Latest polls
It appears that Hillary’s argument may be correct. Post-Wright, she now seems more electable than Obama.
For all the good it will do her. Will the superdelegates listen?
[ADDENDUM: Great Noemie Emery article in the Weekly Standard on how Hillary is channeling her Inner Republican, to the fury of many Democrats.]
I hope they don’t listen to Hillary. Hillary will be more difficult to defeat than Obama.
Two thoughts:
1. Rush Limbaugh may regret his “Operation Kaos”.
2. The superdelegates are so screwed.
First: I don’t understand why Hillary didn’t crater Obama months ago. She should’ve smashed his empty facade into a thousand shards. I can only surmise that Hillary has been, until recently, a mediocre candidate, at best.
Second: Everyone loves an underdog. I love an underdog. Hillary’s underdog status has finally humanized her in voter’s eyes. It also took some self-imposed pressure off of her. She finally perceived she was in a corner, and she loosened up her personality in her public appearances(relative to the stiffness she previously displayed).
Third: re: Limbaugh regretting “Chaos”
I don’t think it’s so easy to predict whether Obama or Hillary would be easier to defeat. We can easily get too clever when we try to predict the future. Therefore, I think it’s important that whichever of Hillary or Obama would be the worst President be defeated ASAP. That would be Obama. He would be the worst President of the two.
McCain needs to run a competent campaign against Hillary, if she is the nominee. Let the chips fall. where they may.
Fourth: the superdelegates are only screwed if they are only concerned with their careers. If they are concerned with truth; with doing whats right for their nation and for their political party: they are not screwed.
This concludes my hopelessly naive and non-realist blog comment for the week.
Why does this post fail to deal with the shortage of Jello Molds in the meals the candidates are fed on the campaign trail?
In the previous item I said…
“I’ll bet you cannot go a day without mentioning the O word though.”
KA-CHING!
The Democrats have themselves in a real bind this time. I really do not know how they can resolve this.
Terrye,
THAT is exactly the goal of Operation Chaos. The fix Dems find themselves in was the goal, since McCain is unwilling and incapable of doing it. We pray this continues to the Dem convention. That is key.
Peg:
Yeah, but if Hillary manages to pull this off I am afraid that Operation Chaos might actually lead to a Clinton in the White House…again. Beware your heart’s desire, for surely you will get it. Bad karma and all that.
And the last thing we need is for McCain to start acting as crazy as these people are. I don’t think he is unwilling or unable to do it, I just think he thinks it would be a dumb thing to do.
Terrye is dying to blame Rush Limbaugh
Vince:
No, I am not. In fact, I think that the Democrats might well end up sticking with Obama because they are afraid of losing the black vote and because he has such a big lead that will be hard to just ignore that. I am simply pointing out that right now Hillary is looking like she might be the stronger candidate in the general and if she somehow manages to get the nomination, the whole Operation Chaos thing could backfire. There is just no way of knowing how these things will work out.
IMHO Obama will win the nomination. I dont see the Democrats willing to risk their last guaranteed victim group.
Second what Vince P says.
I think the Dems, especially the elected ones, have taken a good look at the real world and decided their safe place is anywhere but there.
Back to the news cycles and pundit shows! Pander! Pout!
But don’t be responsible… nope, the Super Delegates are going to toss Obama under the bus.
McCain. I wish it wasn’t so, but it is.
On a completely different topic: Neo, would you like a bit of video involving a cube of ballistic gelatin interacting with a golf ball – sized cannon ball? If it will help, I mean? It’s not culinary in the least, but some of the jello examples you’ve had up here recently only come as close to food as McCain comes to being a conservative.
*grin*
In this full of surprises election year I don’t think anyone can predict whether Obama or Hillary would be a tougher opponents for McCain.
My sense, though, is that Obama is the far greater risk for being a terrible president, so I’m rooting for Hillary to knock Obama out, though it seems a slim chance.
“In this full of surprises election year I don’t think anyone can predict whether Obama or Hillary would be a tougher opponents for McCain.”
The surprises have more been how bad Hillary ended up performing. Obama has been about what was expected as far as his ability just that Hillary fight was so weak that it makes him the winner.
However at this point they are pretty much known quantities. Barring the normal surprises (say, a scandal) Obama is clearly the weaker of the two.
Even then were I too bet on things hidden I will bet that an untested junior politician that was thrust into power by the more or less corrupt Chicago politicians has WAY more skeletons than the multi-decade politician from Arizona. One never knows – maybe McCain has some deep dark secret but I bet that Obama hasn’t even come close to being vetted. If he *doesn’t* have worse than Wright in there then he is one of the very very very very very few from that area.
For Hillary – most likely we know most of her scandals and they are no better/worse than McCains. That is what makes Hillary so much stronger than Obama, Obama only has down to go from here on out. When you are a mortal Messiah there is no where to go but down (especially given his associates who are far from apostles).
Obama hasn’t even come close to being hammered and is flagging. He also makes a clear case for conservatives to vote for McCain and there are many dems that feel about him as we do about McCain (yet do not about Hillary).
Obama will get stomped, Hillary may or may not win. McCain may very much run a clean campaign and spend a lot of time denouncing videos of Obama’s speeches in context but those videos will kill Obama. Hillary can’t run that type of campaign nor can her supporters (after all, many that vote in the primaries agree with that rhetoric).
At this point I rather expect that Obama to get the nomination simply because it would split the party too much. It would take a heck of a scandal that would cause the superdelegates to risk the split that going against the delegate count would cause.
too many cooks spoil the jello…
and lies catch up to you if you spout them like a lawn sprinkler… they take energy to maintain… and since there is limited energy, the more you tell the less energy you have to hide them.
couple this with the fact that sociopaths have no guilt, and so will throw each other under the bus if they get an inkling that it MIGHT pay off…
you end up with the train wreck..
but i sure hope the world wakes up to socialism/communism, as the US is literally the last bastion, and its not even healthy.
anyone care to compare the demographics of the west now that the eugenics program has had its way (forgetting to get the world on the program first)? way before 2050 we will be in the crap..
be it ever so crumbly there is no place like rome
Count on the superdelegates, politicians all, to do what’s in their own self-interest first, party second, and nation third. It’s impossible to know the outcome because no one can assess the vested interests of 900 individuals.
If I were a party whip, I would urge the super-D’s to vote Obama. African Americans must be kept on the plantation (read: Democratic Party lest their support be lost for a generation or more. Losing an election in a landslide is not near so bad as losing an entire constituency.
The Democratic Party has balkanized itself into competing factions based on grievance. They have no unity to offer the country as a whole, least of all candidate Obama, who has done more to harm race relations than Jackson and Sharpton combined. Divided the once great Democratic Party must surely fall.
I don’t suppose any of the elitist bastards from Princeton and Harvard ever read Federalist Number 10. James Madison was fully aware of the nature of “faction.” But then, he’s just a dead white guy.
On what possible basis does a Republican deserve to be president?
The party has lead the country into a war against an lightly armed, deeply divided, poorly led third-world country, yet it remains unwon.
The party inherited an economy that was the envy of the world. Now, its slowdown is blamed for retarding growth in Asia and Europe — at least it is among economists who aren’t buying the idea that America is now only barely relevant to the global economy.
And civil liberties — from jurisprudence to privacy rights — have been eroded substantially. Even if you want to argue they were eroded for a good cause, you have to start by admitting they’ve been eroded.
On what front, in what example, by what fact can a Republican ask to be the next president?
Correct ideology?
Is that really enough?
Amanda — Those of us likely to pull the R lever this time around don’t agree with the “facts” as you outline them. They are each long discussions in themselves, but repeating them over and over as though they were true doesn’t make them true. However, I grant you that such repetition is an effective propaganda tactic.
Amanda Reckonwith has been trying to subtlely propagandize here for a while.
A good reason to vote Republican is to piss off people like Amanda.
I agree with Cappy.
“Reckonwith”?? Amanda, if you’re going to flaunt it, you have to have it. Reckonwith? What are you giving us to reckon with?
First, the war. You’re wrong. The war was over in a heart beat, and we won. Did you doze off?
Second, the reconstruction phase: deeply divided (especially religiously divided) third world countries are notoriously difficult to unify, which is a requirement of a democratic political system–at least unification to the point of agreeing upon the rules of government. And when you have terrorists and warring factions shooting things and requiring troops, things re more difficult still. Do you really need someone to tell you this?
Third: the economy. Every politician takes credit for a booming economy, but if they really had any control, booming economies are all we’d have. A rising and falling economy is as inevitable as tides, and it doesn’t matter who is in office. Some governmental measures help, some don’t; but the basic economic health is much like the health of a person–ultimately beyond the practice of medicine. I’m sure you’ll soon be chanting, “It’s the economy, stupid!” You say the economic slow down in Europe and Asia is blamed on us–as if leaders over there would take the blame for it! I have an idea: let’s blame them for our recession.
Four: erosion of civil liberties. You say a good cause might be shown, but the fact of the erosion must be admitted. Let’s suppose the good cause argued reagarding privacy is the interception of terrorist messages to avoid another 9/11. I think we can agree that would be a good cause. As you concede that the erosion might occur for good cause, then the fact of its occurrence is easy to admit because it doesn’t cost me anything. The only question can be whether or not the erosion of privacy outweighs the good cause, and that is your burden of proof, not mine. He who affirms must prove.
Finally, you ask, by what fact can a Republican ask to be next president? Correct ideology? Amanda, correct ideology is a judgment, not a fact. For my part, no Republican likely to be president has the correct ideology. But what are the options? Name one accomplishment of either Clinton or Obama that argues for their election. All Obama has is hope, poor judgment, and probably dishonesty. All Hillary has is a variety of dialects and good ole boy acts and the ability to not blush when caught in an obvious lie. Some of those attributes might serve politics well, but as presidential criteria? I think not.
DMS says: “The war was over in a heart beat, and we won.”
Well then, if the war is won, withdrawal cannot be “surrender.”
If the war is won, why not set a timetable for withdrawal and let the Iraqis themsevles take responsibility for their own security?
The fact is, the war is not won. Iraqis cannot take care of their own security because enemies of the U.S.-backed/installed regime have not been defeated.
As for the economy, the president must take responsiblity. While the president has no direct, legislative ability to affect the business cycle, he has immense power to shape the debate, frame the issues and guide the country to prosperity.
In addition to the power to appoint the Treasury secretary and central bank chief, the president can at any time take a leadership role in setting the economic agenda.
Clinton, working with a Republican congress, did just that and achieved welfare reform and balanced budgets. Bush has failed miserably to provide that kind of leadership.
You can re-define the president’s job and play word games with “victory” all you want, but a record number of Americans, approaching 80 percent, now say the country is on the wrong track, and surely, it’s the unwon war and the sagging economy that’s making them believe that.
Whatever ad hominem you want to hurl at Obama and Hillary, you should at least wake up and smell the coffee: any Republican is sledding up a very steep hill created by Bush’s failures.
Maybe the Democrats are not the answer, but surely the Republicans aren’t going to go far if they remain in such fundamental denial about the state of the war and the economy.
Amanda:
“The fact is, the war is not won. Iraqis cannot take care of their own security because enemies of the U.S.-backed/installed regime have not been defeated.
That’s elected regime, Amanda. The people of Iraq voted in their own leaders. First time in 50 years. You think you could applaud that.
So, is it your contention, that if the time-line for stability hasnt been reached to your satisfaction, then the Iraqi people should be abandoned to which ever fate awaits them? Where is all this concern for the human condition liberals are famous for posing for?
Im also amused when ever a liberal complains about how their rights have been eroded. You know how that happens? First you claim rights you never really had, then claim that they have been taken from you if you dont get your way.
A perfect example of this happened in my town near the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq when an anti-war march was held downtown. It wasnt covered in the local press the next day due to an oversight on the part of the local papers allocation of reporters. (They had covered an anti-war “die in” just the day or two before).
The next day, the newspaper office itself was the focus of the leftists temper tantrum as they complained that the lack of coverage in effect “silenced” them and stripped them of their right to voice dissention.
Yes, what a Nazi police state George Bush has created.
Amanda: The war was against the regime of Sadam Hussein. Do you think that war is still going on? You’re right. Withdrawal could not be surrender because there is no one to surrender to. Withdrawal would be catastrophic for the people of Iraq, the Mid-East generally and for U.S. foreign policy. Why not set a timetable for withdrawal? One reason might be that it would be incredibly stupid to tell the insurgents to go lie low for awhile, build up your strength, and come back Labor day, when we’ll be gone. That seems so obvious, I feel I might need to repeat or clarify something. You let me know. Yes, obviously, the reconstruction goes on, and is difficult for the reasons noted.
Nothing you have said shows Bush to have caused the recession. As for Clinton and the balanced budget, led by Gingrich, Republicans signed a contract with American to balance the budget–and they did. The leadership wasn’t Clinton’s; he went along for the ride. Ultimately, Congress controls the purse strings. (Speaking of Congress, what great accomplishments can we credit to the Democrats since they took control? If Pelosi gets any squirrelier, someone will have to take away her nuts.)
The country is on the wrong track. You have a bunch of dithering politicians more concerned with political correctness and other such idiocies than they are with promoting sane domestic and foreign policies–a fault that is on both sides of the aisle, presidential or congressional. I’m no champion of Bush, but compared to Democratic leadership–such as Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy or Kerry–he’s a genius. Well, maybe not, but he has the advantage of sanity.
I didn’t throw any ad hominem at Obama and Hillary. I simply noted what they have done, and I note you offer no refutation of that. As of yet, you’ve documented none of Bush’s failures (I can give you some help there, if you want), only noted a lack of popularity and ascribed that to his alleged failures.
The Democrats are definitely not the answer; they are a major part of the problem. The problem with the Republicans is not their denial about the state of the (your term) war and the economy. It is their intrinsic gutlessness, sloth and feeding at the trough. They have no principles guiding them only polls and the prevailing winds. It is clear the Democrats will destroy the country as an ideological duty. Our best hope is that the Republicans are too dumb and cowardly to have much effect before we get some principled leadership in position.
Harry asks: “So, is it your contention, that if the time-line for stability hasnt been reached to your satisfaction, then the Iraqi people should be abandoned to which ever fate awaits them?
1. If the war is “won” how can withdrawing be “abandonment”?
2. If the war is not really won in any meaningful sense after more than five years, we need to be examining carefully every alternative, including withdrawal.
3. Withdrawal, done in a carefully planned way is not “abandonment.” Unless and until the U.S. starts planning for such a withdrawal, the governments of Iraq and its neighbors will not stop taking advantage of the conflict to cement and/or expand their personal power without personal risk.
4. The risk is simply too great of being forced to withdraw under far more disadvantageous circumstances. Withdrawing from Iraq today is far more difficult than withdrawing 2 years ago would have been. We have no reason to believe that withdrawing 2 years from now will not be even more difficult and dangerous, unless careful plans are made.
We ignore the historical lessons of Vietnam at our peril. The U.S. might have withdrawn with much less catastrophic effect at a much earlier date with careful planning based on what was actually happening in the country, instead of on what the mainstream media and Nixon administration wanted to believe might happen in the future. In the end, the U.S. withdrew in defeat and disgrace. The U.S. has a chance to avoid a similar fate in Iraq, but we all know there will be a withdrawal, the only questions are when and how.
An administration or ideology that can’t even acknowledge the necessity of eventual withdrawal has no business claiming leadership.
5. At some point, we have to stop basing policy on distant hypotheticals, e.g. democracy may break out in Iraq and spread geographically from Baghdad to Damascus to Tehran, an increase in troops may lead to political accommodation among Iraqi factions, Al Qaeda may take over Iraq when the U.S. withdraws and so on.
We need to focus on what has actually happened in Iraq and whether we can sustain our present level of involvement there. I argue that we cannot. The only possible arguments for leaving our engagement there open-ended must be based on speculative hypotheticals. Where have those hypotheticals brought us so far?
Harry asks:
“Where is all this concern for the human condition liberals are famous for posing for?”
I suspect we share somewhat equally a concern for the human condition. We simply disagree on how to go about securing it. I suggest that you could strengthen your position in the discussion by at least acknowledging the legitimacy of opposition.
Where is all this concern for the human condition liberals are famous for posing for?
DMS agrees: “The country is on the wrong track.”
Indeed it is. If the Democrats are smart, they will force McCain to flip-flop on whether he is a Bush clone or not. On key policies from taxes, to torture, the environment and Christian nationalism, he has flip-flopped into the Bush position.
Should he hold onto those positions, the Democrats can pillory him for switching just when he decided to run for president. Should he abandon or soften or blur them, the Dems can knock him for flip-flopping twice.
Whatever you think of Obama or Hillary, you’ve got to admit they are tactically in a far better position to win than McCain.
Amanda: If the country is smart, they’ll run the Democrats out of the country on a rail. As for your flip-flop strategy (that had to come to you in a dream), dream on. As far as their tactical position, Obama and Hillary have both been shown to: engage in potentially illegal financial dealings, associate with/support terrorists, “mis-speak” on a level that would be considered perjury in a court room, mis-represent themselves about as regularly as they make speeches and show contempt for the economic middle class–as do all liberals. Why in the world would you imagine them to be in a better position to win than McCain? Whatever you’re smoking, I want some. Hillary went down the tubes and only looks better after the bath Obama has taken when his associations caught up with him. One gross failure decorating another isn’t exactly a great campaign tactic. And you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Wait until the real campaign begins.
“Something about you, Baby, sure gives me the blues . . . . It ain’t your drop-stitch stockings, it ain’t your blue-buckle shoes.”
What makes me sad about your arguments, Amanda, is that at the center of your vision is the destruction of Bush, not an ideal for government. Everything is a means to that end. You come to this group to be “reckoned with,” but you’re not only not on the same page as most people here, but not even in the same book. You speak to us as Republican Bushites–which, so far as I can tell, most of us aren’t. The major commonage here, again in my view, is conservatism, not partyism, and principles, not popularity. If we supported the Iraq war and reconstruction, it’s not because of Bush, but because of belief that the objectives of the war were in the best interests of this country and the world. Can you honestly say you oppose the war because you oppose its objectives? You have two political candidates who are of questionable moral fiber and have no accomplishments. But you want them to win, not because they show any signs of being a great president, but to defeat McCain, the Bush clone in your view. He MUST be a Bush clone because the Devil must be defeated. He can’t just leave office.
My mother, who hates all things Republican, has declared “a pox on both your houses” on the Democrats. She lives in New York and believes that HRC is a terrible senator, she’s finally seen through Obama, and she would rather take McCain.
It’s time to declare Operation Chaos II: put at least two Jell-O/Miracle Whip dishes a day in front of Shrillary.
Allow me to rebut, point by point, DMS:
“What makes me sad about your arguments, Amanda, is that at the center of your vision is the destruction of Bush, not an ideal for government.”
I have clearly made principled opposition to the war in Iraq a key pillar of my analysis here. You’ve chosen to sidestep that and accuse me of focusing on Bush, who mention only tangentially, as it is necessary to frame discussion of McCain’s options as a candidate.
You, on the other hand, declare Democrats should be “run out on a rail” and declare utterly without substantiation that the Democratic candidates are morally bankrupt and politically dangerous.
Yet you somehow find the remaining mental space to accuse me of obsessing on ridding the nation of Bushism.
DMS says: “Everything is a means to that end.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. You say the Democrats should be eliminated as a party or “run out on a rail” which I assume we’re not to take literally. But I assure you my opposition to the war is entirely principled, which is one reason I’ve had many extensive debates with Democrats about why Hillary doesn’t deserve their vote: she voted for the war. Clearly, you’ve misinterpreted my comments.
DMS says: “You speak to us as Republican Bushites—which, so far as I can tell, most of us aren’t. The major commonage here, again in my view, is conservatism, not partyism, and principles, not popularity.”
You should make up your mind. Am I addressing you or not? Are you speaking for a group, or for yourself? I’ve made comments that you believe are addressed to Republican Bushites and you’ve responded to them. If you share my critique of Bushism, then why not simply acknowledge that and move on? You seem confused about whether you actually support Bush or not, or, at least, you want to say you oppose Bush but don’t like other people criticizing him. That’s not a completely irrational position, but you’ve got to admit, it’s not one that’s going to win converts or debates.
I’ve made a good many points about presidential leadership on the economy, the stakes in the war in Iraq, McCain’s vulnerabilities and Obama’s strengths. Feel free to take any of those one and I’ll be happy to engage. But it’s just not credible for you to claim I’ve got some monomaniacal focus on Bush.
DMS says:
“If we supported the Iraq war and reconstruction, it’s not because of Bush, but because of belief that the objectives of the war were in the best interests of this country and the world.”
Sounds like we could have a very interesting discussion of why Bush, the commander in chief, is underserving of your support. But I have to assume you consider such a conversation out of some imaginery boundaries you’ve set for your thinking, or, indeed, for the entire group your now claim to speak for.
DMS asks: “Can you honestly say you oppose the war because you oppose its objectives?”
Absolutely. The objectives of the war were to boost the political popularity of George W. Bush and his supporters and to ensure a steady flow of government dollars to military contractors.
The WMD and human rights concerns cited in rationalizing the invasion are pure PR flim flam. The world is full of human rights crises as bad and much worse that what was going on in Iraq. The U.S. has thrived without lifting a finger to end those crises and indeed, as in the case of Saddam, have actually helped precipitate them. And, as we all know, there were no WMD.
From Kim to Assad to Kadafy, the Myanmar junta and our good, good, very good friends in China’s politburo, the world is full of human rights violators.
Every thinking adult knows that we singled out Iraq because we thought it would be an EASY win. And and EASY win would be very good for the GOP, which, without a war, has lost its raison d’etre.
The U.S. needs to find a way to deal with brutal dictators like Saddam. Clearly, invasions like the one in Iraq don’t work. I think even you would agree that such an approach shouldn’t be tried again elsewhere.
DMS: “You have two political candidates who are of questionable moral fiber and have no accomplishments. But you want them to win, not because they show any signs of being a great president, but to defeat McCain, the Bush clone in your view.”
I’ve seen no reason whatsoever to question Obama’s “moral fiber.” I assume any presidential candidate will make compromises of the sort Obama has made.
But you are correct that I don’t think Obama shows signs of being a “great” president. Nor does McCain or Hillary or, really, any single person I know of.
“Great” presidents don’t necessarily develop from character traits or professional backgrounds. Rather, they are thrust into great historical moments, and have the fortune and insight enough to make correct decisions.
Perhaps you think McCain would be a “great” president. I would argue that’s ludicrously speculative.
On the whole, you might be a little more persuasive if you asked more and accused less.
Amanda, you’ve yet to carry a single argument. I’ll stand by my observations. As for your principled objections to the war–other than that it’s “Bush’s war,” show me where you stated any prior to the last post. I’ll deal with those you present in the last post shortly. I’m not going to bother with much of the stuff there because its 180 degrees off my posts–such as whether I think McCain will be a great president. If I seem confused over whether to support Bush or not that’s probably because you don’t understand anything but hero (or villain) politics. I’m opposed to much of what Bush does, perhaps even most of what Bush is doing at this point in his presidency. I view you as a political jock, a loyal fan at a pep rally, without any real commitments to principles, only to a team, and against that nasty rival.
Okay. Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty of your principled objection to the war, you claim to have consistently made, but I find only in the last post when I asked you if you could state you honestly opposed the objectives of the war:
“Absolutely. The objectives of the war were to boost the political popularity of George W. Bush and his supporters and to ensure a steady flow of government dollars to military contractors.”
I see. And so your counter-objectives in opposing the war would be to diminish the popularity of Bush and his supporters and to disrupt the flow of government dollars to military contractors. It all makes sense, Amanda. Tell me about how the towers fell and why fire doesn’t melt steel. And how Bush is not at the center of your political vision. You get the last word. Just don’t make it “Bush.”
Pity for you, Amanda. Being a pacifist in the midst of Manichean battle is an indefensible position. And the worst of it is just beginning. Soon there will be two suns over Tehran, or one, but at night.
DMS opines:
“And so your counter-objectives in opposing the war would be to diminish the popularity of Bush and his supporters and to disrupt the flow of government dollars to military contractors. ”
It’s good to see that you agree with me, apparently, that the motives were not WMD and human rights. There is a Grand Canyon-sized leap of logic, however, in your assumption that my goal in opposing the war is to oppose the administration’s motives. Are you suggesting that because the administration’s motives were A, the only possible motive for opposing the action is the desire to see Not A? Surely you realize the fallacy of that. Did you simply make it up wholecloth, then — your bald assertion that my desire is not simply to see peace and improved security, but to quash Bush’s political success?
Even if that were my motive, withdrawal would certainly be unnecessary. Bush is a failure in political terms already. He has reached record lows in popularity and is widely considered on all sides as a burden, rather than an asset, to his party.
I suspect we both seek the same things: peace and security. We disagree, however, on how to achieve them.
I believe peace and security are best achieved, in this particular case, by withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. I’ve given my reasons and you are certainly free to challenge them.
You continue to surprise me. You claim to be offended that liberals would condescend or look down on you or “middle class” Americans, yet you have no trouble at all larding layer upon layer of witless ad hominem attack on me and on “liberals” in general. Have you no sense at all of achieving the goals you set for others?
And I’m certainly not a pacifist.
Does Sergey think that only pacifists oppose the war in Iraq?
I think we’d agree that pacifism is a bit of a straw man, not even worth attacking, let alone defending.
I’m as concerned as anyone should be about nuclear proliferation, and that is one very, very good reason to avoid squandering military resources on trying to settle the civil war in Iraq — a conflict in which, post-“surge”, we arm and fund BOTH sides.
The hub of nuclear proliferation is North Korea and the second most important locale would be Pakistan, which is by far the most likely source of an Iranian bomb. Iraq has nothing to do with either country and never has.
Leaving the battlefield before the Iranians and Al Qaeda are crushed sends the signal that the US as a Superpower is ripe for destruction.
That’s how they think. No matter what you cowardly Leftists want to believe we are fighting a culture is obsessed with power and honor. Too things you suck at.
Two things
On what possible basis does a Republican deserve to be president?
Lincoln, Civil War, didn’t start WWI, didn’t start WWII, didn’t start Korean War, didn’t start Vietnam war, started Gulf War 1, finished in Operation Iraqi Freedom 1.
On what possible basis does Hillary or Obama deserve to be President?
The party has lead the country into a war against an lightly armed, deeply divided, poorly led third-world country, yet it remains unwon.
I don’t remember hearing Democrats telling Bush in 2002 not to fight Iraq or that the invasion was something the Democrats categorically rejected.
Are you people time travelers or is manipulating the past just a hobby?
And civil liberties – from jurisprudence to privacy rights – have been eroded substantially. Even if you want to argue they were eroded for a good cause, you have to start by admitting they’ve been eroded.
Democrats never valued civil rights and never believed people needed them in the first place. What possible reason did Roosevelt justify locking up Japanese-Americans for, when he wanted to ditch the Pacific War for the European front?
Since when did folks care about “privacy rights” with their MySpace pages, thousands of documented Google caches and websites about their comments that could be searched by anyone”, yet complain about Library Books? This isn’t a fantasy MMORPG where things change on a whim.
Ymarsakar writes:
“On what possible basis does Hillary or Obama deserve to be President?”
I’ll be voting for Obama primarily because he is the most opposed to the war among the viable candidates.
The Iraq war has been a costly mistake in terms of human lives, taxpayer dollars, global prestige, military recruiting potential and military readiness.
Ending America’s combat role in that war is paramount to our own national security and economic health, not to mention to the health and safety of thousands of beautiful American men and women in the military.
You do make a good point that the Republicans have historically not been the party to start wars. I could see myself supporting the party enthusiastically — especially as I think its economic ideology is essentially correct — if the past 40 years had not taken place. Since Nixon, the party has banked its fate on being the more militarily assertive of the two parties. This has led to countless smaller wars from the Contra war in Nicaragua to “Operation Just ‘Cause” in Panama the totemic invasion of Grenada and, indeed, Gulf War I. These series of small, “easy” wars led the GOP and much of the country to believe that knocking off foreign dictators is easy stuff: drop a few bombs, invade the palace and … presto, it’s parade time.
Alas, such was not the case in Iraq, and U.S. military prestige is very seriously diminished as a result.
I share your concern with national security, I simply have a different idea about how to achieve it.
Amanda:
“I believe peace and security are best achieved, in this particular case, by withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. I’ve given my reasons and you are certainly free to challenge them.”
I would be much more honest of you to simply admit that what ever happens to the Iraqi people does not interest you, with the exception of how their deaths and virtual enslavement might be yet another cynical partisan tool for you to bash George Bush with. I think you people are particularly craven and amoral, but Im probably just being redundant.
Vince P writes: “sends the signal that the US as a Superpower is ripe for destruction.”
You’re giving Islamic extremists way too much credit for being rational military strategists.
The enemy has demonstrated over and over again that it has virtually no strategic military vision whatsoever. It’s motive force is naked rage, driven by broad ignorance and deep emotional and physical poverty.
They don’t read the NY Times and plot their strategy accordingly, no matter what some of their leaders might intimate in their ludicrous attempts at self-aggrandizement.
Indeed, the resort to terrorism as the primary means of battle comes because they literally have no real military option.
Radical Islam shares with communist extremism a highly self-destructive paradigm. The sooner we allow it to achieve what it is programmed for, the better.
Harry: “craven”? ”amoral”?
You seem to have forgetten the biggie: “elitist.”
Of course I care about the Iraqi people, but I must admit, given my status, standing, nationality and other resources I do not care about the Iraqi people AS MUCH as I care about Americans.
That’s not because I’ve made some arbitrary decision to not care about them because I happen to have been born in Gretna, Louisiana, but because I make my comments here and originate my analysis from the starting point of being an American citizen who tries to be serious about the rights and responsibilities that entails.
I would of course like to help the Iraqis, or the Congolese, Sudanese, Haitians, Cubans, Zaireans and on and on and on, but I can’t honestly say I’m willing to sacrifice American national security wholesale in order to do so.
More important, I have serious doubts about any superpower’s ability to transform 3rd-world dictatorships into democracies by bombing them into submission.
Here’s an analogy you may find persuasive, as it blames liberals: Many leftists accuse rightists of being “craven” and “amoral” because they don’t demand that America’s vast surplus of grains be shipped immediately to the starving peoples of Africa. How dare we withhold that food, they declare. Of course, the counterargument, and one I find compelling, is that providing the grain by simply dropping it from a plane onto the ground in bags that say: courtesy of the USA has not and will not help these countries feed their people for more than a few weeks or months, at most. Moreover, it will seriously interfere with the formation of the markets and institutions necessary to promote farming and economic growth.
I take the same view about large-scale military interventions such as the war in Iraq. I oppose it not out of cravenness or amorality, but out of a principled, substantiated understanding that such interventions are counterproductive. By most measures, the Iraqi people are far worse off today than they were under Saddam. That alone, of course, is not reason enough to condemn the invasion, but it is a salient fact — confirmed by an array of statistics on health, mortality, the economy, oil production and, of course, opinion polls as well — that must be considered by anyone wanting to argue the invasion has been successful.
Ad hominem attacks are a sign the attacker is otherwise poorly armed.
Amanda:
“Ad hominem attacks are a sign the attacker is otherwise poorly armed.”
I’d say I was dead on.
Much of your excuse for not fighting the war on terror boiled down to a dismissal of the threat of terrorism or fundamentalist Islam altogether. Even when you admit that you cannot quite care about the lives of the Iraqi people, (while solely condemning your own country for the civilian death toll), you make the dishonest claim that your opposition to our efforts stems from a national security stand point.
Who’s buying that crap?
I mean, I guess, other than the fact that for liberals, national security measures include not availing yourself of national security assets, (i.e. the military, intelligence gathering, detainment, profiling etc,), Im afraid there’s not much left to convince me you oppose our efforts on principal.
If you seriously oppose our efforts out of principal, you can stop using people’s misery for the purpose of abandoning these same people to a worse fate.
Even if you believe the Iraqi people were better off under a brutal dictatorship than they are now. You cannot make the dishonest argument that they would be better off abandoned to what ever comes next…especially after admitting you are less than concerned about their future.
Amoral? I say yes.
Of course I care about the Iraqi people, but I must admit, given my status, standing, nationality and other resources I do not care about the Iraqi people AS MUCH as I care about Americans.
That just goes along with Democrat ideology that the world is a zero sum place and it should be a zero sum place where the only way to get rich or benefits is by stealing wealth and benefits from others.
In the conservative, there is such a thing as mutual interest where people can work together and create gain for both. As you have termed it, caring about the Iraqi people seems to be, in your world, to take away care from Americans or vice a versa. That’s your zero sum world and it’s not something everyone, not even every Democrat, believes in.
The Iraq war has been a costly mistake in terms of human lives, taxpayer dollars, global prestige, military recruiting potential and military readiness.
I cannot really agree with you that human lives should be expended by having soldiers wait in their barracks, like in Lebanon, for the terrorists to cave the building in on them. I also cannot agree with increasing military recruiting potential and military readiness by having the military in a peace time bureaucratic setup where the only way they can learn “on the job” is by manufacturing fake products such as readiness reports for peace time consumption.
Since Nixon, the party has banked its fate on being the more militarily assertive of the two parties.
Many former Democrat elements went to the Republicans via Reagan. This has had the effect of turning many new conservatives into classical liberals, hence the desire for war and change on the part of the Republicans but not on the part of the Democrats, at least not land wars like Somalia.
These series of small, “easy” wars led the GOP and much of the country to believe that knocking off foreign dictators is easy stuff:
Knocking off dictators is easy. Bush chose the hard route, which was staying in the country afterwards and not giving power to another strongman or “fake elections” while the US went away for good.
The enemy has demonstrated over and over again that it has virtually no strategic military vision whatsoever.
I don’t believe underestimating the enemy is justification enough for retreating in the strategic view, Amanda. Why would it be wise to say that the enemy has no strategic vision, so we should give up our strategic successes and retreat to America while leaving our strategic assets and allies to die out in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Radical Islam shares with communist extremism a highly self-destructive paradigm. The sooner we allow it to achieve what it is programmed for, the better.
Having the world be destroyed in nuclear fire along with millions of starved peasants in Russia and thousands of re-educated and torn apart families in Vietnam, is neither good for the world nor good for America.
It’s one thing to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis as it occurs. It is another thing entirely to allow Cuba to become a threat with the excuse that the sooner we allow communism to achieve what it is programmed for in Cuba, the better. Same goes for Iraq, the rest of the world, and America itself.
I would of course like to help the Iraqis, or the Congolese, Sudanese, Haitians, Cubans, Zaireans and on and on and on, but I can’t honestly say I’m willing to sacrifice American national security wholesale in order to do so.
Having America go it alone in the world with no allies and a boat load of enemies may help American national security in your view, Amanda, but it doesn’t in mine.
More important, I have serious doubts about any superpower’s ability to transform 3rd-world dictatorships into democracies by bombing them into submission.
Counter-insurgency, aka COIN, is not about bombing people into submission and you would know this if you had spent any time learning about strategic military vision. What’s the point about worrying over American national security if you just ignore the military side of things as they are occuring?
Many leftists accuse rightists of being “craven” and “amoral” because they don’t demand that America’s vast surplus of grains be shipped immediately to the starving peoples of Africa.
That’s a redistribution scheme that has nothing to do with mutual interest. It is not in America’s interest to starve ourselves and take a hit in our trade income by sending free food to Africa, where it will just be used by warlords to foment terrorism and tyranny against America and each other. The Left thinks for Africa to have food, America must starve or at least eat less.
A real mutual interest solution would be to pay the starving peoples of Africa, starving because of Leftist corrupt engineered bio-fuel schemes, a food income if they will join in an American military unit and agree to be trained by us and fight for us for 10 years. Their food allotment and pay for their families will go up the longer they stay in.
That’s mutual interest. We get people to fight our wars and secure their own nations from warlords and anti-Americans, and the starving people of Africa get American dollars and real food. Everybody benefits except the Leftist zero-sum warlords and the enemies of humanity.
I oppose it not out of cravenness or amorality, but out of a principled, substantiated understanding that such interventions are counterproductive.
I’m not willing to accuse you of being amoral, as Harry has, since I believe your disagreement here is founded on more old school conservative and isolationist ideas than fake liberal ideas.
However, that doesn’t mean I agree that you have a “substantiated understanding” of military invasions or occupations or counter-insurgencies.
COIN is necessary for America’s security, both national and otherwise. You cannot learn coin by unleashing the Marines on ghettoes and gangs and insurgent organizations here in America, you know. So America can only learn it in foreign countries, and a successful COIN war will not only help America, but the indigenous populations that the COIN was practiced on.
You don’t see this, of course, since you see invasion or warfare only as bombs and technology. That’s not what war is about and it is especially not what counter-insurgency is about.
Ymar:
“I’m not willing to accuse you of being amoral, as Harry has, since I believe your disagreement here is founded on more old school conservative and isolationist ideas than fake liberal ideas.”
I dont see anything other than BDS as motivation based upon previous comments.
I dont see anything other than BDS as motivation based upon previous comments.
She doesn’t like the war, that is obvious. Her first post mentioned the Republican party, first off, rather than Bush. And again, her first focus was on the war and then the economy. When she said she would be supporting Obama, again her reasons were the war first.
While people may not always tell you what they really believe first off the bat, Harry, the order and priority they give to criticizing certain groups or objects are a very clear hint, however.
I dont see how the order and or priority of deluded misconceptions matter Ymar. Ive got this comment…:
“The objectives of the war were to boost the political popularity of George W. Bush and his supporters and to ensure a steady flow of government dollars to military contractors.”
to tell me Amanda’s cheif motivation is political.