Its kind of strange that Ron Paul, who represents the very old-fashioned isolationist, libertarian, Howard Taft wing of the Republican party draws basically all of his support from the internet. I wonder how much of this support comes from the Andrew Sullivan's of the world; does anyone actually know or give a damn about his view on the gold standard?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/749...3:08&out=23:14

Yeah, I'm not much of a dingalink cheerleader, but that's pretty cool.

Quoting piscivorous: For those that wish to see graphically how the surge has worked http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...he_numbers.php. Four graphs and two other graphics that even Ezra might understand.

As Atrios would say, you can't unshit the bed. The disaster has happened, and that's a reality whether you like it or not. No one ever said the disaster would continue forever. Did you think that all Bush had to do to achieve success was wait for the unfolding catastrophe to eventually come to an end? You have a low bar for success, my friend. If you kill a million people and drive four million out of the country or into hiding, it's going to have an impact: There are fewer people to kill, and to be killed. You call that "success," I call it a nightmare of epic proportions. But the disaster has already happened. And there's no way that future reductions in violence are going to change that. If you flunk all your classes in your freshman year, you might be able to turn it around in your sophomore year, but that doesn't erase all those bad grades from your transcript. If your house burns to

Quoting bjkeefe: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/749...3:08&out=23:14

Don't mess with Ezra! Julian's lucky Ezra left him audio...

Such a heartfelt warm emotional appeal and I congratulate you; your rhetoric is grandiose and eloquent. If I ever need a confessor I shall be sure to keep you in mind as your empathy must be boundless. But I believe that Machiavelli's arguments as to how one should consider foreign policy decisions are closer to the truth than those based on emotions.

Quoting piscivorous: Such a heartfelt warm emotional appeal and I congratulate you; your rhetoric is grandiose and eloquent. If I ever need a confessor I shall be sure to keep you in mind as your empathy must be boundless. But I believe that Machiavelli's arguments as to how one should consider foreign policy decisions are closer to the truth than those based on emotions.

If I fall off my bike and break my leg, it's still a disaster after I stop rolling. I've got a chart that shows the rate of my spin-out decreased steadily until I came to a complete stop. Bloody and broken, I declared victory! I would add: You people have been declaring victory since April 9th, 2003. That has been the single most consistent thing about this entire catastophe.

pisc: I'm not Ezra, but here's what I understand from the graphs you offer. Quoting from the captions (emph. added):

o The weekly attack trends are now down to or below 2004 levels ...

o The number of deaths per month nationwide is down to January 2006 levels ...

o Suicide car and vest bombs, and car bombs, are down from a peak of near 130 per month to about 30 per month, the lowest level since May 2006 ...

o The number of IED attacks are now at 2004 levels ...

So, after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, we can now claim victory if we pick the metrics carefully and, oh yeah, redefine "victory" to mean that we're back where we were when the invasion first was seen to be a disaster. Also, let's not forget what the original purpose of the surge was: to give the national government of Iraq time to establish itself. How's that going? Last time I looked, they still can't even keep the lights on or provide clean drinking water. Some surge! And what about when the troop draw-down starts? Perhaps Basra might serve as an early indicator as to how well we can

laffer:

... does anyone actually know or give a damn about his view on the gold standard?

Should we? I vaguely remember Ron Paul saying something once about favoring going back to the gold standard. All things considered, I think a much more sane reason to vote for him is if one is worried about the black helicopters.

Which one of these guys is which? Oh, wait, the guy who made references to science fiction movies must be the libertarian. And the other guy is the one who has idiosyncratic pronounciation . What could have possibly occurred in 2003 that lead the Iranians to drop their weapons program? I wonder. I also question the Sam's Club Republican theory from a different angle. I believe that high earning professionals who have migrated to the Democratic Party will return to the Republicans if there are harder economic times ahead, which appear to be developing. Democrats have only been able to hang on to these voters so long as pocketbook issues have been off the table. If there are hard times, people will be thinking more about how to get the train moving again (i.e., tax cuts) and Democrats will be forced to make more demands from their interest groups for more ameliorative government action.

daveh:

Democrats have only been able to hang on to these voters so long as pocketbook issues have been off the table.

I don't agree. First, health care is one of the biggest planks of all the major Democratic candidates' platforms. That is a pocketbook issue, even for your high earning professionals. Second, remember how Bill Clinton won in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid." I agree that when recessions roll around, some people think "we need to get entrepreneurship happening, and ease up on regulations and spending on new programs." But plenty of others think "big business is the problem," or "I need some help," or even "this recession happened while Bush was President." Basically, it boils down to which side can tell a better story about how the other side is to blame for the current mess, and how their own side is going to make things better. There are also the considerations that you can't ignore when you want to focus on the pocketbook issue. I'd bet that for every h.e.p. of yours that leans back to the GOP for economic reasons, there is another that continues to stay away, out of distaste for the Christianist wing

For all you know, the reason violence has been reduced is that al Qaeda knows that the Iraq war has been the greatest disaster in US history, save for the Civil War and maybe the Great Depression. Al Qaeda would like the disaster to continue for as long as possible. Maybe they're slowing the pace of attacks because they're afraid a Democrat will get elected and extract us from Bush's mess. Maybe they're hoping a reduced pace of violence will help elect another Republican, and keep America on the same self-destructive path. Of course that's just speculation, but I certainly wouldn't put it past Al Qaeda to try to engineer an outcome that is as damaging to the United States as possible.

These AQ guys must be really crafty... the way that they just had 20 ready to go car bombs taken off the streets must be some really brilliant political strategy designed to affect the 2008 Presidential Election! Think about the resources they can dedicate to these stunts, all for the benefit of the Republican candidate in the 2008 Presidential election! Of course Iraq was a disaster, and the

Quoting bjkeefe: laffer:

Should we? I vaguely remember Ron Paul saying something once about favoring going back to the gold standard. All things considered, I think a much more sane reason to vote for him is if one is worried about the black helicopters.

From your tone it sounds as if you don't believe black helicopters exist. Clear photographic proof exists to the contrary.

Long-time fan, and very happy to see so new diavlogs regularly posted. I know it must be a hassle coordinating and working them all in, but listening to political commentary from over two weeks ago is a tough one.

GC: Your characterization of the Democrats' attitude about troops in Iraq is an oversimplification at best, and downright inaccurate when considering the stated views of their leading candidates for President. I do agree with your attitude of what's done is done, and that we need to think about things in terms of the present and the future. Still, it would be a lot easier if the dead-enders in this country made the same admission that you have (which I do appreciate): that the war has been a disaster and was a mistake from the beginning. This would be a courtesy and a gesture of good faith, coming from people who felt free to label my side as traitors and America-haters, just for making the right calls on this invasion all along. It might also help to convince us that there was some awareness of reality on the other side of the aisle, when discussing which steps would be best to take.

See Yglesias for more of what I'm about to say: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c..._long_haul.php This is what the surge all boils down to. Do you want to commit to a minimum 5 year (probably 10-20) commitment of 120,000 troops, another 2-4 trillion dollars, and a few more thousand dead soldiers in order to see "success" in Iraq? The surge has accomplished nothing sustainable and those who argue such are engaging in the wishful thinking that has defined conservative support of this war from the beginning. So you need to make such a commitment if you want to actually accomplish a watered down version of the original goals of this war. And even if you want to make such a commitment for our armed forces and our taxpayers, do you really think the public will support such an entanglement for another 5, 7, 10 or 20 years? I hope Pi and GarbageCowboy answer this question. And I wish Republicans had to answer it. What is your end game here? What are you selling to the American public? I really want to know what you think is going to happen if we just stay there. And at what point do you go, okay, enough

If there are hard times, people will be thinking more about how to get the train moving again (i.e., tax cuts) Exactly, and then when the economy turns around we can cut taxes again in order to give the money back to the people who made it happen and keep the economy buzzing and then when it inevitably goes bad again we can cut taxes again to turn the economy around and then .... But of course this all make sense because the magic tax fairies will bring increased government revenue the more you cut taxes. It really is fun to enter the world of Conservative logic. You people are brilliantly delusional. And of course, the invasion of Iraq was another brilliant efficient and cost-effective way of halting Iran's nuclear program. The plan would have been even more brilliant if the people who implemented it actually thought such a thing would have happened. How much credit can one get for rhetorically benefiting from unintended consequences? I'm always amazed at how prescient Conservatives become after the results come in.

This is a good point as Democrats have been trusted more on the economy for a long time now and now Democrats are more trusted on the deficit. No matter how much loyalist conservatives want to believe the economy will save their chances, nothing, and I mean nothing is further from the truth.

I agree, too much delay although I thought this one held up pretty well despite being from the distant past.

kj:

... and now Democrats are more trusted on the deficit.

Good point. I should have remembered that when posting my rebuttal. I'll even give partial credit to the Republican-controlled Congress of the mid- to late 1990s, provided they're willing to acknowledge Bill Clinton's role in budgetary policy. On a related note, why do you think we can't make the label "borrow and spend Republicans" stick? I mean, considering Reagan and GWB, it's not like it's inaccurate or anything. Is it just that we don't have enough trained parrots willing to repeat this in front of every microphone and camera? Or is it too abstract an issue for the average voter, who has been conditioned by the other side's parrots to tremble upon mention of the word "taxes?"

As a side note to this conversation, I am hearing rumors that Charles Krauthmmer and that crazy man William Kristol are both being dropped by Time. The story, according to Think Progress, also includes on going negotiations with Ramesh Ponnuru. Although I really don't read Time any more I find this to be an interesting development.

ohc:

As a side note to this conversation, I am hearing rumors that Charles Krauthmmer and that crazy man William Kristol are both being dropped by Time. The story, according to Think Progress, also includes on going negotiations with Ramesh Ponnuru. Although I really don't read Time any more I find this to be an interesting development.

Mmm-hmm! That is a tasty rumor! I don't read Time either, unless I'm trapped in a waiting room, but I'm happy to hear that they might be moving from lapdog status back to their usual niche of mediocre reporting of the conventional wisdom. Ramesh I'm okay with. Even if I disagree with him on lots of issues, he mostly seems to have a relationship with reality that Kristol and Krauthammer lost long ago. (I admit I always have to stop and think, "Oh, yeah, that guy who I've seen on BH.tv -- he's not Dinesh D'Souza.") I'm sure you already followed this one, but to save everybody else a step, here's a link to TP's source: http://www.observer.com/2007/kristol...r-are-out-time

And even if you want to make such a commitment for our armed forces and our taxpayers, do you really think the public will support such an entanglement for another 5, 7, 10 or 20 years? I hope Pi and GarbageCowboy answer this question. And I wish Republicans had to answer it. What is your end game here? What are you selling to the American public? I really want to know what you think is going to happen if we just stay there. And at what point do you go, okay, enough is enough, let's get out. Please answer these questions, I really want to know.

Maybe Iraq the Model is not a credible source, but I think the notion that the surge has only been a temporary, tactical reversal is also a bit of an oversimplication. I think a number of factors (some good, some bad) have made an eventual end to the civil war a real possibility. These would include: the success of ethnic cleansing in increasing the homogeneity of various parts of Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, the weariness of the less radical elements in the Sunni community to support the continued slaughter of fellow Iraqis, the political

GC: Very thoughtful post. Nice work. One quibble:

I think Bush will basically keep troop levels at a relatively high rate until he leaves office ...

I expect a showy withdrawal of troops (admittedly, perhaps not really significant) before the election, especially if the Mess-o-potamia issue is still a major issue for voters.

Quoting garbagecowboy: These AQ guys must be really crafty... the way that they just had 20 ready to go car bombs taken off the streets must be some really brilliant political strategy designed to affect the 2008 Presidential Election!

Think about the resources they can dedicate to these stunts, all for the benefit of the Republican candidate in the 2008 Presidential election!

Love the sarcasm, but (a) I said this was just wild speculation (designed to illustrate that any one of us can come up with as many explanations for the reduction in violence as we wish, and they are all about equally provable and disprovable, and (b) I don't think all terrorist activity on earth -- or even in Iraq -- is coordinated from a central office. There may be (note the word "may") that have decided they want to prolong the war to increase the harm to America, while others are motivated by something else. In fact, I'll ask you to examine your own premise: do you really believe that all terrorist activity on earth, or in Iraq, is coordinated by a single office?

Quoting garbagecowboy: Of course Iraq was a disaster, and the decision to go in was

Quoting TwinSwords: I think you would probably agree that there are two schools of thought: The first says that we should stay to protect our investment, and ultimately "win" the war, while the second holds that our continued presence will only make matters worse, and that the current "success" is merely a respite, if not altogether illusory.

From Sullivan's blog:

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

That is good news, according to a military analysis of the results. At the very least, analysts optimistically concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some "shared beliefs" that may eventually allow them to surmount the divisions that have led to a civil war.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121802262.html

Twin: If your house burns to the ground with everything in it, eventually the flames will go out. You don't watch your house burn to the ground and then declare success when the flames go out.

Ha! That's funny.

I think a number of factors (some good, some bad) have made an eventual end to the civil war a real possibility. These would include: the success of ethnic cleansing in increasing the homogeneity of various parts of Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, the weariness of the less radical elements in the Sunni community to support the continued slaughter of fellow Iraqis, the political marginalization of Sadr after cutting down his involvement in the central gov't. This does not strike me as the least bit realistic. Walling in neighborhoods in Baghdad separating one group that thinks it deserves to run the country from another group that has a majority is not going to go away in less than a decade. I mean how long has this sectarian conflict been going on, hundreds of years. We can wall them off and stand guard for a couple decades while some credible institutions are built allowing the chance of reconciliation or we can leave and attempt to lessen the violence as much as possible. Those are our stark choices. The politics of a precipitous withdrawal are now

Way to make your point quite well. And I'm glad you brought out that nice little piece of absurdity by the state department. You all read that right, the State department is touting it a success and a sign of potential reconciliation that both the Sunnis and Shia agree that the U.S. is the reason for violence in Iraq and that we should withdraw. Joseph Heller would have rejected this kind of stuff from Catch-22 for being too absurd.

In other words, you support the Democratic plan for withdrawal.

No. I said that this is probably what will happen, and that it is politically feasible, and that it might not be horrible. It is not necessarily what I would support.

I appreciate your well-thought out answer but it suffers from the same malady of all the dead-enders which basically amounts to putting the decision off a little longer in search of a miracle all while ignoring the billion dollars a week in spending and the dead soldiers that continue to come home.

I appreciate your response (sort of) but it suffers from the tendency amongst people who hate Bush to fail to distinguish between the politics of reversing a domestic policy and reversing a foreign policy. A failed domestic policy (even one that has ruined thousands of lives like public housing projects) can just be abandoned. Iraq, of course, could just be abandoned but the results would be catastrophic. For all the people on the left think Bush is the worst President ever for recklessly going to war, leading to thousands of deaths, it seems a little strange to me that

I appreciate your response (sort of) but it suffers from the tendency amongst people who hate Bush to fail to distinguish between the politics of reversing a domestic policy and reversing a foreign policy. A failed domestic policy (even one that has ruined thousands of lives like public housing projects) can just be abandoned. Iraq, of course, could just be abandoned but the results would be catastrophic. Your snark is appropriate considering my condescension.

Just because we made one irresponsible foreign policy decision does not mean that an equal and opposite irresponsible foreign policy decision will somehow set things right. Agreed, but your evidence that pulling out over the next 1-2 years is irresponsible is quite thin especially considering that at one point in your above post you actually suggest it. The people of Iraq want us to leave. Not just one side, but both sides in this sectarian conflict. Could it be possible that the 80% of Iraqis who think it would be better if we leave might just be right? Or are Iraqis too stupid to know what is best for them? And if they are wrong, and a

Personally my thought on this, as it has been for over a year (I would refer to my post from then, but, you know...) is that we should build our bases in Kurdistan, stone-face Turkey's complaints on that, help Kurdistan carve out their own independent partition of Iraq (a job already 95% done) with our help as long as they do not declare sovereignty, and let the Sunnis and Shia sort out their differences in a thoughtful, reasoned manner (or however they care to do it). That gives us an American-friendly, oil producing ally that is already largely a secular democracy and wants us there to protect them against Turkey; a long term military presence in the middle east from which we can project as much power as we want, and all at very little cost in presence because we will be doing what the American army is good at: Holding a defensive position. And we don't have to do anything politically disastrous to do it; we just make a separate, secret diplomatic deal with Kurdistan and pull back to their territory.

Agreed, but your evidence that pulling out over the next 1-2 years is irresponsible is quite thin especially considering that at one point in your above post you actually suggest it.

Well, I thought that since you were attacking that post as being more or less committed to a failed policy (me being a dead-ender and all) that you were suggesting something more radical. I don't think that a draw-down and withdrawal to semi-permanent bases in Kurdistan is necessarily the best course of action, but it may be the best politically feasible course of action (because the U.S. electorate will not stand for another 2, 3, 4 or 5 years of 100,000+ soldiers doing day-to-day security work). I think this is probably about the barest possible course of action that we should be considering, since we would at least theoretically have the ability to intervene if, say, a genocide breaks out once we leave. Also it is not surprising that the Iraqis would tire of our presence, but yes, it is possible that their wanting the Americans out does not mean that we should leave. Presumably a lot of the people who want us

Do you favor a gradual draw-down over the next 2 or 3 years, keeping our foot on the brake and seeing how the security situation goes? Because I can't tell from what you're saying whether this is what you want or not. I am assuming from your tone and from what you've written on the board before that you favor something faster. So which is it? If we start pulling out troops and violence starts to climb back to late 2006 levels do we keep pulling the troops out? Here's what I want. A withdraw date because of the blazingly obvious fact that we are not keeping 150k troops in Iraq for 5+ years. That withdraw date should absolutely occur within 2 years, no exceptions, perhaps sooner. The pace of the withdraw is can be contingent on how the security situation shifts. If it goes well than we speed up withdrawal and vice versa. The most important thing is a certain withdraw date. That is the key as it ensures we end this mess and it gives the Iraqis the sense that we are leaving and they need to figure out what to

Most of the get out tomorrow rhetoric is fueled by the stay-in-forever rhetoric on the right. If 20 republicans in the Senate suddenly get sane and agree to setting a date a compromise like above could be worked out quite easily. Are you okay with it?

It depends... when you say a withdrawal date, does this mean a date by which all American forces are out of Iraq, which is going to happen before January 2010? Because if so, then no, I would not be OK with it. I do think that the facts on the ground have changed to a large extent, which makes setting a timetable for drawing down troops seem like a reasonable outcome. So if there was a compromise that said "troop levels will fall below 80,000 in Iraq by January 2009" with a goal of hitting 50,000 by 2010 if there was not a sudden surge in violence, I would find probably find this acceptable. But if the goal is to have 0 troops in Iraq by 2010 or 2011, I think that this is too drastic a course of action. What happens if 10s of thousands of Sunnis a week are being

I do think that the facts on the ground have changed to a large extent, which makes setting a timetable for drawing down troops seem like a reasonable outcome. So if there was a compromise that said "troop levels will fall below 80,000 in Iraq by January 2009" with a goal of hitting 50,000 by 2010 if there was not a sudden surge in violence, I would find probably find this acceptable.

But if the goal is to have 0 troops in Iraq by 2010 or 2011, I think that this is too drastic a course of action. What happens if 10s of thousands of Sunnis a week are being rounded up by death-squads after there are no troops in Iraq in 2010? This would make sense to me if you had some evidence that half the troops we have now would do any good in stopping this possible scenario. We had 120k there for years and couldn't stop the violence, why would half the troops accomplish it? I guess I don't see the point especially when you consider that having 50-80k troops would set back security in this scenario and

So we are back to the 10+ year commitment. It's not that I disagree with all your scenarios which all seem possible, it's just that we have a choice: commit to a decade or longer or pull out. The middle ground does not work. And you know as well as I that we don't have the military personal or the political will to sustain what we need to to make this work. Since we don't, it is pointless to pretend otherwise. No?

I do not see how the middle ground doesn't work. The facts on the ground have changed substantially. Security in Anbar is much better and no longer probably depends as greatly on an American troop presence. With that said, having a significant number of American troops with "boots on the ground," ready to go kick ass of any militia that thinks they can swoop in on some city and kill all the men there would be a real deterrent against the worst excesses that might happen if the only military assets we had in the region were aircraft carriers, bombers and surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missiles. I agree about the