Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Elliot Spitzer: Progressive Champion
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, March 10, 2008

Progressive activists, I give you your Progressive Champion, Elliot Spitzer...
Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning.
This is the "visionary politician" who was setting "a moral and spiritual path to getting there". "Eliot Spitzer 2012?" Probably not.

I say that to make two points:

  1. Perhaps this would be a good time for people in both parties to reevaluate the counter-productive, anti-freedom laws surrounding prostitution. I'm not sure what Gov. Spitzer was doing, but I would bet he wasn't hurting anybody else. The question of legality should be distinct from the question of propriety.


  2. The Great Man Theory of political improvement is bankrupt. The fundamental problems in politics are not resolvable by electing "better" people (though that might help at the margins); the fundamental problems in politics are the structural and systemic perverse incentives to pander, bribe and capture more power, and even the best-intentioned politician cannot escape those problems.

These are the people to whom you want to give more and more monopoly power over your lives. You can trust them about as far as you could trust, say, Governor Spitzer and Senator Vitter. If you seek to replace the politicians, rather than to fundamentally change the incentives and limit their power, you're just not serious about fixing the problems.

UPDATE:

What Radley Balko says...
Sweet, sweet karmic justice. Now, let’s all watch as a man who rose to power and fame by railroading people on ridiculous charges himself get tripped up by a dumb, unjust law.
[...]
MORE: To borrow from this Hit & Run comment, I nominate the following for tomorrow’s NY Post headline: “Prostitute Admits Link to Elliott Spitzer; Resigns From Escort Service in Disgrace”
I don't like that people are prosecuted for prostitution. However, people do that reciprocal equivalence offers a useful gauge for determining how other people believe they should be treated. In that respect, Governor Spitzer implicitly agreed to the standard by which he is now being judged.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"but I would bet he wasn’t hurting anybody else."
His wife and children might disagree.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
In the (movie) words of another Democrat, John Glenn ..
I’m talking about the playing around that’s going on. I’m talking about the young girls. I’m talking about the cookies. I’m talking about keeping our pants zipped and our wicks dry around here!
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Good, the guy was a grade 1 P.O.S.

As for this...
Perhaps this would be a good time for people in both parties to reevaluate the counter-productive, anti-freedom laws surrounding prostitution. I’m not sure what Gov. Spitzer was doing, but I would bet he wasn’t hurting anybody else
Agrees, as long as the ring is what I would guess it is - "high class" escorts that basically do it because it pays a lot, as opposed to being tricked out by the guy on the corner (or the "slavemaster", in the case of immigrants)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
His wife and children might disagree.
He’s not being (investigated/whatever) for adultery, but for (allegedly, we presume so far) paying for the adultery. Separate those elements. It is the payment that hurts nobody.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
May I point out that in the last round of elections, NYC democrats elected/helped elect:

1) Alan Hevesi as comptroller. He was elected while under investigation for misusing funds. He resigned about 5 minutes after he was elected
2) Eliot Spitzer as gov, who has to resign because of the call girls.

Nice job NYC Dems.....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"but I would bet he wasn’t hurting anybody else."
His wife and children might disagree.
One cannot blame the prostitute, or the prostitution ring, for this. It’s his adultery that they can blame.

It’s like why one cannot blame the barkeep for one’s alcoholism.

Even though that bastard Cecil down at the Rickety Pub is to blame for many of my hangovers... He should know better than to serve me brandy after I’ve had a few pints already... that motherscratcher *sigh*...

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
dammit, jon...

missed it by ...that much
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
These are the people to whom you want to give more and more monopoly power over your lives. You can trust them about as far as you could trust, say, Governor Spitzer and Senator Vitter. If you seek to replace the politicians, rather than to fundamentally change the incentives and limit their power, you’re just not serious about fixing the problems.
Except for the NSA; you can totally trust those guys. Right? Oh, and the FBI and CIA. Pretty much the whole DoD too. We can trust them to only detain and torture the right people. No need for sunshine on that. Oh, and the DoJ is above suspicion. No need to for anybody to see any whitehouse emails on that subject. So which are the parts of government we should be giving less power to, and really which need more? I know the SWAt teams with their miltary tactics are bad bad bad, but what about the guys routing all your emails through a program that points those SWAT teams at your house? They’re still all good right?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
He’s not being (investigated/whatever) for adultery, but for (allegedly, we presume so far) paying for the adultery. Separate those elements. It is the payment that hurts nobody.
With respect to prostutution, it is likely less damaging to the family than sleeping with the interns . . . the ho ain’t likely to end up on the family’s doorstep at 1 AM crying.

After all, you are not paying for sex, you are paying so she goes away after sex . . .

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Hm...I’m seeing great arguments, but I have a question:

If a person where to have sex with a prostitute and in so doing infects himself and later his spouse with, say, AIDS, would that then be/should be a crime?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Nice to see that as a Democrat, he was paying prevailing wages.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Personally, the crime doesn’t bother me that much.

However, he is a class A hypocrite
Mr. Spitzer gained national attention when he served as attorney general with his relentless pursuit of Wall Street wrongdoing. As attorney general, he also had prosecuted at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force.

In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island.

“This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. “It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.”
disgust and revulsion ... save it for his own behavior, not for others
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Change the law if you think you’ve got the votes for it, Jon, but I submit to you there’s a bigger problem being exposed here. That being, a profound disrespect for the law... any law... not just ones surrounding sex for money... except insofar as it served his purposes.

There’s this, also: If Spitzer had arrived in his current position by any other means than by way of the AG’s position, it might not mean so much. But the impact on any Democrat wanting to run on a law and order platform in this state is now lessened and damaged. And you know, that’s a larger impact than you might expect. In a lot of ways, he and Obama are a lot alike... implicitly and explicitly promising miracles. Spitzer was elected by a huge margin, with all the great expectations attached to it.

Perhaps the hero-worship aspect of Spitzer’s election, and the failure of the candidate, will lessen the attachment to another rather messianic.... Obama.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Page 26 shows "Interstate Transportation" as the count for paying for "Kristen"’s train ticket, the most expensive ticket Spitzer ever bought in his life.

I don’t think that there is too much progressive about "Interstate Transportation".
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
If a person where to have sex with a prostitute and in so doing infects himself and later his spouse with, say, AIDS, would that then be/should be a crime
Depends....was the infection knowingly passed on? Otherwise it would be hard to prove a "crime", though I’d bet that the unlucky spouse will be able to get everything and then some via civil means (not that it would be any great comfort to them.)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Let’s not lose perspective on this.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I wonder whether Martha Stewart will visit him in the hoosegow?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
As someone who lives in a state where prostitution is (largely) legal, I don’t have any qualms about the act itself. However, I don’t think having it legal solves much of the problems associated with illegal prostitution.

There is no doubt the Spitzer screwed up. This will be a huge blow to his career. And it should remind us all the politics makes for strange bedfellows.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
What is really going to stick in people’s craws — and be shown in video over and over in the next few days — is Spitzer’s faux outrage and disgust at the pross rings he busted.
 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://www.deanesmay.com
I thought the Eliot Spitzer’s MO as attorney general was akin to racketering. In the large part, Spitzer shunned criminal prosecutions but insteaded filed civil lawsuits for practices that were legal but of which Spitzer did not personally approve.

to wit, Spitzer used the power of the state to enforce his own person set of moral values.

Spitzer fall from political grace was utterly predictable. Spitzer’s style is that of a bull in a china shop. Alas the Empire State, New York, is simply not that governable The governor is fall from the sole power in the state. Governors are forced to negotiate rather than direct. It was three men in a room with Mario Coumo, George Pataki and even Spitzer. All of Spitzer arrogance could not change the nature of New York State politics, which needs changing more than week old nappies.

Spitzer came to power via his role of Mr. Clean Come to power via absolute moral authority and leave the same way.
 
Written By: DavidL
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us/
Perhaps this would be a good time for people in both parties to reevaluate the counter-productive, anti-freedom laws surrounding prostitution. I’m not sure what Gov. Spitzer was doing, but I would bet he wasn’t hurting anybody else. The question of legality should be distinct from the question of propriety.

I agree.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
This should be called the glass houses thread.

It’s wrong to prosecute people for prostitution, but they deserve it if they prosecute people for other things that should not prosecuted.

In other words, people who live in glass houses (pretty much everyone on the planet) should not throw stones.

Or perhaps, he who lives by the sword of moral prosecution, shall watch his political career die by the sword of moral prosecution.

But isn’t this the oldest story in the third oldest profession?
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Spitzer, a former New York Attorney General, ran for Governor by pledging to “bring ethics reform and end the often seamy ways of Albany.”
Technically, a decrease in ethics is a type of reform... heh.

I wonder how high up Spitzer’s petard is right about now. I ask because he sure has hoisted the thing...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
In other words, people who live in glass houses (pretty much everyone on the planet) should not throw stones.
exactly. Let us toast and laugh at the hubris of this man.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The Great Man Theory of political improvement is bankrupt. The fundamental problems in politics are not resolvable by electing "better" people (though that might help at the margins); the fundamental problems in politics are the structural and systemic perverse incentives to pander, bribe and capture more power, and even the best-intentioned politician cannot escape those problems.


I don’t believe in Great Men. But I also equally don’t believe in Great Systems.

Every system can be ’gamed’. Every one.

The fault lay with the public. By definition, not a popular place to lay blame. But the general public sucks when it comes to integrity these days. And suck worse when it comes to critical thinking.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Actually, he got investigated for odd currency transfers and the suspicion of structuring. So it is really the Patriot Act and BSA that this post should cover.

Personally, I think it’s good that the rich and politically powerful get gored by their own laws. It might make them think twice. I wonder how many Congress Critters are twitching tonight?

As for the prostitution, it looks like the high fees were for disease-free women, supposedly. If you read the complaint, there is a report of a conversation in which one of the principals discusses the problem of a lot of the women "deteriorating" in the context of the problems they are having with one woman they suspect is on drugs. Prostitution really isn’t a victimless crime.
 
Written By: MaxedOutMama
URL: http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com
It’s wrong to prosecute people for prostitution,
No, it’s not wrong. Prostitution is against the law in New York (and Washington, D.C., where the tryst took place). Spitzer, more than most, knew this and willfully broke the law he had sworn to uphold.

If the people of New York don’t think prostitution should be illegal, let them change the law. Since they haven’t done so, Spitzer got what he deserves.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Prostitution really isn’t a victimless crime.
The prohibition against prostitution is the cause of the victimhood, not a solution to it.

Consider pornography, a similar, but legal, enterprise. People engaged in this industry have a significant degree of protection against being victimized.

I’m not a fan of either, but I recognize that illegal industries are (obviously) run by criminals, so victimizing people is virtually assured.

Look at the women at the (LEGAL) Chicken Ranch in Nevada (I saw them HBO). Do you think these women are victims? (they’re not, and won’t allow others to be victimized)

So yes, prostitution can absolutely be victimless, only in order to be so, it would have to stop being a crime.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Except for the NSA; you can totally trust those guys. Right? Oh, and the FBI and CIA. Pretty much the whole DoD too. We can trust them to only detain and torture the right people. No need for sunshine on that. Oh, and the DoJ is above suspicion. No need to for anybody to see any whitehouse emails on that subject. So which are the parts of government we should be giving less power to, and really which need more? I know the SWAt teams with their miltary tactics are bad bad bad, but what about the guys routing all your emails through a program that points those SWAT teams at your house? They’re still all good right?
You should probably take that argument up with somebody more inclined to actually disagree with you.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
" I’m not sure what Gov. Spitzer was doing, but I would bet he wasn’t hurting anybody else."

That depends on how many STDs he brought home or spread to other prostitutes.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
That depends on how many STDs he brought home or spread to other prostitutes.
Again, that is irrelevant. It would be equally true if he had simply cheated on his wife, or even if he was unmarried and sleeping around. Simply having sex is not illegal. What Spitzer is being investigated/indicted for is the payment. Providing monetary compensation for sex violates nobody’s rights.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
But, as the law stands, is illegal.

He should know, he’s busted up several prostitution rings. He can hardly raise the "I don’t believe it’s a crime" angle.

But we’ve already had this argument a little while back on this blog...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Look at the women at the (LEGAL) Chicken Ranch in Nevada (I saw them HBO). Do you think these women are victims? (they’re not, and won’t allow others to be victimized)
Nitpick: it’s The Bunny Ranch that you saw on HBO. It’s east of Carson City, on US-50, and probably the most popular brothel in northern Nevada. They only showed the pretty ones on the program, there are plenty of places where the women aren’t nearly so attractive.

Like strippers, the women who work in the brothels in Nevada have a fairly high rate of drug use and are usually out of work in a few years. If there are prettier girls at the more popular brothels who beat them out for work, they can always move to the brothels in the middle of nowhere. Not a lot of money to be made, and about the only people you talk to on a daily basis are the other gals at the brothel.

I wouldn’t call them victims, but the industry does take its toll.


As I said above, I have no problem with prostitution being legal. But even if it were legal, you’d still have girls (and probably guys, too) flying "under the radar", so to speak, with willing customers despite the obvious risks.

Prostitution is illegal in Clark County. The closest legal brothel to Vegas is a little over an hour’s drive away. There are cabs or car services that will take you to the legal brothels for free (they get paid by the brothels). But there are plenty of streetwalkers in Vegas, and even more call-girls. And those girls aren’t getting STD tests every week, like the ones at the brothels. But they have no end of customers.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
"Again, that is irrelevant."


So transmitting STDs doesn’t hurt anyone else?
"...but I would bet he wasn’t hurting anybody else."

I was not commenting on the merits of criminalizing sex for pay. Legal or not, his behavior would probably eventually involve transmitting an STD. In my book, that would hurt someone else. There is also the emotional pain he caused his family, which would be the same whether or not prostitution was legal.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
And those girls aren’t getting STD tests every week, like the ones at the brothels.
Because....
Prostitution is illegal in Clark County.
That’s my point

I am not suggesting it is an ideal career choice, legal or not, but it IS a choice some people will make, and the prohibition endangers people more than protects them.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I am not suggesting it is an ideal career choice, legal or not, but it IS a choice some people will make, and the prohibition endangers people more than protects them.
You don’t seem to understand MY point: you can legalize prostitution and regulate it to make it safer, but there will ALWAYS be illegal prostitutes. Some won’t want to pay taxes, some won’t want to follow the regulations, some just won’t give a tinker’s dam about anything. There will ALWAYS be customers for those illegal prostitutes, despite the needless risk they’re bringing on themselves.

To say that the prohibition of prostitution is the cause of victimhood is to ignore a great body of facts.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
You should probably take that argument up with somebody more inclined to actually disagree with you.
You’re right Jon. Maybe I should go over to McQ’s Spitzer rant. I would, but I can’t stop laughing about an Iraq War die-hard lamenting the loss of trust in a politician.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
I would, but I can’t stop laughing about an Iraq War die-hard lamenting the loss of trust in a politician.
More pretzel logic from my fav pretzel. You are at least dependable, Retief.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Pretzels mmmm.

Anyway, allow me to rephrase your last few paragraphs.

When somebody starts a short, victorious war that five years later he has yet to win on the basis of weapons they have not found, threats that were not real, the idea that the rebuilding would pay for itself, and estimates of our welcome that have not been borne out, people have to decide whether or not they want an untrustworthy public servant - his untrustworthiness demonstrated by his actions as opposed to his words - to continue in office. They have to decide if ethically he’s still their choice for the job, and if his his even-more-bullish-on-the-war cohort is their choice to replace him.

Bush (and McCain) wants to deflect this the same way those who are to blame for disasters always do. He wants to reduce it to the Surge and tell everyone how we need to stop thinking about how we got here and focus on doing the best we can with the current unfortunate situation.

It’s not about the Surge, Mr. Bush, it is about trust.

All politics is about trust. Trust is the critical element between a citizenry and its government. When that trust is broken the effectiveness of the politician/government is broken as well. Bush has broken that trust in a most arrogant and bloody way. It is up to the citizens of the US to decide if that trust is irrevocably broken or whether they think it can be mended. Why ever would they leave the people who got us into this mess to dig us out? Why would anyone believe that the poeple who’ve told us every six months since 2003 that the next six months in Iraq are really the critical ones and now we’re doing it right are going to get lucky and actually have the next six months see us turn a corner. It hasn’t been true the last ten times, but this time it is? "Trust me"?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
When somebody starts a short, victorious war ...
I’m sorry but I’m not about to begin this nonsense with someone who still doesn’t know the difference between a lie and bad information (shared by all international parties concerned) or who continues to ignore salient points that don’t fit his preconceived notions or his convoluted arguments.

The facts remain that Saddam supported terrorism abroad, all credible intelligence services believed he had WMD, he had a clear grudge against the US given the Gulf War and its surrender terms and given the external threat he had proven to be to Kuwait and other countries in the region not to mention critical oil supplies, it made sense to remove that threat.

They managed the kinetic phase well enough, didn’t plan for the OOTW phase, reassessed, changed personnel, committed to a new strategy and are now succeeding.

You, as usual, can’t admit that and are thus reduced to the silly nonsense you spout above.
Why ever would they leave the people who got us into this mess to dig us out? Why would anyone believe that the people who’ve told us every six months since 2003 that the next six months in Iraq are really the critical ones ...
Name 6 months that haven’t been critical Retief?

It’s called war. When you wage war the idea is to win. That means until it is won all months are critical. And, as much as you may not like it, it looks like this is a war that may end up being won. And by the "people" who got us into this "mess" no less.

I know — woe is you.

Had the administration continued doing what wasn’t working and had the result been continued deterioration, then you might actually have a "trust" issue you could bring up.

But that’s not the case is it? It just hasn’t happen within your 5 minute attention span nor satisfied your demand for instant gratification, so, I suppose, it doesn’t count, huh?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
And, as much as you may not like it, it looks like this is a war that may end up being won.
When?

Speaking of someone who still doesn’t know the difference between a lie and bad information, here’s a little test for you. See if you can tell which of these is the lie and which is the bad information. "Surely Saddam must have chemical weapons or he’d have proved he doesn’t." And "If we don’t invade the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud." How about "Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons"?

And I know that 2007 was a better year for Iraq. But the progress that has been made there is still insufficient to let anyone say with any degree of certainty that there is a time in sight when US troops won’t be getting blown up in Baghdad. You’ve had five years to get to that low low threshold.
They managed the kinetic phase well enough, didn’t plan for the OOTW phase, reassessed, changed personnel, committed to a new strategy and are now succeeding.
Like I said, "don’t think about how we got here, let’s focus on the now."

A lie and bad information. Ha. Are you really going to pretend that Bush, Cheney, et al were reluctantly convinced of Saddam’s threat by the cowboys in the intel community? That’s just sad.

Anyway there are two components to trust. One, do I believe you want to do the right thing, and two, do I beleive you’re capable of doing the right thing. Your suggestion that poor Bush was just acting on bad information simple shifts the reason for not trusting him to component two, even if anyone believes it.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
When?
And I repeat:
It just hasn’t happen within your 5 minute attention span nor satisfied your demand for instant gratification, so, I suppose, it doesn’t count, huh?
More Retief patties:
"Surely Saddam must have chemical weapons or he’d have proved he doesn’t." And "If we don’t invade the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud." How about "Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons"?
Using these statements as examples again prove you still don’t know the difference.
And I know that 2007 was a better year for Iraq.
Yes it was.
You’ve had five years to get to that low low threshold.
And I repeat:
It just hasn’t happen within your 5 minute attention span nor satisfied your demand for instant gratification, so, I suppose, it doesn’t count, huh?
Meanwhile:
Like I said, "don’t think about how we got here, let’s focus on the now."
Heh ... good grief man, I had just outlined how we got there - how could you have missed it?
Are you really going to pretend that Bush, Cheney, et al were reluctantly convinced of Saddam’s threat by the cowboys in the intel community? That’s just sad.
What’s sad, as usual, is you ignore the fact that the administration’s intelligence matched that of just about every other nation’s intelligence agencies. It wasn’t an outlier, it was accepted as being the reality of the situation.
One, do I believe you want to do the right thing, and two, do I beleive you’re capable of doing the right thing. Your suggestion that poor Bush was just acting on bad information simple shifts the reason for not trusting him to component two, even if anyone believes it.
And here we have a true example of pretzel logic.

Sorry Retief - the only person that bit of nonsense must make sense too is you, because I find it to be pure gibberish.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
See if you can tell which of these is the lie and which is the bad information...How about "Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons"?
Retief once again proves himself an idiot. Here is the interview. In it Cheney states:
1) "...we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program. He has pursued nuclear weapons for over 20 years."
2) "We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons..."
3) "...in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons."
4) "...we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
5) "...it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons."
6) "And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons."

His statement about reconstituted nuclear weapons was clearly a slip in which he meant a nuclear weapons program. It is surrounded by 6 other statements in which Cheney is very clear that he doesn’t think Saddam has a bomb yet.

Retief is the proven liar by his own standards.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG, it may have been clearly a slip to you, (as it would be clearly insane to actually believe that) but Cheney was happy to let it stand. That way those who are paying attention think it’s a slip and those who are not get a nice scare and a push to war. Has Cheney ever said it was a slip? Did he ever correct himself? Do you really want to pull up that transcript and see how his predictions have held up?

McQ, the components of trust are pretty well understood and accepted. Whether you call them intention risks and ability risks or perception of competence and perception of intentions, they are as I described them. So your (laughable as it is) suggestion that Bush acted in good faith on bad intelligence merely shifts the reason not to trust him from a lack of faith in his intentions to a lack of faith in his ability to tell good intelligence from bad when that is the essence of his job, as far as deciding to invade at least is concerned. It may be nonsense to you but 80% of the country has reached that conclusion.
What’s sad, as usual, is you ignore the fact that the administration’s intelligence matched that of just about every other nation’s intelligence agencies. It wasn’t an outlier, it was accepted as being the reality of the situation.
Only one nation’s leader decided that those intelligence estimates were solid enough to that he needed to invade and occupy Iraq. There’s your outlier, not bad intel but bad deciderating.
You’ve had five years to get to that low low threshold.
And I repeat:
It just hasn’t happen within your 5 minute attention span nor satisfied your demand for instant gratification, so, I suppose, it doesn’t count, huh?
Don’t you feel a little bit silly claiming that expecting better results than 5 years of "not winning yet" is equivalent to a demand for instant gratification?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider