Bush's Pyrrhic Victory

by publius

The early narrative on the Iraq funding debate is that Democrats “lost” and Bush “won.” Sorry, but I don’t buy that. People need to view this particular skirmish – and its inevitable, entirely-predictable conclusion – through a longer-term lens. If Bush “won,” it’s the most Pyrrhic victory of all time. The Democrats, by contrast, didn’t lose at all – in fact, they will only “lose” if they internalize the “Democrats Lost” narrative that seems to be dominating the perpetually near-sighted chattering classes.

At the outset, I should say that I’m not putting political considerations above war policy. The war is, however, the most important and substantive issue of the day (if not of our generation). And politics (at its highest form) is a debate over these types of substantive issues. So, I think it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the political back-and-forth and the strategies involved – not because this is a game, but because ending or continuing the war will turn on political strategies and elections.

With that in mind, let’s look at the “defeat.” First, Democrats had absolutely no chance of forcing troop withdrawal. None. The votes weren’t there because the margin of control is very slim, and because the Republicans are simply not yet frightened enough to abandon Bush. In addition, a chicken-like shutdown over war funding would, sadly, be blamed on Congress and could single-handedly revive Bush (which is why he refused to budge – he was hoping to trigger a shutdown).

The only way to end the war is to put political pressure on the Republicans and/or expand the Democratic majority. Accordingly, the reason the Democrats’ efforts should be seen as a success is because they drew very clear distinctions between the parties on Iraq. Virtually every single Republican is on record as supporting blank-check, endless war. Realistically speaking, the purpose of these votes (and forcing a veto) was not because troop withdrawal was realistic, but to set up the chess board for 2008. Even if the Great Pumpkin appears in September, it doesn’t matter now. These people voted for endless war and blank checks, and that should be the message and the theme for 2008.

That’s why the Democrats should stop sulking and be happy with the result – because of their spending bills, the parties are polarized on an issue where the public overwhelmingly and increasingly supports the Democratic position on the war. For this reason, the “capitulation” should instead be a time for offense – We were forced to do this because Congressional Republicans support endless, escalating war and blank checks for Bush and Cheney.

For similar reasons, Bush and the GOP should think twice before celebrating their victory. Very often, people lose sight of the substance of a debate because they get too caught up in the horse race. Sure, in some sense, Bush “won,” but what exactly did he win? He successfully obtained blanket authority for endless, escalating war – the one issue that cost the GOP Congress and will likely cost them more in 2008.

If Bush had started withdrawing, it would have taken Iraq off the table for 2008 and moved the debate elsewhere. But by escalating the war – and forcing votes on blanket authority – Bush has ensured that Iraq will still be raging during next year’s election season, thus making these early votes relevant.

In short, the war will continue until Republicans abandon Bush. That will only happen if they fear political defeat (or themselves get beaten). The Democrats’ spending bills furthered that goal, and in doing so, likely shortened the war as much as is possible. Under the circumstances, I consider that a success.

[UPDATE: One last point -- it's no accident that Bush's approval ratings are at all time lows. In my opinion, this is a direct result of the Democrats' polarization strategy regarding Iraq. That said, and in response to early comments, I think going the next step and playing chicken would dramatically change the situation (and ironically, prolong the war by reviving Bush's political standing). If you disagree, I think you have to make the case that Dems would win a game of chicken.]

Comments

[George Arndt]

I’m not sure the bill put forward by Democrats is necessarily a “capitulation”. A stronger bill would have been swiftly vetoed by an rigid Bush. Then, he would accuse Dems of being “anti-troop.”
Its also possible that Dems are just looking forward to 2008. Iraq is the chain pulling the GOP down. It is Bush’s war, after all. Letting him keep ownership of it might be the best thing for Democrats in the long run.

[Nell]

hilzoy: (I will go to my grave thinking that Josh Marshall is responsible for the defeat of Bush's SS reform, since he made it the case that tens of thousands of people actually understood the issues.)

And in doing so he relied on the work of Dean Baker, who had been making these same arguments in a way understandable to people all through the 1990s -- a period when Baker was regarded as a beyond-the-pale (i.e., outside the Clintonite "consensus") leftist. During that period, I have no idea what if any position Josh took on Social Security privatization -- in fact, for some of that period he was probably still in school.

I get down on my knees in thanks periodically for Talking Points Memo, easily the best media money I've ever spent. But a big part of its effectiveness has been in taking ideas that used to be regarded as 'left' -- wars of aggression are disasters, there is no Social Security crisis that needs fixing -- and making them acceptable to liberals and moderates. That's a vital role, but it doesn't happen without people who are brave enough to speak these truths repeatedly before they are politically convenient or fashionable.

This occupation was wrong, illegal, and unwinnable (in the sense that nothing good could be salvaged from it) since, at a minimum, fall of 2003. But it took a long, long time for that truth to sink in to the public at large.

And it's apparently going to take even longer to sink into the spinal columns of the Democratic 'leaders' in Congress.

I agree with Katherine (as I basically always do) and others than it would be the smart move politically and in policy terms to keep bringing a bill with conditions back to Bush. I thought this even before I saw the NYTimes poll that shows 63% of the public agrees. There should have been a solid push at a minimum to get the readiness requirements through, with teeth, and another shot at timelines, toothless or not.

[Gary Farber]

"Thus we wind up with people railing at 'the Democrats' for not doing what a) the leadership can't do (force members to vote a particular way, and make the vote come out differently), and b) the majority of members can't do (change the vote of their colleages)."

To be clearer, I should have included, and now add: and get more than 50 1/2 votes in the Senate.

That's all we have. We don't even have 51 solid votes in the Senate; if Lieberman flips completely, we lose the Senate.

Aggravating as this situation is, switching it for the situation where Cheney breaks ties in a 50-50 Senate is not an improvement. But this is the present reality. And it doesn't matter how much one rails at it.

[Gary Farber]

Although having said that, I should also add one more point, which I've made many times before, which is that the momentum on Iraq is with the Democrats, and that more and more Republicans are moving more and more away from Bush on Iraq; so we do have some room to maneuver within these boundaries that do include ever-more-skeptical Republicans on the war in Iraq.

This is apt to come to a head in the fall, at which time I expect a lot more Republican peel-off.

[Nell]

J.Michael Neal: That's they counted the votes, and they weren't there.

Gary Farber: railing at 'the Democrats' for not doing what a) the leadership can't do (force members to vote a particular way, and make the vote come out differently), and b) the majority of members can't do (change the vote of their colleages)."

Votes are not fixed, immutable realities like nightfall. They can be changed by political pressure, which is a combination of making political arguments and mobilizing the voting population in support of them.

The Democratic leadership is fully capable of doing both these things, but apparently unwilling to much more of it than they have done. I disagree with their judgment both on political and policy grounds.

[cleek]

Otherwise the best you'll get is a "correct" vote, and a Republican there in the next term.

that would be fine. make it so.

[Nell]

I think it is a very poor idea, morally and politically, for any antiwar Democrat to hope or expect that the deteriorating situation in Iraq will do the political arguing for them.

[Let me make clear this is not a response to Gary's comment above; I don't read him as recommending that.]

The bleak reality in Iraq will be what it's going to be. Between now and such time as enough Republican votes peel off to force an end, or even the beginning of the end, of this occupation, anyone who is serious about ending it must focus their energies on those members of Congress who can be moved. The Democratic leadership could have contributed to the pressure by being willing to bring re-crafted spending bills to a vote -- this would have helped maintain animo and provided a vehicle for building popular pressure.

[J Thomas]

I'm not even following what alleged Republican plot exactly is, any more: who is the Republican Agent, J Thomas? And what's your evidence?

I'm not sure what you think I'm claiming. I certainly don't have evidence that I think would stand up in court. If it was a matter of proving some specific Republican dirty-tricks guys did it, I wouldn't reveal the evidence here -- it might be prejudicial to the trial.

Legally I would consider any particular Republcan innocent until proven guilty. However, you seem to be implying that I should give the Republican dirty-tricks people the benefit of the doubt about each dirty trick until that particular trick is conclusively proven.

There is no particular reason for reasonable people to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. If there's something that they *might* have done that did happen and that benefitted them greatly, we should accept for purposes of discussion that they *maybe* did it. Which is different from claiming that they definitely did.

So, Gary, do you really want me to go over what happened and what might have happened? I'd rather not bother since I don't think it will make any difference to anybody now, except as a horrible example.

And I pointed out the horrible example angle already -- Kerry got smeared very publicly for a long time by the SwiftBoaters, who were caught in multiple lies. Bush got investigated somewhat for going AWOL for over a year, but when 4 documents were alleged to be forgeries he pretty much got a free pass about that from then on.

If you want I'll go over some of the details, but before I go to that trouble I want to make sure that the details are really your issue.

[Gary Farber]

"Votes are not fixed, immutable realities like nightfall."

I agree completely, but blaming "the Democrats" as a whole puts the blame on 284 individuals, as a whole, which makes little sense.

If anyone wants to make a case against an individual Democrat, fine.

But otherwise, railing against, say, Barbara Lee, or David Obey, because of, say, Tim Walz's vote, doesn't make sense to me.

Should the Democratic leadership have "done more"? Perhaps. But I don't feel in a position to say, not being intimate with all the various things they've done and haven't done. It's not clear to me how anyone who isn't familiar with exactly all they've done and haven't done is a in a position to know what exactly they've done and haven't done, though perhaps you have some specific big-ticket actions in mind: if so, could you name a few?

[OCSteve]

Gary: which is that the momentum on Iraq is with the Democrats, and that more and more Republicans are moving more and more away from Bush on Iraq; so we do have some room to maneuver within these boundaries that do include ever-more-skeptical Republicans on the war in Iraq.

I agree with you here, one qualifier though. It would be easier for more Republicans to make that move if the Democrats could get their entire caucus behind a bill.

In the House, Republicans Gilchrest and Jones voted for the previous bill (with timelines etc.), but 13 Democrats voted against that bill (218-208). In the Senate, Republicans Hagel and Smith crossed the aisle (51-46). IMO when 4 of them cross the aisle, only to pass 13 Democrats crossing the other way it makes it a lot harder. I realize that some of those Democrats voted no because they wanted more stringent withdrawal criteria, but my point is that maybe if the Democrats could get their entire caucus behind a bill it would pave the way for more Republicans to make that leap. It gives Republicans an easy out when they can say, “Not even all Democrats are behind their bill.”

Gilchrest is my rep. and I was furious with him when he first broke ranks. I’ve since come to agree with him, but given my initial comments to him I can only imagine the crap he took. He is doing the right thing for the right reason, but others will not take on that political risk when 13 Democrats in the House can’t vote for a Democrat crafted withdrawal bill.

I know it is not the place for Democrats to provide cover for Republicans here. IMO it would just increase the pressure on Republicans if the Democrats could get 100% behind a bill.

[Gary Farber]

j thomas: "I'm not sure what you think I'm claiming."

I was hoping you'd know what you were claiming, which is why I asked. Who is the "Republican agent" who "sold [or otherwise transferred] a forged document and then tipped off Republican blogs about how to tell it was forged"?

It's your theory: I'm only trying to make sense of it. Is it a complicated question?

[Gary Farber]

"I know it is not the place for Democrats to provide cover for Republicans here. IMO it would just increase the pressure on Republicans if the Democrats could get 100% behind a bill."

Getting 100% behind something is neither a strength of Democrats, nor something they have a lot of practice at. For better or worse.

Which isn't to say I disagree with your point.

[SK]

I agree with other comments that the original post sounds a lot like the Democratic leadership who has said off the record, and perhaps on, that if the war continues they will win in 2008--although many above say they know that is not "the intent." At this point intent doesn't matter.
The Democrats are suffering from Rahm Emanuel thinking--throw up your hands and wait until 2008 while talking tough.
It's pathetic. Leadership means doing the right thing without calculations--the Dem leadership is ALL calcuation--
how can Pelosi expect anyone to take her seriously when she's the speaker and then says she will not support the bill? Or Obey?
I also think tying domestic programs to a supplemental sends the worst signal, and one of profound weakness. So they're saying they actually can't get a vote on more money for Katrina? And they believe Bush will veto money for Katrina? Why? Based on what? They're handing him political "capital" instead of making the fight on domestic issues separate and important-and differentiating between them and those opposed.
If Dems had the guts to talk about the truth that everyone everywhere talks about and cares about--Gitmo and Haliburton, wiretapping, Gonzalez, Plame, in the same breath as a the war, maybe they would NOT have to blink when the President plays chicken.
the war votes are the perfect mechanism to discredit every major candidate.
And then there's the unreported story you posted-the 2nd surge--
w/the lowest #s Bush hasever had and a Dem majority we will have the most troops we've ever had in the worst conditions possible.
that is NOT keeping the troops safe, and the Dems will not be able to pull anything out of the hat.
Perhaps the next war will make the whole debate completely meaningless anyway--if it happens, it will--and then the Dems will be cast as wimps and obstructors in this round, (even though they're not-they're giving in) and they won't vote against that war either-they have painted themselves into a corner and they cannot blame Bush. And how does this sound-they opposed the war in word, they voted for it (Kerry all over again) and they did it to win the election??????? Anyone who cares at all about the actual people dying will take serious offense. I know I do.

[Gary Farber]

"The Democrats are suffering from Rahm Emanuel thinking--throw up your hands and wait until 2008 while talking tough."

There it is: collective responsibility being placed on individuals. All Democrats, everywhere -- or at least in Congress -- are to blame, and they're homogenously so.

This is magical thinking. It's a cry of pain, but it's not a practical plan, or an analysis that make sense. It's a bunch of pained generalizations. It doesn't advance anything, save to make people more disaffected with the Democratic Party.

[Gary Farber]

For better or worse, incidentally, current polling:

[...] While the troops remain in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all spending on the war. The majority, 69 percent, including 62 percent of Republicans, say Congress should appropriate money for the war, but on the condition that the United States sets benchmarks for progress and that the Iraqi government meets those goals. Fifteen percent of all respondents want Congress to approve war spending without conditions.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Nell]

Gary, your point about collective blame is a good one, but I urge you also not to be unforgivingly literal: in many cases commenters are using 'Democrats' to mean 'the Democratic leadership': the people who agreed to put to a vote a bill that does not contain any withdrawal measures or any meaningful checks on Bush's freedom of action. Pelosi, Reid, and their caucus leaders and whips, along with the most powerful committee chairs (Skelton, Murtha, Obey).

As to your question of what else I think they could and should have done, I've already said:

There should have been a solid push at a minimum to get the readiness requirements through, with teeth, and another shot at timelines, toothless or not.

focus their energies on those members of Congress who can be moved. The Democratic leadership could have contributed to the pressure by being willing to bring re-crafted spending bills to a vote -- this would have helped maintain animo and provided a vehicle for building popular pressure.

They could, additionally, have gone on the offensive rhetorically about the ways in which their efforts to protect and support the troops have been blocked by Bush, instead of cowering at the prospect of Memorial Day weekend criticism from the administration and congressional Republicans.

Finally, they could have refrained from insulting our intelligence by trying to tell us this capitulation is any kind of advance. Reid's ridiculous statement yesterday did far more to dent my confidence than the decision itself.

[Nell]

Gary, that's the same poll as cited in my and other comments, the one in which 63% favor a timeline for withdrawal. The only choice given in the question about benchmarks is: no funding, funding w benchmarks, or no restrictions. Frankly, the bill being voted on is a lot more like option 3 than the option most people chose.

[billg]

>>"many of us voted D in order to stop the war..."

But, not enough. The only way Congress can stop the war is to defund it over Bush's veto. Dems don't have the votes for that, something that has been self-evident since last November. Congress could send Bush a defunding bill every day, and Bush would happily veto them. Then, sometime early in the summer, we'd start seeing generals and colonels complaining that they don't have supplies, etc.

It's one thing to get mad at Dems for not voting on principle, but it's an act of folly to get mad because you imagine that Democrats, by themselves, can end the war. That isn't, and has never been, possible.

[billg]

>>"many of us voted D in order to stop the war..."

But, not enough. The only way Congress can stop the war is to defund it over Bush's veto. Dems don't have the votes for that, something that has been self-evident since last November. Congress could send Bush a defunding bill every day, and Bush would happily veto them. Then, sometime early in the summer, we'd start seeing generals and colonels complaining that they don't have supplies, etc.

It's one thing to get mad at Dems for not voting on principle, but it's an act of folly to get mad because you imagine that Democrats, by themselves, can end the war. That isn't, and has never been, possible.

[Mike Alexander]

I think some people are making assumptions that are not warranted. A majority of the public has never supported immediate withdrawal. Only a minority are willing to say get out, consequences be damned. The rest support the war, at least tacitly. Had Kerry been elected president the war would have ended by now. Kerry wasn't elected.

For me the real polls are those that match flesh and blood candidates against each other. Right now the GOP front runner is running even against the best the Dems have. How is this weakness? Sure Bush isn't popular, but they aren't running Jeb.

The GOP could actually win next year's election even though it will be clear that the war will go on if he is elected. Plenty of those who are wishy washy on the issue could be persuaded to vote for Giuliani, particularly if their opponent is a woman or a black.

This war is not Vietnam. Vietnam was begun by Democrats, who later changed their mind on the issue. Republicans will never change their mind on the war they started. To prevent a future Iraq, the political calculus must be changed. The Democrats must win decisively next year. It must be made clear that the war caused this victory. Then the Democrats must end the war, and win again in 2012. Unless it can be shown that peace is a winning issue the GOP will opt for permanent war, because they can win elections that way.

George Bush is the *first* Republican presidential candidate to have come of age in the post-Taft GOP. For him (and all Republicans to come) there is no tradition of caution in using force. For 40 years the GOP has been the party of military strength *without using it*. Bush saw how his father used force sparingly, won a great victory and went down in flames. 2004 shows that by fucking up a war, an unimpressive Republican president can win re-election. If cooking up wars and then waging them incompetently cannot be *proven* to be a bad political move, then we are going to be dealing with one Iraq after another until the end of time.

[rilkefan]

"Had Kerry been elected president the war would have ended by now. Kerry wasn't elected."

That didn't not happen Tuesday.

[Bruce Baugh]

Mike Alexander makes some good points, and I agree with what I see as an important undelrying view: we have absolutely no freaking idea what things will be like in a year. We know that there's substantial public support right now for timetables toward withdrawal and benchmarks on key developments. This, therefore, is the time to act.

In a year we could be in a war with Iraq. Or in the middle of a really serious depression. Or in the midst of a major flu pandemic. Or anything at all. I don't regard sitting and waiting as a viable strategy in a sufficiently chaotic environment, even when it's accompanied by the occasional jab and feint. We need sustained pressure, now.

From my vantage point, trying once and giving up reinforces the Republican narrative: crazy Democrats try to sabotage the war effort but give up when resisted, like the wimps they are. That's not the way to progress as I see it.

[OCSteve]

Had Kerry been elected president the war would have ended by now.

Dude: Slip me Saturday night’s Powerball numbers and I will spilt it 50-50. OK, 70-30, your favor. Hell, 90-10…

[billg]

.."crazy Democrats try to sabotage the war effort but give up when resisted, like the wimps they are."

I'm sure that's how it will be played. But, there's a flip side.

Dems need to emphasize the fact that the war has made the U.S more, not less, vulnerable. We had an Iraq run by a nasty leader who wasn't about to let al-Qaeda establish a presence in his country. We had found a way, albeit not very pretty, to keep Saddam on a leash. Now, the apparent goal of the war is now to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state providing an unfettered safe haven for al-Qaeda. Arguably, that will only be possible via the creation of another authoritarian strongman regime.

The events of 9/11 gave a weak and failing president an opportunity to strut around, posing as a real leader. It's all an act. Imagine Bush's standing if 9/11 had not happened. He has remained, and is, a failure. People know that. It's a powerful political tool in the right hands.

[Bruce Baugh]

Well, yes, Billg, I agree entirely. I'm wanting the Democrats in Congress to push on these things much more than they are.

[billg]

Admittedly, Bruce, it wasn't a very new thought. But, when I think of Democratic leaders I'm most likely thinking about the Presidential candidates, not Pelosi and Reid.

I'd prefer Dems in Congress to be more assertive, but assertiveness alone won't stop the war. Only votes will do that. Bush's war continues until he leaves office and a Dem moves in, unless enough Republicans move across the aisle on an override vote before then.

[dajafi]

One last point -- it's no accident that Bush's approval ratings are at all time lows. In my opinion, this is a direct result of the Democrats' polarization strategy regarding Iraq.

I respect your opinion, and see the logic in a lot of your points here--though it doesn't make the reality of the war's continuation hurt any less--but on this one I think you're off base.

Bush's approval ratings are so low because immigration--the one issue on which the flabby sorta-fascists of the Republican base don't love him--has been prominent lately. That's it. He's lost all the moderates he's going to lose.

[Slartibartfast]

I do think he's a bit more than a caricature of a "nut,"

Oh, I'm sure that he has some extra dimensions, Gary. I'm sure that this...eccentricity is not all there is to Kucinich. It's enough to amuse, though.

[cleek]

The only way Congress can stop the war is to defund it over Bush's veto.

strictly speaking, Bush can't veto a bill he doesn't have. if Congress really wanted to defund the war, they simply could not offer bills that fund it. strictly speaking, of course.

[tomas del sol]

Dennis Kucinich may appear "nutty" to some, but being from northern Ohio originally, and following his political career, there no more sincere, honest, and dedicated politician in the Congress. America would be far better served if 20% of our duely elected officials had the core convictions that he has (just look at the dems today).
Speaking truth to power always is "nutty" to those being spoken to!

P.S.Your sites credibilty is ruined by the stupid picture!

[Gary Farber]

"P.S.Your sites credibilty is ruined by the stupid picture!"

Better take down the blog now.

[dr ngo]

Why do they hate our kittens?

(For that matter, why do they hate the apostrophe that signals the possessive?)

[Anarch]

There it is: collective responsibility being placed on individuals. All Democrats, everywhere -- or at least in Congress -- are to blame, and they're homogenously so.

I know this is a pet peeve of yours, Gary, but please: give it a rest. These aren't 238 people drawn at random, or statistically sampled, from the population as a whole. They're a self-selected -- and thence elected -- group of politicians who are members of the same political party and thus ostensibly supposed to move in rough tandem. That's the entire point of political parties. I realize that ours is not a parliamentary system and therefore there's latitude for individual dissent and the political persuasions of individual districts -- hence rough tandem above -- but this insistence on regarding all Democratic Congresspeople in vacuo is just silly.

And this goes double given the near-lockstep with which the Republican Party has been moving these past six (or really sixteen) years. Party discipline isn't some fictitious concept worth dismissing; neither is the notion that failures of the party are, well, failures of the party. You might as well bitch that it wasn't the Bears that lost the Superbowl but 63 random individuals who happened to be wearing the same uniform at the same event; it's missing the forest for the leaves. So yes, it was a failure of the Democratic Party and yes, it was a failure of the individual Democrats too: for some it was voting the wrong way, for others it was failing to convince the other members of their caucus to hold the line. The appropriate response is to figure out what to do with it, not (incorrectly) complain that collective entities are meaningless.

[Anarch]

(For that matter, why do they hate the apostrophe that signals the possessive?)

Or, for that matter, why do they hate the last 'i' in "credibility"?

[Slartibartfast]

Better take down the blog now.

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Jesurgislac]

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Why be petty? Destroy the entire planet! Who knows what that kitten might do when it grows up.

[Anarch]

It's game over, man, game over!!

[cleek]

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

[cleek]

(that's another Aliens quote, in case anyone was thinking i'd turned all serious)

[David All]

"Politics is the Art of the Possible", a trite, but true phrase. I am sorry that the votes are not there to force Bush to start withdrawing from Iraq, today. But the Democrats by what they have done and will conitnue to do, by forcing the Republicans to have to vote yea or nay on continued support of the Iraq War will help push us to the day when there are the votes, both Democrat & Republican to override Bush's veto and start the US withdrawl from Iraq.
This will take time, patience and persistance, but nothing important is done without a good deal of all three items. Worst thing to do is to walk off in a petulant, childish huff because you do not get what you wanted in the first round of politicking. And yes, I do agree with OW, this is a Pyrrhic Victory for Bush & the Republicans.

[J Thomas]

Who is the "Republican agent" who "sold [or otherwise transferred] a forged document and then tipped off Republican blogs about how to tell it was forged"?

You still haven't given my any indication what you're looking for. Are you interested in the details of how this hypothetical conspiracy might have worked? Or are you trying to tell me I ought not to mention the possibility of any GOP dirty tricks until each of them is conclusively proven?

You've given me a big long runaround before on another topic, and I don't want to put a lot of effort into describing things you have no particular interest in.

What's your point?

[KCinDC]

You agree with OW, David? Speaking of collective responsibility.... That can be a difficult thing to do. I think you're actually agreeing with Publius.

[Gary Farber]

"What's your point?"

My point is that you asserted that a "Republican agent [...] sold [or otherwise transferred] a forged document and then tipped off Republican blogs about how to tell it was forged."

I'd like to know who this Republican agent is, and what you know about this tipping off of Republican blogs.

You say it happened. Surely it isn't difficult to be a bit clearer as to who the Republican Agent is, and what more you know about this tipping off of blogs?

I'm reasonably interested in this, which is why I keep asking you, since you've made a point of asserting that these are facts: this is what you've asserted happened, this is what you say is our recent history. I assume you want to spread the truth about this, right? I'm just asking you to tell it like it is, please.

[Donald Johnson]

Not cool to mock some newcomer's spelling mistakes, IMO.

On the other hand, it is cool to mock his disapproval of the homicidal kitty. And keep those Aliens quotes coming people. I like to keep them handy--for close encounters.

[Gary Farber]

Newt Gingrich on illegal aliens: "We'd better get back, 'cause it'll be dark soon, and they mostly come at night... mostly."

Oh, sorry: wrong Newt.

[J Thomas]

My point is that you asserted that a "Republican agent [...] sold [or otherwise transferred] a forged document and then tipped off Republican blogs about how to tell it was forged."

Ah! Now I understand! Yes, if somebody asserted that I'd be very interested in their evidence too.

But I made no such assertion. I never said that happened.

Never. I'm glad we got that cleared up before it took up too much of our time.

[dr ngo]

JT: What you said, verbatim, at 11:55 PM on May 23 (above) was:

Apparently a Republican agent sold a forged document and then tipped off Republican blogs about how to tell it was forged.

If you think that the single word "apparently" makes this sentence from you no longer any kind of an "assertion," then apparently you're an idiot.

[liberal japonicus]

Oh, sorry: wrong Newt.

Though if there were a relation, it might explain a lot.

[Jesurgislac]

"Has anyone ever mistaken you for a kitten?"

"Nope. How about you?"

[J Thomas]

Dr. Ngo, it appears that one or the other of us is an idiot.

[Slartibartfast]

Apparently, Vince Foster was assassinated. It's true!

[Slartibartfast]

Dr. Ngo, it appears that one or the other of us is an idiot.

As dr ngo is manifestly not an idiot, that might not be the direction you want to take this.

[Slartibartfast]

I, on the other hand, am a moron. At least where proper use of blockquotes is concerned, anyway.

[john miller]

J Thomas, the simple prefacing of your statement with I tend to believe that... your statement would have been much more palatable.

I personally tend to believe that the "forgery" was passed on to CBS by Republican operatives at the direction of Rove. I have reasons for that belief, but I have no evidence that that was the case.

The word "apparently" does indicate a high degree of reality and factualness.

[john miller]

And yes, Dr. Ngo is as about as far from being an idiot as there is on this site.

[J Thomas]

Apparently, Vince Foster was assassinated. It's true!

I would have put that, "Apparently, Vince Foster was assassinated. It's possible!"

[J Thomas]

The word "apparently" does indicate a high degree of reality and factualness.

I see! That's what got all this uproar that I considered inappropriate. I've never used the word that way. I've used "apparently" like "It appears to be that". Not that it's so but that it looks that way.

So why did everybody keep it up when I modified that to "plausibly" "probably" etc?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I have reasons for that belief, but I have no evidence that that was the case."

I tend to think that the only reasons for a belief that deserve any respect, are those which are evidence that it's the case. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

Personally, I'm pretty sure Vince Foster committed suicide, but I'm open to the possiblity that the "suicide note" was a cold blooded fabrication intended to extract some political benefit from an unfortunate death. I'm perfectly willing to admit that the evidence is entirely circumstantial: Who tears up their own suicide note, carefully saves the bits, and then throws away the piece that would have their signature?

[john miller]

Well, plausibly might be okay, but probably also indicates a better than 50-50 chance and would require some evidence to back it up.

[john miller]

Well, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't mean it could go before a court of law. Plus one can put into one's thinking a general pattern of behavior historically, as well as absence of behavior afterwards.

Ansd based on some of your comments in the past, you have proposed beliefs that have little if any evidence. Based upon your statement they should be offered no respect. I think that is a rather inappropriate response.

And I guess you have no respect for my belief in God or the resurrection of Christ. That is, of course, your choice.

[Bruce Baugh]

J, just to help you out here: What Gary's poking boils down to, are you asserting that Larry Burchett is a Republican agent, and if so, why, and if not, who's the Republican agent in the chain of handoffs? Hope this helps.

[john miller]

And with that I wish everyone a safe Memorial Day weekend, as I will be outside of computer access until Monday evening.

[J Thomas]

J, just to help you out here: What Gary's poking boils down to, are you asserting that Larry Burchett is a Republican agent, and if so, why, and if not, who's the Republican agent in the chain of handoffs? Hope this helps.

No, I'm not asserting that Burchett is a republican agent, although I could accept it as possible. I don't know the name the republican agent might have used, nor the legal name. Burchett at one point claimed they came from an anonymous source. Maybe he didn't know the name? That would indicate a certain naivete on his part, which is possible. Or he was protecting the source for some reason?

At one point he gave a name of somebody who would not normally be expected to be on his side, who denied it. Maybe he believed that was an honorable Republican who wouldn't pass him forged documents and lie about it afterward? I dunno.

It's possible he forged the documents himself expecting the forgery wouldn't be found out, because he wanted to hurt Bush or something. That would require a certain naivete on his part too.

Or those documents might have been real, not fake, and the hysterical blog reaction just one of those mass effects. Then Burchett doesn't come off as badly as he does in every other case.

It would be a low-risk operation for a dirty trick. Just make the forgery and send it off, and if nothing comes of it then there's no big problem. Cheap, reasonably quick, hardly any downside. This isn't the only time a question about cheap forgeries has come up in the last 6 years.

I am not asserting any particular sequence of events and I don't have names. I'm saying it's plausible, that it appears to me to be a reasonable guess. I have never intended to assert more than that, and apparently the only thing that got Gary's attention focused on this single track was my use of one word.

[Gary Farber]

1st: "Apparently a Republican agent sold a forged document and then tipped off Republican blogs about how to tell it was forged."

Eventually: "It's possible he [Burkett] forged the documents himself expecting the forgery wouldn't be found out, because he wanted to hurt Bush or something."

In which case no "Republican agent" would be involved.

So we've either eliminated the "Republican agent" in this scenario, or are unable to even identify whom we might be accusing, we've dropped the claim of the documents being "sold," and we've stopped talking about the "tip off" (as if rightwingers would need to be "tipped off" to question such documents).

Which leaves standing none of the original claims you started off with.

But I'll try to keep in mind in future that to J Thomas, prefacing an assertion with the word "apparently" apparently means "in my imaginary version, which has, and needs, no visible connection to reality...."

"...and apparently the only thing that got Gary's attention focused on this single track was my use of one word."

No, it was the other twenty words, actually.

[J Thomas]

But I'll try to keep in mind in future that to J Thomas, prefacing an assertion with the word "apparently" apparently means "in my imaginary version, which has, and needs, no visible connection to reality...."

Whew. You're real hardcase. I'll remember this, I see that you never ever make any speculation of any sort, everything you say is always documented as true by irreproachable sources.

"...and apparently the only thing that got Gary's attention focused on this single track was my use of one word."

No, it was the other twenty words, actually.

But it was your belief that this word meant I was making the claim, that I was not just pointing out a likely possibility, that made it notable to you, right? If I had said IMO (which would be an overstatement, my opinion is that it is not at all certain) would you have been this implacable?

How about if the word was "maybe"? Would you insist that I mustn't say it maybe happened unless I have full documentation?

Have I done something apart from this to get on your bad side? You seem to me to be way overreacting.

[J Thomas]

Oops, Bad italics.

[Bruce Baugh]

Gary, I think you're reading J. Thomas wildly inappropriately.

J., if you mean that you think someone gave Burchett bogus info and then that person or someone else in the same operation immediately tipped off useful bloggers, I find that prett plausible. And I think there is circumstantial evidence for it in the sheer speed of the debunking. Given the existence of, for instance, Gary, I don't want to discount the presence of people with technical expertise and great attention to detail, but it's always looked like a setup to me.

[J Thomas]

And I think there is circumstantial evidence for it in the sheer speed of the debunking.

Gary or somebody brought up that point and opposed it already, it's late for me to look back and check who it was.

Say it had taken another 3 days, or a week, or 2 weeks. That wouldn't have looked so suspicious. It's possible somebody might have picked up on it immediately, that this was the one time in 20 that they get something real fast, and it just happened to happen that way this particular time.

It doesn't prove anything, it just looks suspicious.

The presence of other old documents written with the same typeface among the whitehouse release, looks very interesting to me. Lukasiac interpreted that as saying the documents were authentic, that the argument TANG couldn't have made them must be wrong because here are known samples written the same way. But it's just as plausible to me that they were more forgeries that accidentally got mixed in with the real documents.