Centerfield

The active ingredients of Mr. Murtha's original bill:

. . . Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf region . . . Therefore, The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of the Congress, is hereby terminated, and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date

And Mr. Hunter's bill

. . . [I]t is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of the United Staes forces in Iraq be terminated immediately

Posted by: Simon at November 18, 2005 11:48 PM

It is all too rare to see Republicans with tactical sense in Congress, but they hammered it home on this one. Democrats two days ago: "We demand immediate withdrawal! Rep. Murtha is a war hero so he must be right!" Democrats tonight: "Nevermind... we didn't really mean it. We approve of keeping the troops there."

That's the difference between the legislative and the executive branches. The executive must make actual decisions, which have immediate consequences. The legislative can waffle all over the place and waste time on rhetorical points that it doesn't really believe in.

In terms of pure politics, I think the Dems would have been wiser to sit this vote out like they talked about doing. They were out-smarted in this round.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 19, 2005 12:06 AM

On another level, of course, there's a more important aspect: Murtha's call for withdrawal have been roundly repudiated, by proxy so have similar calls, and the Democrats have demonstrated that there really is a broad bipartisan consensus for continuing military operations in Iraq. I think that's important, and I think it's great that our Democratic friends have decided to stand with America rather than the lunatic Kos fringe. Huzzah for the opposition!

Posted by: Simon at November 19, 2005 12:25 AM

I think the real benefit of this vote is the message it sent to both our friends and enemies in the region. We won't be pulling out anytime soon.

Posted by: Dennis at November 19, 2005 12:55 AM

The good news in this that the message was sent loud and clear that nobody wants a pullout, save a misguided few. The Repubs clearly laid a trap, and the Dems almost walked into it, although the whole mess still makes them look silly in a way.

As far as Pat's point about the difference b/t the legislative and executive branches: Is that why no Senator has been elected President since 1964?

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at November 19, 2005 03:12 AM

The question you asked should have been answered by the president. He said in the Clinton years all wars need an exit strategy.

The distortion of Murtha's position was dishonesty.

The majority do not support withdrawal, but they are disturbed by this war, this includes many who supported it and voted for Bush.

The want answers and explanations. The administration and it's backers have chosen to parody it into us versus them equating Murtha with M. Moore.

65% of the people have been accused of wanting to shoot the troops in the back.

80% of the Iraqis according to polls want us out. This is a problem.

I don't know what to do. I know there has been distortion since before the war. The chairman of the joint chiefs was publicly mocked for saying it wouldtake several hundred thousands troops to hold the place (we currently have 160,000, 30,000 nercenaries and a division of allies and it's not to peaceful unless one ignores the executions in the Iranian controlled south,) Lawrence Lindsay was fired for saying it would cost several hundred billion.

Colonel Wilkersons comments are only the latest that suggest an administration that edited out opinions and facts it didn't like.

But they need to answer that 80% of Iraqis don't like us poll. And people need to stop hearing only the cliched parodies of leftist arguments on why to pull out.

Here is one by General Odom, head of NSA under Reagon. Is he a coward or unfmailiar with realities?

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

I don't necessarily agree with it, but why do people like you seek to keep things like this out of the debate.

Why don't you ask the president to answer the points or try yourself rather than sneering that everyone who is concerned should give the answers?

And why don't you ask the president why he literally can't grasp the points of many that this war has hurt the war on terror?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051114/cm_huffpost/010621;_ylt=A86.I1GMynhDWhoBRAn9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

It isn't just Fallows asking this, though he has been a hard headed observer. His "Blind Into Baghdad" shows how the administration ignored expert advice including that of the generals. It's also ex CIA agent Michael Scheur and Clarke and many others.

Retired General after retired general has come out with concerns, but rather than respond to these critiques and encourage coherant reforms, the attitude of people like you is edit them out.

This is shooting the troops in the back. When legitimate and accurate concerns about vehicle armor (when plants making it have plenty more capacity) are dismissed because they *might* have been planted by the press, then we have an unforgivable effort to cover up all problems for appearance.

Shameful.

Posted by: conservative at November 19, 2005 03:47 AM

Heh. Nameless is as nameless does.

As near as I can figure out, the Dems were fully aware of the proposed force reductions announced Nov. 7 by the DoD, and were posturing for the anti-war faction. The knew the parade was coming, so they grabbed a baton and tried to get in front of it and pretend they were leading. They bluffed. They got called.

As explored in Rafique's thread below, the only time Murtha wasn't against the war was when he voted for it. The media hype about him being a pro-war Dem hawk was just that, hype. He was against the war before he was for it.

We still haven't seen those force reductions a.k.a. drawdowns (from 160K to 90K, and from 17 combat brigades to 6) mentioned in the media. As with Murtha's long-standing opposition ot the war, you'd think that little detail would have been relevant over the last week or so.

Posted by: Tully at November 19, 2005 06:24 AM

Thanks for posting those comments "conservative," but you shouldn't be afraid to post your name and e-mail here. I've never suffered for doing so.

Beyond this Murtha fellow... Can anyone please show me evidence of this overwhellming Democratic support for abandoning Iraq before the vote? Or is this just reductionism ad absurdism?

Posted by: Ryan Somma at November 19, 2005 08:49 AM

The republicans certainly out politicked the democrats. But lets face it, it was just a stunt, and MSM is reporting it as such. (There are advantages to having a vast left wing conspiracy.) If there really wasn't any difference between the two resolutions why not let Murtha's version come to the floor for a vote?

Considering the growing level of disgust with incumbents I'm not sure a public slap down helped anyone. Although it certainly did hurt the dems more that the republicans. Seems to me this is just another example of all the incumbents preferring flash over substance. I can't help but feel this is payback for the closed door senate session stunt.

Posted by: Bob J Young at November 19, 2005 10:24 AM

You know a lot of this is beginning to remind me of a drowning man. If your anywhere near him as he flails around, he will grab you and drag you down to. The dems should have just shut up and let the republicans drown in the war. Instead they keep trying to use the drowning as a photo op. Now its come back to burn them. Dumb!

Posted by: Bob J Young at November 19, 2005 10:38 AM

With new Congresswoman Jean Schmidt suggesting that decorated Vietnam marine veterine Murtha was a coward on the House floor, I'm stunned that so many see this as a victory for Republicans. The after-action reports are almost universally unfavorable for this Republican stunt.

Why didn't the Republicans put Murtha's actual resolution up for a true debate and vote rather than putting up a "straw man" substitute? Even from a Machiavellian political perspective, using a "straw man" substitute certainly made it easy for almost all Democrats, including Murtha, to vote against it

Why not have a real debate on Murtha's proposal -- a real analysis of what it might mean in terms of Iraq and the US. Instead we get a regurgitation of the talking points from the Vietnam War -- any talk of withdrawal is cowardy, defeatist and unpatriotic.

More of a lurker than a commentator, I once found this site interesting because of the diversity of opinion and its effort at truth-seeking analytical discussion that usually respected the opinions of all sides. I'm not seeing that much anymore either in the posts or most of the comments.

Posted by: Ben at November 19, 2005 12:39 PM

You know, I really should have known that this was coming. Hope triumphs over experience again.

For some time now, I've been saying how I keep hoping we could put one in the Win column, and how my criteria for calling it a win was based on my relatively low expectations: not a smashing success, but a somewhat democratic and relatively stable Iraq from which we could slowly withdraw. We'd have a nation which might still be bedeviled by terrorist/sectarian violence, but one that would muddle forward, hopefully avoiding outright and extended civil war, and one whose populace would slowly turn against the influx of ALL outsiders with global political agendas.

What is now becoming fearfully clear to me is that regardless of the outcome we'll have two distinct mythologies about what occurred. Should the outcome be what I've hoped for, any success will be minimized by the left, troop withdrawals spun as embarassing retreat. Should Iraq descend into civil war, the right will spin it as "mission accomplished for US security, we did the best we could, it's up to them now."

In other words, it apparently does not seem possible that if we succeeed, the left will acknowledge it. And if we fail at doing anything for Iraq and global democracy beyond ousting Saddam Hussein and disarming Iraq of whatever actual threat it represented, the right will refuse to acknowledge substantive failure in anything other than a "there's still much work to do" aside.

In other other words, according to the left, we have already lost. And according to the right, we have already won.

Let me just add that I acknowledge the obvious point that one way or another, sooner or later, it is and MUST be up to Iraqis.

However, given that we now can be reasonably sure that Iraq was not much of a threat circa 2003, let me say this: if indeed iraq does descend into civil war after we withdraw,and it becomes an ever more dangerous and lawless land, or a stronghold for violent islamic fundamentalism, it won't have been worth it.

If that doesn't happen, and Iraq is able to continue to slowly creep forward as a functioning representative democracy capable of showing other muslims a system better than what they have, it WILL have been worth it.

In other, other, other words, it will have been worth it depending on how we can get the dominoes to fall. My sense is that they WILL fall, one way or the other. And the way in which they do fall is the most important criteria for worthiness of the effort, because what we need to care about most is long-term global stability. A sustained effort against islamic terrorism by the US that yields only short-term removals of threat followed by the the development of chaotic power vaccuums will not work, and is a morally bankrupt way to proceed.

Posted by: bk at November 19, 2005 12:43 PM

Ben, the reason not to have yet more debate on Rep. Murtha's proposal is that the debate at this point will have no end. It is quite clear to me that as long as President Bush is in power, the Democrats as a whole are never going to be satisfied. They will always be demanding that we leave soon, or immediately. Like most modern politicians of both parties, the Dem leadership wants to preserve the issue, not have a real examination.

Not to mention that the Democrats won't ever say, ok, you win the policy debate, we'll just support the troops and the mission they're on now. And they won't do this because there is no consensus in the Democratic party as a whole about the war. You've got the rabid anti-war left of Howard Dean, the strong national defense crowd of Zell Miller and Joseph Lieberman, and the want-to-have-it-both-ways politicos of John Kerry. Lieberman has had some valid criticisms of the war conduct, the need for more troops, different kinds of troops, etc. But his criticisms get muddled in with the withdraw now of Murtha and it's all a mistake and our boys died for nothing of Dean.

If the Democrats will decide as a whole that now that we're in the war it is vitally important to win it and not to cut and run on Iraq (like we did after Gulf War I, to the tragic consequences of the Iraqis who tried to revolt back then, expecting us to help them), then maybe we can have a real debate on what exactly victory looks like. But I haven't seen any signs that that's the debate the Democrats are looking for.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 19, 2005 01:21 PM

Democrats force Senate into closed session. Score one for the Democrats.

Iraq withdrawal measure defeated in the House. Score one for the Republicans.

OK now we're even no we can move on right? Uhh... hellooooo, anyone out there? (Please see previous thread on poll ratings)

Side note: agree or disagree with Murtha, its foolish to in any way belittle his past service. The trick is, a la Sheehan, to acknowledge the personal experience but separate out the policy issue. Republicans seem to be having a hard time with that approach lately.

Posted by: c3 at November 19, 2005 01:37 PM

While I understand and agree with Pat, I do think we seem to have an imbalance of left vs. right at Centerfield. There are more and stronger right-leaning commenters than there are left-leaning commenters. Maybe we should recruit or something?

Posted by: Adam at November 19, 2005 02:07 PM

Brian,

I agree with what you are saying from top to bottom. The scar the Iraq war is leaving on the face of the mideast may heal someday. We can only hope. The political rift that is widening in American shows no signs of getting any smaller no matter the outcome.

-----

I thought I'd see more mention of the positive side of the outcome of the vote on the Hunter bill.

The average Iraqi standing in line at the recruitment office doesn't follow the intracies of American politics. He is too busy keeping his back to a wall and knees bent so he can hit the ground in case of an explosion. All he has time for is that there's a lot of talk of the Americans wanting to leave. Bush is in trouble. Then sees 403-3 that the guys covering his backside are going to be around for a while yet. I'd guess that had the vote been 3-403 (whether it had any practicality or not) the recruitment lines would have been a lot shorter.

Posted by: Dennis at November 19, 2005 02:14 PM

These are some of questions a real debate would involve:

1. What would the effect of withdrawal be on Iraq in terms of:

a)the level of violence in Iraq

b)political developments in Iraq -- stability, healing or exacerbating the ethnic divide, more secular or theistic leadership, unified state (if that indeed should be our goal), human rights, emergence of liberal-democratic institutions

c)infrastructure reconstruction

d)the influence and involvement of border states -- esp. Turkey, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia

e)what effect would the Murtha proposal of stationing troops in the area "just over the horizon" following withdrawal have on this

2. How will staying in Iraq (postponing our withdrawal to some future date or benchmark) increase the likelihood of having positive outcomes to a,b,c and d above and are there any different steps we should we now take in Iraq to increase that likelihood?

2. What effect would withdrawal have on political developments in the border states? What would the effect of Murtha's proposal be? Where might troops be stationed "just over the horizon"?

3. What effect will continued long-term deployment of US troops with the present level of attrition have on the US military in terms of flexibility, readiness, resources, recruitment and morale? What will be the effect of withdrawal on these?

4. What effect does continued deployment or withdrawal have on the ability of the United States to achieve broader foreign policy objectives and project its power abroad?

If we had a Congress more concerned with policy than denouncing opponents as cowards, defeatists and non-patriots, it would be holding hearings and soliciting the best information available on these issues from experts and those most engaged in the field who are willing speak openly and honestly about what they know. At that point, informed judgments can be made. Right now, all of us (including me) need more information about these matters. The current "debate" does little but reinforce our existing policy biases.

Please feel free to add to this list whatever additional relevant questions occur to you that should be debated.

Posted by: Ben at November 19, 2005 02:18 PM

bk: thank you for expressing my thoughts on this better than I could.

Posted by: David Fleck at November 19, 2005 02:20 PM

Adam and Ben: We used to have more left center types. I think the unrelenting nature of some of the posts drove them away. I know it soured me on the site for quite a while. I have tried starting some threads with a more neutral tone lately. Also rickheller used to provide more of a counterbalance, since he went back to school his presence here has been decreased.

Centerfield has never been and easy room to play in, and wars tend to polarize people even more.

What you have to keep in mind is that you will never rip the glass out the hand of a Kool-aid drinker. It's better to just ignore them and post something nonpartisan about the substance of the thread. Eventually they will get bored and go away.

Remember “Only you can prevent forest fires”.

Now if I could just follow my own advice :-}

Posted by: Bob J Young at November 19, 2005 02:50 PM

I agree that this was a bit of tit-for-tat and a stunt. My reaction was head shaking at first. However, if it does serve to quiet some of the back ground noise on "bring them home now" I see it as a net win for the Republicans.

I don't like the war. I don't like the way it started. i don't like the way it has been run; but the biggest mistake would be to cut and run.

I thought some of the debate bordered on childrens playground level (3rd grade level). However, I should not be surprised. Most of our politcos seem more interested in grandstanding and name calling then doing anything that is actually productive. [See Alaskan Bridges. Authorization pulled directly; but money still goes to Alaska as a waste of money. Net effect: nothing done to address the real problem. Status quo maintained.]

Posted by: Jim M at November 19, 2005 03:07 PM

At that point, informed judgments can be made. Right now, all of us (including me) need more information about these matters. The current "debate" does little but reinforce our existing policy biases.

Agreed. A whole lot more information would be helpful. To much of it is reading Tarot cards. But in part that is the problem with the questions you are asking Ben. Predictions, even based on sound extrapolations, are not always accurate. Often wildly inaccurate in complex situations. I can make a case for both negative and positive outlooks for almost all of the questions you have posed based on the facts as I understand them and forward thinking.

I think you need to define something upfront though. What timetable are you basing your withdrawal on? That would make a huge difference in how I would extrapolate. Withdrawal has always been the administration's policy. Withrawal has always been everyone's endpoint as I see it. From the extremes of "whenever the job is done" to "drop your weapons and run like hell" the answers to your questions would differ. And involve a lot of guesswork in any case.

As to the undercurrent of this thread regarding left/right/Koolaiders. I'm fairly new to this blog, but I've not seen a lot of Kool-aid posts here (at least compared to the winger blogs). Hopefully you aren't saying that folks that see the situation differently than you are Koolaiders?
As Brian said, a lot of emotional and logical effort has been invested in viewpoints on the Iraq war.

Posted by: Dennis at November 19, 2005 03:48 PM

conservative:

The distortion of Murtha's position was dishonesty.

Please explain the distortion. The Murtha resolution - having given a page of explanatory blurb - called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. Where this mythical "six month timetable" in the Murtha bill comes from, I have no idea - read the text of the bill. It says, unambiguously, that "The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of the Congress, is hereby terminated, and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date" - the mission is over, the troops are to be immediately withdrawn, which is precisely what Murtha called for in his "emotional" news cast and precisely the position that the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly against.

From now on, I wonder how Democrats are going to confront their anti-war base, who decided do want an immediate withdrawal: for too long, they've been able to talk out of both sides of their mouths, and it is poisoning this debate. No longer - now every Democrat but two in the House has to explain why they voted against ending the war now, consistent with my original question: if not now, then when? What is the logic that compells our withdrawal? I thought Murtha's point was that our presence is inflaming the situation - so if that's the theory, why shouldn't we withdraw immediately?

Hoisted by their own petard.

While I understand and agree with Pat, I do think we seem to have an imbalance of left vs. right at Centerfield. There are more and stronger right-leaning commenters than there are left-leaning commenters. Maybe we should recruit or something?

I agree. Posted by: Simon at November 19, 2005 03:54 PM

I say Murtha interview on the Newshour the other night.
I got a very strange vibe off him. Normally as soon as a politician opens his mouth you know he is lying. The just come off as so fake and rehearsed.

Murtha seemed to be sending off strange signals. Sometimes he used trite partisan phrases, but he also seemed to show genuine concern for the troops and frustration with the administration refusing his expertise. He also seemed like he was occasionally having the old folk befuddlements. When he talked about the troops it seem like he was fighting a post traumatic flashback.

Maybe he was just tired from all the interviews and attention, but I felt kind of sorry for him.

Posted by: Bob J Young at November 19, 2005 04:26 PM

"As explored in Rafique's thread below, the only time Murtha wasn't against the war was when he voted for it. The media hype about him being a pro-war Dem hawk was just that, hype. He was against the war before he was for it."

Actually Tully, his hawkish credentials are well-established, even by Republicans. The fact is, while I think he's wrong as far as the withdrarwl of troops goes, Murtha is no coward, and Schmidt ought to be ashamed of herself.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at November 19, 2005 05:04 PM

Rafique-
In fairness, Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward. She read aloud a letter from a constituent. The person who wrote the letter to her which she then read to the House was calling people who cut and run a coward. Which, needless to say, doesn't apply to Murtha, unless Murtha really is saying we should cut-and-run - and if that's what Murtha's saying, why on Earth did he vote against withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq last night?

Posted by: Simon at November 19, 2005 05:33 PM

Jean Schmidt is the only GOP'r who came close to impugning Murtha's service that I heard, and that was indirect, by quoting a real letter from a real serviceman in Iraq. (That serviceman obviously didn't think much of Murtha's position--but you'll have to argue that with him.) Please, no straw men. As I said in the previous Murtha thread, I honor his service but it doesn't give him any privileges or immunities from criticism of his politics and positions. Criticizing Murtha's position on the war is NOT criticizing his service in the military in any way, despite John Kerry's bloviations. I'm well aware of Murtha's credentials on the Armed Services committee. Murtha has been a big booster of the military establishment as an establishment. Being a solid supporter of the DoD budget does NOT make him a "pro-war hawk" on Iraq, which is how he's been described. (Isn't "pro-war hawk" redundant?)

The media hype was that Murtha's announcement was some kind of change in position for him on Iraq, and it simply wasn't any change at all. It was damn near exactly what he's said since before the war, with the details a bit updated and his voice boosted in media volume. On Iraq the only time he ever showed any support at all for the war was when he voted to authorize war powers. And he was criticizing Bush about Iraq before that, and after that, and on to last week.

The quick take:

Murtha lobbed a symbolic resolution in the hopper for posturing purposes. The GOP responded with an even more absurd and symbolic substitute resolution, and forced a vote on it. More posturing, but with the bet called and raised. Now both sides can sit back and tell their constituents "Look what they made us do!"

They'll spend the next week arguing about who started the shoving match. Since they'll want to blame someone current (on the other side, of course) and the real answer is Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, they will disagree.

Posted by: Tully at November 19, 2005 07:08 PM

"In fairness, Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward. She read aloud a letter from a constituent. The person who wrote the letter to her which she then read to the House was calling people who cut and run a coward. Which, needless to say, doesn't apply to Murtha, unless Murtha really is saying we should cut-and-run"

Nice try, Simon, but she basically implied Murtha was a coward. Look, perhaps she just made an error, she apologized. But don't defend the statement, please.

" As I said in the previous Murtha thread, I honor his service but it doesn't give him any privileges or immunities from criticism of his politics and positions. Criticizing Murtha's position on the war is NOT criticizing his service in the military in any way, despite John Kerry's bloviations."

Tully, I don't agree with his position either, but the GOP distorted his position and did assault his character, indirectky at the very least, much as they did with Kerry.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at November 20, 2005 01:02 AM

A few thoughts about this week.

1)Circle jerk. GOP looked real bad. Shrill. Did you see Schmidt backtracking? I can see the next campaign against her. Cheney(Torquemada) looked worse. Lost in the news... Bush is supported by only 2% of the black voters.

2)You know how it is. The minute you criticize Bush/Republicans you're labelled anti-American and as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. pfagggh!

Me, I give a few huzzahs to Murtha for taking draft-dodgerCheney to task. As for the rather meaningless vote the other day, Republicans came off as shrill and too frightened to enter in a real debate re: the rewording of Murtha's intent into your basic straw man. Given the GOP controlled Congress's low standing in the polls and the low amount of trust the American public has in it the real effect will be to alienate more moderates and then pretty soon the only thing left of the GOP is the far-right base.

3)You know, one imbalance that should be corrected -
any Senator and Congressman should have subpoena power. Such should not be limited to the party in power. The current policy allows for no accountability, no balance of ideas and certainly no checks on what is a pretty corrupt system.

4) My fav quote about Saddam Hussein..
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors,"
Colin Powell, 2001

5) You can always count on Tully and co. to follow the GOP talking points. So let them. When the fall comes their pain will be so much more enjoyable since they seem so little pained by 2000 dead soldiers and 8 trillion dollars of debt held by the Chinese and the Euros.

6) Woodward is such a dick brain. Joe Conason writes an excellent op-ed piece in Salon.

7) If there weren't so many sycophants in the White House there would be a lot fewer dead troops or maybe no war at all. But that's what you get when you fire everyone who gives you news you don't want to hear.

8) The reason I'm not on too much right now is that I'm effin busy and quite frankly this is a low priority. We lefties work and pay taxes you know...of course whenever you hear it from the righties we're all living on welfare driving Cadillacs and buying beer with food stamps. We know nothing of honest work....yeah, right.
Sorry if some feel this board is too far to the right for some. I'll try to put in a little OT and help put things into better balance.

9) Can't wait for Ed Schulz to get on AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio Television Services or AFF-Rats - did some work for them many years ago, conforming Hanna-Barbera cartoons, as well as every episode of the Hulk and Little House on the Prairie, the latter show causing a considerable amount of brain damage as I had to watch every second. Will be very interesting to hear what soldiers who call in have to say - unlike the rather cowardly RW talkies, Ed doesn't screen calls.

10) Why is it that all the torture stuff approved by the WH looked like something out of gay male porn? Maybe the same reason Gannon visited the WH so many times....

11) Now everyone go have a beer. If you prefer wine I recommend Kenwood 2004 Pinot Noir. Runs about 10 bucks, very smooth, drinkable stuff.

Posted by: Marcus at November 20, 2005 02:32 AM

well, for those who said the comments on here are too much on the right. Marcus has in one post, brought balance. LOL.

Posted by: sm at November 20, 2005 03:23 AM

As far as Pat's point about the difference b/t the legislative and executive branches: Is that why no Senator has been elected President since 1964?

Posted by Rafique Tucker at November 19, 2005 03:12 AM
++++++++++++++
Try the election of 1960...JFK. He was the last person that went from the U.S. Senate to the White House. (Thanks to his old man, Mayor Daley and LBJ's dead West Texas Indian Soldiers).

Posted by: realrepublicancirca1854 at November 20, 2005 05:24 AM

bk...your post on 11-19 is very good. I agree with you on several points...the primary one being the old Domino Theory. If it falls our way, wonderful for the world. If it falls the other way, we all better watch our asses.

Posted by: realrepublicancirca1854 at November 20, 2005 05:29 AM

I like the Bronco's beating the Colts in the AFC championship game. I look for the Colts to chock as per usual. Manning's a great seasonal QB, but he can't play under real "playoff" pressure. Look for Denver against maybe, dare I say, Seattle or Carolina? However and whomever, the AFC wins the SB.
NOW we're talking about shit that matters!!!!

Posted by: realrepublicancirca1854 at November 20, 2005 05:37 AM

Rafique, I heard Murtha's press conference and read his resolution. He called for the removal of American troops from Iraq, beginnning immediately. He was quite clear about it. How has his position been "distorted?" His position previous to this time was "more troops or leave." Now it's just "leave." That is the sum of his change in position.

I have heard Murtha's position being attacked. He's not immune to criticism. Previous military service and a long record in Congress does not confer immunity to criticism of one's pronouncements and positions. It is not a sword and shield of exemption from criticism. Nor is criticism of Murtha's positions and pronouncements an attack on his sevice record. I have heard absolutely NO ONE criticize his military service record.

If you're aware of any evidence that Jean Schmidt did not quote from a real letter from a real soldier serving in Iraq, PLEASE But she has every right to say what she's hearing from those most affected--the troops in Iraq and the people of Iraq. I'd say those are two groups whose opinions are highly relevant. Is there anyone who disagrees?

If you're aware of any Congresscritter maligning his service record, PLEASE bring it our attention. I'll rush to join the condemnatory chorus. His positions and pronouncment, even his character, are fair game. He's a politician. It comes with the territory.

The only resemblances between Kerry and John Murtha is that they're both Democrats in Congress, both veterans, and both were against the war before they were for it before they were against it again.

Posted by: Tully at November 20, 2005 10:20 AM

Marcus, I really have to say giving every person in Congress subpoena power would be like giving a seven year old an AK-47 with a full clip and telling him to go play. Those things would be flying even more then boring Special Order speeches. They just could not be trusted to use them in a responsible manner.

Posted by: Jim M at November 20, 2005 11:14 AM

I suspect Karl Rove is slightly unhappy with that move. For the GOP to win, y'all have to win centrists over too, preferably including some Democrats. This, though, was the sort of maneuver that just pleases the already-converted. Most centrists understand that Democratic war positions are more varied and usually more thoughful than that.

Posted by: Jon Kay at November 20, 2005 11:30 AM

It might be helpful to understand the mechanics of how this particular game was played.

The Dems have been playing up the "Bush lied us into war" drumbeat and calling the current war situation into question. Why they've been doing so is open to many interpretations, more than one of which can be true in whole or part. Your mileage is your own. But if anyone cares to argue they haven't been doing so I'm gonna beat 'em with a reality stick.

This in turn was creating a questionable "message" about American resolve in Iraq during the run-up to the December Iraqi elections. A major part of that drumbeat was a call for rapid troop drawdowns--a series of drawdowns that had already been publicly announced, and that were known for months by those in the military "loop" and in much of Congress. We can argue about the relation between those two events, but to me it's apparent that the Dems were trying to, as I put it, grab a baton and jump in front of a parade and act like they were leading the parade. Positioning themselves to claim (electoral) credit for the drawdowns even though the drawdowns were part of our war plan and have been for quite a while, and have been repeatedly stated as such by the White House.

Had the GOP tried to schedule a vote on Murtha's original resolution, Murtha would simply have pulled it from consideration. That's why I called it a bluff that was called and raised. In the ordinary course of events, Murtha would simply have folded when his bluff was called. His resolution, his privilege. It was never meant to be voted on, it was posturing, plain and simple. Murtha and the Dems were not allowed to fold.

Instead the GOP offered their own "Murtha" resolution. They reduced Murtha's resolution to a simple (and simplistic) "essence" of how the Murtha resolution was being played to the base on the Dem side and by the media, and forced a vote on it. That vote showed that Murtha's resolution and rhetoric were indeed political posturing and not a serious sense of position for either side of the aisle. At least not one that more than a very very few would openly admit to.

The GOP was itself posturing to make a point, but they forced an open vote and Congressional statement that cut through much of the ongoing bloviation and anti-war rhetoric of the Democrats over the last few weeks. It also cut off much of that avenue of demogoguery for the Dems for a bit, unless the situation radically changes.

This will not stop the Drumbeat Dems from trying to take credit for the drawdowns during their campaigns next summer. Or from claiming that the administration is only drawing down because they pressured them in the public forum. Grab the baton, and jump in front of the parade.

I personally think that the GOP should have offered their own substitute resolution in exactly Murtha's words, those Simon cited above, and then forced that vote. Why they went the reductionist ridicule route is certainly open to debate, but my personal guess is that they wanted a very clear and simple and unambiguous message to send to the electorate, and to Iraq, and to the insurgents and the rest of the world, with no tap-dancing or caveats really possible.

Arguing about whose designated demons and straw men are more virtuous or reprehensible in the matter is simply more partisan cheerleading and chatter. You can argue those aspects forever and you will never ever convince anyone to change sides, because those arguments are emotive and not reasoned.

As always, your mileage may vary. As Oscar Wilde said:

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.

Posted by: Tully at November 20, 2005 11:42 AM

Marcus,

Just a quibble on one point. You said:

Given the GOP controlled Congress's low standing in the polls and the low amount of trust the American public has in it the real effect will be to alienate more moderates and then pretty soon the only thing left of the GOP is the far-right base.

Are you suggesting that polls indicate more displeasure with the GOP members of congress, or are you trying to finesse this: People are unhappy with congress, and the GOP has a majority, so the polls showing displeasure with congress reflect more poorly on the GOP than on democrats.

If so, that's suspect. The breakdowns I have seen reflect widespread displeasure. If you ask me, it's got more of a "pox on both houses" flavor than anything else.

BTW, what exactly is it about Tully that gets under your skin so much? IMO it's fair to point out that he leans right, if that means being harsh on anti-war democrats. But accusing him (this is at least the 2nd time) of being a reliable righty talking points guy strikes me as far-fetched.

Posted by: bk at November 20, 2005 05:45 PM

Adam;

While I understand and agree with Pat, I do think we seem to have an imbalance of left vs. right at Centerfield. There are more and stronger right-leaning commenters than there are left-leaning commenters. Maybe we should recruit or something?

I think I disagree with you but now that I read this a second time I'm sure what you're saying. Are you saying its a numerical issue? ARe you saying those right of center are "stronger" in their commentary? By stronger do you mean more strident or that they have better thought out arguments. I really do want to know. One reason I say that is because whiel I've seen Tully as right of center (and I'm still not sure how far right of center but it seems not very right of center) he always brings the "goods" meaning the "data". I think that's key for a rational if at times spirited discussion.

Marcus;
Wow!!!

Posted by: c3 at November 20, 2005 07:32 PM

I'm still waiting - and I'm delighted to be joined by Tully in this - for Marcus, Rafique et al to support their charge that the Hunter bill in some way distorted Murtha's bill. Simplified, yes - but distorted? No way. The very first comment in this thread links to the full text of each bill - so you have the raw materials; please show us how this was a distortion. Are you really ready to claim that Murtha's speech and subsequent bill were not a call for immediate withdrawal?

Posted by: Simon at November 20, 2005 09:34 PM

I'm still waiting - and I'm delighted to be joined by Tully in this - for Marcus, Rafique et al to support their charge that the Hunter bill in some way distorted Murtha's bill. Simplified, yes - but distorted? No way. The very first comment in this thread links to the full text of each bill - so you have the raw materials; please show us how this was a distortion. Are you really ready to claim that Murtha's speech and subsequent bill were not a call for immediate withdrawal?

From the language of Murtha's proposal..it appears to me that it wasn't about immediate withdrawal. Simon posted part of the "whereas"...but not the directives,which were:

That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Posted by: carla at November 20, 2005 10:08 PM

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

I already posted that. To me, that directive says, the deployment in Iraq is over, and all troops will be withdrawn immediately. Posted by: Simon at November 20, 2005 10:11 PM

Carla... "Over the horizion" means not actually in Iraq. And ask any military man what "as soon as practicable" means. It means, pack everything up and come home now. It most decidely does NOT mean "sometime in the next 6 months, whenever you feel like it." It means, start leaving NOW. Seriously, what do you think it means?

Posted by: PatHMV at November 20, 2005 11:03 PM

Jeez Chris, here I am trying to be all diplomatic-like, and you have to put me on the spot :)

Here is what I perceive, but I stand to be corrected.

(1)There are more center-right commenters here than center-left commenters, especially on Iraq. This numerical advantage is further compounded by, imho, a greater frequency, number, and quality of arguments on the right than the left.

[Granted my being pro-war would likely bias my quality evaluation.]

The poster child of a strong, frequent, and well-documenting example of a commenter who is reliably center-right on Iraq is Tully. Don't get me wrong. I very much appreciate his contributions. I just think it would be great to have someone of comparable dedication, skill, and resources on the center-left on Iraq.

Now I'm not asking for a influx of crazed leftists, but it just seems that we have a significantly weaker anti-war/Democratic hawk contigent than the reverse.

(2)I tend to think this is a problem for the mission of Centerfield.

I have read multiple recent complaints that we're unbalanced and right-of-center from people who used to feel that it was more balanced. I have never seen us accused of being left-leaning. While it's possible that we attract more crazed-lefties or that lefties are more crazed, it still doesn't look good.

(3) If you compare the collective reaction to Murtha here vs., say, the reactions at the Moderate Voice, Charging Rino, and Andrew Sullivan, we look more like sane and calm righties with some flavor thrown in more than we look even center-right.

(4) For instance, I tend to feel that Democratic poor behavior is highlighted over and against the corresponding bad behavior of the Republicans. Not always, but as a general trend. While the Democrats may be playing political tricks, I think there is something to be said for Bush mishandling the war, being rigidly unflexible, and having difficulty adapting.

We have Brian expressing the moderate view that Bush has not been a cagey player and Tully defending the adminstration's choices but no one who really substantively brings the charge, complete with a link-fest and well-crafted argument, that Bush really is doing a mediocre or a bad job in Iraq. Even Andrew Sullivan thinks Bush is a poor war leader. And I tend to be a McCain supporter. While totally securing the border may require far more troops than we actually have, maybe adding fifty thousand more would allow us to actually hold a lot of the territory we seize. Bush seems like the kind of guy that is very slow to course-correct, and I frankly trust McCain's opinion far more than I do Bush's. Bush acts more weasely.

Now, look, I'd very much like to believe that Bush is doing a good job in Iraq. It just seems that perceptions here are sometimes out of the mainstream--there's nothing necessarily wrong with that--it's just that I would be more confident of the correctness of the opinions expressed here if we had a left-leaning Tully equivalent take on our Tully and fail, and likewise if we had more left-leaning "troops." As it stands now, I can't distinguish between Tully being right or his just being a very skilled defender of his position.

(5) But bottom line: if people come here looking for a pure "centrist flavor" and they get a center-right flavor, we may miss a lot of our intended audience and fail in our mission to create a strong bipartisan center.

Posted by: Adam at November 21, 2005 12:24 AM

First, I'd like to say that from my infrequent and occasional commenter's position, I would agree that Centerfield tends to lean right-of-center on issues about Iraq. Back away from Iraq and re-focus on something like, say, abortion rights or gay marriage or the larger issue of the religious right's influence on American political society, and I would argue that the "center" of the blog changes directions. The "center" is not constant across some constant field, but in fact can be seen in different positions along different issue lines.

Secondly, with respect to the "rapid reaction" "over the horizon" force, while this concept may (and indeed, does) work in the world of maneuver warfare from which our conventional military traditions are derived (think Desert Storm or the "Thunder Run"), it would contribute very little to a "small war" counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign. COIN requires a combined civil-military-political strategy to defeat insurgents with small unit military tactics based on intelligence derived from supportive local populations. You can't win the support of the people from "over the horizon" (or, might I add, FOBs way outside of the population centers-- it only comes from continuous, consistent interaction with the locals), which means you won't be receiving much actionable intelligence from the indigenous population, which means if you do utilize kinetic operations, it will likely be against static targets that can be identified via imagery intelligence (IMINT) or signal intelligence (SIGINT) hits-- which is NOT of much value in a "small war." I'm sure everyone on this blog is aware that it was our decision to forego HUMINT in favor of IMINT, SIGINT, and electronic intelligence (ELINT) that's what allowed Al Qaeda to stun us in the first place. It does NOT work against practitioners of unconventional warfare.

That clause was likely inserted to make the anti-war crowd feel and look better about supporting the resolution ("We're not cutting and running! We'll still have nearby forces to use if we needed to!"), but the end result would have been no different (and a lot less honest) than simply packing up and leaving. It only confirmed in my mind, once again, that the Bush Administration might not always have a good idea of what they need to do to win, but they still have a much, MUCH better idea than the alternative...

Just my two pennies...

Posted by: Bobby at November 21, 2005 03:22 AM

Hmm. I had though the same thing, that centerfield's centrists lean in favor of supporting the war in Iraq. I guess that conventionally that means that they "lean right on the war."

But I have to ask, what does this really mean? Does it mean that we are therefore unbalanced? Or is it evidence that when moderates and independents who despise both sides' partisans weigh all the issues, they tend to come to the conclusion that premature withdrawal would be very bad for our country's long term foreign policy interests?

Here's the thing: there are such people who are pro-war liberals, or people who have "left the left" over the Iraq war, or been ostracized from the left. I count myself as one who's got something of that flavor, although I've been backing away for several years.

So what's the particular value in providing left/right balance on an issue by issue basis, and regardless of of the composition and wuality of arguments available to those who "lean left?"

If you ask me Adam, what you are seeing is not a manifestation of centerfields departure from some ideal balance that has inherent virtue. It's the absense of high-quality arguments in favor of withdrawing very soon and/or very quickly that account for both the likely positive _and_ the likely negative outcomes..

Seems to me a plausible argument can be made for an over-eager Bush doing some pre-war apple-polishing, for Bush not leading loudly and visibly enough to sustain support for a difficult effort, and for Bush's team making some questionable choices in execution, due to unrealistic expectations, and perhaps in some cases questionable competence.

But arguments for withdrawing now? Seems like they are limited to the rationale that that this would stop the casualties, and the wishful thought that removing our forces from direct harms way will substantially lessen the ire of islamic fundamentalists towards the US. Forgive me for not being impressed.

Posted by: bk at November 21, 2005 09:32 AM

If anyone insists on labels or a capsule description, I'm a fiscal conservative, a social libertarian, and a pragmatic realist. The local Democratic and Republican politicians I work with on a daily basis (and that I've helped get elected) would be startled to hear me called a rightie, though if it were phrased center-right they'd likely let it slide. Anyone who wants to insist I'm a reflex rightie had better poke back through the archives and attempt to reconcile that claim with my posts and positions on abortion, gay rights, marriage, education, religious issues, disabilities, health care, etc., and my campaign work on behalf of moderate/centrist candidates from both parties. Good luck with that. :-)

I can get along comfortably with being described as anti-idiotarian, even if the term is so often misused nowadays as a pure and pointless ad hominem. Well, heck, "liberal" used to mean Jeffersonian. Labels are both confining and mutable.

What bloggers are more than anything, I think, is anti-idiot. That makes life tough for Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and the Revs. Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, & Sharpton, for reasons that transcend traditional partisanship and ideology. --Glenn Reynolds, January 5, 2002

Six or seven years ago, when the winds of wingnuttery were blowing from the other direction, I was often accused of being a leftie for defending a president I despised (well before he was President) from fantastic conspiracy allegations and hyperbolically overblown political assaults. Nothing has changed but those in office and those making the most noise about 'em.

Posted by: Tully at November 21, 2005 09:43 AM

P.S.--Marcus is absolutely right! The Kenwood 2004 Pinot Noir is a most excellent recommendation in a young smooth red with nice body, and it'll get better for a few years as it ages.

P.P.S. I think Ben's "metrics" are excellent ones for assessment and discussion purposes.

Posted by: Tully at November 21, 2005 10:36 AM

I'm listening to "On Point" this morning. General McCaffery is on. He stated the term "cut and run democrat" is a polemic, designed to stifle debate.

I agree with him.

McCaffery mentioned many of the current administrations mistakes, including too few troops, no exit strategy and alienation of our allies, then proceeded to state all the obvious reasons why it's irresponsible to consider leaving now.

That sums up why you don't hear from the "center-left". Many of us have concluded we were sold a bill of goods and the people in charge are incompetent. But the war exists anyway. We have nothing to add because we don't have any answers.

But to those on the right don't feel smug. It also appears the folks in charge don't have any either.

Posted by: tim at November 21, 2005 11:01 AM

Our "allies" weren't "alienated" when they were taking Saddam's cash and helping him violate the sanctions? Sounds like McCaffery has his own polemic. But I snipe--C'est la politique. But yeah, it would be worse than irresponsible to leave now, IMHO. It would be disastrous, most especially for the people of Iraq.

Posted by: Tully at November 21, 2005 11:10 AM

Tim, as I said earlier the problem with the Democratic opposition is that it is not unified as either being for or against the war. The party itself is split. McCaffery has some solid criticisms (not all of them are solid, particularly the bit about the allies), but cannot be taken seriously when used by the party of Howard Dean who want no war no way no how. If the Democrats want to be the party of "do the war right", it cannot simultaneously be the party of "Bush lied, people died." The mixed messages get lost in the confusion.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 21, 2005 12:04 PM

Yeah, right. The vote was 403-3. So much for the "party of Howard Dean".

It's always been easy to go to war. Those who oppose are usually vilified and almost always in the minority.

Posted by: tim at November 21, 2005 03:58 PM

Congress had a golden opportunity to prove that it was truly on the side of the American people and not certain special interest groups-groups who want and need this illegal war to continue. If Congress does not serve us, then just WHO are they listening to? I'd sure love to know the answer to that one, although I have my suspicions.

Posted by: Brent at November 21, 2005 04:27 PM

(Who was complaining about balance, again?)

Those who oppose are usually vilified and almost always in the minority.

Pretty much by definition, Tim, when Congress actually votes to authorize war powers those opposed are in the minority, no? I mean, last I looked, it took a majority vote to make the authorization.

As for vilification, we've seen a lot of it over the last few years. That "vilified" anti-war minority seems to have been dishing out quite a bit more of it than they've been getting lately. This one's a variant of the "Cry Martyr" tactic of claiming "Oppression of free speech!" whenever criticism pops up of one's arguments. Uh huh. If the anti-war factions vilify the administration and the Republicans, that's "speaking truth to power." If the admin and the GOP respond even to defend themselves and dispute the arguments and agitprop offered, it's a vicious and unwarranted attack on the integrity of the righteous...and if their positions were reversed right now, it'd be deja vu all over again.

True Believers everywhere are busy vilifying everyone who doesn't accept their Sacred Dogma as definitive, and claiming to be oppressed by those evil heretical so-and-so's, which includes everyone who isn't one of them. Whether it's the war, or abortion, or [fill in the blank].

Sorry, seen it too many times. Not buying it for one single minute.

Posted by: Tully at November 21, 2005 05:07 PM

So, if we can accept that the political spectrum's "center" changes based on which issue is being debated (perhaps closer to the "liberals" on abortion and gay rights, closer to the "conservatives" on the war and the budget), then maybe the perceived rightward shift of Centerfield is really just a function of the fact that the war seems to occupy a much larger share of the posts lately.

Rather than recruit from the Daily Kos to achieve "balance," maybe you should expand the subjects on which you all have been posting lately-- understanding, of course, that the war threads really do receive a lot more comments...

Posted by: Bobby at November 21, 2005 07:32 PM

I agree, Brian, that people who seriously suggest that we ought to cut-and-run and not serious people. What I more specifically meant were
(1) Dems who had serious criticism of the war's conduct and (2) people who opposed the war initially but recognize the responsibility we have to do right by the Iraqis.

On the Murtha issue, while many have disagreed with his policy, many have viewed it as a legitimate frustration against an admininstration which is refusing to accept outside input and change policies that are failing. Some have suggested that such tactics may even prod the adminstration into making necessary course corrections. I don't doubt that shady political posturing may have accompanied Murtha's announcement, just that Murtha's frustration may actually be legitimate and based in fact. The two views are not mutually exclusive.

To name names, Michael Stickings seems to be a very able arguer and disagrees quite strongly with Tully's positions, we don't have someone like him taking the time for a head-to-head.

Tully, I full well recognize that you have worked for candidates from both parties and have worked to keep anti-gay marriage off the ballot and that you have a very low opinion of say ID (:)). I also know that you defended Clinton from crazy conspiracy charges. But, regards the war, your positions seems solidly pro-administration. There's nothing wrong with that, but wouldn't one call that a right-wing position? Seriously, other than properly defending the war from critics, is there anything the admin has done wrong, in your view? More specifically, are there any critics of Bush's war policy with whom you strongly resonate?
If not, are you not by definition on the right on this issue?

What I really meant is that on the war, we seem to be on the right. We seem to have more adminstration defenders than those who offer thoughtful critiques of the admin. Sure we have the drip-drop of periodic angry liberal commenters from time to time, but we don't have a "Tully" who presents the case that Bush has made serious strategic errors. I think the blog has a tendency to go beyond pro-war, to go pro-Bush. We certainly need someone to defend the admin, and lord knows I hope you're right, but Bush having run the war competently seems a distinctly minority possession elsewhere in the blogsphere--even among the moderate blogs, hell even among the center-right ones like Charging Rino and Andrew Sullivan. I guess I have more faith that McCain knows what he's talking about than this admin, but I don't see very many people making a case like that here. They may make such comments, as I am now, but no one with the skill to engage you, link for link.

I am just saying that, in comparison to many moderate blogs, we seem right-leaning on this issue. And almost by definition, anyone calling for immediate withdrawal is not moderate.

I think it is important for centerfield to have more balance on this issue because the war is something that is seriously debated in the general populace. If most people here feel that things have gone swimmingly and all we need to do is "stay the course" and that Bush knows what he's doing, then it becomes more of -- excuse the term -- more of an echo chamber than a debating hall.

So this is not a criticism of you, per se, Tully. It is more of a hope for your equivalent on the responsible center-left FOR THIS ISSUE. You do quite well on the left for other issues. But reading you, my reaction is generally, "Have the Democrats (or Republican critics) have no virtues whatever?" I guess I just have a hard time believing everything you say because probability would dictate that Bush is doing something, anything wrong on the war.

Posted by: Adam at November 21, 2005 08:23 PM

Here's an example of what I would expect to find defended here at centerfield: Third Camp from Bull Moose. I can't tell whether Tully or Bull Moose is right. I'd like to see someone skillfully defend Bull Moose's position--link against link.

Furthermore, we have the paradoxical situation, where, even if Tully is right, it might be more effective to pretend that he's wrong. Why? Because what this country needs is a strong belief that we need to finish the job in Iraq. However, given that Bush's approval is so low, it might make sense to distance ourselves from him--otherwise people might likely tune us out because we're too far from mainstream perceptions of Bush's competence. Machievellian, I know. But maybe Machievellian for a good cause.

Posted by: Adam at November 21, 2005 08:36 PM

I can get along comfortably with being described as anti-idiotarian

Their manifesto is a classic! Posted by: Simon at November 22, 2005 09:04 AM

Adam: thank you for the link to "Bull Moose" above; that's some good reading. But a question - how does what that piece says differ from what messrs. Tully or bk already say about Iraq here? To me the difference seems slight. I'm not seeing this "middle way" you feel we are lacking.

Posted by: David Fleck at November 22, 2005 10:00 AM

Well, Tully seems to be saying that we are doing reasonably well in Iraq, that Bush has not made serious errors -- or if he has, none that are out of the norm during wartime. BK, seems very like a pure centrist on this issue and has expressed uncertainty on the above issues. No one seems to have offered solid evidence for the mainstream perception that Bush has made serious errors and that things aren't doing too well over there -- views shared by say McCain and Andrew Sullivan and the Moose.

I'm just saying in the absence of people who make a skilled case with links and and all for a McCain type position, we lack serious debate.

I guess the issue became salient for me when I started venturing furhter afield from centerfield and realized that in comparison to at least self-described moderate blogs, I was very much on the right on foreign policy and Katrina largely because I found Tully's arguments compelling.

Given that many moderate and liberal blogs disagree with Tully's stances on these issues, I'm left wondering whether Tully is right or whether we just lack some of equal skill defending those positions. This problem is compounded by a numerical difference in the number of regular pro-war people on this blog.

Not just crazy trollers have blasted us for partisanship but there have been several rational and calm postings from people who said that they used to like this blog, but now it seems to be one-sided.

People may disagree with me, but Simon seemed to understand what I was talking about and so did Bob. Again, I'd very much would like to believe that things are going, for the most part, swimmingly in Iraq; but in the absence of the defeat of cogent defenders of that position, I'm not really sure.

Posted by: Adam at November 22, 2005 10:18 AM

I'm not all that far from Bull Moose, Adam, other than not having the "rage" factor that seems so strong in the blogosphere--the hyperbolic histrionics that some substitute for reason, and that burning desire to have a focal point for said anger, a.k.a. a scapegoat. I also know that had we not invaded we'd still be facing the problem of Saddam, and it wouldn't be getting better or easier. And not just Saddam--Qadaffi would still be in business, Lebanon would still be occupied by Syria, Egypt would not be having open elections for the first time, and so on.

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. --Oscar Wilde

Can't repeat that one too often nowadays. I really don't care all that much for Bush. But I care even less for the screaming demogogues who will do or say absolutely anything to tear down the opposition for their own gain, regardless of the consequences to everyone else. When it's run of the mill political fighting, it's mostly just a circus. Grab your seat and have some popcorn. But this time it's deadly serious, the future of our country (and several others) is at stake, and the howling mob is more concerned with grabbing more electoral goodies and dragging that scapegoat to the altar for a blood sacrifice than in actually winning the war, even though the lives and futures of millions of people are at stake. That pisses me off.

Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2005 10:50 AM

I think that trying to be centrist-by-triangulation — "find the point halfway between the extreme right and the extreme left and adopt it" — is probably a losing strategy. As others have pointed out, the "aggregate opinion" here is probably leftish-of-center on some things (e.g., gay marriage) and rightish-of-center on others. I'm not even sure I'd agree that any such "aggregate opinion" exists here concerning Iraq, left or right of center.

Posted by: David Fleck at November 22, 2005 10:56 AM

But I have to ask, what does this really mean? Does it mean that we are therefore unbalanced? Or is it evidence that when moderates and independents who despise both sides' partisans weigh all the issues, they tend to come to the conclusion that premature withdrawal would be very bad for our country's long term foreign policy interests?

As a follow up we shouldn't confuse being against the war and supporting an immediate or "very soon" pullout. I actually sense that in many of the recent comments. I'd ask another question. If one supports the was because it deposed a Despot does that make one left of center or right of center? I honestly don't know. I guess the corrolary is "Is being reluctant to go to war left of center or right of center?"

OK, and now I'll give a shot at a proposal for withdrawal.. Iraq is moving towards an elected government. Our intervention, while deposing a dictator did not find WMD's and has not made the region safer AND arguably has not made America safer. Further intervention has no clear indication that it will improve the situation in Iraq (i.e. more trained Iraqi troops vs more resolved insurgents) and one can reasonably expect our presence to fan the flames, especially among Sunni's. Staying much longer continues to threaten our relationships with the moderate governments in the Middle East AND has diminishing support in America. The Iraqi's, for the first time, have suggested we look at a timetable. With all of this in mind we should establish a timetable for withdrawal, in consultation with the newly elected Iraqi government in Jan '06.

(Now I don't know that I necessarily agree with this proposal but I have sympathy with the reasons behind it.)

Posted by: c3 at November 22, 2005 01:57 PM

Well, okay maybe giving everyone subpeona power is problematic but it seems to me that at the very least the leaders of each party should have that power so that it lies not just in the dominating party, GOP or Dem or whatever.
The antics of DeLay has shown that there is no checks and balances whatsoever in the House.

Posted by: Marcus at November 22, 2005 02:17 PM

I think Tully leans a little right, but I do think he's getting something of a bad rap when he's accused of being a righty talking points guy.

One of the points that Tully keeps trying to make is perhaps a little bit subtle, which is that its important to fight hard to separate the rhetoric from the content. I don't like Bush much either, but I think it's essential to give the President the minimal respect of the benefit of the doubt, which means not interpreting every action in its least favorable light, not attrbuting each act to the most venal motive, and not overusing hindsight to cast each imperfect outcome as a gross error in judgement. If there's anything that troubles me among the implications of many left viewpoints, it's the implication that Bush botched an easy decision not to mention that he did so simply because he's an evil tool.

He faced a series of difficult and tremendously momentus decisions for our country. All possible paths included substantial drawbacks. I think anyone that wants to call themselves a centrist has to have that kind of minimum empathy. What else inoculates you from pure partisan bullcrap?

Another aspect of Tully's subtle point about rhetoric and content is really "keep your eye on the ball." Now I grant that there's a problem in determining what the ball is here. But leaving that aside, when you work a long time on a series of difficult projects, you get used to things not always going the way they were planned, costing more than you expected, getting bogged down in unexpected yet unavoidable problems. There's a whole body of conventional wisdom on this, but it boils down to realistic expectations. You make your best time estimate, and then you double it. And so on. The point here is that if you want to stay sane, you have to find a way to determine whether the project ball is still rolling in the right direction.

So I don't think that Tully necessarily thinks Bush has made no "errors," I think it's more that he expected there to be errors or problems, that some guesses would be wrong, even way off, but that in his view, based on the data he collects (which as many of us knows is usually as good as it gets), the ball is still rolling the right way, so he's willing to keep pushing. The message is to get off the cross because we need the wood for the fire.

I don't know how much people appreciate this view, but experience makes me credit it more with each passing year. The more one truly appreciates the difficulty and complexity of a given task, the less likely one is to crucify the task leaders for imperfection, let alone indulge conspiracy theories.

Anf if you are a centrist and a bit of a wonk like many of us are, I know this rings true. If you have political conversations about any of a variety of issues, you run into many many people who very strongly held positions, yet frankly they simply don't know what the fu(k they're talking about, and are usually willing to personalize it into a viewpoint where the problem is some other person or class of people that is stupid or evil or doesn't care. And that's just another aspect of the fundamental attribution error, where people are prone to attribute their own mistakes and faults to extrenal circumstances, but at the same time are prone to attribute the faults and mistakes of others to character flaws.

Posted by: bk at November 22, 2005 02:21 PM

Good points, Brian and Tully; I very much agree. And I myself was turned off by the level of emotion in Moose's post.

But I guess my fundamental question remains: there seem to be serious people who view the Bush administration as incompetent and unwilling or unable to listen to criticism and adapt. Given that Bush seemed very hard pressed to find any serious mistakes he had made, how slow it took him to deal (at least from a PR perspective) with Katrina and war criticisms, and even his delay in reacting to 9/11 just leaves me with the impression that this adminstration is slow to adapt and has difficulty cutting its losses. So I am really wondering whether there is truth to this public perception.

Although I disagree with his policy, Murtha seemed very honest and sincere when I heard him on "meet the press"; McCain has also expressed misgivings. Thus, I'm not really sure who to trust. Tully is very good at marshalling the data, but I wondering if there is other data which would confirm the general perception that this war isn't going so well. Is McCain just delusional or politically conniving when he feels that the war may be slipping from us? And is there substance to Andrew Sullivan's charges that maybe Cheney is lobbying so hard because he would be prosecuted for torture violations? I just have a hard time believing McCain would be pushing a bill which would require that we treat terror suspects with more care than the police does with criminal suspects.

And it just seems crazy that Bush would want to send the horrible message that he would send by vetoing a torture bill. It seems another example of Bush sticking to his guns where he ought not to. Maybe McCain is being unreasonable because of his own experiences and setting the bar too low, but I'm not sure . . .

I very much believe in giving someone the benefit of the doubt and eschewing baseless emotional rantings--I can't stand it either--I'm just wondering if there is substance behind all the noise and the public perception.

Posted by: Adam at November 22, 2005 05:40 PM

Adam, when you say "given that President Bush seemed very hard pressed to find any mistakes he had made", you are buying into the idea that a war-time President should go out in front of an extraordinarily hostile opposition party and a bunch of out-and-out liars (the Michael Moores of the world, I mean, not Democrats in general) and start talking about "mistakes". The demand that the President "admit his mistakes" was a very partisan demand to begin with. Your question also assumes that the President has not altered the conduct of the war in response to criticisms simply because he has not publicly flagellated himself for "mistakes". I frankly don't believe that's the case.

As I said in an earlier post, the bipolar nature of the Democratic party on the issue of the war has prevented the party from being able to function as any sort of "loyal opposition" on this issue. McCain and Lieberman are both serious people with, I'm sure, good insights into the conduct of the war. Senator Lieberman also does not waste his time exploiting Cindy Sheehan (a very willing exploitee), and I'm quite certain he was appalled at seeing Michael Moore sit with President Carter at the Democratic Convention. By allying itself with and promoting the loony left and the anti-war-at-all-costs-bring-the-troops-home-NOW crowd, the Democratic Party destroyed its credibility on any issue related to the conduct of the war. They cannot credibily call for more troops while at the same time demanding that all troops be recalled immediately.

What exactly do you mean by the President's delay in "reacting to 9/11"?

As for the torture bill, we're all against torture. The issue really is, though, what constitutes torture. There have been polls galore on the subject, but they mean little, like most polls. If you ask "do you support torture of America's enemies", the answer is largely no. If you ask "if torturing a captured terrorist would prevent another 9/11, would you support that", more people would say yes, but there would still be plenty of "no"s, too. If you then ask "if making a captured terrorist stay awake for 3 days straight or sit in an uncomfortable position for 24 hours would prevent another 9/11", then you'd get a whole lot more yes votes in favor of that policy.

I haven't looked at the specifics of the McCain bill, so I can't comment on its specific provisions. And on an issue relating to the treatment of prisoners, I would generally defer to Senator McCain's judgment because of his personal experience. But I don't think using the same word to describe how we treat prisoners with potentially valuable intelligence information (techniques which generally rely on fatigue, humiliation and embarassment) by the same word, "torture", used to describe how Saddam and other dictators treat prisoners (which rely on electrical shocks, cutting, beating, killing family members, drugging, etc.) is very accurate or fair.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 23, 2005 04:49 PM

Yeah, I love the demands for public self-flagellation in wartime. The sensitive "AA meeting" approach. "We'll only be nice to you if you abuse and demean yourself so we can get good clips for campaign commercials."

Posted by: Tully at November 23, 2005 08:42 PM