Yeah. Michael Totten gives a look at the new film The Devil's Double, about Ltif Yahia, the man forced to be a body double for the bloodthirsty, hedonistic, murderous fiend Uday Hussein.
Read it all.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Nobel Peace Prize, and the Wartime President
In the continuing discussion over Obama's Nobel Prize, there has been much talk of what this means for Afghanistan. Certain people are wondering if Obama, as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, will continue the fight in Afghanistan. According to Bob Kerrey, he has to:
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision. While success in Afghanistan may not look the same as it does in Iraq, I believe there is a very good chance that a stable democracy can survive there. If it does, it would be good for the Afghan people, good for the security of the region, and good for the United States. The heroism of Afghan voters who turned out this past August in spite of the Taliban's violence should inspire us to stand by their side until security and stability are established in their country.
He continues:
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
Indeed.
HT: Althouse
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision. While success in Afghanistan may not look the same as it does in Iraq, I believe there is a very good chance that a stable democracy can survive there. If it does, it would be good for the Afghan people, good for the security of the region, and good for the United States. The heroism of Afghan voters who turned out this past August in spite of the Taliban's violence should inspire us to stand by their side until security and stability are established in their country.
He continues:
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
Indeed.
HT: Althouse
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Obama's Cairo Speech: Initial Thoughts
I've read the text of the speech, and I think it's really good- concise, and far-reaching, and shows a real good-faith attempt to step up to the plate on the key issues:
One of Obama's chief themes here is building (rebuilding?) bridges between Islam and the West:
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Good balance here, although Obama's critics may choose to interpret the line about sweeping change causing certain Muslims to view the West with hostility as showing weakness--but Obama makes sure to point out that such a view is invalid.
Many will no doubt take issue with Obama calling the Koran the Holy Koran (of course many of those same people will take issue with the idea of engaging the Muslim world in the first place), but if you read the whole text, you'll see that he is trying to show reverence to all faiths. He explains his unique background:
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
Obama goes out his way to quote the Koran to make his case. He then proceeds to expound on the contributions of mainstream Islam, and gives a sound defense of American values, and how Muslims ought to appreciate those values and contributions.
I thought his words on tolerance and religious liberty were good, although I found this interesting, and kind of strange:
We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Pretense of liberalism? That just sounds so strange the way he says that. Later, he begins to delve into specific policy points, particularly on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq:
Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
As one who supported the war in Iraq, I'm glad that he acknowledges that Iraq is better off without Saddam, and while one needn't at all be a supporter of the war to agree with that sentiment, I find it interesting that if he had made this speech a year ago, many war critics would be vexed. I'm also glad that he has stuck to his responsible withdrawal plan (as I predicted he would), although Stephen Hayes does kind of have a point on this:
In a speech about freedom and democracy, America and Islam, Obama glides right past the most remarkable development in the region in decades: "Iraq's democratically-elected government." He mentions it only in passing, to note that he's keeping his campaign promised to remove troops...the fact that he can even use that phrase -- Iraq's democratically-elected government -- might have caused him to acknowledge that America's intervention there, despite the tremendous difficulties, has made Iraq a country that practices many of those things that he seeks for the rest of the region.
Now, I don't think it's fair to suggest that Obama didn't really acknowledge Iraq, but it's probably true that he could have been more specific with regards to the success of the surge, and exactly true that the situation in Iraq now would be near impossible without it.
On Israel, things get a bit more dicey. I've no doubt about Obama's pro-Israel bona fides. I think he is really trying to strike the right balance here, so while I think he loses me a bit when he talks about "the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation," I think he's trying to do the right thing. My issue with lines like that is that it can leave the impression that Israel is somehow to blame for the Palestinians present condition. I get what he's saying for the most part, and I think the right-wing criticism is just out of line. Maybe he could've mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah a few more times, but some of the criticisms (more here, here, and here) laid at his feet are really over the top. As Zalman Shoval said, there is no reason for panic.
At the end of the day, it was a good speech, and had Obama's classic rhetorical skill. That being said, speeches are just that--speeches, and he himself pointed out, they must be backed up by sound action.
More thoughts forthcoming.
Kudos to Sully for the speech reaction h/t's, and to Althouse for the speech link.
One of Obama's chief themes here is building (rebuilding?) bridges between Islam and the West:
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Good balance here, although Obama's critics may choose to interpret the line about sweeping change causing certain Muslims to view the West with hostility as showing weakness--but Obama makes sure to point out that such a view is invalid.
Many will no doubt take issue with Obama calling the Koran the Holy Koran (of course many of those same people will take issue with the idea of engaging the Muslim world in the first place), but if you read the whole text, you'll see that he is trying to show reverence to all faiths. He explains his unique background:
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
Obama goes out his way to quote the Koran to make his case. He then proceeds to expound on the contributions of mainstream Islam, and gives a sound defense of American values, and how Muslims ought to appreciate those values and contributions.
I thought his words on tolerance and religious liberty were good, although I found this interesting, and kind of strange:
We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Pretense of liberalism? That just sounds so strange the way he says that. Later, he begins to delve into specific policy points, particularly on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq:
Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
As one who supported the war in Iraq, I'm glad that he acknowledges that Iraq is better off without Saddam, and while one needn't at all be a supporter of the war to agree with that sentiment, I find it interesting that if he had made this speech a year ago, many war critics would be vexed. I'm also glad that he has stuck to his responsible withdrawal plan (as I predicted he would), although Stephen Hayes does kind of have a point on this:
In a speech about freedom and democracy, America and Islam, Obama glides right past the most remarkable development in the region in decades: "Iraq's democratically-elected government." He mentions it only in passing, to note that he's keeping his campaign promised to remove troops...the fact that he can even use that phrase -- Iraq's democratically-elected government -- might have caused him to acknowledge that America's intervention there, despite the tremendous difficulties, has made Iraq a country that practices many of those things that he seeks for the rest of the region.
Now, I don't think it's fair to suggest that Obama didn't really acknowledge Iraq, but it's probably true that he could have been more specific with regards to the success of the surge, and exactly true that the situation in Iraq now would be near impossible without it.
On Israel, things get a bit more dicey. I've no doubt about Obama's pro-Israel bona fides. I think he is really trying to strike the right balance here, so while I think he loses me a bit when he talks about "the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation," I think he's trying to do the right thing. My issue with lines like that is that it can leave the impression that Israel is somehow to blame for the Palestinians present condition. I get what he's saying for the most part, and I think the right-wing criticism is just out of line. Maybe he could've mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah a few more times, but some of the criticisms (more here, here, and here) laid at his feet are really over the top. As Zalman Shoval said, there is no reason for panic.
At the end of the day, it was a good speech, and had Obama's classic rhetorical skill. That being said, speeches are just that--speeches, and he himself pointed out, they must be backed up by sound action.
More thoughts forthcoming.
Kudos to Sully for the speech reaction h/t's, and to Althouse for the speech link.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Bernie, Let It Go
Bush's Presidency ends in less than seven days, and his official potrait has been prepared. Apparently, there's an issue with the inscription on the bottom. Sen. Bernie Sanders has cried foul:
"When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked. ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order."
It appears that people may be taking Sanders seriously on this. Look, I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, and I didn't vote for him in either election. I've commented elsewhere and often, on the final verdict of his legacy. The thing is, it's his potrait, and his vision. He's the outgoing President, and he deserves his portrait, with his vision on it. You may not agree with it, but it's his vision, and Sanders ought to let this go.
Maybe my bias is showing, in that I do believe, as a supporter of the Iraq war, that the threat Saddam posed was unacceptable in a post-9/11 world, but I'm just not sure what this accomplishes. It's like picking at the man's bones. Besides, I'm also a bit concerned about the fact that one Senator can object, and the Nation Museum basically caves. Better men than Sanders have spoken out on bigger things, and have been thwarted. Maybe I answered my own question in here somewhere, as this whole issue is so small, and so is Sanders apparently, for bringing this up.
Sen. Sanders, let it go. Let it go.
HT: Althouse
ADDED: As for people with personal agendas and their intruding on the proper processes of the Presidency, some hit you on the way out, and some hit you on the way in.
"When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked. ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order."
It appears that people may be taking Sanders seriously on this. Look, I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, and I didn't vote for him in either election. I've commented elsewhere and often, on the final verdict of his legacy. The thing is, it's his potrait, and his vision. He's the outgoing President, and he deserves his portrait, with his vision on it. You may not agree with it, but it's his vision, and Sanders ought to let this go.
Maybe my bias is showing, in that I do believe, as a supporter of the Iraq war, that the threat Saddam posed was unacceptable in a post-9/11 world, but I'm just not sure what this accomplishes. It's like picking at the man's bones. Besides, I'm also a bit concerned about the fact that one Senator can object, and the Nation Museum basically caves. Better men than Sanders have spoken out on bigger things, and have been thwarted. Maybe I answered my own question in here somewhere, as this whole issue is so small, and so is Sanders apparently, for bringing this up.
Sen. Sanders, let it go. Let it go.
HT: Althouse
ADDED: As for people with personal agendas and their intruding on the proper processes of the Presidency, some hit you on the way out, and some hit you on the way in.
Monday, November 03, 2008
The Case for Barack Obama (Or At Least, Why I'm Voting For Him)
This isn't really a secret at this point, but I am voting for Obama tomorrow. I guess this is the official endorsement. I put this off to the end for a variety of reasons, mainly due to a lack of time, but I'm not worried about it being too close to Election Day to influence any votes, as it's clear most here have made up their minds already, and I don't suspect I'll be changing them. No big deal. In effect, this is the answer to the question, "Why are you voting for this guy?"
First off, let's get some preliminaries out of the way. I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, who generally comes from the center-Left, DLC/hawkish end of the Party. I'm pro-life, I think the MoveOn-Kos wing of the party has too much influence, and while I've disagreed with most of his policies, I don't have a pathological contempt for Bush.
Ok, so why Obama? To put it bluntly, I think on most of the core issues that are facing the country right now, I think Obama is best equipped to deal with those issues, meaning he has the policy vision, and temperament to lead. I like the guy. What I saw him in 2004, and in the early days of this campaign, I see in him now. He's got skills. You may not agree with Obama's economic and fiscal policies, but he has been pretty consistent throughout on the key issues, and not just on the economic crisis. McCain on the other hand, has been all over the place. McCain is not Bush, and I do agree that the Dems have used the McCain as Bush meme a bit too much, but with the exception of earmark reform and talks about a spending freeze, he really hasn't clearly laid out how his economic approach will be different than the standard GOP platform. If you're for that platform, that's fine, but a lot of us Dems see things differently. On the recent economic crisis, McCain has been all over the place. First he said everything was fine, the he recognized the crisis, then he was against the bailout, then for it. He suspends his campaign, and tries to postpone the debate, in what has to be called one of the most ill-executed moves in a while. He tries to paint Obama as being on the sidelines, but Obama always argued that one could deal with the crisis and run the campaign. At the meeting with Bush, Obama was engaged, but McCain didn't say much. McCain suspended his campaign, but sat back in the meeting, and when it came time to actually do what he suspended his campaign to do, he didn't get it done. Surely, the bill eventually passed, but it was a more bloated one. What's my point here? While Obama was consistent on the issue, McCain shifted positions several times on this, and then tried to paint Obama has the big spender, while voting for the bill that he once opposed, not mention adding another $300,000 plan to buy bad mortgages. Again, mileage is your own, but I think Obama showed real leadership.
What about foreign policy, you may ask. Let's be clear. I, for all intents and purposes am a supporter of the Iraq war. Obama, for all intents and purposes isn't. I wish he was as I am on this, but he's not. I have noticed though, and I'm not the only one to notice this, that Obama has always left wiggle room on his support for ending the war. He has always resisted the more aggresive pullout approach from the MoveOn crew. In fact, although Obama does get a lot of support from the anti-war faction, if they're looking for a Carteresque dove, they're deluding themselves. Obama has always been on target about Afghanistan, and contrary to McCain's distortions, he has it right on Pakistan.
To be fair, McCain has consistently supported the surge, and did so when it wasn't popular. He has my utmost respect for that. If this election were just about Iraq, or if I genuinely felt that Obama would somehow surrender to terror, things would be different. Obama was wrong on the surge, and he has yet to openly admit that, but he has acknowledged its success, for the most part. On Israel, I'll say again that if I doubted for a second that Obama wasn't committed to Israel, I couldn't vote for him. As to Iran, he did prevaricate on preconditions, but I think he has come around to an acceptable position.
The McCain camp continues to bring up Obama's supposed vote to defund the troops. Obama dealt with this in the first debate, but the charge keeps coming up. The issue at hand was not funding the troops, but timetables. Obama voted for the timetables troop-funding bill, and McCain voted against it, because of tmetables. The non-timetables troop-funding bill Obama voted against, was because of timetables. I suspect Obama voted against it, knowing it would pass either way. I suspect he was trying to make a political statement, and made the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Honestly, I would've voted against it, because I don't really support artificial timetables, but let's be clear: The issue at hand was timetables, not troop funding. Obama has a consistent record of voting to fund the war, despite his opposition to it, much to the chagrin of many anti-war Lefties.
On the Russia-Georgia conflict, overall I thought Obama handled himself fairly well, with the exception of one pernicious gaffe, which fortunately he has not repeated.
There is of course the question of experience, or rather Obama's lack thereof. compared to McCain. McCain has an impressive record, and is a veteran on the battlefield, and in Congress. He is a man of honor, and sacrificed immensely for his country. Obama doesn't have that resume. He just doesn't, and there's no getting around that, but I believe he does have the temperament, policy vision, and judgment on the key issues, moreso than McCain. Heck, maybe it's just that I agree with Obama more, but I don't think so.
Let me say though, that both these candidates have their flaws. Obama is hardly perfect, and has some issues. I am concerned about the possibility of an unfettered Democratic majority in Congress. The Pelosi-Reid era hasn't exactly lived up to its expectations, and while I don't doubt his sincere belief in bipartisanship, he doesn't have the record that McCain has. McCain has a clear record of bipartisanship, not to mention opposing his own Party, and Bush. Obama doesn't have that much of a legislative record, but he does have good relations with many Republicans (and not just the ones endorsing him), and he has worked with Republicans in the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, let's not forget. My concern, to the extent that I am concerned, isn't that Obama won't work with Republicans, but whether he will be able to oppose his own party when necessary. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she has opposed her own party. The thing is, I'm not really sure about her record of working with Democrats, though. McCain to his credit, has done both. Obama has resisted many of the impulses of MoveOn.org, and he did defy the Party leadership and campaign for Lieberman in 2006. Yeah, it's thin I know, but I'm willing to gamble. After all, how Left can Obama really go, with Blue Dogs in the House, and many Red-state Dems in the Senate?
Again, I'm concerned about the card check bill, and the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back, but I'm willing to take the risk.
As to the negativity of the campaign, I freely cede that neither candidate has been pure. The Obama campaign has put out some questionable ads, and a few that were pretty sleazy. As I see it though, most of Obama's ads have been policy-based, while McCain's ads have been straight-negative for the last three months, and many were just straight up personal attacks. Obama has never questioned McCain's patriotism, or belittled his military service (at least not intentionally). The McCain crew and his supporters have gone personal on everything, and I may be the only one who feels this way, but in last few months, it's been over the top. True, many Obama supporters, and in certain instances Obama himself have brought up the race card, but it seems that they've gone after Obama on everything but race ("palling around with terrorists," real America vs. fake America, Obama is a liar, Obama is a socialist, etc), and it's gone beyond the pale, in my book. I will not lay that blame for the lunatic conspiracies (Obama as Muslim invader, phony birth certificate, Bill Ayers as ghostwriter of Obama's book, Obama's logo, etc) on the McCain campaign, but McCain and Palin have launched some beyond the pale attacks, and frankly it's beneath a man of McCain's character.
This is running long, so I'll wrap this up. As for Obama's alliances, at the end of the day, they don't bother me that much. He did flip on public financing, as I said before, that's the one typical politician move I cannot defend. At the end of the day, though, despite his weaknesses, I believe he is the man we need right now. He is not however, the Messiah. Many of his supporters are drunk with hero worship, but in the end, he's just a man, a mere mortal. If you're expecting him to heal the breaches of the universe, prepare to be disappointed. He may be running as a new kind of politician, but he's still a politician. He's run an impressive and historic campaign, but he's made mistakes.
I was technically undecided up until late September, although to be honest, I've leaned Obama's way most of the time. I've seriously considered backing McCain many times, and I think what took me so long was that I still contend that the choice is between two decent, patriotic men. I say one more time that McCain is an honorable and decent man, and despite my issues with his campaign, he still has my respect. As for Sarah Palin, my view of her has diminished over the last couple of months, but she still seems a decent person, and she does have a record.
Many will justify their votes against Obama because of the pro-Obama bias in the press, and the press has made quite the fool of itself this election cycle, but to borrow a phrase, you punish the press for its failures, not the candidate(s).
If Obama wins, he will be the first black President. As an American, and as a black man, that is a great thing for me, but that's not the reason I'm voting for him. The fact that he's made it this far is proof that the barrier has been torn down, and if Obama loses, it won't be because America is a racist country. It won't be because America didn't want a black man to be President, rather they didn't want this particular black man, for a variety of reasons. Will racism be out there? Surely, but I think most Americans won't stoop to that. Sue me, I'm an optimist.
And that's what I want to end this on. If Obama wins, this republic will survive. Yes, it will. If McCain wins, this republic will survive. If Obama loses, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it. If he wins, I won't gloat (although I fear others might).
And that's it. Go vote, if you haven't already.
First off, let's get some preliminaries out of the way. I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, who generally comes from the center-Left, DLC/hawkish end of the Party. I'm pro-life, I think the MoveOn-Kos wing of the party has too much influence, and while I've disagreed with most of his policies, I don't have a pathological contempt for Bush.
Ok, so why Obama? To put it bluntly, I think on most of the core issues that are facing the country right now, I think Obama is best equipped to deal with those issues, meaning he has the policy vision, and temperament to lead. I like the guy. What I saw him in 2004, and in the early days of this campaign, I see in him now. He's got skills. You may not agree with Obama's economic and fiscal policies, but he has been pretty consistent throughout on the key issues, and not just on the economic crisis. McCain on the other hand, has been all over the place. McCain is not Bush, and I do agree that the Dems have used the McCain as Bush meme a bit too much, but with the exception of earmark reform and talks about a spending freeze, he really hasn't clearly laid out how his economic approach will be different than the standard GOP platform. If you're for that platform, that's fine, but a lot of us Dems see things differently. On the recent economic crisis, McCain has been all over the place. First he said everything was fine, the he recognized the crisis, then he was against the bailout, then for it. He suspends his campaign, and tries to postpone the debate, in what has to be called one of the most ill-executed moves in a while. He tries to paint Obama as being on the sidelines, but Obama always argued that one could deal with the crisis and run the campaign. At the meeting with Bush, Obama was engaged, but McCain didn't say much. McCain suspended his campaign, but sat back in the meeting, and when it came time to actually do what he suspended his campaign to do, he didn't get it done. Surely, the bill eventually passed, but it was a more bloated one. What's my point here? While Obama was consistent on the issue, McCain shifted positions several times on this, and then tried to paint Obama has the big spender, while voting for the bill that he once opposed, not mention adding another $300,000 plan to buy bad mortgages. Again, mileage is your own, but I think Obama showed real leadership.
What about foreign policy, you may ask. Let's be clear. I, for all intents and purposes am a supporter of the Iraq war. Obama, for all intents and purposes isn't. I wish he was as I am on this, but he's not. I have noticed though, and I'm not the only one to notice this, that Obama has always left wiggle room on his support for ending the war. He has always resisted the more aggresive pullout approach from the MoveOn crew. In fact, although Obama does get a lot of support from the anti-war faction, if they're looking for a Carteresque dove, they're deluding themselves. Obama has always been on target about Afghanistan, and contrary to McCain's distortions, he has it right on Pakistan.
To be fair, McCain has consistently supported the surge, and did so when it wasn't popular. He has my utmost respect for that. If this election were just about Iraq, or if I genuinely felt that Obama would somehow surrender to terror, things would be different. Obama was wrong on the surge, and he has yet to openly admit that, but he has acknowledged its success, for the most part. On Israel, I'll say again that if I doubted for a second that Obama wasn't committed to Israel, I couldn't vote for him. As to Iran, he did prevaricate on preconditions, but I think he has come around to an acceptable position.
The McCain camp continues to bring up Obama's supposed vote to defund the troops. Obama dealt with this in the first debate, but the charge keeps coming up. The issue at hand was not funding the troops, but timetables. Obama voted for the timetables troop-funding bill, and McCain voted against it, because of tmetables. The non-timetables troop-funding bill Obama voted against, was because of timetables. I suspect Obama voted against it, knowing it would pass either way. I suspect he was trying to make a political statement, and made the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Honestly, I would've voted against it, because I don't really support artificial timetables, but let's be clear: The issue at hand was timetables, not troop funding. Obama has a consistent record of voting to fund the war, despite his opposition to it, much to the chagrin of many anti-war Lefties.
On the Russia-Georgia conflict, overall I thought Obama handled himself fairly well, with the exception of one pernicious gaffe, which fortunately he has not repeated.
There is of course the question of experience, or rather Obama's lack thereof. compared to McCain. McCain has an impressive record, and is a veteran on the battlefield, and in Congress. He is a man of honor, and sacrificed immensely for his country. Obama doesn't have that resume. He just doesn't, and there's no getting around that, but I believe he does have the temperament, policy vision, and judgment on the key issues, moreso than McCain. Heck, maybe it's just that I agree with Obama more, but I don't think so.
Let me say though, that both these candidates have their flaws. Obama is hardly perfect, and has some issues. I am concerned about the possibility of an unfettered Democratic majority in Congress. The Pelosi-Reid era hasn't exactly lived up to its expectations, and while I don't doubt his sincere belief in bipartisanship, he doesn't have the record that McCain has. McCain has a clear record of bipartisanship, not to mention opposing his own Party, and Bush. Obama doesn't have that much of a legislative record, but he does have good relations with many Republicans (and not just the ones endorsing him), and he has worked with Republicans in the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, let's not forget. My concern, to the extent that I am concerned, isn't that Obama won't work with Republicans, but whether he will be able to oppose his own party when necessary. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she has opposed her own party. The thing is, I'm not really sure about her record of working with Democrats, though. McCain to his credit, has done both. Obama has resisted many of the impulses of MoveOn.org, and he did defy the Party leadership and campaign for Lieberman in 2006. Yeah, it's thin I know, but I'm willing to gamble. After all, how Left can Obama really go, with Blue Dogs in the House, and many Red-state Dems in the Senate?
Again, I'm concerned about the card check bill, and the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back, but I'm willing to take the risk.
As to the negativity of the campaign, I freely cede that neither candidate has been pure. The Obama campaign has put out some questionable ads, and a few that were pretty sleazy. As I see it though, most of Obama's ads have been policy-based, while McCain's ads have been straight-negative for the last three months, and many were just straight up personal attacks. Obama has never questioned McCain's patriotism, or belittled his military service (at least not intentionally). The McCain crew and his supporters have gone personal on everything, and I may be the only one who feels this way, but in last few months, it's been over the top. True, many Obama supporters, and in certain instances Obama himself have brought up the race card, but it seems that they've gone after Obama on everything but race ("palling around with terrorists," real America vs. fake America, Obama is a liar, Obama is a socialist, etc), and it's gone beyond the pale, in my book. I will not lay that blame for the lunatic conspiracies (Obama as Muslim invader, phony birth certificate, Bill Ayers as ghostwriter of Obama's book, Obama's logo, etc) on the McCain campaign, but McCain and Palin have launched some beyond the pale attacks, and frankly it's beneath a man of McCain's character.
This is running long, so I'll wrap this up. As for Obama's alliances, at the end of the day, they don't bother me that much. He did flip on public financing, as I said before, that's the one typical politician move I cannot defend. At the end of the day, though, despite his weaknesses, I believe he is the man we need right now. He is not however, the Messiah. Many of his supporters are drunk with hero worship, but in the end, he's just a man, a mere mortal. If you're expecting him to heal the breaches of the universe, prepare to be disappointed. He may be running as a new kind of politician, but he's still a politician. He's run an impressive and historic campaign, but he's made mistakes.
I was technically undecided up until late September, although to be honest, I've leaned Obama's way most of the time. I've seriously considered backing McCain many times, and I think what took me so long was that I still contend that the choice is between two decent, patriotic men. I say one more time that McCain is an honorable and decent man, and despite my issues with his campaign, he still has my respect. As for Sarah Palin, my view of her has diminished over the last couple of months, but she still seems a decent person, and she does have a record.
Many will justify their votes against Obama because of the pro-Obama bias in the press, and the press has made quite the fool of itself this election cycle, but to borrow a phrase, you punish the press for its failures, not the candidate(s).
If Obama wins, he will be the first black President. As an American, and as a black man, that is a great thing for me, but that's not the reason I'm voting for him. The fact that he's made it this far is proof that the barrier has been torn down, and if Obama loses, it won't be because America is a racist country. It won't be because America didn't want a black man to be President, rather they didn't want this particular black man, for a variety of reasons. Will racism be out there? Surely, but I think most Americans won't stoop to that. Sue me, I'm an optimist.
And that's what I want to end this on. If Obama wins, this republic will survive. Yes, it will. If McCain wins, this republic will survive. If Obama loses, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it. If he wins, I won't gloat (although I fear others might).
And that's it. Go vote, if you haven't already.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
More on The Speeches
I'll have more complete thoughts on the RNC speeches later in the day, but I'll just say for now that Palin did an impressive job, and despite my obvious disagreements with a number of her policies, I like her. I've noted here and elsewhere that the attacks on her by the press and the far-Left are unfair and unfortunate.
I do have one quibble though: What's so bad about being a community organizer? Now admittedly, it doesn't compare to McCain's military record, but I just don't see why Obama being a community organizer is such a point of derision. Palin and Giuilani attacked him on this.
More on that later, but over at Booker Rising, a bit of a mini-ruckus has been raised about my praising of Lieberman's speech Tuesday night. First off, I have not made up my mind yet who I'm voting for yet, although I have leaned various directions throughout this campaign, and I'm leaning a particular way now. I can't really be counted as a firm Obama supporter at this point, but I do like him a lot, and have said so in the past.
Nevertheless, I was attacked by various commenters, as well as Lieberman. No big deal, I can take it (and so can Lieberman), but in the midst of the ad hominem, a few valid points were brought out, namely the fact that Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006.
The fact is, he did, and Obama has always counted Lieberman as a mentor. Now, I don't think Lieberman backing the man who he believes is best equipped to lead the country is disloyalty, but Obama can count his support for Lieberman in 2006, against the anti-war forces in his party as an example of bipartisanship, and I'm surprised he hasn't brought it up. Of course, Obama and Lieberman have differed on key issues, namely Obama's opposition to the surge, and his support for premature withdrawal. An argument could be made that maybe Lieberman shouldn't have gone after Obama directly, but he was probably the only speaker that night that actually offered any praise for his Senate colleague, and with all respect to Obama, he did have a point. McCain has clearly more legislative experience than Obama, and a much more significant record of bipartisanship than Obama does.
The fact is, Lieberman made his choice because he believes it's right, and it's not as if he owes his party much of anything, seeing as how the leadership essentially sanctioned his being thrown under the bus. We Democrats owe him our Democratic majority in the Senate, as it is held together by Lieberman's own will. The Dems didn't take LIeberman's speech too well, though, and have already readied his excommunication. It was clear that Lieberman's position as the preserver of the Dem majority kept him the caucus, but it's apparent now, that if they get enough seats that they no longer need him, he's back under the bus.
It's a shame really. Obama could prove himself to be above all this, and stick his neck out for Lieberman, but I doubt it. Let it never be said that opposing your party isn't without consequences.
I do have one quibble though: What's so bad about being a community organizer? Now admittedly, it doesn't compare to McCain's military record, but I just don't see why Obama being a community organizer is such a point of derision. Palin and Giuilani attacked him on this.
More on that later, but over at Booker Rising, a bit of a mini-ruckus has been raised about my praising of Lieberman's speech Tuesday night. First off, I have not made up my mind yet who I'm voting for yet, although I have leaned various directions throughout this campaign, and I'm leaning a particular way now. I can't really be counted as a firm Obama supporter at this point, but I do like him a lot, and have said so in the past.
Nevertheless, I was attacked by various commenters, as well as Lieberman. No big deal, I can take it (and so can Lieberman), but in the midst of the ad hominem, a few valid points were brought out, namely the fact that Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006.
The fact is, he did, and Obama has always counted Lieberman as a mentor. Now, I don't think Lieberman backing the man who he believes is best equipped to lead the country is disloyalty, but Obama can count his support for Lieberman in 2006, against the anti-war forces in his party as an example of bipartisanship, and I'm surprised he hasn't brought it up. Of course, Obama and Lieberman have differed on key issues, namely Obama's opposition to the surge, and his support for premature withdrawal. An argument could be made that maybe Lieberman shouldn't have gone after Obama directly, but he was probably the only speaker that night that actually offered any praise for his Senate colleague, and with all respect to Obama, he did have a point. McCain has clearly more legislative experience than Obama, and a much more significant record of bipartisanship than Obama does.
The fact is, Lieberman made his choice because he believes it's right, and it's not as if he owes his party much of anything, seeing as how the leadership essentially sanctioned his being thrown under the bus. We Democrats owe him our Democratic majority in the Senate, as it is held together by Lieberman's own will. The Dems didn't take LIeberman's speech too well, though, and have already readied his excommunication. It was clear that Lieberman's position as the preserver of the Dem majority kept him the caucus, but it's apparent now, that if they get enough seats that they no longer need him, he's back under the bus.
It's a shame really. Obama could prove himself to be above all this, and stick his neck out for Lieberman, but I doubt it. Let it never be said that opposing your party isn't without consequences.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Powerful Speeches, Personal Attacks, and Palin
I've made my views on Obama;s speech well known elsewhere, but I wanted to share some quick thoughts on the speech, with particular focus on one of the big controversies raised by it. I liked the speech, and I thought he did a good job doing what he needed to do for his audience, and the moment. The use of the theatrics was well-executed-- it was grand and spectacular, but not too imperious. I remain amazed at how many people were there.
As for the substance, I thought he did a pretty good job making his case why the McCain policy agenda is too much of the same and bad, and why his (and the Democratic agenda) is good, and the change we need. Naturally, a lot of this depends on whether one agrees with the policies (and even I had issues with some his proposals), but he's speaking to a Democratic audience. Sure a lot of it was traditional Democratic fare, but it's a Democratic year, after all.
One of the prevailing memes from many on the right is that it was an angry speech, and not very inspiring. I think it was appropriate to attack McCain on policy, but pro-McCain forces contend that he attacked McCain personally, and accuse Obama of attacking McCain's courage and patriotism. I didn't see that at all, but this is the offending phrase:
FWIW, I don't think he should've used that line, but what I think Obama was doing was advancing the argument that the Iraq war was a distraction from the hunt for Bin Laden. It's a sloppy argument, and not one I agree with, but Obama was hitting at McCain's policy judgment. The thing is, the line is problematic for three other reasons, the first being that it ignores the reality of the Bin Laden situation, the second being that McCain has no authority as Senator to catch Bin Laden (nor does Obama), and third, it contradicts Obama's own wise point about impugning the motives of those with whom we disagree. McCain and Obama disagree on the best way to fight the GWOT, but it's bad form to even appear to imply that McCain doesn't want to go after Bin Laden. That's just as bad as suggesting that Obama puts his self-interest ahead of the country, or that he'd "rather lose a war, than lose an election."
I suspect Obama felt the need to play tit-for -tat, but it does hurt the speech somewhat.
I thought he closed out well with his change and post-partisan theme, although he still has the problem of lacking a real legislative record to back that up.
Oh, and then there's Sarah Palin, who was a surprising and impressive choice by McCain. The Obama camp may not have gone too negative last night, but their dismissive and almost haughty response to Palin is disappointing, and may only serve to drive away more Hillary voters. Is he really going to try to use the inexperience tag? Not good at all on that score.
As for the substance, I thought he did a pretty good job making his case why the McCain policy agenda is too much of the same and bad, and why his (and the Democratic agenda) is good, and the change we need. Naturally, a lot of this depends on whether one agrees with the policies (and even I had issues with some his proposals), but he's speaking to a Democratic audience. Sure a lot of it was traditional Democratic fare, but it's a Democratic year, after all.
One of the prevailing memes from many on the right is that it was an angry speech, and not very inspiring. I think it was appropriate to attack McCain on policy, but pro-McCain forces contend that he attacked McCain personally, and accuse Obama of attacking McCain's courage and patriotism. I didn't see that at all, but this is the offending phrase:
"You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell. But he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives."
FWIW, I don't think he should've used that line, but what I think Obama was doing was advancing the argument that the Iraq war was a distraction from the hunt for Bin Laden. It's a sloppy argument, and not one I agree with, but Obama was hitting at McCain's policy judgment. The thing is, the line is problematic for three other reasons, the first being that it ignores the reality of the Bin Laden situation, the second being that McCain has no authority as Senator to catch Bin Laden (nor does Obama), and third, it contradicts Obama's own wise point about impugning the motives of those with whom we disagree. McCain and Obama disagree on the best way to fight the GWOT, but it's bad form to even appear to imply that McCain doesn't want to go after Bin Laden. That's just as bad as suggesting that Obama puts his self-interest ahead of the country, or that he'd "rather lose a war, than lose an election."
I suspect Obama felt the need to play tit-for -tat, but it does hurt the speech somewhat.
I thought he closed out well with his change and post-partisan theme, although he still has the problem of lacking a real legislative record to back that up.
Oh, and then there's Sarah Palin, who was a surprising and impressive choice by McCain. The Obama camp may not have gone too negative last night, but their dismissive and almost haughty response to Palin is disappointing, and may only serve to drive away more Hillary voters. Is he really going to try to use the inexperience tag? Not good at all on that score.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong
At least when it comes to the truth of the Russia-Georgia conflict. This solid piece from Michael Totten:
Read the whole thing, as it's much too lengthy to properly excerpt. Let me also add that this, among other reasons is why Obama's recent gaffe is so frustrating. I know it's his week and all, but I have to call 'em as I see 'em.
TBILISI, GEORGIA – Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.
Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.
Read the whole thing, as it's much too lengthy to properly excerpt. Let me also add that this, among other reasons is why Obama's recent gaffe is so frustrating. I know it's his week and all, but I have to call 'em as I see 'em.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Obama, Marx, Lieberman, and His "Bitter" Pill
You all must know by now about the kerfuffle over ill-executed and disquieting comments Obama made about small town voters being bitter, and "clinging to their religion and their guns." I'm going to elaborate on this later, but I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, so I'll link to my comment from this post by Tully over at SF, about one possible explanation for Obama's comments.
As I said in my comment ( do read the post, BTW), I don't think Juliette's argument is plausible. Others, namely one Bill Kristol, have a different view, that Obama is in fact, a Marxist, who uses his religious faith as a cover. I think that charge is clearly over the top, and I'll elaborate more later on, as to why.
The thing is though, there is a bit of a controversy brewing over comments Sen. Joe Lieberman made with regards to this. (HT: Sully and ThinkProgress):
NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.
Many, including Sullivan and Think Progress took issue with this statement by Lieberman. IN fairness to Lieberman, who I've come to deeply respect more than ever these past couple of years, perhaps he felt the question of Obama being an elitist was the good question, as opposed to question of him being a Marxist. Lieberman clearly stopped short of calling Obama a Marxist, although some will argue that he was ambiguous in doing so.
The question of him having views to the left of Lieberman and mainstream America is an interesting question. Obama does in fact hold views to the left of Lieberman (and myself, for that matter), at least with regards to foreign policy. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq a whole lot sooner than Lieberman does, and he's mentioned talks with Iran. As to other issues, Lieberman;s comments are a bit problematic, as I'm not really sure what Lieberman means here, as he and Obama are pretty much on the same page with regards to the other core Democratic issues. As far as mainstream America is concerned, many war critics rightly point out public dissatisfaction with the war, but keep in mind that a lot of those still oppose a premature withdrawal.
At the end of the day, though, I don't think this is that big of a deal, except in the minds of those on the Left who already have a beef with Sen. Lieberman.
Not that Obama being perceived as too far left of the mainstream doesn't help McCain, who Lieberman supports, a fact which really drives many on the Left crazy.
As I said in my comment ( do read the post, BTW), I don't think Juliette's argument is plausible. Others, namely one Bill Kristol, have a different view, that Obama is in fact, a Marxist, who uses his religious faith as a cover. I think that charge is clearly over the top, and I'll elaborate more later on, as to why.
The thing is though, there is a bit of a controversy brewing over comments Sen. Joe Lieberman made with regards to this. (HT: Sully and ThinkProgress):
NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.
Many, including Sullivan and Think Progress took issue with this statement by Lieberman. IN fairness to Lieberman, who I've come to deeply respect more than ever these past couple of years, perhaps he felt the question of Obama being an elitist was the good question, as opposed to question of him being a Marxist. Lieberman clearly stopped short of calling Obama a Marxist, although some will argue that he was ambiguous in doing so.
The question of him having views to the left of Lieberman and mainstream America is an interesting question. Obama does in fact hold views to the left of Lieberman (and myself, for that matter), at least with regards to foreign policy. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq a whole lot sooner than Lieberman does, and he's mentioned talks with Iran. As to other issues, Lieberman;s comments are a bit problematic, as I'm not really sure what Lieberman means here, as he and Obama are pretty much on the same page with regards to the other core Democratic issues. As far as mainstream America is concerned, many war critics rightly point out public dissatisfaction with the war, but keep in mind that a lot of those still oppose a premature withdrawal.
At the end of the day, though, I don't think this is that big of a deal, except in the minds of those on the Left who already have a beef with Sen. Lieberman.
Not that Obama being perceived as too far left of the mainstream doesn't help McCain, who Lieberman supports, a fact which really drives many on the Left crazy.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Tedious Task of Debating Glenn Greenwald
Via Kevin Sullivan of Independent Liberal, comes this post, on Dan Drezner's attempts to reason with the often insightful, but often- as-dogmatic-and-irrartional-as-his critcs Glenn Greenwald:
Greenwald’s rhetorical style in his column boils down to,”if you dispute anything I say, then you are objectively pro-torture.” This bears more than a passing resemblance to the position rabid pro-war advocates adopted in late 2002 — that opposition to war with Iraq rendered one objectively pro-Saddam. It was a disgusting tactic then, and it’s no less disgusting that Greenwald is using it now. It makes him no better than the ideological adversaries he so despises.
Read the whole thing.
Greenwald’s rhetorical style in his column boils down to,”if you dispute anything I say, then you are objectively pro-torture.” This bears more than a passing resemblance to the position rabid pro-war advocates adopted in late 2002 — that opposition to war with Iraq rendered one objectively pro-Saddam. It was a disgusting tactic then, and it’s no less disgusting that Greenwald is using it now. It makes him no better than the ideological adversaries he so despises.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
McCain, "The 100 Years" Controversy, and Iraq
As I'm sure we've all heard by now, there has been much discussion (and distortion) over McCain's comments about who long American troops will remain in Iraq. The prevailing attitide that most war critics (and many sympathetic voices in the press) have towards McCain, is that he wants an unlimited commitment to Iraq, and is basically the same as George W. Bush. I am no Bush supporter, but I am for all intents and purposes a supporter of the Iraq war (come on, keep reading), and I respect McCain, not only because of his service, but for his history of standing up to Bush whwn it mattered. My point is, many have misinterpreted McCain's comments about staying in Iraq for a hundred years. Agree with him or not, it does no one any good to distort the record. McCain was essentially arguing that with regards to American public support for the war vis-a-vis progress in Iraq, most Americans aren't so much concerned with how long we're there, as much as they're concerned about our troops being killed or wounded. If things remain as they are now, fifty years from, heck even five years from now, naturally, that would affect public opinion.
The issue, McCain argues, is one of American casualties, nor American presence. We've had troops in Germany and Japan for over sixty years, in Korea for over fifty, and in Kuwait for over a decade. Most people aren't calling for us to pull troops out of Korea or Japan. Most people aren't calling for pullouts from Afghanistan, for that matter. Most people don't even think about our troop presence in Europe and Asia. I think that was McCain's point, agree or disagree.
The thing is though, there is an interesting discussion to be had, about the implications of a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq (assuming one believes that U.S. policy will ultimately settle on permanent bases), and how some argue that the issue is American presence. Andrew Sullivan offers this up:
My own view is that McCain's comment, in its most benign formulation, misses the key element here: Islam. One reader helpfully pointed out that occupied Japan also had a fiercely proud populace revolted by foreign troops. Sure: but it had been defeated as a unitary state and its Emperor (which we wisely retained) gave the occcupiers sanction. No such unitary state exists in Iraq; and Islam forbids the rule of infidels in its own heartlands - and Iraq has central religious importance for its various shrines and religious centers in the Muslim mind. Secularism has been in decline for a couple of decades. There is no way an Arab Muslim country will tolerate Western troops permanently based on their land - without constant war and threat of war. To believe otherwise is to engage in a "holiday from reality." We've done enough of that.
Sully's response has some problems. First off, while the Iraqi government is fragile and weak, it does in fact exist, and they have given us their consent, not to mention the U.N. mandate. The goal is ultimately to create a relatively stable society, and one key aspect of that is working out a formal framework regarding our troop presence. Secondly, we're not really running the country, as the Iraqi government (though fragile) is in place, and we are there as a support. Lastly, the question of Islam is important, but if the argument is going to be that an American presence in the Islamic world will ultimately lead to conflict, then the logical outgrowth of that argument is the view that we shouldn't confront terrorism at all, lest we run the risk of offending Muslims.
Call me naive, but I'd think we can confront terrorist threats in the Middle East, but allying ourselves with moderate forces who recognize terrorism as a common threat. It certainly doesn't always have to involve force, but sometimes force is neccessary. Just saying, is all.
The issue, McCain argues, is one of American casualties, nor American presence. We've had troops in Germany and Japan for over sixty years, in Korea for over fifty, and in Kuwait for over a decade. Most people aren't calling for us to pull troops out of Korea or Japan. Most people aren't calling for pullouts from Afghanistan, for that matter. Most people don't even think about our troop presence in Europe and Asia. I think that was McCain's point, agree or disagree.
The thing is though, there is an interesting discussion to be had, about the implications of a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq (assuming one believes that U.S. policy will ultimately settle on permanent bases), and how some argue that the issue is American presence. Andrew Sullivan offers this up:
My own view is that McCain's comment, in its most benign formulation, misses the key element here: Islam. One reader helpfully pointed out that occupied Japan also had a fiercely proud populace revolted by foreign troops. Sure: but it had been defeated as a unitary state and its Emperor (which we wisely retained) gave the occcupiers sanction. No such unitary state exists in Iraq; and Islam forbids the rule of infidels in its own heartlands - and Iraq has central religious importance for its various shrines and religious centers in the Muslim mind. Secularism has been in decline for a couple of decades. There is no way an Arab Muslim country will tolerate Western troops permanently based on their land - without constant war and threat of war. To believe otherwise is to engage in a "holiday from reality." We've done enough of that.
Sully's response has some problems. First off, while the Iraqi government is fragile and weak, it does in fact exist, and they have given us their consent, not to mention the U.N. mandate. The goal is ultimately to create a relatively stable society, and one key aspect of that is working out a formal framework regarding our troop presence. Secondly, we're not really running the country, as the Iraqi government (though fragile) is in place, and we are there as a support. Lastly, the question of Islam is important, but if the argument is going to be that an American presence in the Islamic world will ultimately lead to conflict, then the logical outgrowth of that argument is the view that we shouldn't confront terrorism at all, lest we run the risk of offending Muslims.
Call me naive, but I'd think we can confront terrorist threats in the Middle East, but allying ourselves with moderate forces who recognize terrorism as a common threat. It certainly doesn't always have to involve force, but sometimes force is neccessary. Just saying, is all.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Further Thoughts on Obama/Wright and Iraq
It's been a day since the speech, and after further reflection I still hold to my view that it was a good speech, and Obama did most of what he needed to do. One big thing that still nags me though, is the problem I'm having reconciling Wright's supposed good qualities that Obama asserts we haven't seen, and his anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and his anti-white bigotry. In other words, I'm wondering what Barack Obama sees in this man. I've said before that I do not believe for a second that Obama shares his views. The question is of judgment, and integrity. He still has to go further in explaining this.
In other news, today is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. President Bush gave a speech acknowledging it today. Call me crazy, but at the end of the day, setbacks, blunders, missteps, foul-ups, and tragedies included, the Iraqi people, America's long-term security, and the free world is better off. Yes, there's still a lt of messes to clean up, and a lot of those are messes that should not have been made, but the idea that Iraq circa 2008 is not an improvement over Iraq circa 2003, is just not cricket.
Just for reference, let's remind ourselves why we went in again.
UPDATE: No, Tom, not quite. (HT: Instapundit)
UPDATE#2: The Obama-Wright discussion continues over at my second home, Stubborn Facts. Thoughtful and heated at the same time.
In other news, today is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. President Bush gave a speech acknowledging it today. Call me crazy, but at the end of the day, setbacks, blunders, missteps, foul-ups, and tragedies included, the Iraqi people, America's long-term security, and the free world is better off. Yes, there's still a lt of messes to clean up, and a lot of those are messes that should not have been made, but the idea that Iraq circa 2008 is not an improvement over Iraq circa 2003, is just not cricket.
Just for reference, let's remind ourselves why we went in again.
UPDATE: No, Tom, not quite. (HT: Instapundit)
UPDATE#2: The Obama-Wright discussion continues over at my second home, Stubborn Facts. Thoughtful and heated at the same time.
Friday, January 18, 2008
And Then There's This...
Longtime Clinton foe Christopher Hitchens presents his case against continuing the Clinton dynasty. There's a lot of predictable anti-Clinton hysteria in here, but he's not entirely off base:
During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses.
Good point. What gives, Mrs. Clinton?
UPDATE: Timothy Noah explains why her claim as the experience candidate is kinda bogus.
During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses.
Good point. What gives, Mrs. Clinton?
UPDATE: Timothy Noah explains why her claim as the experience candidate is kinda bogus.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Writer's Strike and Iraq
On Bill Maher's show Friday night (his first show back sans writers), he offered up an interesting thought at the end of the show. He made a brief comment about the strike, talking about how important his writers were, and the importance of unions, but questioning certain aspects of the strike (timing, necessity, etc). He then compared what he saw as the prevailing attitude among many in Hollywood about the strike, and comapred it to the debate over Iraq, in that many had their patriotism questioned for opposing the war, and he saw a witch-hunt atmosphere brewing around the strike.
An interesting discussion to have, regardless of one's view of the war or the writer's strike, and I'm interested in hearing thoughts (particularly yours, Max) on this. I feel the need to point out though, that if any real discussion like this is to happen, particularly among liberals, then I think an issue that needs to be addressed is the way liberals who support the war are treated, by those that don't.
cross-posted from Stubborn Facts.
An interesting discussion to have, regardless of one's view of the war or the writer's strike, and I'm interested in hearing thoughts (particularly yours, Max) on this. I feel the need to point out though, that if any real discussion like this is to happen, particularly among liberals, then I think an issue that needs to be addressed is the way liberals who support the war are treated, by those that don't.
cross-posted from Stubborn Facts.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
I'm Inclined To Agree With This...
Via Althouse:
Well, of course, it was bad of the little girl to lie, but little kids lie. Making a spectacle out of disgracing a 6-year-old is disgraceful. After failing to check the very checkable fact that made the company think of her essay as the best, it should have quietly resolved the matter with the girl's family — probably by sending her on the trip anyway — and given the prize — the honor of winning plus the trip — to someone else.
I'm not sure about letting her go on the trip anyway, but I do agree that it's a bit out of bounds to pile on this girl. She's six. Not sixteen, not twenty-six, but six. As suggested in the comments, I think her mom had a hand in this, and at the very least should take the blame for not vetting her daughter's work (Don't you need parent's permission for these things, anyway?), not to mention the judges, for not vetting properly.
This ought to have been discreetly, and this girl shouldn't be subjected to this, as this goes well beyond the realm of a moral lesson.
I have to wonder though, are young girls that hung up on Hannah Montana, as to even allow such a situation like this to arise?
Well, of course, it was bad of the little girl to lie, but little kids lie. Making a spectacle out of disgracing a 6-year-old is disgraceful. After failing to check the very checkable fact that made the company think of her essay as the best, it should have quietly resolved the matter with the girl's family — probably by sending her on the trip anyway — and given the prize — the honor of winning plus the trip — to someone else.
I'm not sure about letting her go on the trip anyway, but I do agree that it's a bit out of bounds to pile on this girl. She's six. Not sixteen, not twenty-six, but six. As suggested in the comments, I think her mom had a hand in this, and at the very least should take the blame for not vetting her daughter's work (Don't you need parent's permission for these things, anyway?), not to mention the judges, for not vetting properly.
This ought to have been discreetly, and this girl shouldn't be subjected to this, as this goes well beyond the realm of a moral lesson.
I have to wonder though, are young girls that hung up on Hannah Montana, as to even allow such a situation like this to arise?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Cautious Optimism, Versus Cynical Opportunism
Christopher Hitchens, on the good news coming from Iraq. Good all the way through, and a somewhat hyperbolic, but nonetheless valid argument at the end:
As I began by saying, I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.
True dat.
As I began by saying, I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.
True dat.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Is This How the Pentagon Supports the Troops?
PFC Jordan Fox served his country proudly in Iraq. He joined the Army, served as a sniper, and survived heated machine gun battles and an IED. As is the nature of war, he was wounded. You'd think Fox would've gotten a medal, or a purple heart, but instead, the DoD sent him a bill, for the repayment of his signing bonus.
No, I'm not making this up:
The injury forced the military to send him home. A few weeks later, Fox received a bill from the Department of Defense, saying he owes the military nearly $3,000 from his original enlistment bonus because he couldn't fulfill three months of his commitment.
"I tried to do my best and serve my country and unfortunately I was hurt in the process and now they're telling me that they want their money back," Fox told CBS station KDKA-TV.
This is apparently not an isolated bureaucratic foul-up. The military is allegedly demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
PFC Fox's case has been settled for the most part, but the fact that is still happening, or that it happened at all is an outrage. President Bush, and Secretary Gates need to kill this thing at the root, and see that those who guard us while we sleep are not screwed over when they're wounded on the battlefield, and return home.
No, I'm not making this up:
The injury forced the military to send him home. A few weeks later, Fox received a bill from the Department of Defense, saying he owes the military nearly $3,000 from his original enlistment bonus because he couldn't fulfill three months of his commitment.
"I tried to do my best and serve my country and unfortunately I was hurt in the process and now they're telling me that they want their money back," Fox told CBS station KDKA-TV.
This is apparently not an isolated bureaucratic foul-up. The military is allegedly demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
PFC Fox's case has been settled for the most part, but the fact that is still happening, or that it happened at all is an outrage. President Bush, and Secretary Gates need to kill this thing at the root, and see that those who guard us while we sleep are not screwed over when they're wounded on the battlefield, and return home.
Friday, November 09, 2007
No, It's Not LIke That At All
In an nonetheless interesting article, the oft-wrong-on-the-war-but-usually-thoughtful Glenn Greenwald gets it really wrong:
We took a country that was relatively stable and a sworn enemy of, and an important check on, Iran. We turned it into a cesspool of violence, instability, displacement, sectarian strife, Iranian influence, and rule by militia.
The best we can hope for is to reverse some of the damage that we did so that a Shiite regime far more loyal to Iran than to the U.S. can rule with some semblance of order. And to "achieve" that, we squandered hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (at least), and almost every ounce of credibility and influence we built up over the last six decades. That's the best case scenario. But still -- we are hearing now -- the people responsible for that grotesque debacle and who cheered it on are going to be in a "powerful" position, and the people who thought doing that was all a bad idea will be in big, big trouble.
The problems with his analysis are highlighted.
First off, I respect honest disagreements on the war policy, but I feel the need to bust two myths wide open. First off, Iraq wasn't really that stable under Saddam. The state was bound for collapse, not to mention a state sponsor of terror, and a rogue-state human rights nightmare, to say the least. Saddam was a murderer and a butcher. His regime was collapsing around him, and bound to be replaced by a worse regime. The idea was to replace Saddam's regime with a democratic alternative. Things obviously didn't work out quite like we planned, but the real progress we've made isn't some fantasy. Secondly, it's hardly fair to lay the blame squarely on ourselves for the violence there, as if al-Qaeda, the militias, and death squads somehow don't exist. I'm just sayin.'
Oh, yeah, and I'm with Althouse (thanks for the H/T, BTW). What is up with that metaphor?
We took a country that was relatively stable and a sworn enemy of, and an important check on, Iran. We turned it into a cesspool of violence, instability, displacement, sectarian strife, Iranian influence, and rule by militia.
The best we can hope for is to reverse some of the damage that we did so that a Shiite regime far more loyal to Iran than to the U.S. can rule with some semblance of order. And to "achieve" that, we squandered hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (at least), and almost every ounce of credibility and influence we built up over the last six decades. That's the best case scenario. But still -- we are hearing now -- the people responsible for that grotesque debacle and who cheered it on are going to be in a "powerful" position, and the people who thought doing that was all a bad idea will be in big, big trouble.
The problems with his analysis are highlighted.
First off, I respect honest disagreements on the war policy, but I feel the need to bust two myths wide open. First off, Iraq wasn't really that stable under Saddam. The state was bound for collapse, not to mention a state sponsor of terror, and a rogue-state human rights nightmare, to say the least. Saddam was a murderer and a butcher. His regime was collapsing around him, and bound to be replaced by a worse regime. The idea was to replace Saddam's regime with a democratic alternative. Things obviously didn't work out quite like we planned, but the real progress we've made isn't some fantasy. Secondly, it's hardly fair to lay the blame squarely on ourselves for the violence there, as if al-Qaeda, the militias, and death squads somehow don't exist. I'm just sayin.'
Oh, yeah, and I'm with Althouse (thanks for the H/T, BTW). What is up with that metaphor?
The Art of Seeing Things As They Are
I put off blogging on this for a while, as other issues took precedence, but I was brought back to this after reading a two-week old Newsweek article on Hillary and Iran. I've noted elsewhere that there seems to be an almost obsessive fear with regards to Iran--not so much from the threat Iran poses, but from the possibility that we may have to engage that threat. The anti-war Left, a lot of the Democratic leadership, and many in the press seem to abide under a constant fear of a war with Iran. Let me say that I don't want to go to war with Iran if we don't have to, and I think that view is shared by all but the most hardened hawks on the right. The thing is, whether some of us refuse to admit or not, Iran is a real threat, and we may have to engage that threat down the line.
The anti-war Left has gone after Democrats whom they feel have not done enough to oppose what they feel is a march to war with Iran. They have piled on Lieberman for basically pointing out that we may have to engage Iran, and they have recently piled on Hillary (and other Dems) for backing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. At the last debate, the other Democratic candidates hammered Hillary over this. Edwards said it "was written by the neocons." Obama, Biden, and others attacked her. Hillary defended herself by asserting her commitment to dealing with the threat of Iran honestly. Here's the thing, whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton's political motivations for voting for the resolution that effectively declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, one thing ought to be clear: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. If Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda are terrorist organizations (no one is disputing that, are they?) then by what I've read, the Quds force is as well.
The problem many have with this resolution is that in their view, it gives Bush legal ammunition to further a casus belli for Iran. I am, for all intents and purposes, a supporter of the Iraq war, but I understand the concern of rushing too quickly into another war, without sufficient planning, or without sufficient public support. To call Iraq a controversial war is the acme of understatement. I reject the idea that this war was doomed from the start, and still cling to hope even now, but many assumptions were proven wrong about this war, and I understand the rational fear about these things.
I just don't see this resolution as necessarily leading to war. I'd been hearing a lot about this resolution, so I read it myself. The whole thing. Frankly, I see nothing to really be alarmed about, unless one totally rejects the idea of identifying threats. Consider this:
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
The way I see it, all this does is acknowledge the threat, and says that we should do all we can to stop it. Diplomacy, economic pressure, and IF NECESSARY, military force. The fact is, we know that Syria has terrorist ties. We've had several resolutions stating this fact. Have we moved any closer to war with Syria as a result? Of course not. I'll say again, that only the most hard-line hawks are calling for strikes against Iran right now, but only fools delude themselves into thinking that all of Ahmadinejad's talk is bluster, and that the threat of nuclear Iran is not real.
OK, whew. That was longer than I'd thought it would be.
The anti-war Left has gone after Democrats whom they feel have not done enough to oppose what they feel is a march to war with Iran. They have piled on Lieberman for basically pointing out that we may have to engage Iran, and they have recently piled on Hillary (and other Dems) for backing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. At the last debate, the other Democratic candidates hammered Hillary over this. Edwards said it "was written by the neocons." Obama, Biden, and others attacked her. Hillary defended herself by asserting her commitment to dealing with the threat of Iran honestly. Here's the thing, whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton's political motivations for voting for the resolution that effectively declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, one thing ought to be clear: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. If Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda are terrorist organizations (no one is disputing that, are they?) then by what I've read, the Quds force is as well.
The problem many have with this resolution is that in their view, it gives Bush legal ammunition to further a casus belli for Iran. I am, for all intents and purposes, a supporter of the Iraq war, but I understand the concern of rushing too quickly into another war, without sufficient planning, or without sufficient public support. To call Iraq a controversial war is the acme of understatement. I reject the idea that this war was doomed from the start, and still cling to hope even now, but many assumptions were proven wrong about this war, and I understand the rational fear about these things.
I just don't see this resolution as necessarily leading to war. I'd been hearing a lot about this resolution, so I read it myself. The whole thing. Frankly, I see nothing to really be alarmed about, unless one totally rejects the idea of identifying threats. Consider this:
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
The way I see it, all this does is acknowledge the threat, and says that we should do all we can to stop it. Diplomacy, economic pressure, and IF NECESSARY, military force. The fact is, we know that Syria has terrorist ties. We've had several resolutions stating this fact. Have we moved any closer to war with Syria as a result? Of course not. I'll say again, that only the most hard-line hawks are calling for strikes against Iran right now, but only fools delude themselves into thinking that all of Ahmadinejad's talk is bluster, and that the threat of nuclear Iran is not real.
OK, whew. That was longer than I'd thought it would be.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Anti-Gay, America-Hating Kooks Get Their Comeuppance
That's the only title I could come up with to describe this victory:
A federal jury in Baltimore awarded nearly $11 million in damages yesterday to the family of a Marine from Maryland whose funeral was disrupted by members of a Kansas-based fundamentalist church.
One of the defendants said the civil award was the first against the church, whose members have stirred anger across the nation by picketing at funerals for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, often carrying placards bearing virulent anti-gay slogans. The church maintains that God is punishing the United States, killing and maiming troops, because the country tolerates homosexuality.
Unrepentant Fred Phelps is somehow undeterred, and continues to somehow see in the First Amendment the right to disturb private military funerals with hate speech:
"It was a bunch of silly heads passing judgment on God," he said. "I don't believe anyone in the courtroom knows what the First Amendment is. Religious views are expressly protected by the First Amendment. You can't prosecute a preacher in civil law or in criminal law for what he preaches."
Fred Phelps and his ungodly coterie miss the mark big time, but the family of Lance Cpl. Snyder sets them straight:
"The fact of the matter is, a funeral's private," said one of their attorneys, Sean Summers. "There was no public concern when [church members] showed up with a 'God Hates You' sign."
Exactly. This is open and shut for me. Not only are these rogues utterly hateful in their rhetoric, they do not have the right to invade private funerals with their rhetoric. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the ACLU has taken sides with the Phelps, although if you ask some people, they'll tell you it makes perfect sense.
A federal jury in Baltimore awarded nearly $11 million in damages yesterday to the family of a Marine from Maryland whose funeral was disrupted by members of a Kansas-based fundamentalist church.
One of the defendants said the civil award was the first against the church, whose members have stirred anger across the nation by picketing at funerals for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, often carrying placards bearing virulent anti-gay slogans. The church maintains that God is punishing the United States, killing and maiming troops, because the country tolerates homosexuality.
Unrepentant Fred Phelps is somehow undeterred, and continues to somehow see in the First Amendment the right to disturb private military funerals with hate speech:
"It was a bunch of silly heads passing judgment on God," he said. "I don't believe anyone in the courtroom knows what the First Amendment is. Religious views are expressly protected by the First Amendment. You can't prosecute a preacher in civil law or in criminal law for what he preaches."
Fred Phelps and his ungodly coterie miss the mark big time, but the family of Lance Cpl. Snyder sets them straight:
"The fact of the matter is, a funeral's private," said one of their attorneys, Sean Summers. "There was no public concern when [church members] showed up with a 'God Hates You' sign."
Exactly. This is open and shut for me. Not only are these rogues utterly hateful in their rhetoric, they do not have the right to invade private funerals with their rhetoric. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the ACLU has taken sides with the Phelps, although if you ask some people, they'll tell you it makes perfect sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)