Asymmetrical Information

Hillary Clinton has been a genius on Iraq.

She gave a floor speech in October 2002 that a Republican, or John Kerry, could love, thus following the calculation of the moment. Since then, she has not let herself get sucked into that quagmire, and has instead focussed on preparedness for first responders as her national security calling card. Ths issue hits on funding and training for policeman, firemen, and first aid folks, which is clearly a good choice for a Senator from NY.

Not being a candidate right now is her smartest decision. If she does let herself be drafted, she will be spared the ghastly infighting and re-positioning that is killing Kerry. Most likely, though, it is on to 2008!

By which time, some of us may have forgotten why we loathe her.

Shorter Brendan Miniter:
Democrats would be better off if they all just shut up and let Republicans run things.

The great thing about Dean is he never listens to any of this crap. He has no 'theory' of electability.

Um, Clark hasn't been clear on Iraq? Is that right (or should I say correct)? I think Clark has been abundently clear on Iraq, and the spanking he gave his interviewer on Fox News yesterday made that abundently clear.

Flory - right. To Mr. Miniter, any reason to deride a Democratic candidate will suffice.

The front-runner, Dean, has indeed 'staked out a principled position without riding the ups and downs of news events'. Lieberman has also done this on the hawk side. His numbers are between Moseley-Braun and Kucinich's. I guess Miniter is saying that Democrats should support those that have a principled position that closely aligns with the view of the WSJ's op-ed page.

I should write 'apparently' in front of my comment on Miniter. I'm truly not familiar with his writing. My comments merely reflect my opinion of this piece.

"Spanking" he gave? He got angry that the interviewer quoted him his words and tried to act that what he said was different. Thats called "Lying" Kate, not "Spanking". And saying he would have voted for the resolution, then saying No wait, he wouldn't is "Abundantly clear?".

We apparently have different notions of what is clear, as you seem to like your water full of mud.

"And saying he would have voted for the resolution, then saying No wait, he wouldn't is "Abundantly clear?"."

Oh, and don't forget that he thinks the US action in Kosovo was illegal, but that it was a good idea anyway. He's very clear about that.

Between stuff like this, and his little tantrum on Fox, methinks the white knight of the Democratic Party is going to turn out to be Ross Perot with lifts and a nifty looking uniform.

“The great thing about Dean is he never listens to any of this crap. He has no 'theory' of electability.”

Oh, is that right? Then how do you explain the following?:

“How Anti-War Is Dean, Really?
Plus the kf Preview Service.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Monday, Nov. 17, 2003, at 11:24 PM PT

Hello! Opposition Researchers! Here's a paragraph from a David Broder column dated June 30, 2002:

He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement. And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism." [Emphasis added.]”

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291/

David - C'mon, the column is from June 30, 2002! A full two 1/2 months before Bush started talking about Iraq. Many more people than Howard Dean changed their opinion of Bush's war on terror since then, myself included.

Kate, I don't think you can argue he's been "clear" on Iraq. He seems to have entered the race without thinking out a position, and then floundered when asked about it, even though it wasn't exactly a question out of left field for a new presidential hopeful who's running on his military record. So far, his position is "I would have voted for it -- except I wouldn't -- and I think we should do what Bush is doing, only more of it, except not what Bush is doing, and we should get the UN involved, but not hand over control or anything that would make the UN want to get involved. Plus, I'm against burning the flag."

walster:
C'mon, the column is from June 30, 2002! A full two 1/2 months before Bush started talking about Iraq.

Does the phrase "Axis of Evil" ring a bell?

Gaaaaah. This is what comes of pushing the Primary season up a year.

We pretty much know what each candidate has said about the war, and not said, and not not said, execpt when he was saying he disagreed with Afghanistan... no.

Kosovo, no, that's not it either. He disagreed with Bosnia, on principle, even thought he did oppose it.

No he admired Saddam Hussein as an anti-Iranian, but didn't approve of his parenting... no.

His parenting was ok, it was all that killing of 100,000's of Muslim civilians that he approved of. I mean, it was the failure of the UN when Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 and the US attacked bombed it.

I mean it was the WAR, man! Bad war, bad.

But now it's the Occupation that he opposes. It's like Viet Nam with all volunteers, but our boys need to come home! WhiteBushDevil is responsible for this somehow, and America! Yeah. Something's wrong with the US of A.

whew, I almost had a moment of self-doubt. Now I'm ok.

All of the candidates except Dean supported the white devil Bush. Dean took a principled (or calculated) stand. Why not just call a Senate vote a Senate vote?

Gaaaaah. This is what comes of pushing the Primary season up a year.

We pretty much know what each candidate has said about the war, and not said, and not not said, execpt when he was saying he disagreed with Afghanistan... no.

Kosovo, no, that's not it either. He disagreed with Bosnia, on principle, even thought he did oppose it.

No he admired Saddam Hussein as an anti-Iranian, but didn't approve of his parenting... no.

His parenting was ok, it was all that killing of 100,000's of Muslim civilians that he approved of. I mean, it was the failure of the UN when Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 and the US attacked bombed it.

I mean it was the WAR, man! Bad war, bad.

But now it's the Occupation that he opposes. It's like Viet Nam with all volunteers, but our boys need to come home! WhiteBushDevil is responsible for this somehow, and America! Yeah. Something's wrong with the US of A.

whew, I almost had a moment of self-doubt. Now I'm ok.

All of the candidates except Dean supported the white devil Bush. Dean took a principled (or calculated) stand. Why not just call a Senate vote a Senate vote?

Shorter Megan McArdle: I mentioned the Bush steel tariff before, but won't mention that it's about Bush playing politics. Instead, I'll selectively show Democrats playing politics.

Jane:
"Kate, I don't think you can argue he's been "clear" on Iraq."

I think his meaning been very clear, even if the delivery of his message needs work (alot of work). He would have voted for the resolution authorizing the President to use all means to force Saddam into compliance with UN resolutions, fully expecting, as did many (myself included), that Shrub wouldn't actually pull the trigger without UN approval and/or another Congressional resolution specifically authorizing war. That's referred to as calling a bluff...a time tested geopolitical strategy. Clark's opinion of strategy/tactics have never wavered. The invasion phase was brilliantly planned and executed and the "post-war" phase was all but ignored. Hence our current state of "progress".

He would have voted for the resolution authorizing the President to use all means to force Saddam into compliance with UN resolutions, fully expecting, as did many (myself included), that Shrub wouldn't actually pull the trigger without UN approval and/or another Congressional resolution specifically authorizing war.

While Flory's interpretation of Clark's vascillations on the war is certainly interesting, assuming it's true, I'm not sure what I find more contemptible: that Clark actually thought the President would request a war authorization again, after receiving it from Congress, or that he's supposed to get "UN approval" as well.

The U.S. government does not have a fourth branch in Manhattan, and I for one will vote against anyone who intends to subordinate U.S. policy to UN decisions, even by the merest symbolism. As to the notion that Bush was supposed to ask Congress "Are you sure? (Y/N)" before following through on the war resolution they authorized -- well, anyone that confused about the whole political process really should start with school board elections and work his way up.

Given that Bush himself has not been clear on Iraq it's hard to see how Clark is any worse.

It seems we get a new rationale every week and things that were completely out of the question a month ago-- accelerating the power transfer to the Iraquis- become policy without so much as a note from the White House as to why the change of heart.

And yes, he 'spanked' that idiot of the Fox News reporter who clearly tried to change the meaning of Clark's words to imply that the soldiers in Iraq are a sideshow. I am quite happy Clark stopped him from perpetuating that nonsense conservatives seem so to love, that criticizing the policy in Iraq is the same as criticizing the troops.

Awww, come on, GT, he did what reporters have been doing to candidates as long as I can remember-- taking words out of context and twisting them.

But usually the candidates don't go all apesh*t over the reporter who is posing them. If they did, W would have b*tchslapped Helen Thomas long ago.

The permanent campaign is causing the most damage to the Republican administration. Donald Rumsfeld pushed the WMD rationale for ousting Saddam Hussein, downplaying the required postwar effort when it seemed like the popular thing to do. He then hit the ground hard with the postwar reality, has since been struggling to explain how he favored authorizing war but opposed planning for the postwar situation.

To lesser degrees, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Powell have also tried to distance themselves from the war they backed. For his part, President Bush is just standing off to the side looking dazed. He can't decide where he stands on the war because he's not really sure which position will get him re-elected.

It didn't have to be this way for the Administration. The party was fully capable of staking out a principled case for an invasion without riding the ups and downs of news events. The one "candidate" who seems to have understood this is John McCain. He's remained popular not because of his celebrity, but because he's managed to stay out of the spotlight. Instead of changing his postwar strategy and justification every time some weakness was exposed, he's earned a reputation for governing as a senator. That's a better electoral strategy than playing cheap politics with national security.

I supported the war anbd even today, after what we know about WMDs, I still do.

But I had a huge concern. I never really trusted that Bush would follow through. Nothing in his previous actions led me to believe he would stick to the plan and objective if things got tough.

And it seems I was not to be disappointed.

And it seems I was not to be disappointed.

What are you talking about, GT? He said just this week we're staying as long as it takes.

Given that Bush himself has not been clear on Iraq it's hard to see how Clark is any worse.

I happen to think Bush has been crystal clear on Iraq. But even if I didn't, arguments along the lines of "Yeah, well, your guy is worse!" wouldn't impress me overmuch.

I don't care what he says Katherine.

I look at what he does.

We have already begun to withdraw. Just like we did in Afghanistan.

"The permanent campaign is causing the most damage to the Republican administration."

Doug,

Hmmm. Is there any statement from McCain about opening up a primary challenge? When I see it, ok. But until then it's unlikely that he'd twiddle with a sitting Pres.

I don't see how you support your argument otherwise. Bush has been benefitting from the early season in the exact same way Clinton did, by raking up a quite impressive pile of dough. This hours latest Iraq press whimper isn't a sign of one thing or another, as it's too early by months to know how things will settle out.

That was my point about the he-said, Dean-said, they-voted circle. The candidates run around each other hissing until they need a breather, and collectively point to an on-going operation they have no day to day knowledge about, to point out all that's terrible like soothsayers reading bird entrails. If every day one predicts, "The World will End Tomorrow", either some day it finally will (happy now?), or he'll get old and keel over and die, in which case he missed his big chance (shucks).

If anything it presents Dean with a chance of redemption. As he could easily say, "I opposed the War. I'm not going to whaffle now that it's over, or agree with 2020 hindsight that I should have known better. " Or even better, instead of mere criticism he could say, "My admistration won't be faced with the choice to invade Iraq, as we'll be in Iraq to see it built into a democracy the average Iraqi thinks worth fighting for." Notice there's no cheap shots.

If I was Kerry I'd be repeating California polls like a mantra in my head. Arnuld: gained when Davis Ad Hominem'd , A vote for Democrats admit that although I might "look French" at times, that doesn't mean I'd feel comfortable

Comments are Closed.