Director of Irony

[Pangloss62]

July 12
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) offers a few more lessons learned:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President said we continue to be wise about how we spend the people's money.

"Then why are we paying over $100,000 for a 'White House Director of Lessons Learned'?

"Maybe I can save the taxpayers $100,000 by running through a few of the lessons this White House should have learned by now.

"Lesson 1: When the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State say you are going to war without enough troops, you're going to war without enough troops.

"Lesson 2: When 8.8 billion dollars of reconstruction funding disappears from Iraq, and 2 billion dollars disappears from Katrina relief, it's time to demand a little accountability.

"Lesson 3: When you've 'turned the corner' in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles.

"Lesson 4: When the national weather service tells you a category 5 hurricane is heading for New Orleans, a category 5 hurricane is heading to New Orleans.

"I would also ask the President why we're paying for two 'Ethics Advisors' and a 'Director of Fact Checking.'

"They must be the only people in Washington who get more vacation time than the President.

"Maybe the White House could consolidate these positions into a Director of Irony."

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) offers a few more lessons learned:

I don't think we'd be saving $100k by letting a Dem from IL tell us what lessons to learn. Before you get elected too a national office like POTUS you have to have a platform with more in it than "the other guys suck". And that's a lesson he apparently hasn't learned yet.

"I would also ask the President why we're paying for two 'Ethics Advisors' and a 'Director of Fact Checking.'

Scape goats in residence.

[dar512]

Won't affect my politics one way or the other, but #3 was funny.

I have some more lessons:

5) When they tell you, "Mr. President, a plane has just flown into the Twin Towers," you do NOT grin idiotically and continue reading a child's book for 7 minutes.

6) If you know the person responsible for the attack on the US is hiding in Afganistan, you do not go hunting for him in Iraq. Its a little bit like the drunk who was searching for his keys under a street light. When asked where he had lost them, he said, "Down the street somewhere, but this is where the light is."

7) If you have made some mistakes, you fess up to it like a man and don't try to push the whole thing off onto an "Office of lessons learned." I made a really stupid mistake on some road flares. Everyone here really reamed my ass over it. I didn't tell you all that you were stupid or that my director in charge of road flares misinformed me. I fessed up to being really ignorant, sucked down the shame and learned a hard lesson. A president should be able to do what someone with fucking neurological damage can do.

[Ibby]

I disagree with five... I would have kept reading the book too, possibly without the minute or so of "durrrrrrr.... ... ... ... uh.... ... ... *drool*.... ... ..."

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I don't think we'd be saving $100k by letting a Dem from IL tell us what lessons to learn. Before you get elected too a national office like POTUS you have to have a platform with more in it than "the other guys suck". And that's a lesson he apparently hasn't learned yet.

Is he running for president?

[Pangloss62]

I don't think so. Check him out:

http://www.house.gov/emanuel/

I understand what Maggie said. The Dems can't just bash bash bash, though there is so much material to work with. Platform? Dems can't agree on a platform any more than the GOP.

[Happy Monkey]

I dunno, a party with no platform has some appeal. If they can't agree on what to do, maybe they won't do it.

A party with a platform I support would be great, but no platform could be an acceptible alternative...

[xoxoxoBruce]

A platform is putting campaign promises in writing.
But they're still campaign promises, i.e. fairy tales.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I dunno, a party with no platform has some appeal. If they can't agree on what to do, maybe they won't do it.

Platforms don't address the problem nor define any solutons. Platforms are like being 'politically correct'. Lies because we want to be lied to. Meanwhile, one dominant part of one party does have a strategic objective. We will lose the 'Mission Accomplished' war because we have no strategic objective there. But those who got us in that war will continue to win elsewhere because they have a clearly defined, politically motivated, strategic objective. Remember, being a loyal Democrat or Republican is about being more loyal to the part than to America. Another example of 'political incorrectness' because it is blunt honest.

To make is simpler for those who require sound byte reasoning, part of that extremist Republican objective involves "We must do anything necessary to keep the US #1; even unilaterally attacking India, Germany, or Russia as necessary". Anyone who does not understand how that example fits into their strategic objective is then cannon fodder for a large propaganda structure (containing Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh as its stars).

Why do we never make any effort to get bin Laden? As long as he runs free, then bin Laden remains a useful propaganda tool. If you did not also see that obvious fact when this question was repeatedly asked to intentionally irritate the lurker (“When do we start going after bin Laden”), then again, appreciate why those simple lessons still are not learned by most voters; why we have Vietnam Deja Vue.

Do you know the strategic objectives of George Jr's administration? If not, then you became part of the problem. Do you know the strategic objectives of an opposition party? Again, if you cannot answer that question, then you have no idea why we are in Vietnam Deja Vue, why the 'War on Terrorism' is mostly mythical, and why we are fighting the "Mission Accomplished" war, and why it is necessary to ‘Pearl Harbor’ Iran.

What are their strategic objectives? Without answering that question, then this thread will only spin in circles or degenerate into no useful conclusion.

[Undertoad]

Their strategic objective is generally to retain as much power as possible.

But that's an oversimplification because inside each machine are a bunch of people trying to individually retain as much power as possible, and sometimes that subverts the machine.

In the current Connecticut primary situation, for example, one sector has broken away to support their principles, even though it hurts the overall machine.

Possible outcomes:

A) Lamont wins Primary + General
B) Lieberman wins Primary + General
C) Lamont wins Primary, Lieberman wins General

So they are subverting a politically powerful Dem, who 10% of Ds in the country felt should be President in 2004, and 100% of Ds felt should be Vice-President in 2000. And they are replacing that person with:

A) a freshman Dem who passes the litmus test; or
B) a politically powerful Dem who now alienates and is alienated by the left; or
C) a politically powerful Independent.

So in this case, the win-at-all-cost tactic would be to support Lieberman, but people on the edges change how it works and throw a monkey wrench into the equation. (To mangle a metaphor.)

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...and 100% of Ds felt should be Vice-President in 2000.

To be more accurate, Al Gore thought Lieberman should be Veep, and the D's pretty much had to go along with it. I don't know how he would have done if a veep primary existed, but his selection certainly was a turnoff for me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Their strategic objective is generally to retain as much power as possible.

So the purpose of America is to increase power in the Republican Party? Well it makes sense if you are the classic example of an anti-American who blindly votes the party line - no different from a communist party member. But that is not and would not be a strategic objective. CT example is probably part of a tactical Republican objective. And only relevant here as why parties operate too often for party benefit and at the expense of America.

A tactical objective is defined by a larger purpose - the strategic objective. Why must we invade nations unilaterally to secure oil? A question answered in a part of that strategic objective. An objective very similar to 1930 Japan. Somehow Japan was evil then by only doing what the 'good guys' do today? Unilateral invasion of sovereign nations is justified by a policy called pre-emption. Pre-emption also justified what 1930s Japan did.

Who wins in CT is analyzing a war only from a perspective of a few men in a platoon. To better appreciate the strategic objective, how similar are those same objectives are to 1930s Japan?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Is he running for president?

Is he trying to tell the guy who won what to do?

Or is he just sniping from the sidelines? It's what Dems do best lately.

Nancy will whip them into shape though...she's taking names, maybe she can actually get them to show up:

Originally Posted by Pelosi Memo

TO: House Democratic Members
FROM: Leader Nancy Pelosi
DATE: July 11, 2006 RE: Important July Caucus Meetings

Dear Democratic Colleague:

Welcome back! I hope you had an enjoyable, productive and patriotic Fourth of July. With three critical weeks ahead, I am writing to urgently request three hours of your time between now and the August break. In order to advance our New Direction message, I need your attendance at our weekly Caucus meetings: July 12th, 19th and 26th. These crucial meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end promptly at 10:00 a.m. The meetings are mandatory and I have asked the Chairman to take attendance.

I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday for our New Direction meeting on the Economy.

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI House Democratic Leader

...and this will go on Your Permanent Record!