Althouse: Obama ≈ JFK?

July 19, 2007

Obama ≈ JFK?

Ted Sorenson is saying that.

And see: Giuliani ≈ Nixon.

Somebody seems to have plugged in a new column-generating machine.

What's next? Hillary ≈ Jimmy Carter?

Maybe it's all a reaction to the elephant in the room: Thompson ≈ Reagan.

266 comments:

1 – 200 of 266 Newer› Newest»

KCFleming said...: I wonder who his Marilyn Monroe is?
Is Obama connected to the Mob?
Does he intend to use the CIA to haf-ass a coup somehwere, and abandon the fighters?
Is he hiding a medical disorder and addicted to narcotics and speed?
Did his Dad hire ghostwriters to pen his college papers and a bestselling book?
Does he have a younger brother with many mistresses, who is a drunk and inattentive driver?

That JFK?; 7/19/07, 7:24 AM
JBlog said...: Pogo, you forgot:

-- Brought us to the brink of nuclear holocaust.

-- Authorized the illegal removal and assassination of the president of a friendly government (South Vietnam).

Had it not be for his own tragic death, it is likely JFK would not be remembered with such fondness.; 7/19/07, 7:42 AM
Simon said...: Well, JFK nominated Byron White and Arthur Goldberg. White drifted right (notably joining Rehnquist in dissent in Roe) and Goldberg served for a couple of years and bailed out to be Ambassador to the UN. If that man becomes President - and let's hope he doesn't - may he have similar luck!; 7/19/07, 8:00 AM
Paddy O said...: Jeri Thompson = Jackie Kennedy; 7/19/07, 8:04 AM
Tim said...: JFK.

I always wondered how a man manages to get a smaller, faster boat sliced in half by a larger, slower ship, in wartime no less.

One of life's mysteries. It makes Chappaquiddick comprehensible.; 7/19/07, 8:06 AM
Brian Doyle said...: Thompson makes Reagan look heavyweight.; 7/19/07, 8:09 AM
rho said...: Doyle said...
Thompson makes Reagan look heavyweight.

No kidding. I guess they're both actors, therefore nominally comparable?

Reagan had been active in politics and had extensive executive experience before the presidency. Thompson may be more attractive than the top 2 zeroes, but it's because they're zeroes, not because of Thompson's extensive display of presidential timber.; 7/19/07, 8:20 AM
Michael said...: Next week in The New Republic: "Obama: The Next McKinley?" by Mark Hanna.

If Reagan wasn't a heavyweight, I'd like to know who a heavyweight was, Doyle.

"Is Obama connected to the Mob?"

Does the Daley machine count?

I have the feeling Ted Sorensen wanders down the street looking at puppies and thinking, "The next JFK?"; 7/19/07, 8:22 AM
Simon said...: Doyle said...
"Thompson makes Reagan look heavyweight."

Keep looking for ways to ease that cognitive dissonance, Doyle:

"If you are a left-winger committed to the belief ... that the United States does not have a unique system of freedom, committed to the belief that ... everything is manipulated and rigged ..., committed to the idea that conservative values can't really have any core rationality to them, then you have to find a new explanation for Reagan. On the other hand, if you look at the evidence, the Soviet empire in 1980 was on our fence; by 1989 it was collapsing. The United States economy in 1980 had 13 percent inflation, 22 percent interest rates, and was going into the worst recession since the Great Depression; by 1988 we were in early stages of what has now been almost 20 years of economic growth. In 1980 Jimmy Carter could talk about malaise, the weakness of the American people, gasoline rationing, and the Iranians holding us helpless with hostages; by 1988 we were the dominant power on the planet. Now maybe Reagan was just this nice, goofy guy who pleasantly presided over all this, but if so, he may be the luckiest single leader in the history of the human race."; 7/19/07, 8:28 AM
Laura Reynolds said...: extensive display of presidential timber

With all the groveling around for money and attention, and pandering to every special interest group to go along with a press willing to reveal anything bad they can find, presidental timber is not something I'd be holding my breath for.; 7/19/07, 8:28 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Obama = Neville Chamberlain

Obama = Jimmy Carter

Obama = Cindy Sheehan

Somebody pinch me.; 7/19/07, 8:36 AM
MadisonMan said...: I saw the Giuliani = Nixon thread and have to ask: Which of Giuliani's wives is Pat? Similarly, Thompson's wife Jeri is in no way like Nancy, nor is Mrs. Obama a JackieO knockoff.

There are more than 15 months 'til the election and apparently everyone is kept so well-informed by the Press of Candidates' positions on important topics that we need fluff pieces now.; 7/19/07, 8:36 AM
AmPowerBlog said...: Simon: That's a fantastic quote. Thank you!

Sloanasaurus: That's a great trio of ignominity. With Obama you get three identities for the price of one. Thank's for that!; 7/19/07, 8:46 AM
Unknown said...: Deadwood: That which School Boards, Government Bureaus, Houses of Congress, Political Platforms and Presidential Timber are made from.; 7/19/07, 8:53 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: What kind of crap is this. Obama = JFK? Please.... Where is Lloyd Bentson when you need him.

Criticise JFK all you want. But, he was a different kind of democrat than we have today.

Could you imagine Obama saying:

"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

or...

"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

There isn't enough space to post JFKs remarks on the benefits of cutting taxes.

These are things Bush would say. Obama currently rejects this kind of thinking. Maybe it should be Bush = JFK.

There was a time when Democrats believed in this stuff. What happened? Maybe that is why Althouse still sees herself still as a Democrat, even though she finds it more difficult every year to vote for one..; 7/19/07, 8:55 AM
Unknown said...: I think you mean "timbre", rho.

We've had enough display of presidential timber with the previous administration!; 7/19/07, 9:02 AM
Tim said...: "There was a time when Democrats believed in this stuff. What happened?"

The Eleanor Roosevelt/Henry Wallace wing of the party won out, therefore the feminized national security and economic policies hold the hall, decisively. There is a reason why single, unmarried women are the largest demographic cohort comprising the Democrat electorate these days.; 7/19/07, 9:03 AM
chickelit said...: Barack Obama: September 6, 2005

"And so I hope that out of this crisis we all begin to reflect - Democrat and Republican - on not only our individual responsibilities to ourselves and our families, but to our mutual responsibilities to our fellow Americans."

I suggest it be rephrased:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what you can do for yourself—ask what your country can do for you.; 7/19/07, 9:08 AM
Andrew Graff said...: "These are things Bush would say. Obama currently rejects this kind of thinking. Maybe it should be Bush = JFK."

There is alot of truth to that. It's almost impossible for someone not familiar with both speaches to identify passages from the state of the union addresses of both men. JFK ran on a platform of supply side economics (he wanted to cut taxes to end economic malaise) and strength in the face of an existential foreign threat.

I don't actually think that JFK was more compotent than GWB - both men made some real doozies of mistakes. But, I will say this for JFK. On the whole, he was far more conservative than GWB, and while both men say basically the same thing JFK said them with far more eloquence. GWB is not one quarter of the statesmen that JFK was, and it really hurts the country in these troubled times.; 7/19/07, 9:19 AM
Terri said...: Apples and oranges.

Let's leave comparison shopping to consumer reports or something, okay?

There is no perfect human being, past or present. My concern is how they are going to step up in the future. And I am not optimistic about any of our so-called 'public servants' these days. The best thing that any candidate for president can do is to stop talking about other candidates (or past and present presidents) and tell me exactly what they are going to do for this country if they are elected. "I'm better than so-and-so because...." isn't going to cut it with me.

Politics sucks.; 7/19/07, 9:22 AM
Peter Blogdanovich said...: C'mon you guys, it' Bill Clinton=JFK,
Hillary Clinton=Bill Clinton ergo by substitution of variables;
Hillary=JFK Q.E.D.; 7/19/07, 9:23 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: GWB is not one quarter of the statesmen that JFK was, and it really hurts the country in these troubled times.

Also the media loved JFK and hates Bush. Having the media love you helps a lot when your trying to project a certain image.; 7/19/07, 9:23 AM
ronbo said...: Hmmm. I'm not sure that being secular is a very significant point of similarity between Nixon and Giuliani, even assuming it's true. It's kind of overshadowed by the whole impeachable offense thing, IMHO. Beyond that, Nixon has always seemed to me somewhat cowardly, or at least sneaky, while Giuliani is ballsy to the point (sometimes) of recklessness.; 7/19/07, 9:27 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: but to our mutual responsibilities to our fellow Americans."

This really is a nasty statement.

What exactly does this mean. We have the responsibility to be polite and to not intrude on the freedom of our fellow Americans. Other than that we owe nothing to our fellow citizens individually.

Charity is not a responsibility. Charity is Charity. Obama is off his rocker.

This is just another way to say that the state owns my property. Obama is more sly than I thought.; 7/19/07, 9:28 AM
paul a'barge said...: Tim said...
I always wondered how a man manages to get a smaller, faster boat sliced in half by a larger, slower ship, in wartime no less.

By engaging with the enemy in combat.

How about you tell us all the stories of your courage under fire, you nimrod moron.

Yeah. That's what I thought.; 7/19/07, 9:32 AM
Simon said...: Sloanasaurus said...
"[Our mutual responsibilities to our fellow Americans?] This really is a nasty statement. What exactly does this mean[?]"

Considering the source, I'd say it means exactly what you'd think - it means "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." It means From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.; 7/19/07, 9:35 AM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Some presidential timbers:

George Washington's cherry tree.
Woodrow Wilson.
Bush 41 and 43. Wait. Does shrubbery count?; 7/19/07, 9:35 AM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Andrew Jackson's "Old Hickory"...; 7/19/07, 9:38 AM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: "Dutch" Reagan. [But he had dutch elm disease]; 7/19/07, 9:39 AM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Grover Cleveland.

Abe Lincoln's house of logs [formerly trees].; 7/19/07, 9:43 AM
KCFleming said...: Theodore Roosevelt's big stick.

JFK's big stick.

Sorry.; 7/19/07, 9:45 AM
MadisonMan said...: Does shrubbery count?

Only for certain knights.; 7/19/07, 9:51 AM
Roost on the Moon said...: Paul a'barge called Tim a nimrod moron.

Friendly Fire, Friendly Fire!

You both seem to believe that the primary challenge facing America today is rampant wussiness. You guys should be friends. Hug and make up. I mean, uh, punch each other on the shoulder, er... spit-shake?; 7/19/07, 9:55 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Well, if we're going to have fun by juxtaposing paraphrases of presidential quotes, let me play:

Ronald Reagan: The scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

GWB in New Orleans post-Katrina: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.; 7/19/07, 9:57 AM
AllenS said...: Hillary = Nurse Ratched.

And you know I'm right.

Bill Clinton = Wooden Cigar Indian.; 7/19/07, 10:02 AM
Charlie Martin said...: They don't pay Sorenson enough to have an original thought, clearly.; 7/19/07, 10:04 AM
Peter Hoh said...: No, Al Gore is the Wooden Cigar Indian.; 7/19/07, 10:04 AM
Peter Hoh said...: And Howard Deen as the Jack Nicholsen character.; 7/19/07, 10:04 AM
Balfegor said...: Obama ≈ JFK?

Hey, the man could do worse than to campaign on a program of tax cuts and massive military build-up (missile gap!). And, unlike JFK, Obama is probably not going to spend his presidency saturated with painkillers.; 7/19/07, 10:10 AM
KCFleming said...: This stuff always reminds me of Romy and Michele who kept fighting about who was the Mary and who was the Rhoda.; 7/19/07, 10:42 AM
Bissage said...: Wooden Cigar Indian ≈ Kaw-Liga.

Charlie Pride’s version is the best but this clip's truncated.

Oh well. Use your imagination and enjoy it, anyway!; 7/19/07, 10:43 AM
dbp said...: Hillary Milhouse Clinton,

All the paranoia (vast right wing conspiracy v. enemies lists)and a similar lack of charisma as Nixon.

dbp; 7/19/07, 10:48 AM
sonicfrog said...: Al Gore = Aaron Burr

Like Burr, Al Gore never got any higher than VP, and like Burr's duel that killed Alexander Hamilton, Gore's killing of the environmental movement via "Live Earth" may have destroyed any chances he will ever be President.

You all forgot the obvious.

Ron Paul = Barry Goldwater.; 7/19/07, 10:57 AM
Brent said...: Pogo,

Romy and Michele rocked.

The movie was also a learning moment for us re:

We invited a couple we had known for quite a few years over to watch the dvd after it was first released. We were surprised to find that the wife did not like the film.

It turned out that she related to the characterizations of the snotty "in-girls" - because she (our friend) had been an "in-girl": cheerleader, dated the captain of the football team, was a homecoming princess, on and on. She launched into how she hated movies in that era, because they all seemed to portray the popular clique girls as shallow, scheming, and completely self-centered - and she and her friends were not that way at all.

But then she went on to defend the need for "class strata" cliques. There had to be someone on the top social rungs, and that was very useful for teaching high schoolers about the real world.

Wow! My wife and I were so stunned at her sincerity, that we didn't know what to say. Her husband also seemed a little surprised at his wife's passion on the issue.

By the way, her husband was the captain of the football team, just not at the same school (his school kicked her school's ass in football).; 7/19/07, 11:08 AM
Fen said...: jblog: Pogo, you forgot:

-- Brought us to the brink of nuclear holocaust.

-- Authorized the illegal removal and assassination of the president of a friendly government (South Vietnam).

And

-- Bay of Pigs. Betrayed Cuban freedom fighters by pulling their air support, resulting in their massacre.

The more things change...; 7/19/07, 11:13 AM
Henry said...: If Obama is JFK, Obama needs a pet. More than one.

Maybe Obama = Franklin Pierce. Handsome. Inoffensive. No pets.; 7/19/07, 11:14 AM
sonicfrog said...: Romy and Michele rocked.

Yep, and "Gross Point Blank" came out around the same time. It was a good year for High School Reunion flicks.; 7/19/07, 11:16 AM
Fen said...: Peter: GWB in New Orleans post-Katrina: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

More like: "I'm Governer Blanco, and we don't need federal help."

Nagin whining about the lack of buses, a half-mile from school bus lot left idle and flooded by his incompetence, was esp ironic.

"The Big Easy". Lets party on and just ignore the after action report from Hurricane Andrew.; 7/19/07, 11:18 AM
sonicfrog said...: his school kicked her school's ass in football

Wow B! No emotional involvement here!!! :-); 7/19/07, 11:18 AM
Fen said...: Obama ≈ JFK?

At least Obama's credibilty re the poor is backed by his prior work on their behalf, unlike Edwards who's only experience "helping" the poor is several photo ops.

[paraphrased via Powerline]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018267.php; 7/19/07, 11:21 AM
Brent said...: actually, sonicfrog, that was the husband's description, not mine.

Grosse Point Blank rocks; 7/19/07, 11:21 AM
KCFleming said...: I think I have seen Romy and Michele about 50 times. How emabarrassing. But damnation that's a funny movie.; 7/19/07, 11:46 AM
From Inwood said...: Mitt Romney ~ Teddy Kennedy!

No, wait that was a dog on top of Romney’s car, not a girl inside. (No Michael Vick comments, please.); 7/19/07, 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann says: "What's next? Hillary ≈ Jimmy Carter?"

Oh, Annie...could you possibly be more right wing?

And you say you're an "independent."

That's a hoot.; 7/19/07, 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Pogo said..."I wonder who his Marilyn Monroe is?"

Only someone with Pogo's deep intellect could dredge up the MM connection regarding JFK and Obama's similar appeal.; 7/19/07, 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...: What a blog.

An endless posts...trashing JFK.

As if anybody here has ever done a damn thing in their life that would compare.

Jealousy is an ugly thing to behold.; 7/19/07, 12:30 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: As if anybody here has ever done a damn thing in their life that would compare.

The same can be said about GWB. But, we all know that lucky has never trashed Dubya.....; 7/19/07, 12:37 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Ann says: "What's next? Hillary ≈ Jimmy Carter?"

Oh, Annie...could you possibly be more right wing?

I don't get the logic here Lucky.

You must be so smart - to be able to make such a connection....; 7/19/07, 12:39 PM
Sofa King said...: Luckyoldson - very, very small shell script.; 7/19/07, 12:42 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Only someone with Pogo's deep intellect could dredge up the MM connection regarding JFK and Obama's similar appeal.

I think it is a fair point for a silly thread.

JFK may have had "relations with MM"; Obama = JFK; Therefore, Obama must be having relations with someone like MM.

Of course no one ever accused you of having a sense of humor Lucky...; 7/19/07, 12:45 PM
Henry said...: Ann says: "What's next? Hillary ≈ Jimmy Carter?"

Oh, Annie...could you possibly be more right wing?

I don't get it Lucky. Are you insulted on Carter's behalf or Clinton's?; 7/19/07, 12:48 PM
MadisonMan said...: JFK may have had "relations with MM";

I beg your pardon?

Oh, *that* MM.; 7/19/07, 12:49 PM
KCFleming said...: Re: "As if anybody here has ever done a damn thing in their life that would compare."

I never invaded Cuba and left the rebels hanging.
I never slept around while President.
I wrote my own college papers, professional maunscripts, and book chapters.
I never had MLKing's room bugged.
I didn't stand by while Russia cordoned off East Germany (August 13, 1961) and then built a wall, sentencing two generations of Germans to the communist gulag.
I didn't give away nuclear missiles when Russia threatened me.

Hell, you could do more standing inert than JFK accomplished in the White House.
Unless you count the redecorating, but that was mostly Jackie, methinks.; 7/19/07, 1:16 PM
Simon said...: Luckyoldson said...
"What a blog. An endless posts...trashing JFK."

Unless I've missed a post, that's all been in the comments. Commenters' views ≈ the blogger's views?

Luckyoldson said...
"Oh, Ann[]...could you possibly be more right wing?"

Yep.; 7/19/07, 1:21 PM
hdhouse said...: Pogo blurted...
Re: "As if anybody here has ever done a damn thing in their life that would compare."

I never invaded Cuba and left the rebels hanging....etc."

Those of you who enjoy laughing at the village idiot please go up and read this post.

If you don't want to sicken yourself with the read, the summary is: Pogo is an idiot who has never done anything.

PS make sure you don't run into Sloanasaurus stating that: he owes nothing to anyone nor has any responsibility for or to any other citizen. It is really choice.

Ahh our vry own Beavis and Buttheads!; 7/19/07, 1:42 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Pogo saidHell, you could do more standing inert than JFK accomplished in the White House.

Well that's not quite fair Pogo, JFK did get the largest tax cut in history up to that time, passed.

''In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.''

Considering JFK's sterling foreign policy and domestic tax cuts, you'd think Lucky would be a Bush supporter except for that nasty GOP affiliation.; 7/19/07, 1:47 PM
SGT Ted said...: "Obama ≈ JFK?"

And I'm Queen of the May!

Luckyoldson...try one less scoop in your coffee pot.; 7/19/07, 1:48 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: hdhouse said Those of you who enjoy laughing at the village idiot please go up and read this post.

Any particular part of that you want to dispute on a factual basis or you just trolling as usual?

Better yet, how about enlightening us on any of JFK's high points? I know its tough when overshadowed by things like the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam. Oh and the big tax cuts, don't forget those.; 7/19/07, 1:51 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: PS make sure you don't run into Sloanasaurus stating that: he owes nothing to anyone nor has any responsibility for or to any other citizen. It is really choice.

Tell me then house. If you think this comment is so stupid, what then do I owe my fellow citizen other than not impeding his or her natural rights.

Do you beleive that I own my fellow citizen the same health care that I have if I have worked hard to earn mine.

Do you believe that I owe my fellow citizen a sandwich if he doesn't have one.

In short, do you believe that I owe my fellow citizen a portion of my labor?; 7/19/07, 1:53 PM
Tim said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/19/07, 2:00 PM
Revenant said...: What's next? Hillary ≈ Jimmy Carter?

Here's one for you:

Hillary ≈ George W. Bush

Like Bush, her campaign is based on family connections, inevitability, and the desire to move past the scandals plaguing the opposing party's current White House occupant. Like Bush, her supporters overlook the shallowness and brevity of her actual government experience. She, like Bush (in 2000), is calling for an end to foreign adventurism and nation building, and for a re-focusing on domestic issues like health and education.

Yeah, they differ on a number of issues, but then again so do Rudy/Nixon and Obama/JFK.; 7/19/07, 2:00 PM
chickelit said...: Yes house, it is about choice.

Freedom from choice is what you seem to want.; 7/19/07, 2:01 PM
Mark Daniels said...: Over at RedBlueChristian.com, I've just posted a piece in which I suggest more apt historical analogies for Hillary Clinton. It's here.

Mark Daniels; 7/19/07, 2:04 PM
Eli Blake said...: George Bush Iraqticus (as he originally conceived the mission): James K. Polk

George Bush Iraqticus (in reality): Benito Mussolini

George Bush (in his effect on America): James Buchanan; 7/19/07, 2:05 PM
Revenant said...: By engaging with the enemy in combat.

Kennedy wasn't engaged in combat with the enemy when his ship was sunk. He and his crew were caught off guard.

However, there were plenty of good reasons for them to be caught off guard -- they had no radar and it was a moonless night. Tim's repeated snarks about the PT109 being a "smaller, faster" boat are irrelevant, since the boat was idling to avoid detection when it was hit. PT boats had high top speeds, but their acceleration wasn't that hot.; 7/19/07, 2:12 PM
KCFleming said...: Hoosier's right.
JFK's tax cuts were monumental.

The rest of his works were pretty blah or negative. Unless you like Vietnam; he upped our involvement for good in that one. His bid for reelection was uncertain, and he couldn't count on the falsified Illinois ballots next time.; 7/19/07, 2:16 PM
ricpic said...: JFK was a mule, but handsome;
BO is a mule and looks like one.; 7/19/07, 2:33 PM
Eli Blake said...: If Giuliani = Nixon, then will his 'checkers' speech be about not giving back a guard dog he got as a present from Michael Vick?; 7/19/07, 2:34 PM
Eli Blake said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/19/07, 2:38 PM
blake said...: Hey, if invading Cuba is the metric we're using for life accomplishments, I have to admit I come up short as well.

If memory serves, the A&E channel did a special on "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (and I have to admit here that the "Truther" movement has taken all the fun out of the conspiracy movement--though I do have a great one about soccer) where they said that JFK was ordering troops out of Vietnam, and that the first plane load arrived home on the day he was killed.

If true, then our involvement wasn't really his fault.

Also, wasn't the Bay of Pigs planned during Eisenhower's final days? I can't imagine its failure endeared the CIA and JFK to each other.; 7/19/07, 2:40 PM
KCFleming said...: Re: "wasn't the Bay of Pigs planned during Eisenhower's final days? "

Not exactly. According to American Heritage:
"...privately he [Eisenhower] began working with Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles and Vice President Richard Nixon to create a plan to overthrow Castro. The plan went through a variety of forms; one version called for as many as 12,000 exile soldiers to invade, heavily supported by the U.S. air force.

...When Kennedy became President, Dulles stayed on as CIA director and shared with him the invasion plan, as it existed at the time. Kennedy was immediately uncomfortable with it. Though he was no friend or sympathizer of Castro’s, the young Commander in Chief was wary of committing the United States to military action in the Caribbean. He was worried by Castro’s antagonism, but he also had to deal with emerging conflicts elsewhere in the Third World, in Laos and in Vietnam.

Dulles pushed him hard, though, promising that the plan would successfully mobilize the Cuban people to remove Castro. Also, Kennedy feared that if he canceled the plan, CIA insiders might leak knowledge of it, calling into question his anti-Communist credentials. He and his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, told the CIA to reduce the scale of the invasion and make sure that no American military or intelligence personnel were involved. Dulles agreed to do so. In the early spring Kennedy ordered the attack to go forward."

Eisenhower was too smart a military mind to pull off such a dumb stunt. As for the act itself, by the time it began, JFK approved it, and the buck stops there.; 7/19/07, 3:09 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Sloan,

though I liked your JFK quotes I think you missed the best line from his speach. Can you imagine any Democrat except Lieberman uttering this line today:

" Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Yeah, JFK screwed up in Vietnam ad almost got me killed, but his heart was in the right place. in the context of Iraq, then

Bush=JFK
Obama=JOKE; 7/19/07, 3:28 PM
The Drill SGT said...: lol,speech not speach; 7/19/07, 3:31 PM
Roger J. said...: Apparently there is a very good book out on the CIA entitled Legacy of Ashes. It does not picture the CIA in a very good light. Havenet read it yet. Apparently it relates the story where Eisenhower dressed down Allen Dulles in front of a full cabinent meeting which would have included Allen's brother, John Foster Dulles as SecState. Eisenhower uses the term legacy of ashes to describe Dulles eight year legacy as CIA chief.; 7/19/07, 3:38 PM
maddy said...: "On the other hand, if you look at the evidence, the Soviet empire in 1980 was on our fence; by 1989 it was collapsing. The United States economy in 1980 had 13 percent inflation, 22 percent interest rates, and was going into the worst recession since the Great Depression; by 1988 we were in early stages of what has now been almost 20 years of economic growth. In 1980 Jimmy Carter could talk about malaise, the weakness of the American people, gasoline rationing, and the Iranians holding us helpless with hostages; by 1988 we were the dominant power on the planet. Now maybe Reagan was just this nice, goofy guy who pleasantly presided over all this, but if so, he may be the luckiest single leader in the history of the human race.""

amusing. reagan is responsible for the prosperity of the clinton years, but not for the high unemployment rate during his own term. brilliant! what about reagan era budget deficits? the fault of congressional democrats of course.

the type of person who believes this is the same type who blames clinton for 9/11. it's called twisting facts to justify opinion.; 7/19/07, 3:45 PM
KCFleming said...: Re: "the high unemployment rate during his own term"

There is a considerable lag time to all such efforts, as you well know. The terrible market was a direct effect of the errors of the 1970s. The layoffs were indeed 'his fault', but bringing taxes down and inflation under control were necessary to stop Carter's legacy of malaise and recession.

Failure to understand this is a failure to understand economics.; 7/19/07, 4:01 PM
John Stodder said...: These comparisons are facile and pointless.

Thompson = Reagan in only one identifiable way. He's got the language discipline of a radio commentator. Thompson is going to be formidable in one- to three-minute form, as Reagan was.

Obama = JFK? Please. I like Obama, but this does him no good at all. What's the next line, everyone? "I knew Jack Kennedy..."

Given what we face in the next eight years, I'm going to be looking for "a third-rate mind with a first-class temperament," like FDR. Hillary, unfortunately, has those qualities exactly backward. I wouldn't say she's Nixon, though. That seems unfair.

Unfair also to put Guiliani in with Nixon, either politically or psychologically. Nixon triangulated somewhat in order to win in 1968, but I think most Americans woke up the next morning thinking they'd elected a conservative. Guiliani is a law-and-order liberal, a "right-winger" only in the very liberal, redistributionist context of NYC politics. And whereas Nixon nursed paranoid grudges and hatched secret plots while awkwardly trying to get along with everyone, Guiliani gives into his id and yells at people, sometimes scaring them but never leaving them in the dark as to what he thinks about them. Completely the opposite.

I'm staying uncommitted for now, until I know all the candidates better. As of now, the people in the race who strike me as having the right temperament are Guiliani and Obama.

The next-most-likely-to-succeed are Richardson and Thompson, both of whom strike me as good souls, but a little lazy. Hillary and Romney are the next tier: Two fearsomely bright minds who are both emotionally stunted and will be problematic leaders if elected.

If there's anyone in the race who resembles Nixon, it's John McCain. He seems to burn with resentment, and it's clouded his judgment. He gets a lot of points for courage, though.

Bringing up the rear is John Edwards who strikes me as completely phony, a southern-fried bullshitter, and the only candidate in the race who actually scares me. Not because he's evil, but because he's in way over his head, but is such a good liar, he's even fooled himself that he's up to the task.

Edwards is the closest kin to GW Bush in this race. Bush kidded himself in a major way, thinking he was up to the presidency. His failings haven't been failings of policy so much as failings of his overall style of leadership and his weak personality. We found out about Bush too late to do anything about it -- and so did he. Edwards is another one like that.; 7/19/07, 4:06 PM
KCFleming said...: Stodder: well done.; 7/19/07, 4:27 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: As usual John, a great comment.; 7/19/07, 4:36 PM
Anonymous said...: And you people wonder why the Democrats are going to win big in 2008??

99% of the comments here could serve as a script for Rush, Sean, Bill or Ann-the-crack-whore.

No substance, just inane comments about a man who's been dead for 40+ years...and who still carries an approval rating about 50 points higher than the idiot in the White House right now. (I hope I'm around to see what is said about G.W. in 40 years...that is, of course...if he and Cheney haven't destroyed the planet.)

This is like a dumb farm.; 7/19/07, 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Pogo lays out a life history of himself that appears to illustrate someone who has never done a thing.

Great argument.

*I hope this doesn't effect your relationship with Fen-Fen.; 7/19/07, 4:49 PM
KCFleming said...: Re: "someone who has never done a thing."

he will gives me cheezburger for soul.
…is dat fair trade?; 7/19/07, 4:55 PM
blake said...: Interesting analysis, John.

I keep wondering what will happen to LOS in 2008 if the Democrats don't win big as his crystal ball says they will.

And then I realize: Oh, crap, does that mean over a year of skipping over his ranting? To be followed by a lifetime of allegations that "the election was stolen" if it doesn't come out the way he thinks it should.

What kind of person can look at a 14% approval rating and predict optimism for anyone involved in it?; 7/19/07, 4:56 PM
blake said...: lol pogo

im in ur electionz
voting out ur gop; 7/19/07, 4:57 PM
John Stodder said...: And you people wonder why the Democrats are going to win big in 2008??

Are people really wondering that? "Democrats win" is the safest bet out there. Nobody's happy with the war. Bush has been lousy. The GOP Congress was a decadent, foul bust. Anything good that's happening during Bush's term -- the stock market, the economy overall, the lack of another 9/11 -- is deemphasized or discredited in most of the media.

So how come the Democrats seem so nervous?

Luckyoldson, it would be interesting to get a real response to that question, by the way, and not another avalanche of name-calling. You're in danger of becoming that which you despise.; 7/19/07, 5:03 PM
maddy said...: bringing taxes down and inflation under control were necessary to stop Carter's legacy of malaise and recession.

credit for bringing inflation under control goes to paul volcker and the fed for limiting the growth of the money supply. if you are going to credit a president for volcker, the credit goes to carter not reagan.

according to a bush administration study, the biggest tax hike since ww2 was the 1982 "tax equity and fiscal responsibility act" of ronald reagan. reagan agreed to more tax hikes in 1984 and 1987.

failure to understand this is a failure to understand economics.; 7/19/07, 5:05 PM
Revenant said...: Luckyoldson, [...] You're in danger of becoming that which you despise.

A Republican?; 7/19/07, 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: John Stodder asks: "So how come the Democrats seem so nervous?"

First of all it's not just the Democrats with the 14%...it's "congress."

Second, who are these Democrats who are so nervous? Hillary? Obama? I see nothing that would reflect such an opinion or observation.

The Dems have a very slim majority, one that carries almost no weight because they need Republicans to push anything through...and we ALL know how accommodating they are these days...and the Dems have been the majority for all of 6 months.

And unless you've forgotten...the Republicans held sway for 12 years...and look where that's gotten us.

The Democrats will win big in 2008...because of George W. Bush.

Worst ever.; 7/19/07, 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...: rev,
i'm a liberal.

period.; 7/19/07, 5:18 PM
John Stodder said...: LOS probably will become a Republican eventually, but in the meantime, I was referring to his "no substance, just inane comments" rant, which is pretty funny coming from him.

I don't like Ann Coulter, but is LOS calling her a "crack whore" in any way distinguishable from her calling Edwards a "faggot?" If Coulter was a man, would LOS use the "crack whore" slur?

Hopefully, one of LOS's mentors on the left will lend him their copy of "Free to Be You and Me," so he'll reconsider whether making such hurtful, insensitive and sexist comments is the best way to share his feelings.; 7/19/07, 5:22 PM
maddy said...: Edwards is the closest kin to GW Bush in this race.

i don't see it. bush grew up in privilege and accomplished little or nothing in his business career that didn't depend on his bush family connection. edwards grew up relatively poor, was the first person in his family to attend college, graduated with honors, and had an impressive legal career before entering politics. unlike bush, edwards has earned what he's got.; 7/19/07, 5:22 PM
hdhouse said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
"Any particular part of that you want to dispute on a factual basis or you just trolling as usual?"

Hey I'm game if someone wants to post facts. Facts are fine. Facts are good.

Wild, pull it out of your ass, suppositions are not facts. As they say in Wisconsin, is that the best cheese you got?; 7/19/07, 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Stoddard,
Again...who are the "nervous" Dems you refer to?

Also; Ann's one hell of a lot closer to a crack whore than Edwards is to being homosexual.; 7/19/07, 5:29 PM
Charles (Chuck) Rubin said...: Ron Paul = Thomas Jefferson; 7/19/07, 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: charles,
good luck with that one on this blog.; 7/19/07, 5:32 PM
KCFleming said...: Re: it's not just the Democrats with the 14%...it's "congress."

In July 2006, the approval rating was 26%; now under Democratic majority the percentage of Americans with a "great deal" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure.

And somehow that's the GOPs fault?; 7/19/07, 5:34 PM
Anonymous said...: According to the latest Zogby poll...Hillary beats ANY Republican.

Now that's something that should make the people here really...nervous.; 7/19/07, 5:42 PM
Eli Blake said...: Hey, even when news is devastating, nobody lets it detract from long term goals:

Consider the article out today from Sports Illustrated about Nike delaying the release of a Michael Vick shoe line.

Nike has told retailers it will not release a fifth signature shoe, the Air Zoom Vick V, this summer. Stoyer said the four shoe products and three shirts that currently bear Vick's name will remain in stores.

So Vick's blantant cruelty doesn't phase them, they are only delaying the release until sometime after this summer!

They've obviously learned from watching politicians weather a storm, they just hunker down and wait for it to blow over.

Nobody has any standards anymore, about anything.; 7/19/07, 5:45 PM
John Stodder said...: LOS,

The nervousness I detect is reflected in the unloading of a lot of opposition research against both Guiliani and Thompson at a relatively early stage in the election. Incredibly early, actually. It's pretty clear the Dems want to run against Romney, who they think will be easier to portray as an 'out of the mainstream' right-winger than Rudy or Fred, so there seems (to me) to be a concerted effort to highlight areas where Rudy and Fred differ from the social right. They don't want to run against either of them.

I detect nervousness also in the Senate's posturing against the surge. Late last year, they vote to confirm Gen. Petraueus, knowing full well what the strategy was going to be. A few months later, before the strategy is fully operative tactically, they start repeating and repeating that it's "failed." Why? Why is it so important to leave a public impression of failure? I think they fear that if the surge succeeds, their whole '08 strategy goes out the window. Which says to me, they're hollow at the core and they know it. The '08 campaign has got to be about Bush, about "rubber stamp Republicans," about failed leadership for the Democrats to win. If the campaign isn't about failure in Iraq, they don't have a plan B.

I would argue that the third strong Democratic argument of '06, the "culture of corruption," is no longer available. The public sees that the Democratic congress is no different when it comes to pork, earmarks and the revolving door.

Nonetheless, the Democrats feel like they have the Republicans in a trap right now, tied to Bush and tied to social rightwing policies the majority of Americans don't want. But they fear what will happen if Reeps escape the trap.; 7/19/07, 5:47 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: LOS says The Dems have a very slim majority, one that carries almost no weight

Yet you continue to spout that the Dems will win big in 2008. Seems if they couldn't defeat the dumbest man on the face of the earth and unseat most of the corrupt GOP candidates in Congress, I'd hedge those bets Lucky. Otherwise, if the GOP takes the White House again you may need to take a sabbatical.

hdhouse says:Hey I'm game if someone wants to post facts. Facts are fine. Facts are good.

Wild, pull it out of your ass, suppositions are not facts.

So Bay of Pigs, wiretapping MLK, doing nada over Berlin, Cuban Missle Crisis was all pulled out of Pogo's ass? Interesting cause I seem to remember reading that stuff and JFK was President at that time.

Seems to me your cheese is a bit stinky but some people like stinky cheese.

Hey, hdhouse, did you think JFK cutting taxes was a swell idea? I'd like your candid thoughts on that and do you think JFK would be a Democrat today? What about his wink and a nod over the coup de tat of Diem?

I only ask because it seems like a lot of what JFK did in his short tenure is pretty darn close to what you and others here condemn Bush for doing.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.; 7/19/07, 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: This is who's really nervous...

The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman (coincidentally an ex-aide to Dick Cheney) responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.

Clinton has privately and publicly pushed Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment.

"If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way," she said then.

"Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines , who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."

And of course, there was NO mention of:

Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana warned Thursday at a hearing that if U.S. military leaders and Congress "are not prepared for these contingencies, they may be executed poorly, especially in an atmosphere in which public demands for troop withdrawals could compel action on a political timetable."; 7/19/07, 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoosier,
You're delusional.; 7/19/07, 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Boy...I sure hope that Bay of Pigs thing doesn't play into the 2008 Presidential election.; 7/19/07, 5:56 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier,
You're delusional.

LOS

I just got back from a 35 mile bike ride so I'm a little tired so perhaps you can't tell the difference.

Then again, you offer absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation other than ad hominem slurs. If you would like to have a conversation, a grown up one, let me know otherwise ciao.; 7/19/07, 6:00 PM
John Stodder said...: unlike bush, edwards has earned what he's got.

You missed the point, Maddy. Neither Bush nor Edwards are qualified for the presidency as a result of their upbringings. JFK and FDR grew up rich; Nixon and Reagan grew up poor. So what? You can say Bush made nothing out of himself except for what family connections got him. That's true. It's also true that Edwards' meteoric rise came from being North Carolina's most successful ambulance chaser. Yeah, he succeeded, but he chose a sleazy profession in which you don't really "earn" your money, you finagle it.

What I'm looking at are personal qualities of character and emotional strength, combined with leadership experience and innate leadership skill. Bush's biggest weaknesses are in those areas, but it wasn't as apparent in the 2000 election as it is now. I see no evidence that Edwards is any more capable of running the executive branch than Bush was. Edwards was a lousy senator, ran a failed presidential campaign and was unimpressive running for VP (even Kerry says that now), and has shown zero consistency on the issues. His "two Americas" bit works for nostalgic reporters who want politics to return to redistribution and victimology, but it's empty. But even if he had a great campaign platform, that's secondary to what kind of president he'd be.

Why do you think he'd be any good at all? Based on what?; 7/19/07, 6:02 PM
Simon said...: John Stodder said...
"'Democrats win' is the safest bet out there. Nobody's happy with the war. Bush has been lousy. The GOP Congress was a decadent, foul bust.... So how come the Democrats seem so nervous?"

Because deep down, they know the American people aren't stupid enough to notice that Bush isn't on the ballot,and neither - unless Duncan Hunter gets the nomination - is anyone who was part of (or approves of) said GOP Congress.

Luckyoldson said...
"The Dems have a very slim majority, one that carries almost no weight because they need Republicans to push anything through...and we ALL know how accommodating they are these days...and the Dems have been the majority for all of 6 months."

They don't need a single Republican vote in the House, and any motion that proceeds to a vote in the Senate wouldn't need a non-Democrat vote if you hadn't carried out a purge in Connecticut last year. Of course, not everything proceeds to a vote on the floor in the Senate - something unexceptional in any event, and which Democrats are hardly in a position to complain about after the last four years. Defenses of the Democratic Congress, however, carry less water unless there is a considerable resevoir of legislation passed through the House which is sitting cooling in the Senatorial saucer- which there isn't.

"The Democrats will win big in 2008...because of George W. Bush."

I agree - If they do, that'll be why. But let's be clear: it'll be because of George W. Bush, not because the electorate approves of liberal policy or politicians, or disapproves of conservative policy.

"According to the latest Zogby poll...Hillary beats ANY Republican."

Opinion polls are worthless at best, and they're not at their best when referenced in the abstract without a link.; 7/19/07, 6:03 PM
Simon said...: And again, just with this supposed Zogby poll (which is, again, worthless even if it exists), LOS' 5:54 PM is apparently a quote of a news story - yet no link. Do you not know how to use the a tag, or do you think your reputation here is high enough that commenters trust you?; 7/19/07, 6:07 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Lucky: As if anybody here has ever done a damn thing in their life that would compare.

I love this. So anyone who has not done more in their lives than a president cannot criticize a president? I guess 99% of America should just shut up and worship our kings.

No, I haven't done as much as JFK. I didn't have a daddy who made money in bootlegging who purchased me a political career because he was hellbent on his family becoming America's royal family. And I didn't have any alliances with the mafia underworld to help me, either. But that's okay. I don't wanna be a powerful person, and I don't trust people who want great power.

And unlike JFK, I would not be ready, willing, or able to even consider pressing a button and nuking the entire human race and all of human history out of existance as JFK nearly did in a crisis that was in large part his own creation.

Well, I'm glad he didn't nuke the world, but I'm not gonna love a man who nearly did.

And while he did have some good domestic policies, one can point to the Kennedy era media manipulation and image hype as the beginning of our difficulties in electing presidents who have substance over style.; 7/19/07, 6:08 PM
Cedarford said...: Stodder - Good post. I don't know about Hillary, Giuliani or Romney - but I agree with the rest of your post.

Oh, and about rating the "Magic Negro", as literary critics call the perfect black redeemer that has shown up recently in books and movies...The guy is well to the Left and has 2 years in National office..

Hillary - We know Bill had a 1st class mind and a 2nd or 3rd class temperment depending on the subject and where his dick was pointing that day...Hill may have a good 2nd class temperment. Or be Lady McBeth. I know I can't, absolutely cannot stand, her voice and speaking style. It took me 5 years to hit the mute when Bush II was talking, I'm already doing it with Hillary.
And why should America continue the Bush-Clinton dynastic politics? Because she is "inevitable"? God, we're f*cked!

Romney - I just haven't seen enough of the guy to "divine his temperment" - one problem with the Republicans mired into 1-2 minute sound bite responses from all the excess candidates in the field now is that no top-tier candidate has been able to get past that shallow "Winning soundbite" MSM criteria. I know that after seeing Mike Huckabee get a half hour on a show, I was highly impressed with his detailed answers and temperment. I hope to get a similar chance to look at Romney. Somehow, I don't think he will give off the ruthless Lady McBeth vibes Hillary does..

Giuliani - The guy didn't save anyone on 9/11. He was as clueless as the rest of us, and perhaps even more so when two weeks into it he was still out there demanding reverence for his "hero cops", talking 14,000 dead, and insisting it was still a rescue operation to get to survivors...
Still he did a more credible job convincing people that the gov't was in charge and doing everything possible than say, Ray Nagin of NOLA did,
Still, after 9/11, Rudy milked his "hero-hood" and the hero worship of the "9/11 responders" and did enough pandering to the Cult of Victimhood and terrorist bashing to go from a net worth of under 600,000 to nearly 30 million as "the Great Terrorism Expert, author, and premium fee inspirational speaker." His actual pluses are that he cleaned up crime in NYC, made it liveable again, and didn't take any shit. Has more skeletons in his closet than Hillary, though..; 7/19/07, 6:14 PM
LoafingOaf said...: jblog: Brought us to the brink of nuclear holocaust.

Yeah, how do people get by that one? I wasn't alive at the time, but I'm glad there was a world for me to be born into.

That JFK was also on drugs when he was considering nuking the world is pretty jaw-dropping.; 7/19/07, 6:18 PM
Eli Blake said...: Cedarford,

I guess, if you call Rush Limbaugh a 'literary critic.'

And I suppose that you would describe Sean Hannity as a 'great thinker' and Ann Coulter as a 'prosaical genius.'; 7/19/07, 6:26 PM
Eli Blake said...: As far as you folks on the right who are petrified at the thought of Hillary as President,

Aren't you glad now that you've spent much of the past six years defending the right of the executive branch to ignore the Constitution, conduct secret tribunals in which secret evidence can be used, torture anyone it deems as an 'enemy combatant' (no formal definition necessary, other than they define it), detain people (including U.S. citizens who are arrested in America) indefinitely, and massively increased the surveillance tools available to that government.

It is certain that the next President will enter office with far more power over your life than any of his or her precedessors had on the day he was inaugurated.

And you know what, Hillary voted FOR Patriot I, Patriot II and refused to condemn pretty much any of that stuff. Are you wondering why she was all for it?; 7/19/07, 6:32 PM
reader_iam said...: Regardless of one's opinions about JFK, it seems to me that it's almost impossible to do a a true apples-to-apples comparison in terms of polls, public ratings, and popularity (against the background of what was and was not known, by the average citizen, at the time, in real time) etc., because the media climate, certain journalistic ground rules, and technology are so different, not to mention the expectations of the public at large.

FWIW.; 7/19/07, 6:41 PM
Tim said...: "Tim's repeated snarks...

Actually, I think the record reflects there was only one snark, albeit in plural sentences; regardless, Japanese destroyers weren't noted for their stealth technology; the PT-109 and its commander should not have been caught off guard even without radar on a moonless night. In long ago casual conversation with some Navy line officers, they were dumbstruck how a commander of a smaller, faster, more nimble boat allowed himself to be caught unawares and sliced in half. He was on a combat patrol; he and his crew were (supposed to be) actively looking for enemy ships, not idling away as a 80’ buoy armed with torpedoes...

Anyway, for the record, I emphatically draw no correlation whatsoever between JKF's wartime record and his performance as president.; 7/19/07, 6:43 PM
Revenant said...: Second, who are these Democrats who are so nervous? Hillary? Obama?

Given that they're running AGAINST each other, if at least one of them isn't nervous about their chances then at least one of them isn't too bright.; 7/19/07, 6:44 PM
Tim said...: Reader_iam,

Yes, agreed.; 7/19/07, 6:44 PM
maddy said...: You missed the point, Maddy. Neither Bush nor Edwards are qualified for the presidency as a result of their upbringings

i didn't say edwards is qualified because of his upbringing and i sure didn't say he is going to be a good president. i said the comparison to bush is poor. that's all.

i thought edwards ran a relatively smart campaign in 2004. it earned him a spot on the ticket and gave him a stronger starting position for 2008.

he chose a sleazy profession in which you don't really "earn" your money, you finagle it.

i don't consider the law a "sleazy profession." i'm surprised anyone reading professor althouse's blog would say that.

can you tell me which of these cases litigated by edwards show sleaziness: lakey v. sta-rite industries? weckbacher v jb hunt transport? griffin v. teague? cooper v. craven regional medical center? sawyer v. st joseph's hospital?

do you believe edwards represented victims who didn't deserve excellent legal representation and favorable verdicts or settlements?

What I'm looking at are personal qualities of character and emotional strength, combined with leadership experience and innate leadership skill.

edwards has emotional strength. he doesn't have much leadership experience and none of us know about his innate leadership skill. i don't know if he'd be a good president, but i know he's no bush.; 7/19/07, 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Loaf Of Bread said..."Lucky: As if anybody here has ever done a damn thing in their life that would compare."

"I love this. So anyone who has not done more in their lives than a president cannot criticize a president?"

Nooooooo, you can say or [post whatever you want. I just think it's rather hilarious (and disingenuous to say the least) to read so many slams on JFK...as if there's someone here who even remotely compares to the man and his legacy. (The Bay of Pigs for crying out loud?? If Bush had his way, he'd bomb Cuba back into the stone-age...and his Iraq fiasco makes the Bay of Pigs fiasco look like a walk in the park.)

Want to dispute his politics or policies, or the fact that he was a "liberal" (GOOD LORD!!)...that's fair, but most of this sounds like a bunch of high schoolers badmouthing someone who's doing better than they are.

And Ann's comparison of Hillary to Carter?

Huh?; 7/19/07, 6:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoosire says...:"you offer absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation other than ad hominem slurs."

I re-read your post and see nothing new or of interest.

You badmouth JFK and anyone who defends the man.

So what else is new? (And did you fall off your bike?); 7/19/07, 6:55 PM
The Drill SGT said...: LOS said...Clinton has privately and publicly pushed Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment.

"If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way," she said then.

The Pentagon plans for everything. has for a century at least. Note the hypocrisy of "privately and publicly pushed Gates". You can do one or the other, both is just political hypocrisy.

back to the main point. The CENTCOM, JCS and Army have each likely done withdrawal planning. Admitting you have done the planning is both bad for morale and plays into AQI hands. However, those Army generals understand Clausewitz's first Law: "No plan survives contact with the enemy". The short version is "sh_t happens".; 7/19/07, 7:02 PM
Revenant said...: Aren't you glad now that you've spent much of the past six years defending the right of the executive branch to ignore the Constitution, conduct secret tribunals in which secret evidence can be used, torture anyone it deems as an 'enemy combatant' (no formal definition necessary, other than they define it), detain people (including U.S. citizens who are arrested in America) indefinitely, and massively increased the surveillance tools available to that government.

Eli,

We don't share the left-wing delusion that just because we hate a President means that we're in danger of being tortured and imprisoned by that President.

Yes, Hillary will have the power -- as did her husband before her, and all of the Presidents who came before him -- to imprison people indefinitely during wartime. And just as George Bush has not used this power against domestic political enemies, I do not expect Hillary to use it against me. The days when Presidents could get away with that sort of thing ended with the death of FDR.

As for the espionage stuff, the Clintons conducted surveillance operations against their political enemies when Bill was in the White House, so I fully expect that to resume if Hillary gets elected. I do faintly hope that they might continue Bush's program of conducting surveillance operations on America's enemies as well, though.

It is certain that the next President will enter office with far more power over your life than any of his or her precedessors had on the day he was inaugurated.

Anyone who thinks George Bush has more power than any of his predecessors desperately needs to actually read a history book or two. Take the warrantless wiretap program that has you so flustered, for example -- Bush stands accused of violating a law passed in the 1970s to strip the Presidency of a power that every President BEFORE then had previously had. Similarly, the use of torture as an interrogation technique was an accepted law enforcement practice up to the early 20th century. FDR chucked more that a few inconvenient political obstacles into prisons and insane asylums and suffered no consequences -- and then, of course, there's the bit of forcibly herding the Japanese-Americans into relocation camps.

George Bush, the most powerful President in history? That earns a belly-laugh from anyone who isn't hopelessly ignorant of American history. What Bush has done has been to reclaim some of the power which the Presidency steadily lost over the previous 35 years. You can argue that that's a bad thing, and maybe it is -- but he's not exploring new limits of Presidential use of power yet. Not even close.; 7/19/07, 7:06 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Eli said: And you know what, Hillary voted FOR Patriot I, Patriot II and refused to condemn pretty much any of that stuff. Are you wondering why she was all for it.

Which begs the question why so many on the Democratic side are giving her such ardent support. I think many of the right including myself don't question her on terrorism as much as we don't like her domestic policies (universal health care, wealth redistribution).

Hillary is no dummy and if anyone on the Dem side has to win, I'll take her because I think she is the least likely to want to hold hands and sing kumbaya as a way to fight Islamic fascism.

She voted for the PA because she was smart enough to know that we did need to revamp our domestic intelligence against terrorism. If she dismantled it and we got hit again, you'd see people marching on Washington.

It will be an interesting election; 7/19/07, 7:09 PM
reader_iam said...: As an aside, it's of idiosyncratic interest to me that the 1960 elections were the first in which my parents (b. late 1937, early 1939) were eligible to vote and exercised their franchise (in favor of JFK, btw, and in neither case in lockstep with their parents). Of even less relevance is that my mom was pregnant with me, at the time.

Just a musing thang, that's all.; 7/19/07, 7:12 PM
John Stodder said...: i thought edwards ran a relatively smart campaign in 2004. it earned him a spot on the ticket and gave him a stronger starting position for 2008.

He lost to Kerry. He got tapped as VP because of good ol' ticket-balancing. Except he didn't do his job -- Kerry/Edwards lost No. Carolina by 12 points! As you know, the whole region Edwards was supposed to represent went for Bush, every state. If Kerry had picked Gephardt, he might be president now. Come to think of it, Edwards' failure to deliver might have finally put an end to the "if we have a Southerner on the ticket" Democratic delusion. The next Democratic ticket will be balanced by a Heartlander -- Ohio, Indiana, Missouri -- or a Rocky Mountain stater.; 7/19/07, 7:15 PM
Jim C. said...: maddy said...

"the type of person who believes this is the same type who blames clinton for 9/11. it's called twisting facts to justify opinion."

Clinton had over 6 years since the first WTC bombing to prevent further attacks. I clearly remember an expert on TV saying, "They were trying to topple the towers. They'll be back to finish the job."

Clinton had more than one opportunity to get bin Laden handed to him.

Those are facts. The only things twisting are the type of person like maddy.; 7/19/07, 7:15 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Revenant,

add in the stories of the Democrat, FDR sending leakers to St Elizabeth's (the DC federal mental hospital) for the duration of the war. Habeas corpus be damned.

lest we forget, packing the Supreme Court?

executive power was at its peak either during the civil war, or WWII. as it should be.; 7/19/07, 7:17 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Come to think of it, Edwards' failure to deliver might have finally put an end to the "if we have a Southerner on the ticket" Democratic delusion. The next Democratic ticket will be balanced by a Heartlander -- Ohio, Indiana, Missouri -- or a Rocky Mountain stater.

restated: The VP carries such little weight, that he(she) only matters a couple of points in their home state... so pick one from a state that is within 3 points... like PA or Ohio, or CO, or FL... The south spread is more than that, hence a lost cause.; 7/19/07, 7:22 PM
John Stodder said...: My mom took me to a JFK rally in Barrington, IL when I was 4 years old. She tells me that she boosted me up to greet him and I said, "Mommy, it's Nixon!" Kennedy supposedly laughed jauntily.

(I guess what I really meant to say was "there's not a dime's worth of difference between 'em.")

Then she put me down and lost track of me in the surging crowd. A kid carrying a small American flag poked me in the eye with it. From that moment on, I began my 20-year career as an anti-American leftist.; 7/19/07, 7:23 PM
Brent said...: John,

Hope your eye is better.

I agree with most of your comments. The exception is I'm a W fan, I and believe that he will surely be thought of differently in the future, just as John Ashcroft was suddenly raised to sainthood by new revelations: public perceptions can change literally overnight.

That said, what happened to our daily news menu of Nancy Pelosi and the greatness we were told she was bringing to Congress? Anyone heard from her? Do you think she's okay? She never writes, never calls . . .

The poll questions that I have found over the last 40 years to be historically meaningless in their correlation to election results are:

Is the country headed in the right direction?

Do you feel more secure or less secure about your personal financial situation now compared to - - - - ?

And, the #1 political poll question that has historically proven to be the most meaningless of all:

(at 17 months out) If the election were held today, which of the following candidates would you be most likely to cast your vote for?

If you're hopeful and feeling good about those results - such as a poll showing Hillary beating all comers 17 months out - you probably have a library full of Stephen Kings works, Star Trek novels and Barbara Cartland romances. With Fabio on the front. Of ALL of your books.; 7/19/07, 7:35 PM
Brent said...: John,

I was speaking of "you" in the general sense, not you personally.

Unless you believe that Hillary will win because someone above pointed out that she beats all Republicans in
today's poll.

I don't think that's you, is it?; 7/19/07, 7:40 PM
paul a'barge said...: Revenant said ...
Kennedy wasn't engaged in combat with the enemy when his ship was sunk
Then Revenant said ...
since the boat was idling to avoid detection when it was hit

OK, bona fides first. I'm a meat-eating, Republican-voting Conservative who gives little to no quarter to any DHIMMIcRAT. That said ...

Sir, You may not join Tim in responding to my challenge. Of all his faults, none of JFK's involved a lack of courage. The man went to war with our enemy, and unlike mutts like Kerry, he never came back and spewed lies about his fellow soldiers.

Here's the challenge, and it's a simple one, and given the obvious inconsistency you manage to make within the very same post, in just about the next sentence, you moron ...

Tell us all the stories of your courage in fighting for your country in war.

We're waiting. Tick. Tock.

I thought not.; 7/19/07, 7:49 PM
reader_iam said...: That JFK was also on drugs when he was considering nuking the world is pretty jaw-dropping.

Oh, maybe not, given the entire known history of the world to date.; 7/19/07, 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...: B said..."...I'm a W fan, I and believe that he will surely be thought of differently in the future..."

Yeah, he sure will.

Kind of like J. Edgar Hoover was...without the dress...I think.

This would be funnier if it weren't for all of the dead and wounded Americans this idiot leaves in his wake.; 7/19/07, 7:52 PM
John Stodder said...: Unless you believe that Hillary will win because someone above pointed out that she beats all Republicans in
today's poll.

I don't think that's you, is it?

Nope. That was our pundit pal, Luckyoldson.

I really don't know who's going to win. For such a consequential election, at this point it seems like a crapshoot.

The matchup polls mean less than nothing, because we don't know yet what kind of impression the winner of each nomination will leave after the primaries and conventions.; 7/19/07, 7:54 PM
Cedarford said...: Stodder, who is on fire today: -

As you know, the whole region Edwards was supposed to represent went for Bush, every state. If Kerry had picked Gephardt, he might be president now. Come to think of it, Edwards' failure to deliver might have finally put an end to the "if we have a Southerner on the ticket" Democratic delusion. The next Democratic ticket will be balanced by a Heartlander -- Ohio, Indiana, Missouri -- or a Rocky Mountain stater.

Not only did Edwards fail, but remember that if Al Gore had not gone "Beltway Native" but stuck with his Tennesseee constituents advice, he would have not gone crazy on more environmental regulations and more hardcore gun banning to get the Hollywood bucks - and he would have carried his Tennessee and Bill Clinton's Arkansas - and have been President.

I think if Kerry had gone with Gephardt, he would have won for sure as Missouri and Ohio would have been locks. The reason Kerry didn't, of course, is he rejected Gephardt out of hand as a Cro Magnon American jobs protectionist - unacceptable as Kerry was as big a whore to the free trade, union-bashing globalization Elites as his fellow Elite Skull & Bonesman was.

I think Dick Gephardt was the great lost opportunity for Dems in their 2004 candidates campaign, sabotaged in Iowa by stupid intraparty "live and breath politics" activist spats...; 7/19/07, 7:55 PM
paul a'barge said...: Tim said ...
In long ago casual conversation with some Navy line officers...

I suspected as much. The extent of your experiences fighting in combat for your country boils down to a long ago casual conversation with some Navy line officers.

What an admirable show of courage under fire. Where were you when you displayed this feat of courage sir, under a bar stool at a biker bar in Norfolk?

Oh, and for future reference, when you find a Navy line officer who will not criticize the tactics of another Navy line officer, you haven't been buying enough rounds of drinks.

By the way, those weren't jokes they were laughing at. That was you.; 7/19/07, 7:58 PM
Anonymous said...: John,
Your story about Kennedy reminded me of something I guess I should have added earlier.

I also saw and actually shook hands with JFK.

My family was at some kind of speech he was giving and because of the huge crowd, I was told by my parents to stay put, but I ran between two motorcycles in the escort, caught his eye and thrust out my hand. (And no, as much as most here would like to hear it...I was not shot.)

He looked down, said how ya doin', shook my hand (not that presidential I guess) and I ducked back before the next motorcycle cruised past.

My father, a devout liberal (OH, MY GOD!!!)...was pissed about not following my lead for years.

*I'm sure this will bring tears of joy to many here.; 7/19/07, 7:59 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: LOS saidI re-read your post and see nothing new or of interest.

Ok I'll try one last time. Call it an intervention of sorts.

My post to you was regarding the 2008 election. You have consistently stated on this blog that the Dems are a shoe in in 2008 yet, you then stated that they only now control Congress by the slimmest of margins. Hardly something I would want to bet the farm on. Honestly, during the last election I expected a bigger sweep by the Dems yet it didn't happen.

Now if that is nothing new or of interest well what can I say.

You badmouth JFK and anyone who defends the man

I badmouthed no one so that's rather disingenuous. As for badmouthing JFK, I find it interesting that for someone who froths at the mouth over Bush, you seem to hold JFK in quite high esteem. Especially for a man responsible for the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis (largely a making from the Bay of Pigs), the wink and nod over Diem's assassination, escalating US involvement in Vietnam and driving through the biggest tax cut in history at that time.

In light of those facts, JFK hardly seems like much of a Democrat, at least one that would be compared to Obama which I think was the topic of Ann's post. Do you think Obama would have done what JFK did?

Now if you can respond intelligently to that without calling my mental state into question, I would be delighted to read it otherwise, have a nice day.; 7/19/07, 8:03 PM
Anonymous said...: reader_iam said..."That JFK was also on drugs when he was considering nuking the world is pretty jaw-dropping."

I wonder what Washington and others were doing with all that reefer they were growing?

Rope?; 7/19/07, 8:07 PM
Anonymous said...: reader_iam,
In case you're too busy to read...

The Pentagon Papers
Secrets, lies and audiotapes:

Washington, DC - July 31, 2006 - During the past year, indications that the Bush White House was seriously considering a "nuclear option" against Iranian nuclear sites understandably alarmed many in the press and public as well as the U.S. high command.

These scenarios are not without historical precedent. From time to time during the Cold War and after, American officials tried to find ways of making nuclear weapons usable, not only for deterrence against Soviet attack but as "tactical" weapons in local conflicts or as a key element in a coercive strategy of threat-making by means of "atomic diplomacy."

Recently declassified documents reveal that during Richard M. Nixon's first year as president, advisers on his White House staff were willing to revisit the question of whether to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

Senior officials and policy advisers in the administrations of Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson had previously considered the possibility of using nuclear weapons to deal with military crises, influence negotiations, or terminate conflicts, but their deliberations had come to naught because of a deeply ingrained "nuclear taboo."; 7/19/07, 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoosier,
You can blather on forever and G.W. Bush will never compare to JFK intellectually or as a leader.

As for all of the horrible missteps of JFK...let's see how they're viewed historically...in comparison to what Bush has created in the Mideast.

Delusional...as usual.; 7/19/07, 8:16 PM
blake said...: Clinton didn't leave very many fewer Americans dead during the peaceful years of his regime than Bush has for two wars.

And most of these losses were silent. Nobody issued counters of how many active soldiers were dead, and why that should be so high during a time of peace.

But I guess that's okay if you're dying for a Democrat.; 7/19/07, 8:18 PM
Revenant said...: Sir, You may not join Tim in responding to my challenge. Of all his faults, none of JFK's involved a lack of courage. The man went to war with our enemy, and unlike mutts like Kerry, he never came back and spewed lies about his fellow soldiers.

I never said or implied that Kennedy lacked courage. If nothing else, his actions AFTER the ship sank would prove he possessed that trait.

Nor did I deny he faced combat. I just don't think it is accurate to say that he was engaged with the enemy when his ship was rammed. For that matter, if he had been engaged with the enemy at the time, the fact that his ship was rammed would have been a lot harder to defend.; 7/19/07, 8:19 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Oh, and for future reference, when you find a Navy line officer who will not criticize the tactics of another Navy line officer, you haven't been buying enough rounds of drinks.

or as the Army saying goes:

"Tactics is the opinion of the senior man present"; 7/19/07, 8:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoosier says: "I badmouthed no one so that's rather disingenuous."

You're right.

I had you confused with someone else.

Sorry.; 7/19/07, 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: blake said..."Clinton didn't leave very many fewer Americans dead during the peaceful years of his regime than Bush has for two wars."

That is a bald-faced lie.

Let's see your evidence of such.; 7/19/07, 8:24 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier,
You can blather on forever and G.W. Bush will never compare to JFK intellectually or as a leader.

Actually I wasn't making a comparison in either regard. You might want to re-read what I posted.

As for all of the horrible missteps of JFK...let's see how they're viewed historically...in comparison to what Bush has created in the Mideast.

Well that is kind of the rub LOS. Its hard to view historically how Bush will be viewed since we're still in the here and now. Remember Truman ended his presidency with a 22% approval rating yet today the man is revered. Go figure. For all of JFK's horrible missteps as you call them, can you name as many laudable achievements which at least would justify his sainthood among the Democrats? If you're resorting to referring to the Bay of Pigs and escalating Vietnam as missteps then we are definitely on different planes of reality.

Delusional...as usual.

I'll take that as your answer to actually having a grown up conversation. No one can't say I tried.; 7/19/07, 8:29 PM
Simon said...: Eli Blake said...
"As far as you folks on the right who are petrified at the thought of Hillary as President...."

I'm not petrified. Jack Nicholson's going to do a fantastic cameo on SNL about it, reprising his role from A Few Good Men, and that's going to make it totally worth it.

"Aren't you glad now that you've spent much of the past six years defending the right of the executive branch to... [yadda yadda yadda]"

Well, not all of us have spent the past six years defending those positions, and not all of us agree with many of those things. I certainly don't. I also disagree with Revenant's claim that "Hillary will have the power -- as did her husband before her, and all of the Presidents who came before him -- to imprison people indefinitely during wartime." The President certainly has inherent wartime power to indefinitely detain non-Americans beyond American shores, but Presidents do not have the power to indefinitely detain in America American citizens or persons arrested in America. There's a gray area between those two points, concededly, but I think Rev paints with too broad a brush here.; 7/19/07, 8:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoosier,
Bush is the worst President in our nation's history.

And I consider anybody who thinks he's been good for America to be delusional at best.

Hide and watch.; 7/19/07, 8:32 PM
Revenant said...: Simon,

I think a good argument can be made that Presidents *shouldn't* have the imprisonment power in question and aren't, in fact, meant to have it under the Constitution, but many of the wartime Presidents (up to and including FDR) exercised that power and got away with it, in the short term at least.

The fact that the Democrats claim Bush doesn't have that power and is, in fact, breaking the law, but are mysteriously unwilling to impeach him for it, suggests that the question is pretty much moot anyway. Obviously the President can do whatever he wants when the opposition's got no balls to back up their rhetoric.; 7/19/07, 8:38 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/19/07, 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Theodore,
You used to work for AOL...right?

7393 W Manchester Ave...

If you don't like what I post...don't fucking read it.

Got a good lawyer?; 7/19/07, 8:47 PM
reader_iam said...: "That JFK was also on drugs when he was considering nuking the world is pretty jaw-dropping." (the part of my 7:50 p.m. comment that luckyoldson comment decided to include in his 8:07 response, without noting that I had italicized it in my own 7:50 comment because I was responding to that comment of someone else's.

Here's the REST of my 7:50 p.m. comment, the part that was actually mine, dude:

"Oh, maybe not, given the entire known history of the world to date."

Which I stand by, as oblique as it was, on the grounds of 1) I SPECIFICALLY SAID "given the known history of the entire world to date" and 2) history itself.

Meaning, it's ain't jawdropping, because indulging leaders, of whatever indulgence (you're the one who's narrowing the scope, for whatever reason) is not an anomaly in history. Throughout history going back, and back, and back.

Jeez, luckyoldson, keep up! At least in comments section, if not in actual history itself.

***

Oh, and about the Pentagon Paper shot:

Read the original stuff released in real time and have followed the thread ever since up to current times. Always time for that. That wouldn't surprise, if they pay attention, even people who thoughtfully disagree with me here.

You have revealed yourself, to me and to anyone whose opinion I'd ever care about here, as, at a bare minimum, both inattentive and sloppy, based on your last two comments to me alone.; 7/19/07, 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/19/07, 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...: reader,
so...the JFK thing was "jaw dropping," but the rest of it was...oh, well...things happen.; 7/19/07, 8:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Theodore,
We'll see.; 7/19/07, 8:55 PM
reader_iam said...: No, Luckyoldson, the point of my comment was that IT ISN'T JAWDROPPING.

What the hell is wrong with you?; 7/19/07, 8:56 PM
Simon said...: Rev - I'd agree with both paras of that if the main point in the first is that the power has been exercised, whether posessed or not.; 7/19/07, 8:57 PM
Anonymous said...: reader...c'mon...can't you understand?; 7/19/07, 8:57 PM
reader_iam said...: Historically, it's not jawdropping to contemplate that people in power have been engaged in altering substances, of whatever type, while they were in power, looking back at history back through the ages.

Ergo, my jaw does not drop. That's what I was saying.

Again, what is your problem?; 7/19/07, 9:00 PM
Anonymous said...: reader,
I got a bag of really powerful rope.; 7/19/07, 9:03 PM
Revenant said...: Simon,

I think the President clearly has the right to indefinitely imprison noncitizen enemy combatants, whether captured on American soil or no; this has come up a number of times during American history already. Certainly nobody (well, outside of the ACLU) would seriously argue that the military would lack the authority to hold prisoners captured from an invading army without first giving them a trial?

As for the right to imprison US citizens, I think precedent is on Bush's side here. Take the Civil War, for example -- the secession was not recognized, and the citizens of the Confederacy were, legally speaking, US citizens. Many were captured on Union soil, and *all* were captured on what the Union considered to be US soil. Has anyone seriously argued that the keeping of those men in prisoner camps, without trial, was a violation of their Constitutional rights?; 7/19/07, 9:09 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier,
Bush is the worst President in our nation's history.

And I consider anybody who thinks he's been good for America to be delusional at best.

Opinions vary and that's fine. Nevertheless, I don't every recall a post I made where I said Bush had been good for America. In fact, I can say there have been a lot of Presidents who have not been good for America.

See Lucky, your problem is that you have this knee jerk reaction that anyone who disagrees with you must be a Bush supporter. Kinda like that comment, "if your not with us, your against us"

You see, I am not a ardent Bush supporter myself. But as someone who has read more than a few books on our nation's history, he is hardly the Darth Vader that everyone makes him out to be. Was Iraq a bad idea? Hell yes but hardly on par with the manpower losses we suffered in Vietnam much less Korea.

As for the mess of the Mideast, well name a time post Turkish or British colonial rule when it wasn't a mess. To say Bush made a mess of it speaks volumes of ignorance on the history of the region.

So now if you want to say that Bush is the worst, knock your self out. I guess that means Reagan moved up a notch in your scorecard.

I don't mean this in a derogatory sort of way but you do suffer from a derangement of sorts when it comes to these discussions. You immediately support any democrat regardless of what they did in office and castigate any GOP no matter what. I won't speak for some of the others on here but while I may be a conservative I will still vote Democrat depending on the person and where they stand on certain issues. I get the sense from you and hdhouse (among others) that if a GOP candidate ran on a platform to eliminate cancer in 5 years, somehow you'd think it was a plot to enrich the 'medical industrial establishment', bankrupt social security and vote the opposite party.

Then again, maybe I'm just delusional.; 7/19/07, 9:10 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Eli Blake:

And you know what, Hillary voted FOR Patriot I, Patriot II and refused to condemn pretty much any of that stuff. Are you wondering why she was all for it?

Um, because she thinks she's going to be president someday? Yeah, I'm more or less with Revenant. I haven't seen any serious abuses under Bush II, and I don't expect to see any serious abuses under Clinton II either. She's not exactly the boogeyman here.

Re: Luckyoldson:

[on American deaths, Clinton v. Bush II]

That is a bald-faced lie.

Let's see your evidence of such.

Actually, Luckyoldson is right -- there have been substantially more American deaths under Bush II than under Clinton. If you look here at this table, and extrapolate, you see that compared against the start of Clinton's term, Bush's death rate is approximately 150,000 Americans higher. Clinton's death tolls rise as he remains in office, as does Bush's, so we can expect that the fatality gap will remain between Clinton and Bush. Overall, the gap will probably come to well over a million more Americans dying during Bush's term compared to Clinton's term.

Although I'm not sure what relevance this has to peace and war, since less than 1% of all these deaths is military. It's probably because our population's average age has been shifting slowly upwards since the 80s or so.

For military deaths, see here. The annual death tolls only really diverge from the Clinton years in 2004-2006 (and probably 2007 as well), for an increase of roughly 3000-3500 over Clinton years, to date, and a grand-total of probably 4500-5000 or so, over the Clinton years. Total military deaths (treating 2007 and 2008 as like 2005 and 2006) will be about 12,000. It is possible (based on the first half of 2007) that fatalities due to hostile action in 2007 and 2008 may be somewhat higher than in 2004-2006 (casualties were essentially constant those three years), in which case the projected total should be revised upwards to around 13,000. Less than half of those would be due to hostile action.; 7/19/07, 9:10 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Hoosier:

Hell yes but hardly on par with the manpower losses we suffered in Vietnam much less Korea.

Vietnam was actually more costly, in manpower, than Korea was. For us, at least. In Vietnam, we lost about 60,000 men. In Korea, 36,000. Of course, the total death toll, especially the civilian death toll, was horrendous owing to mass killings, some of which we (the US) participated in. I don't think the number has ever been nailed down, but it's in the low millions, out of a population which, at the time, was probably about the size of Iraq's (today, the population is about 60 million, including both North and South Korea). We're talking population loss comparable to Rwanda, there. As a proportion of the population. And that doesn't include the North Korean famines and concentration camps, which have continued -- like the Korean War itself -- for the past fifty years, ever since the ceasefire.; 7/19/07, 9:19 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Vietnam was actually more costly, in manpower, than Korea was. For us, at least. In Vietnam, we lost about 60,000 men. In Korea, 36,000.

I stand corrected on the stats. However, considering the length of the two conflicts compared to total casualties, Korea does stand out a tad starker.

Thanks for the correction; 7/19/07, 9:23 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Lucky: [Bush's] Iraq fiasco makes the Bay of Pigs fiasco look like a walk in the park

I don't consider Bush a good president, so you're not gonna convince me that JFK was great by comparing him to Bush.

The toppling of the Baath regime and Saddam was a success. Most everything afterwards has been a fiasco, so far, and Bush probably should be considered an incompetent Commander in Chief or worse. I only say probably because I suppose some miracles can still happen, but I'm not counting on it.

But before you go hyping JFK while condemning problems in Iraq, it should at least be noted that JFK had his CIA groom Saddam Hussein in exile and then helped the Baath Party take over Iraq. So, I'd say America's role in the Iraq Fiasco began considerably before 2001, and started with some more of those infamous JFK covert activies.

And before you go hyping JFK while condemning failed wars, shouldn't it also be noted that JFK is the one who in large part got the ball rolling on the Vietnam fiasco which LBJ continued after JFK was assassinated?; 7/19/07, 9:25 PM
Revenant said...: You immediately support any democrat regardless of what they did in office and castigate any GOP no matter what.

Although sometimes this has amusing side effects -- for example, he has separately insulted people for making each of these three statements:

(1): Hillary isn't that great.
(2): Carter isn't that great.
(3): Hillary is kind of like Carter.

From which we can deduce that, in Lucky's mind, both Hillary and Carter are awesome, but awesome in ways that are so different from one another that anyone who confuses the two distinct forms of awesomeness is not only a moron, but a Republican toady too.; 7/19/07, 9:26 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Balfegor makes an interesting point that is often missed.

DoD has a lot of deaths every year from what they call, DNBI= Disease, non-battle injuries. e.g. training accidents, vehicle accidents, cancer, childbirth, etc.

being around heavy evil machinery that wants to eat you is inherently dangerous. we all know teen drivers are involved in large numbers of pointless accidents in Honda, why not Bradleys.

My point is that those 3500 or so theater deaths include all those vehicle accidents, plus those 50 year old reservists that have coronaries and those 40 year old reservist females that are picked up with breast cancer. anything that starts with a a visit to the doc in theater is ultimately an Iraq death (DNBI) or (KIA)

without a war going on the death toll of that many soldiers over 4 years would be over 1 thousand.; 7/19/07, 9:30 PM
The Drill SGT said...: a couple of bad months in Vietnam we lost around 2,500 dead in each month.

course that was about half of D-Day and about equal to a tough Japanese island in WWII.; 7/19/07, 9:33 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Lucky?

are you threatening Theo?; 7/19/07, 9:34 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Lucky: LoafingOaf said..."That JFK was also on drugs when he was considering nuking the world is pretty jaw-dropping."

I wonder what Washington and others were doing with all that reefer they were growing?

Smoking some weed or having a martini or some wine or whatever are all under the category of recreational, social indulgences, unless you're out of control with them. Washington was of sound mind so who cares what he smoked. JFK was popping so many pills - uppers and downers - he has been described by historians as an out-of-control and mentally-impaired addict.; 7/19/07, 9:35 PM
reader_iam said...: Why would anyone assume that because someone doesn't find the behavior of someone jawdropping--a factual statement of reaction--to necessarily mean any other thing?; 7/19/07, 9:52 PM
reader_iam said...: to necessarily mean any other thing?

To correct: "it necessarily means any other thing?"; 7/19/07, 9:55 PM
Simon said...: Revenant said...
"I think the President clearly has the right to indefinitely imprison noncitizen enemy combatants, ... [even if] captured on American soil.... Certainly nobody (well, outside of the ACLU) would seriously argue that the military would lack the authority to hold prisoners captured from an invading army without first giving them a trial?"

The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," by the federal government. In this clause, I read "person" to include both citizens and persons legally in the country, (which the Supreme Court has also said, albeit on what I consider to be shaky reasoning, see Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896)), and as regular readers will know, I read "liberty" in its historical context, connoting detention, not as in the substantive due process reading.

An invading army would fall beyond that scope: it's persons aren't here legally. Even if that weren't so, Congress in those circumstances can suspend the writ, denying any effective legal relief to enterprising enemy soldiers who'd rather charge the courthouse door than 22d infantry. I suppose uniformed invading enemy soldiers could also be detained as Prisoners of War, which is and has always been permissable.

But that comparison isn't really apt. The hard point is what happens when you have a non-citizen person who was arrested and is detained in America who is not a uniformed regular. Suppose Padilla had been an alien in the country on a temporary (non-resident) visa, for example. Assuming no suspension, can he be detained indefinitely on nothing more than the President's say-so? I think the answer is that the executive can as a matter of raw force detain such a person, but absent suspension of the writ, the federal courthouse always remains open to that person to seek habeas.; 7/19/07, 9:56 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Reader: I said: "That JFK was also on drugs when he was considering nuking the world is pretty jaw-dropping."

Oh, maybe not, given the entire known history of the world to date.

I'm talking about American history, not world history. Not many leaders have had the power to send all of civilization back to the stone age. JFK had that power and nearly used it, while he was mentally-impaired on drugs.

I wasn't surprised when I learned (in the film The Fog Of War) that an evil nut like Castro was on the phone to the USSR begging them to nuke the world, which is why I'm so scared so many nuts are getting nukes now.

But I am shocked that an American president would be willing to blow up all of civilization to save some face for his country. I don't wanna believe an American leader would use nukes in an all-out, doomsday manner. It would have been better for the communists to take over the world because that at least would not be the end of the line. We'd have had a long struggle for liberation but humanity would survive.; 7/19/07, 9:57 PM
Cedarford said...: Paul Frenchie Last Name - Oh, and for future reference, when you find a Navy line officer who will not criticize the tactics of another Navy line officer, you haven't been buying enough rounds of drinks.

Takes more than drinks. I saw senior line officers suck down 200 in drinks plied by a liberal Jew female reporter from the Boston Globe and methodically lie to her because they had doubts about her patriotism and separation from NY TImes bosses. Even with her plying her supposed "charms", they doubted her objectivity about the Gulf War.

Maybe it was just jealousy. She was forking up all the 6 dollar Gran Marniers and single malt snifters for the high poohbah Admirals and Captains wanted while us LTjg to Commander lackies were told we'd get a single free Budweiser... Then again, no senior line officer ditches his guys...so we watched infinitely amused as they shovelled bullshit on the femme fatale reporter (all 5'3" and 180 lbs of her); 7/19/07, 10:00 PM
chickelit said...: I vote for cloture. Can we please now have the up/down vote on whether Obama ≈ JFK?; 7/19/07, 10:05 PM
reader_iam said...: Yep, luckyoldson. You got me pegged. A true collectivist and communist of the old school.

Damn, you're good.; 7/19/07, 10:06 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Simon said...Suppose Padilla had been an alien in the country on a temporary (non-resident) visa, for example. Assuming no suspension, can he be detained indefinitely on nothing more than the President's say-so?

well as I recall 8 German agents landed in 1942 at 2 locations. all were caught, and after being tried by a "Military Commission" Note to the ACLU, not a UCMJ Court and not a Federal Court, one of those nasty Military Commissions, 6 or so were sentenced to death and the executions carried out forth with.

so yeah, if FDR can shoot them permanently, Bush would seem to be able to jail them permanently; 7/19/07, 10:17 PM
Simon said...: Sarge,
If you're referring to the "incident" (for want of a better term) detailed here, wherein "[o]n 13 June 1942, 4 agents were landed from U-584 on Amagansett, Long Island, New York; and on 17 June 1942, 4 agents from U-202 were landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, south of Jacksonville, Florida," after which a "military trial of the 8 captured agents resulted in 6 death sentences, one life imprisonment and one 30-year sentence," honestly I'm dealing with this as a matter of first impression (I didn't know about it until you mentioned it). But I did make the point in the comment you quoted from that the 5th amendment requires due process to detain "both citizens and [other] persons legally in the country" (emphasis added). I re-emphasized the need for legal presence twice more in the same comment ("[a]n invading army would fall beyond that scope: it's persons aren't here legally" and even in the text you quoted, "[s]uppose Padilla had been an alien in the country on a temporary (non-resident) visa"). Obviously the eight Germans in the incident detailed above did not legally enter the country.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I think due process should have protect the U-boat infiltrators (I'm assuming they weren't uniformed regulars), because I've not really contemplated before whether due process extends to persons not legally present in the U.S. generally, and for obvious reasons I'm loathe to make a snap judgment on the point.; 7/19/07, 10:35 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Simon

2 of the 8 were US citizens. all 8 apparently had been immigrants to the US who had answered the "call" and returned to Germany prior to 41.

BTW: SCOTUS heard an appeal from them before the execution and denied it.

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm

n your other point, "because I've not really contemplated before whether due process extends to persons not legally present in the U.S. generally, and for obvious reasons I'm loathe to make a snap judgment on the point."

The term "US Person" in the context of FISA and beyond means, US citizen and green card holder. I interpret that to mean those who have at some level pledged allegiance to the US. That term specifically does not cover tourist visa holders, asylum seekers, etc.

Again, since FDR shot US citizens operating as German agents, and things like FISA don't provide an expectation of privacy to your theoretical "Padilla on a tourist visa" I expect that in your example, if they were to assert that he was an enemy agent, they could hold him till whenever or put him before a Commission.; 7/19/07, 10:54 PM
Simon said...: Sarge,
I'll have to think on your other points, but one obvious note - green card holders (i.e. permanent residents) don't swear oaths to the U.S., that only happens as part of the citizenship application.; 7/19/07, 11:03 PM
Anonymous said...: The Drill SGT said...

Lucky?

are you threatening Theo?

***********

Sarge,
Not much to say except that I was trying to recruit this person (or perhaps particularly droll shell script) into an Althouse Volunteer Troll Brigade for the purpose of ending unfortunate or over-length threads.

While I admit coveting the address our Turing-Test-failing entity supplied, I recommend that it be removed by our hostess, lest the unfortunate namesake living there be pestered by blogospheric cretins.

To titillate you with personal information, I will reveal that I am forced to drive many miles to a tolerable seashore, while the fortunate few who inhabit that address need only walk a few short blocks to a nice beach.

Life is so unfair.

And Google is a wonderful thing.

Sometimes.; 7/19/07, 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...: John Stodder is a Democrat and Ann Althouse is a Democrat and I would vote for them for president so long as they promise not to try some goofy national healthcare scheme.; 7/19/07, 11:54 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Lucky said:

Bush is the worst President in our nation's history.

Actually FDR is the worst. More Americans starved and died under FDR than any other president.; 7/19/07, 11:57 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: so long as they promise not to try some goofy national healthcare scheme.

Here here....

Although remember what Obama said: "your money is our money." (paraphrase is mine).; 7/19/07, 11:58 PM
Anonymous said...: hoosier,
i've read enough of your posts to know you support bush.

give it a break...i'm not buying.; 7/20/07, 12:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Sloanasaurus said...as to who the worst President might be: "Actually FDR is the worst."

And this idiot says he's a lawyer.; 7/20/07, 12:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Theodore,
Privacy is sacred.; 7/20/07, 12:29 AM