Walk of Shame?

Goldberg has one thing right: Simple morality demands that we pony up the money to rebuild Iraq, which we decimated. We want one that's better than before, we need to pay for the upgrade.

Goldberg's analogy to an auto mechanic, although insipid, has a ring of truth. But it needs a little alteration, and one must imagine that it is not the enthusiastically Bush-war-resolution-supporting John Kerry who stars in it, but rather YOU, one of the American people:
Imagine your car has been taken to a mechanic (you didn't take it there), who took out the engine and now demands some money. You ask why it was necessary to take out the engine. He says it would have exploded and killed you.
"Wow," you say. "What was wrong with it?"
And he repeats that it would have exploded and killed you.
"Yes, but... but how?"
And he repeats it again.
OK, whatever.
"What will you do to fix it?"
"Something. Give me the money."
"Well, you'll obviously put in a new engine. Do you know how to install one? Have you ever fixed a car before?"
He shrugs and says "How hard can it be?"
Then something catches your eye.
"Is THAT the engine you're going to use? It's made out of Play-Doh."
"The exact form the engine will take hasn't been determined yet. Money first."
Now it's a little closer to the scenario that has Democratic leaders concerned.

But pay we must. There are real crises on the ground in Iraq that need money to take care of.
Oh, and get used to it. $87 billion is the tip of the iceberg.

Re: Walk of Shame?


Rezman don't worry, there are many political threads on this forum that offer a high standard of discussion on various topics. You have to wade through some crap, as everywhere, but it's there.

That said, if a thoughtful discussion rather than partisan anger is what you're out to get, I have to agree that providing 'discussion material' that starts out with, "Rarely has the intellectual rot of liberalism been more evident" is not the most obvious way to go about it.

Ask yourself this: if you find a thread - and Brand X is right, there's plenty of those to go around as well - that starts out with some position like: "Never before has conservatism shown its perfidious face so blatantly" (or some such paraphrasing), would you happily venture into discussing some of the finer points of the position, or would you either scroll past or react in a defensive knee-jerk?

Anyway, to push myself past the knee-jerk and at least start somwhere, let me try this:



Democrats have in fact divergent opinions on the how & what of reconstruction costs. Lieberman, Mosely-Braun, Dean and Kerry have widely different positions.

Some prefer to give loans to Iraq rather than grants. I dont agree with that - I feel that, if you wage war against a country and occupy it, you'd better clean up after yourself before you leave again, too. But it shouldn't sound like such an unreasonable argument to Republicans who, not all too long ago, bought the Bush reassurances that post-war reconstruction costs would not be excessive, since Iraq's natural resources would be able to cover much of the cost.

As for "treating the very idea that we have to fix Iraq with winks and smirks", this surely must be a misinterpretation. There's not much disagreement (or "winks and smirks") about that Iraq must be "fixed" - but all the more about how.

Many liberals feel that the UN is both more experienced and better positioned to take up much of a interim co-ordination than the US military occupation force, yes. That is why they might treat with scepticicsm any new Bush demand for x billion dollar extra for a reconstruction process that is set up in such a way - exclusive political control of the process by the US rather than by an international organisation that is not seen as an occupation force, a drawn out process of transfer of power to native, elected officials, without clear deadlines, etc etc - that it seems doomed to bite itself in its tail.

What I mean with "biting itself in its tail" is that, the more the US gets to be considered as a unilateral occupation force - and it seems an an increasing number of Iraqis does - the more its hold on political control will complicate the process of reconstruction that Bush is asking money for.

I.e. - just to join the game as well - the mechanic is asking for money to fix your engine, but you already know that he is going about fixing it the wrong way - would you give him the money?

Just to make clear - I agree with the previous poster - I think now that the US has waged this war against Iraq, it should pay for reconstruction as well. But I can imagine some would vote against paying for a solution they dont believe will work.

Luckily, the US administration seems to be very slowly getting the point. Not enough yet, but a start.

You do, Perception, say things like that quire regularly.

Yes--I don't deny it but if you had read further you would have seen my appeal for more mutual respect in these ----ahem---discussions.

BTW----I was of the opinion that you and I had reached some semblance of mutual respect------my mistake?

Mutual respect? Hee hee.

Rezman<

A load of smelly crap seems to have been written in the National Review by Mr. Goldberg. At least that's what I thought of his article for which you have supplied a link.

I will never completely understand why the far-right lunatic fringe of the Republican party thinks William Jefferson Clinton is still president.

The only understanding I have been able to come up with is that the GOP rightists like to tongue lash Mr. Clinton solely to cover up their disappointment in the present president.

The current president -- good intentions withstanding -- has us bogged down in a guerilla war in Iraq. As we creep into election year 2004, Dubya realizes his job is on the line. He will have to come, this time, face to face with the voters of America rather than with the justices of the United States Supreme Court.

Bashing public citizen Bill Clinton won't help out Dubya. I'll admit it's a valiant try, but it's out of step with the American people who are looking for jobs and for loved ones to come home from a futile war about oil, money and power.

I have no problems with you, Perception, and intended no disrespect with my post here. I was merely pointing out that you seemed to be chiding Tartarin for something you regularly do yourself - that doesnt seem to be the most obvious thing to do.

Note that I think both Tartarin and you are actually wholly justified to react in the way she did here. She made a perfectly valid point: "don't sling the outrage at us and expect us to respond kindly". I think you would have reacted the same way if someone started a thread with some rhetorical overkill about corrupted conservatives and then demanded you to respond seriously and respectfully - you, too, would have said, 'yeh, right' - and that's only logical. That was about all of my point.

Monkey Angst: I was going to offer a better version of the "auto shop" analogy than the idiotic, simplistic one offered by Goldberg, but you beat me to it. Kudos to you -- nice job.

Monkey Angst: I was going to offer a better version of the "auto shop" analogy than the idiotic, simplistic one offered by Goldberg, but you beat me to it. Kudos to you -- nice job.