stint. Wyoming's having an oil and gas boom, so you'd think jobs would be in good supply, for once. But maybe the data are old.

mostlylurking -- I just read "The Lake of Darkness" by Rendell, which is dated 1980 but I don't think I have read it before. A really good one.

I thought "The Minatour" was quite overrated. And back in the long, long, long ago, my daughter and I had many discussions about "The Crocodile Bird."

Aubrey/Maturin update: Done M&C, half way through Post Captain.

nellie,
I've tried reading The Crocodile Bird, but never could get into it (at least I think that's the one - I may be mixing it up with another one). I had The Minotaur from the library, but didn't have time to get far - Achenfan read that about the time she hit Hong Kong, I think. I'll have to see if I can find Lake of Darkness. Anna's Book is really interesting - a granddaughter reading her grandmother's diary, and finding out family secrets - it was written under the name Barbara Vine.

SCC - I must be mixing up The Crocodile Bird with some other Rendell book, now that I've looked it up on amazon.com. That is a really good one!

A thousand apologies.

Jack.. oh yes....Or a lot of slobber. My dog used to play with a Great Dane and I got to liking how goofy that dog was, but I never own a dog that outweighs me. Or that could stare me in the face when we're both standing up.

My current dog's head comes up to my waist when sitting, so he's Great Dane-ized enough for a hug (and playing with a dog double his weight).

Bits & pieces:

"A three-way tie for third is still third place. In no sense is it better known as "fifth place."
--Posted by: dangerpirate | August 9, 2006 03:35 PM

I suspect that dangerpirate would have more fun in this blog with a looser sense of humor and a quicker flexibility with math. Three folks tied for third place are, in fact, in fifth place. It's a glass half-empty kinda thing, right?

If (in a golf match, for example) Player A scores 65, B scores 66, Players C, D, & E score 67, and player F scores 68, then: Players C/D/E are immediately ahead of Player F, who is definitely in sixth place. But then, everyone knew that except Dangerpirate.

More bits:

Annie - I've always gotten a chuckle out of the "Sunni"-this, "Shi'a"-that categorization game. We humans DO love our neat little boxes, don't we? We'll sometimes cling to them long after it's obvious that NOTHING fits in them anymore. Jerks are jerks, and they are resplendently abundant amongst all flavors of critters, I think.

What, you thought I was finished?!?

pj - another draft story or two. (I've told this one before, but it's been a while) My father's mother's name was "Willie Cobb". My father and his twin sister were born in April, 1940. Sometime in the spring of 1942, she received a notice from the draft board (who had noticed that the fairly young and not-otherwise-deferred Willie Cobb seemed to be available for service), and reported as ordered, with a two-year-old twin at each hand, and pronounced herself ready to serve. Apparently, the board decided that the military would continue to muddle on without her for a while.

--- When I was "downstream" (Oman, in this case) for a bit during the build-up to the first Gulf War, I received a chiding notice from the Selection Service complaining because I hadn't properly registered for the draft. I paid about $25 to have a certified, registered, insured airmail letter sent through the Omani postal service (VERY large & colorful stamps, I remember!) pointing out to them that I had been enlisted in the USAF for more than ten years at that point, and asking them what the hell else they wanted from me. They sent back a generic "never mind!" postcard.

OK, this is the last one for tonight:

Tim/Wilbrod/whoever's interested:

Yeah, the military draft thing is always fascinating. As a social instrument, the military would be more important if it was composed of randomly selected draftees. But this country has never needed or wanted the military to be a significant social instrument. Not in the way that the military is/has been a significant social force in Turkey, Russia/USSR, or several Central/South American countries, anyway.

And I know from both personal experience (I enlisted in the Air Force in late 1980, and for at least the first half of my time in service, nearly all of my senior supervisors had significant experience in the draft-staffed military) and a good bit of reading that no (I mean NO) military professionals would choose to return to a draft under any circumstances short of, "Burn the bridges and hide the livestock, the barbarians are at the gates!" Draftees learn important life lessons, but at a drastic cost in military unit morale, effectiveness & efficiency. (Just so's you know, I was a notoriously un-military kinda guy. But my bosses all understood that I understood that we were all in this thing together, and I really did mean well. Somehow it all worked out. I even got promoted occasionally!)

Hey, mostlylurking -- thanks for that snippet about Rendell from Dirda's chat.

Did you know she has yet another newie out? It's called "End in Tears" -- a Chief Inspector Wexford mystery. (Actually, I saw it in bookstores here at around the same time as I found "The Minotaur." Bought it and read it right away, of course.)

Oh, how I love Ruth. I don't know what I'm going to do when she inevitably dies and stops cranking out these great novels. (Macabre, eh?)

Good morning, friends. Couldn't sleep. I think it might be the food I ate yesterday. Feel kinda funny. Anyway, going for the walk. Still got the g-girl. Her mother finally showed up only to enlist my services longer. Will I live to see this child become a responsible adult? Hope so.

I hope we don't use the draft again. Not to go to Iraq. Too much loss of life, and young people maimed. I know we don't want to cut and run, but isn't there something else that can be done? We've got some pretty smart people in this country, where are they? Somebody needs to pull them up, with money or whatever.

The people in my community want to address the obesity crisis, and they've asked for my help. And it is something I want to do, because I suffer too. But like anything we need money. So many with diabetes, so expensive. And the children following right along with the parents. Children already fat. And everything we eat has huge amounts of corn and sugar. I find it so odd that the same companies that make the cigarettes that kill us are now making the food that's killing us. I mean who would have thought?

Have a good day folks. And remember in this life and this country, you opinion does count and it's most certainly means something. Some would have you think otherwise. And please know also in this life that God loves you so much more than you can imagine through Him that died for all, Jesus Christ.

Nani, I hope you're well, and your family. We still miss you, and hope you will come back. I bet Loomis even misses you. You think?

Error, where the heck are you?

I am going to post something about this terror plot that has been disrupted. Is anyone out there following this story this morning? Not a lot of hard facts, but 21 people arrested and there is talk that they were going to try to blow up 10 aircraft. There is speculation that these attacks were going to coincide with 9/11 anniversary.

Well, JA, I've been in the office since 5, so you can assume I'm following it.

:-)

Bob S., love your story about not having registered for the draft. Sounds like you made it through USAF okay.

Joel, glad you're already home and not looking to fly from Europe to the US today. Yeah, that news was the topic on conversation before breakfast at my house.

New kit. Please do weigh in. This is one of those good news/bad news stories. Bad news, they're after our planes again; good news, we stopped them this time. The story does disturb me, maybe because i was just at de gaulle. I think to get my mind off of this I'll take a break and go see World Trade Center.

Although I have generally liked Lieberman, this is the second time that he has put his own ambitions ahead of his party. In a year when it is quite possible that Democrats could retake the Senate, the chance of splitting the Democratic vote is very risky.

This is quite similar to 2000 when he refused to give up running for the Senate knowing full well that if elected vice president, the governor would appoint a Republican candidate.

Senator Lieberman needs to reconsider his decision to again put his own needs against those of his party and the country.

What will render the Democratic Party useless or at least seen as 'the same old thing' would be a serious run by Mr. Gore. I get totally exasperated. OK so I don't agree with Leiberman's positions at this point, but I do believe he has the right to make them! And not feeling the same way I do does not negate his membership in the Democratic Party! Our party is supposed to represent the creative thinkers, the progressive folks who can come up with plans 'outside the box' and help lead us into a better position globally and at home. Where are these people or better yet, why should any of them ever step forward if there is always this feeling of noblesse oblige to past candidates like Gore who couldn't get elected the first time he tried and whose creativity seems to be limited to his invention of the Internet. OMG no, I forgot, he didn't even invent that! And it is no surprise to me that Leiberman has an ego....what successful politician doesn't? And while I am whining, why should he feel he needs to support a party that all but said he wasn't a member now? Just call me grumpy. lol

Hi! Very interesting! plsbvraz

paebsgtg [url=http://bitd.com]test2[/url]