News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Negotiating With The Taliban.

Started by mongers, May 31, 2014, 06:15:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Razgovory

Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2014, 01:27:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.

Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.

I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact.  However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic.  For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war.  And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand.  Compare this to the government shutdown last year.

It was more than "discussed", they tried to do it over and over and over again. They failed to ever get the votes necessary to succeed, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

Presumably they could have shut it down since they did have the majority.  They did not shut down the government to get what they wanted.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

garbon

Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2014, 01:06:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2014, 01:27:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.

Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.

I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact.  However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic.  For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war.  And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand.  Compare this to the government shutdown last year.

It was more than "discussed", they tried to do it over and over and over again. They failed to ever get the votes necessary to succeed, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

Presumably they could have shut it down since they did have the majority.

Because the Dems are really good at maintaining party discipline...
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

derspiess

Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 09:32:58 AMNah.  I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one ;)

In this case, the shameful part is dodging the substance of the discussion.

What is it I'm supposed to address?  From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made.  I can't speak for them. 
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

citizen k

Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 01:12:02 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 09:32:58 AMNah.  I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one ;)

In this case, the shameful part is dodging the substance of the discussion.

What is it I'm supposed to address?  From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made.  I can't speak for them.

Would you say they might be playing politics?


derspiess

Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2014, 01:26:57 PM
Would you say they might be playing politics?

Sure.  They're politicians.  That's what they do.

Just like when Obama had Bergdahl's parents at the White House for the announcement.  That was for political gain. 
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Jacob

Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 01:12:02 PM
What is it I'm supposed to address?  From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made.  I can't speak for them.

You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.

Should he have been left in Taliban hands?

Are you opposed to the idea of prisoner exchanges altogether? Or is it just this one particular exchange that is wrong, for some reason?

You've established to your satisfaction that "Bergdahl was probably a deserter" based on what we know so far. How should that have impacted the events around his release? Is this "probably a deserter" - which is not formal evidence or judgment in any form - enough to write Bergdahl off?

There's a strong narrative of "Obama fucked up"... but where's the fuck up? What did his administration actually do wrong?

What would have been the correct way for the administration - for any administration - to have handled this? If what Obama did was wrong, there must have been a better course of action. What is it?

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.

Have you?

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:48:24 PM
You lost me.  I thought we were talking about inconsistency, like outrage over Bush's signing statements and indifference over Obama's.

I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements.  I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated.  The same would hold for any President.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Admiral Yi

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 01:57:10 PM
I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements.  I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated.  The same would hold for any President.

I can't count the number of opinion pieces I read in the NYT asserting their unconstitutionality.

Jacob

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 01:40:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.

Have you?

Have you?

To do you the courtesy that you and derspiess are dodging, I will answer: I don't really see anything to criticize in how the administration handled it; I think it was perfectly appropriate. Bergdahl was an American soldier, a prisoner of war. Bringing him back was the right thing to do. He may have deserted, or he may not, that is unclear; that should be determined in the time and place appropriate to American military procedures, not in the court of public opinion. There may be some minor quibbles around the edges, but they'd be just that - minor quibbles.

I think it's not unreasonable to have people who proclaim this to be some sort of cock up to set out what they think is a reasonable alternative course of action.


Admiral Yi

Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
Have you?

Yes.  I said a deal like the North Korean defector would have been fine.

QuoteTo do you the courtesy that you and derspiess are dodging, I will answer:

Stop smearing me.


The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 01:57:10 PM
I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements.  I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated.  The same would hold for any President.

I can't count the number of opinion pieces I read in the NYT asserting their unconstitutionality.

How could a signing statement be unconstitutional?  Pretty sure the 1st amendment covers that.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

derspiess

Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.

Oh, okay.  I believe this is the first time I'm being asked.

QuoteShould he have been left in Taliban hands?

No.

QuoteAre you opposed to the idea of prisoner exchanges altogether?

Not really, no.

QuoteOr is it just this one particular exchange that is wrong, for some reason?

I think we gave up too much.

QuoteYou've established to your satisfaction that "Bergdahl was probably a deserter" based on what we know so far. How should that have impacted the events around his release? Is this "probably a deserter" - which is not formal evidence or judgment in any form - enough to write Bergdahl off?

The Administration has access to better info than I do.  If it turns out that they had good evidence that he was a deserter, then I disagree with the decision to give up the 5 bad guys for him.  In that case, I'd *personally* not even want him back, but would understand from a policy perspective making reasonable efforts to do so.

QuoteThere's a strong narrative of "Obama fucked up"... but where's the fuck up? What did his administration actually do wrong?

I stated my case on page 8 of this thread.  Those three factors together (if verifiably true) would make it a fuckup IMO.  You'll undoubtedly disagree.  And before you try to exaggerate what I'm saying, I'll remind you that I am not worked up about the whole Bergdahl affair.  You & Raz seem to be the ones egging things on.

QuoteWhat would have been the correct way for the administration - for any administration - to have handled this? If what Obama did was wrong, there must have been a better course of action. What is it?

He could have notified congress in the appropriate time-frame and therefore stay within the law.  He could have held out for a more favorable deal.  And he could have avoided the big PR spectacle at the White House-- that one seemed destined to backfire.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

derspiess

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 01:57:10 PM
I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements.  I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated.  The same would hold for any President.

I recall more than a raised eyebrow.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 02:04:17 PM
How could a signing statement be unconstitutional?  Pretty sure the 1st amendment covers that.

Of course the issue is whether the signing statement allows the president to only follow the part of the law he agrees with.  But you knew that.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

The Minsky Moment

The President can take whatever legal position he wants to take.  If he wants to give a press conference to explain that position he can.  If we wants to tell it to a reporter he can.  If he wants to tell it to Jimmy Fallon he can.  And if he wants to put it into a "signing statement" he can.  Either way the effect is the same.

The issue that I recall coming up with Bush was that there was a clique either in or allied with the White House that was promoting the doctrine that Presidential views, if put in the form of a signing statement, had some special legal significance.  I don't think Bush or his administration ever took that view.  It is true that such a doctrine would be inconsistent with constitutional principles and I do recall some editorialization to that effect.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson