Decius wrote:
It seems that if this change in tactics was successful as a matter of fact it would be absolutely impossible to convince you of that. You'd assume those who said so were lying.

Not impossible, but damn fucking hard. Why is this so hard to believe or understand? It's not blind partisanship or stupidity to not trust someone who's shown themselves untrustworthy. Honestly, this is simple. In this world, I can read sources from other countries, some of whom might still care about journalism and honesty. I don't issue a blanket dismissal of everyone, just the WHITE HOUSE, and the rest of the government follows pretty close behind lately. I have discussed previously my mild conspiracy theory that certain groups viewed this presidency as the perfect vehicle to destroy people's faith in government, to the point where drowning it in a bathtub (as the quote goes) becomes more possible. This is merely speculation, but there's no questioning my distrust of the offices of the president, vp and the WH in general, my disdain for Congress and my bare minimum respect for the pentagon, FDA, EPA, FCC, DOJ...

It takes most of my faith to continue believing that our form of government even remains justifiable anymore.

That is true. Most of that, however, was Rumsfeld's doing. He is gone now. Some things may have changed.

May have, could have, might have. I've seen nothing that makes me believe things have changed significantly. I guess I'm just being intellectually dishonest.

Sometimes these arguements can get a little hard to follow. I don't care if you think the short term efficacy is irrelevant. This guy on TV said "the short term tatics change is working." Media matters accused him of lying, because the long term political situation isn't working.

Um, I agree about your first statement, since I wasn't intending to defend Media Matters. I did disagree with your assertion that politics has nothing to do with this tactic because I don't see them as separable. I don't care (right now anyway) if Media Matters presented that same argument in a "dishonest" way. I don't believe that I did. I'm making the specific argument that even if you assume the short term tactics change is "effective" it's a moot point without the political will to support whatever results come out of it. I'm not obfuscating anything there, and if MM did, then shame on them, but that's not my fault or my concern.

Address the way in which a short term tactics change can be considered successful without a solidified political situation in Baghdad. You claim this isn't about the numbers, that it's more subtle than that, and so forth. Ok, fine. Tell me how *anything* that we do -- assume a blue sky, best case scenario -- can be maintained without a stable government in Iraq. I don't see how it can, therefore I don't see how arguments about short term gains is relevant.

Or isn't it about short term gains? Perhaps I'm being too generous (or too dismissive) in assuming that anyone hopes for actual success in the short term. Perhaps in reality, we really are just talking about a brief change in tactics in advance of a long term change in tactics. Since I don't support an infinite occupation of Iraq, this doesn't change my feelings on the matter.

Sure, he should have, but the towns people still had an interest in protecting their sheep, and they also failed to indentify when the wolf was real, and they lost their sheep because of it. The moral of the story is just because they're full of shit doesn't mean they're wrong.

Well, ok, I don't think that's *really* the moral of the story, or even of this now slightly tired analogy. I don't want to debate the meaning of a children's fable with you however, so let's put this in real terms.

Bush lied, then fucked up, then lied some more, then fucked up some more, then the public DIDN'T replace him, then more lying and fucking up. So now, after 7 years of lying and fucking up, you expect me not only to have a little faith in this change, but furthermore allow myself to support whatever additional shit I'm told is necessary when the government says everything is going swimmingly for the n'th time despite the fact that the prior n-1 times can be now shown to be outright falsehoods.

I guess I'm just too mean, I won't give poor 'ol embattled Bush the benefit of the fucking doubt.

If i start hearing cries of joy from all corners of the world, "America finally stops fucking up!!!" then you may very well see me acknowledging -- certainly with great surprise, given my current attitudes -- that this tactic was intelligent and effective. I'm just not going to do so on the basis of a report that's being drafted by the white house and spun by everyone from the Pentagon to K street to the all but discredited editorial pages.

RE: Obsidian Wings: Bush's Speech