Welcome back, Greg; from wherever you were: glad to hear we'll be getting fresh Belgravia Dispatch with a little more frequency. Just a suggestion: stick to a mix of mostly serious stuff for your posts: leavened with just enough snark to make it interesting. Polemics can be had ten-a-penny on the Internet (and overpriced at that!) - "relatively sober policy analysis" is a much rarer commodity: it's what makes BD a must-read.

Posted by: Jay C at October 1, 2006 05:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Count one vote for unmasking the myriad lies, disinformation, etc...you do this in a way that is funny and interesting, and it can also serve as a pre-election public service.

Posted by: BDReader at October 1, 2006 05:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

Count two votes for lifting the rock on the rotten state of political discourse. It is, IMHO, a grave porblem that will undermine all else.

Posted by: Bobbyboulders at October 1, 2006 06:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

As you said, November 7 is approaching. After it, I wouldn't mind a mostly "sober" BD, but until that date I'd like to see you firing with both barrels-- god knows the stakes are high enough that every little bit helps. ("The stakes" being the choice between a Democratic Congress that will hold Bush accountable or two more years of more of the same.)

Posted by: AP at October 1, 2006 06:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

The lies, the lies, the lies.

If this coming election is about anything, it's about whether we will continue to live under an Administration that cannot be trusted to honestly state the direction from which the sun will rise in the morning.

Do we vote for a return to reality, or continued excursions in fantasy-land?

Posted by: Barry at October 1, 2006 06:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

I have enjoyed your mix of polemics and analysis. Really either is good.

Posted by: TJ at October 1, 2006 06:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

I care about my country and the direction Bush is taking this. Focus on pointing out the inaccuracies in anything Bush says. Prove him wrong. Pull the curtain to reveal the man behind the wizard. Don't let them get away with this anymore.

Thanks.

Dan

Posted by: Dan at October 1, 2006 06:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

One more vote for lifting the curtain, but really, follow your muse. Glad to have you back and posting.

Posted by: John at October 1, 2006 07:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

Another vote for sober analysis. Sure if there's egregious lying, not exposed 15 dozen other places, expose away. But mix with an edge to analysis, please?

Posted by: dloye at October 1, 2006 08:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

Another vote for Sober analysis.....

there is a surfeit of sites when bloggers "unmask the myriad lies, disinformation and distortion flowing about", but precious few non-partisan conservatives offering intelligent analysis --- and even though I usually disagree with you, you are never less than thought-provoking (if, occasionally, long-winded) :)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 1, 2006 08:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

Sober analysis please, there is precious little of it around as it is :)

Posted by: Nigel at October 1, 2006 09:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

I can see why you're torn. My vote? Mix both together. It is tempting of course to carve one's "niche", but I for one appreciate your unmasking and your sober analysis equally.

In any event- keep going. This has to be one of the very best foreign policy blogs out there.

Posted by: Matt Schiavenza at October 1, 2006 10:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

I join those calling for a mix of sober analysis and exposures of lies and misinformed/misguided "analysis." Indeed, can the former not be pressed into service to accomplish the latter at times?

Welcome back.

Posted by: John B. at October 1, 2006 11:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

It seems that you cannot have a serious discussion of foreign policy without debunking the propaganda, which has been the basis for U.S. foreign policy decisionmaking over the last five years. I would prefer an emphasis on analysis, but with a recognition of the incompetence and borderline insanity evident in our government officials and their apologists.

Posted by: Tim at October 2, 2006 12:59 AM | Permalink to this comment

You said it Tim & John. Magnificent edifices of 'sober analysis' springing fropm credulous assumptions have not been in short supply this past six or seven years. Even here.

How could it have been in any way 'sober' to support Bush's Iraq fiasco? But somehow, back then, any sober analysis was dismissed as either naive or disloyal.

So many words in US political discourse have come to describe their opposite (special mention for Karl & Rupert here). Let's at least liberate 'sober'.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at October 2, 2006 03:19 AM | Permalink to this comment

"...it's more just to get a sense of where the people coming around want this site to go in coming months."

Write your passion; write what moves you; write what you feel like saying.

And don't pay attention to what other people want: that's a route to burn-out.

That's my feedback. (Although feel free to read an occasional one of my own rants if you ever feel like it. :-)

Posted by: Gary Farber at October 2, 2006 04:22 AM | Permalink to this comment

The lies are on the walls, I would really like to see some more analysis. I like to learn and your understanding of the subtly and nuance of FP are just great reads. Plus, I would like to see more people like yourself proposing actual 'plans' for Iran, Iraq, Israel, the KSA, ect ect. You know, stuff that goes just a little bit deeper then "bomb 'em back to the time of Muhammad!"

But that is just one man's humble hope....

Posted by: RSB at October 2, 2006 05:33 AM | Permalink to this comment

Analysis, Greg. You have the talent and experience for that.

To be a really good political polemicist requires control over one's self-consciousness and a good thick mean streak. With all affection, and just based on what writing of yours that I've read, I don't think you have either.

If I could add a thought that no one else on this thread has expressed yet, it wouldn't kill you to write about things other than foreign policy. I don't mean regularly, just every now and then, as a change of pace. I don't mean writing about policy of other kinds, either, but rather about other things you've experienced or find interesting -- just as a random example, finding housing in New York.

Bloggers dedicated to writing about specific subject areas inevitably reach points at which they find they have nothing to say. At such points they can stop posting, or repeat things they've said before, or lament the rut they've fallen into. They can turn their blogs over to other people, if they are really desperate. Or, they can take a break and write about other things. I was saying the other day that blogging is not about influencing the course of great events -- one's audience will never be big enough, one's wisdom never so obvious that it will move people "in the arena" -- but must instead be about other things, like thinking out loud or beginning a conversation. Or entertaining readers. If I didn't think these things had value I wouldn't read blogs, much less comment on them as frequently as I do. And as my own interests extend beyond affairs of state reading about other people's every now and then is not something I regard as frivolous or a distraction in any way. I doubt you have many readers who would.

Posted by: Zathras at October 2, 2006 06:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

I enjoy your dissection of what is being said out there, and your critique of politics. Do both as far as I am concerned, in other words. And thanks for the interesting read, I don't comment much but I check in whenever you are writing.

Posted by: napablogger at October 2, 2006 07:23 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'll go with scandal-mongering until Nov. 7. That is higher-priority if we actually want to have some significant chance of ACTING on any future "sober analyses" -- and God knows there is enough scndal now to monger.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 2, 2006 07:35 AM | Permalink to this comment

I like the current mix, maybe more polemics on a slow news day, but what I'd really like to know is this:

What is the best analysis of where Iraq is headed? I'm curious if there will be some sort of collapse in the next six months. By collapse, I mean something beyond paper reports of trouble (high levels of violence, army stretched, bickering between Iraqis) - but rather, if there will be a you-can't-deny-it marker of failure. Or maybe there won't be failure of the large or small variety, and instead, some sort of steady state level of occupation and rebellion. A 'stability' of sorts due to the substantial tactical superiority of the U.S. Army.

Iraq seems very opaque at the moment. I hear from reporters recently returned from Iraq that the sense of doom is quite pronounced. But we've heard that before. Is it really different, and serious, this time? My sixth sense tells me it is and that things could get very ugly by this time next year. I'd be very interested to read what BG has to say about the likely trajectory of Iraq, for better or worse.

Posted by: Quiddity at October 2, 2006 07:44 AM | Permalink to this comment

One vote for chronicling your increasing dismay.

Game theory tells us strategy is wasted when you're playing an idiot.

What's there to write about foreign policy while Bush is in the White House?

Posted by: monkyboy at October 2, 2006 08:18 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'd say do sober analysis, and unmask lies in passing where believing the lies prevents sober analysis.

At this point if you do sober analysis without tackling some of the lies a lot of people will think you're living in fantasy land because they believe so many lies.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 2, 2006 01:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

(I already voted once)....

The kind of sober analysis I'd like to see is what can be realistically done, given the current situation. I want to see what you think is achievable over the next 28 months -- and how it can realistically achieved given the pickle Bush has put us in.

First and foremost would be personnel changes -- Rummy would need to go, of course, but who else? And who replaces them?

What approach can Bush take toward Iran? Iraq? Israel/Palestine? North Korea? etc. etc. etc. Do you see any possibility of real progress under Bush, or just means of limiting the damage over the next two-plus years?

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 2, 2006 01:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

Who am I to disagree when Zathras and p. luka agree. Go with the sober analysis. Your polemics are not going to convince anyone at this point whether to vote Dem or Rep in the election. Your analysis just might.

But, if your muse tells you to slam Rummy once or twice a week, do that. Fell free to back it up...

As for wars with other bloggers -- what's the point. really? I don't think you are going to reach a person who is influenced by Glenn Reynolds' viewpoints on Iraq by slashing at the instalinker. Just treat folks like that with the seriousness you believe they merit. (I have a fealing that it's not very much, in the case of the instafellow).

Look, it's your blog. I read you for your insight, and am occasionally amused by your use of language. (I sometimes wonder what I'd sound like if I had your voice or Z's voice. More intelligent, and less parenthetical, I guess.) If it's just polemics, all night long, I might stop. Sullivan's got me close to that point now. But, I do believe your increasingly angry tone is gnerally backed up, and justifiable under the regal pretentions and ghastly execution of our decider in chief. Maybe I just feel you should keep the blasts for our leaders, and worry less about bloggers and talk show hosts.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 2, 2006 02:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

if actual policy is based to a unusual degree on myriad lies, deceptions or confusions (or is being justified that way), then seems to me that addressing or identifying those features of policy is a valuable form of serious policy analysis.

Posted by: David at October 2, 2006 03:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

What approach can Bush take toward Iran? Iraq? Israel/Palestine? North Korea? etc. etc. etc.

All that is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't make the least bit of difference.

It might make sense to start looking at what can be done starting 27 or so months from now. Keep updating that as the situation deteroriates.

And it makes sense to look at how to carry out an impeachment.

Nothing else makes any difference at all.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 2, 2006 03:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

It's your site, write what you want. I've enjoyed all of it so far. And be as snarky and sarcastic as you want. Bush and Congress deserve every bit of it, and more. And if people don't want to read it, they can go elsewhere.

Posted by: LL at October 2, 2006 04:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

It might make sense to start looking at what can be done starting 27 or so months from now. Keep updating that as the situation deteroriates.

it makes sense to ask Greg to come up with these ideas for two reasons

1) it focuses Greg on what can be done --- and when it isn't done, he will become increasingly disenchanted with Bushco to the point where...

2) he will begin supporting impeachment :)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 2, 2006 04:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

Perhaps you could answer how you made such an enormous error in assessing the Bush administration when you said

"George Bush, in my view, understands the nature of the evil we are combating. He understands it deep in his gut, to his very core, and this is why I will be voting for him in November. To be sure, I am voting for him with many reservations (of which more below); but I am confident and, indeed, proud of my vote because Bush's intellectual firmament has grasped this essential truth."

Posted by: Christopher Landee at October 2, 2006 05:52 PM | Permalink to this comment

p. luka:

It isn't your comment that's prompting this, but you may have some insight into this question that IS prompted by Mr. Landee:

Why is the 2002, 2003, 2004 Iraq stance of so many so important to you guys? There's a difference between having been deceived, and having the information and being dead wrong.

For your electoral success and for the ability to simply have conversations that cross ideological lines, you guys might want to consider giving left-wing abuse amnesties to those who have turned against the Iraqi war (and even those who voted for Bush in 2004).

I know you've got a response to this one....

Mr Landee:

I think Greg mea culpaed pretty well just a few posts ago. I'm not sure why he has to do even as much as he has..

Y'know, it just isn't a baseline assumption of most people that folks you elected in a Democratic process are going to feel compelled to torture, violate the Constitution, and run an unecessary war in the most inept fashion possible. Think of it as finding out a loved one has cheated on you. It takes a while to find out, and it takes a while for it to sink in. Greg was deceived. So were a lot of people. You notice that he now seems a touch....um...irate?

If it were me, I'd be happy that so many people are willing to be allied with me to get rid of a greater evil, than raking them over the coals over somebody who has proved to be a rather adept liar.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 2, 2006 06:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

I have enjoyed your insights and do appreciate the analysis. I am a member of the IC and have worked with a number of "Staties" in that role. They generally offer a different perspective....

Reading thru the above comments, it seems that you do have a number of sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Honest analysis....it will be added into the mix.

More insights of how State believes that they are "a world unto their own" is always interesting. You, like me, are sworn to uphold the constitution and the orders of those appointed over us. If we are unable to do that, it's time to hit the road. To do otherwise is called subversion.

The assessment that you made earlier (which Christopher quotes above) is still quite accurate.

Posted by: Jim Ducharme at October 2, 2006 06:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

Why is the 2002, 2003, 2004 Iraq stance of so many so important to you guys? There's a difference between having been deceived, and having the information and being dead wrong.

two reasons.... because for those of us who weren't blinded because they thought (as Greg put it) "Bush's intellectual firmament has grasped this essential truth", there was no deception, and no need to have been "dead wrong." Those of us who were right from the get-go about Bush and the pursuit of this war understood that Bush lacked any understanding of the "evil that we face" -- that he was all but an empty suit driven by a sense of (underserved) entitlement to do whatever he felt like. There was NO EXCUSE -- but Greg offers a good explanation for why he was wrong. (which really comes down to, "I hadn't gotten over my knee-jerk reactionary impulses in the wake of 9-11 yet.")

the second reason is related to the first -- those of us who have been right all along get no respect from those who have finally seen the light. Now, I don't expect someone like Greg to be coming to me for insight -- but I do expect him to be relying upon the judgement of people like Juan Cole and Steve Clemons rather than conservative "fellow-travelers" who have finally come to see things the way Greg does. Greg's friends have been wrong once already, and he needs to seek out the ideas of those who have been right all along.

as for "left wing amnesties"- see above. (although I have accepted Greg's explanation....)

Posted by: P.LUKASIAK at October 2, 2006 07:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

p luk:

One likes to think that if one gets to be President, one is not a total empty suit. And, we Republicans being elephants with long memories, we remember the Demos had great fun painiting Reagan, Goldwater, Ford, and even Eisenhower as dimwits. So, if we dismissed you -- there was reason in our collective memory. The assumption is that you either find us stupid for being Republicans, or it is polemically convenient to label all our leaders (except Bush I -- resume builder or Nixon -- sui generis) as nincompoops.

As for Not Getting Respect. Well. I don't think you are ever going to turn a principled conservative realist into a idealist who is willing to forego the national interest for somebody's vision of the greater good of humanity. That's a philosophical disconnect that's nearly impossible to bridge. But you'll get a viewpoint that is fairly consistent, and analysis that, when the polemic has been stripped away, has been fairly consistent. And, I bet if you checked Greg's history cache, you'd find Mr. Cole and Mr. Clemons. But it's easier to convince the group of which he's a part to his viewpoint if he references Jeff Hart or various military folks "seeing the light".

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 2, 2006 09:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

Republican slogans for the 2006 Elections

1). TOTURE IS GOOD!

2). WAR IS PEACE!

3). FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!

4). IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

5). BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!!
(but it is for your good!)

Okay 2 & 3 are still bit of a stretch at least for the time being, but the rest accurate particulary 4) given the Bush Admin. suppresion of all science that they disagree with concerning Global Warming.

Since this Blog aims at New York Times type respectability, I will not make any inappropriate & tabloid like comments concerning the Republicans bending Pages over, etec.: But merely point out how hypocritical the Republicans are exposed as after all their self-rightous attacks on Clinton fooling around with Monica Lewinsky!
I guess it realy does depend on what is IS!

Posted by: David All at October 2, 2006 10:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

Foreign policy/events analysis please. There are already myriad blogs devoted to the political side of things; I personally think you do a better service by just presenting your (rational) analysis of events and letting people use it as an adjunct to what they hear from the various politicians and partisan interest groups.

Posted by: mike at October 2, 2006 10:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

One vote for continuing with the occasional polemic. Coming from a non-partisan (an increasingly rare species), they have more force.

Chris

Posted by: Chris Chocheles at October 2, 2006 11:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

One likes to think that if one gets to be President, one is not a total empty suit. And, we Republicans being elephants with long memories, we remember the Demos had great fun painiting Reagan, Goldwater, Ford, and even Eisenhower as dimwits.

well, Reagan was something of a dimwit. Goldwater was painted as a psycho, Ford as a bumbler, and Eisenhower as an intellectual lightweight (but not a dimwit). :) BTW, I've always thought that Bush I deserved to be re-elected (not that I voted for him, its just that I think that an informed electorate should have recognized that he'd done a pretty good job in his first four years, and that his opponent was not exactly qualified for the Presidency. )

Well. I don't think you are ever going to turn a principled conservative realist into a idealist who is willing to forego the national interest for somebody's vision of the greater good of humanity.

unless said "somebody" was named Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.... :)

oh, and when Greg deigns to comment in something either Cole or Clemons has written, it is consistently negative.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 2, 2006 11:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Well, ok, I'll grant your point that we (Republicans) have elected a number of dimwits. But, we're not the source of all the dimwits, and more to the point, I myself don't use that as any kind of excuse for electing the current incompetent dimwit. I think we elected him because we were well-played by hate and fear politics, which are extraordinarily effective with people, and even more so as the populace is more ignorant and poor (unfortunately prevalent characteristics in these United States).

Posted by: john doe rep at October 3, 2006 03:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'd like something that no one else offers: some real reporting on why the Bush Admin has made the decisions it's made - from choosing to ignore the warnings before the 9/11 attacks to choosing a war strategy that directly undermined all the putative reasons for the war.

i don't know if you have that kind of access, Greg, so maybe my suggestion isn't one you can take seriously.

But for me, there are two big stories about the Bush Administration.

The first is why so many people decided to believe Bush, and believe in Bush, even when his failures and dishonesty were repeatedly made manifest; why loyalty to Bush was stronger than loyalty to anything else; and what was it about that unprepossessing man that appealed to them so much that they abandoned their own capacity for critical thinking?

The second is, what was the Bush Admin really after? Why did it preside, consciously and deliberately, over so many disastrous policies? How and why did the Bush Admin become a non pariel, monumental example of what Tuchman decribed as "wooden-headed folly"?

I suspect we won't begin to understand the answers to those questions for at least a generation. If then, even, since those answers are best found in the hearts and minds of people who can never risk speaking truthfully about why they did what they did.

But I sure would be interested in any insight you can offer.

Posted by: CaseyL at October 3, 2006 03:20 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'm for analysis.

Posted by: Zena at October 3, 2006 02:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm for dredging the slime pit of Republican politics for the hidden scum bags and hypocrites...at least for one more month. But I'll read whatever you post on the site, maybe the best blog in America.

Posted by: Sam at October 3, 2006 08:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

"relatively sober policy analysis" On this blog!

Surely you jest!

Posted by: NotMe at October 4, 2006 10:37 AM | Permalink to this comment