US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6

[A_Wanderer]

Obama saying that knowing what he knows now, that the surge has reduced violence and that it has helped the situation, he still would have opposed the surge is perfect ammunition against his judgement.

It doesn't matter much because he won't risk his reputation if he gets elected and wouldn't let himself get labelled as the president who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but as far as electioneering goes he seems weaker than McCain on Iraq policy.

 

[Strongbow]

Did you even read Maliki's statement?

You should ask yourself that question since you and others seem to think that Maliki no longer believes in a conditions based withdrawal and now wants an exclusively time based withdrawal like Obama.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Are you willfully blind? Obama's position isn't an exclusively time-based withdawl, it is dependent on conditions on the ground.

 

[Strongbow]

It's funny how easily and readily you offer qualifiers and conditions to Maliki's statement, yet when given the chance neither the PM nor his spokesman said them. The world opinion seems to be that they support a variant on Obama's plan, and the PM seems to be quite fine with that.

I wonder why. Perhaps he knew what he was saying?

It's not common sense to inanely demand explicit rejections of a policy before admitting that someone no longer advocates it. More like stubbornly grasping at straws to avoid conceding that Obama might have had the right idea on Iraq.

Iraq's national security advisor already expressed his ideas about withdrawal, all of which were conditions based, and different from anything Obama has suggested.

Everyone would prefer that the United States be able to withdraw from both Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. But saying you would like to see US troops leave by x date or y date, does not mean that one has dropped the position that an US withdrawal first be based on conditions on the ground and not some arbitrary time table. The Iraqi government does not want to see US combat brigades leave before they are ready to handle the security situation on their own. They have never expressed in any way shape or form that they want US troops to leave the country regardless of the readiness of their security forces or the security on the ground.

 

[Irvine511]

but as far as electioneering goes he seems weaker than McCain on Iraq policy.

his original judgment about the entire adventure is what cost HRC the democratic nomination. isn't that what ultimately matters most?

i agree that "the surge" -- insofar as decontextualized numbers used in soundbytes go -- plays well for McCain (and i posited over a year ago that this was a handout by the administration to McCain for his electioning in 2004 ... yes, i do believe the WH is that political), but it also makes him lose his grip on the overall argument, which is: 1) if it's working, why can't we leave, and 2) doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake to begin with.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The democratic caucuses are not a general election, and the public perception of the situation in Iraq has shifted, thankfully enough to a more stable one that can allow foreign forces to leave without passively enabling a genocide, but the flipside of which is that people care less about it than other issues.

Now what about offshore drilling?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Obama is The One. In the first quarter of the general election, he has simply gotten more and better coverage than McCain. For those who need more evidence than the enormous press entourage that is treating Obama’s current trip not like the campaign swing of a presidential candidate, but like the international debut of the New American President, there are several new studies which help quantify the disparity.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which evaluates more than 300 newspaper, magazine, and television stories each week, found that from June 9 (after Obama had wrapped up the Democratic nomination) until July 13, Obama was more prominently covered every single week. During one particular week, July 7–13, McCain was a significant presence in 48 percent of the stories—but Obama met that mark in 77 percent of the pieces. Similarly, the Tyndall Report, a media monitoring group, found that Obama received substantially more media attention.
... Given all that, it’s not surprising that voters, particularly those of the Republican persuasion, think the media is more or less in Obama’s pocket. A recent survey by Rasmussen found that 49 percent of the likely voters they talked to believed that reporters would favor Obama in their coverage, while just 14 percent said the same about McCain. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans thought the press would try and help Obama win, while only 21 percent of Democrats thought journalists were in bed with McCain. Complaints about bias are only exacerbated when the New York Times (the bête noire of the right) rejects an opinion piece written by McCain comparing his position on Iraq to Obama’s—just days after the Times ran a similar piece by Obama.

Vanity Fair: vanityfair.com

 

[Strongbow]

Are you willfully blind? Obama's position isn't an exclusively time-based withdawl, it is dependent on conditions on the ground.

Really, can you name any conditions for the security environment on the ground that Obama said had to be met BEFORE he would start to withdraw a single non-surge US combat brigade from Iraq? What prerequisites does Obama have for the Iraqi military to meet before he would remove a single non-surge US combat brigade?

Obama stated consistenty throughout the first half of 2007 that US troops needed to be leaving the country, and that all US combat brigades should be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. The ONLY SINGLE condition Obama gave for suspending that time line was if the Iraqi government achieved all 18 benchmarks within that small time frame. He never made any statement to the effect that the withdrawal would be suspended because the Iraqi military was not ready or because violence was increasing, or the Iraqi government was collapsing or failing to meet the benchmarks in that time frame.

 

[Diemen]

You should ask yourself that question since you and others seem to think that Maliki no longer believes in a conditions based withdrawal and now wants an exclusively time based withdrawal like Obama.

Tell me where Obama said he wants an exclusively time based withdrawal. You won't find it, because it doesn't exist. You are, once again, fabricating a position in order to refute it.

Maliki clearly said, when asked about Obama's position, that Obama's timeline was one that was in line with his government's wishes.

Your continued pigheaded refusal to acknowledge this is jaw-dropping. Spin, spin, spin. Message, message, message. It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Strongbow]

his original judgment about the entire adventure is what cost HRC the democratic nomination. isn't that what ultimately matters most?

I got news for you, winning the Democratic nomination involves appeasing the crazy base of that party. The impact that part of the party will have in the national election will be much less than it was in the primary.

Its obviously poor judgement to claim, that the United States is less safe, that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are less safe, because Saddam was removed from power.

1) if it's working, why can't we leave

The United States can leave as conditions on the ground improve and the Iraqi military becomes capable of replacing any non-surge brigades that are withdrawn.

Of course, you've always claimed that its not working and that the US should still leave.

2) doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake to begin with.

History is not on the side of people who think it was a mistake to remove someone like Saddam. But good luck defending Saddam and a continuation of his regime.

 

[anitram]

The democratic caucuses are not a general election, and the public perception of the situation in Iraq has shifted, thankfully enough to a more stable one that can allow foreign forces to leave without passively enabling a genocide, but the flipside of which is that people care less about it than other issues.

That's exactly it. Iraq is not the issue du jour and even though McCain has a decent surge argument (you can argue some points but anyway), the reality is that he's completely misreading the public. Nobody cares, and he just sounds whiny. The public is at the point where they think troops can come home and they think that Iraq as a whole, was a terrible mistake. So what did or didn't happen with the surge is almost irrelevant.

I am continually amazed how in this election, there are people who are so terrible at reading public sentiment. The Clintons were particularly shocking since they are so politically savvy. But McCain is even worse. He just doesn't get it, he doesn't get at all what this election is about.

And should he continue yammering on about the surge that the Joe Shmoe public couldn't give two shits about, he'll discover just how out of touch he is in November. I'm not saying it's even right - the public is notoriously low-information. But to just completely not have their pulse down is a critical error. And it's a large part of why I wouldn't vote for McCain even if I agreed with his stances. I don't care for another 8 years of tone deafness.

 

[Strongbow]

Tell me where Obama said he wants an exclusively time based withdrawal. You won't find it, because it doesn't exist. You are, once again, fabricating a position in order to refute it.

I've already qouted from the foreign affairs article as well as his support for spending bills in 2007 that would have required the President to start withdrawing US troops immediately without any conditions and prerequisites. Even his own website stated that he wanted to start immediately withdrawing US combat brigades from Iraq at a rate of 1 to 2 brigades a month. The only condition for suspending that withdrawal was if the Iraqi government achieved all 18 benchmarks. NOTHING else besides that was mentioned in terms of what if any thing might cause him to suspend his withdrawal plans.

You on the other hand have yet to list any conditions or prerequisites that Obama would have prior to the start of the withdrawal of any non-surge combat brigade.

Maliki clearly said, when asked about Obama's position, that Obama's timeline was one that was in line with his government's wishes.

Yes, the timeline is in line with what the government wishes to see happen, but is essentially a different plan because the Iraqi's do not want to see US forces withdraw before they are ready to handle the situation on their own, while Obama has never made US withdrawal of combat brigades conditional on the capability levels of the Iraqi military.

Your continued pigheaded refusal to acknowledge this is jaw-dropping. Spin, spin, spin. Message, message, message. It's utterly ridiculous.

Sorry, but its a fact that the Iraqi government does not want any non-surge US combat brigades to leave before they have the sufficient capability to replace those brigades. Obama has never made the withdrawal of US combat brigades conditional on the capability of the Iraqi forces.

Whats pigheaded is failing to acknowledge these facts.

Ever since the United States entered Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration has always stated that the US will leave when conditions on the ground warrent withdrawal. The Bush plan has always been conditions based, "as they stand up, we'll stand down". If you want to claim that Obama has had the same policy in regards to withdrawal, fine, but I have yet to see anything that shows that, and you or others have yet to post anything that would show that.

Again, in his foreign affairs article the only thing that could sort of be viewed as a condition, was his statement that he might suspend the withdrawal if the Iraqi government achieved all 18 benchmarks within that 16 month time frame. No other conditions for suspending the withdrawal were listed, and there was definitely no conditions or prerequisites listed for STARTING the withdrawal.

 

[Strongbow]

That's exactly it. Iraq is not the issue du jour and even though McCain has a decent surge argument (you can argue some points but anyway), the reality is that he's completely misreading the public. Nobody cares, and he just sounds whiny. The public is at the point where they think troops can come home and they think that Iraq as a whole, was a terrible mistake. So what did or didn't happen with the surge is almost irrelevant.

I am continually amazed how in this election, there are people who are so terrible at reading public sentiment. The Clintons were particularly shocking since they are so politically savvy. But McCain is even worse. He just doesn't get it, he doesn't get at all what this election is about.

And should he continue yammering on about the surge that the Joe Shmoe public couldn't give two shits about, he'll discover just how out of touch he is in November. I'm not saying it's even right - the public is notoriously low-information. But to just completely not have their pulse down is a critical error. And it's a large part of why I wouldn't vote for McCain even if I agreed with his stances. I don't care for another 8 years of tone deafness.

McCain is not a politician trying to find where the latest political wind is blowing so he can follow it. He is deeply committed to the nation and the planets security and would rather lose an election than before something that was politically popular but realisticly dangerous to US and global security.

Thats why he continued to support the Surge even when his fellow Republican candidates were shying away from it and the public was clearly against it. Now the public has shifted more in McCains direction on the issue, and McCain is the nominee of his party despite the fact that you and others claimed he was DONE at this time last year.

 

[Strongbow]

Patraeus (who only has one job and one theater to worry about)

Whats interesting is that Obama does not realize that Patraeus is no longer just the commander of US forces in Iraq. He has just been confirmed by the US congress as the new CENTCOM commander which puts him in charge of US forces throughout the entire Middle East including Afghanistan as well as being in charge of any military action that is taken or contemplated against Iran.

 

[yolland]

breaktime?

The Legend of a Heretic

By Francis Wilkinson
New York Times, July 21


Both John McCain and Barack Obama have been peddling their spiritual wares lately. Mr. McCain recently made a high-profile pilgrimage to meet evangelist Billy Graham and his son Franklin, while that same week Mr. Obama endorsed the essence of President Bush’s faith-based service program. Now, both candidates have agreed to appear at a forum at the California megachurch of influential evangelical pastor Rick Warren.

White evangelical and born-again Christians account for nearly one fourth of the electorate—a prize understandably worth fighting over. However, what we won’t see, yet again, this year is either candidate acknowledge—let alone pander to—the 16% of Americans categorized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Society as atheist, agnostic or free-range “nothing in particular.” It seems American politicians scarcely think twice about sidling up to the religious fringe—Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama each has had the odd preacher in the attic. But, fearing the wrath of the righteous, they’d rather be struck by lightning than show a glimmer of respect for nonbelievers.

Their forebears on the campaign trail were not all so skittish. At the end of the 19th century, Robert Ingersoll was the most notorious heretic in the land, famous for his lectures debunking Christianity and the Bible. Yet Republicans—yes, the party of George W. Bush and the Rev. Pat Robertson—begged him to campaign in their behalf. Campaign, he did. For more than two decades, Ingersoll barnstormed across the country drawing huge crowds, including one at an 1896 campaign appearance in Chicago for William McKinley that the Chicago Tribune claimed was 20,000 strong. Ingersoll was not merely a stage attraction but a confidant of Republican leaders—and a highly public one. In a masterful speech, he nominated Senator James G. Blaine for president at the party’s 1876 convention in Cincinnati and nearly won Blaine the nomination. When Blaine lost the contest to Rutherford B. Hayes, Ingersoll stumped vigorously for Hayes in turn.

Ingersoll’s lectures on religion—“Some Mistakes of Moses” was a typical title—left the pious apoplectic. Evangelicals considered his influence so pernicious that they organized a day of prayer for his conversion. (He thanked them for their concern but remained happily heretical.) His pointed, often comical, impiety probably cost him a cabinet post or ambassadorship, but Ingersoll’s proximity to President Hayes and his Republican successors was nonetheless on open display; they didn’t reach for garlic and crucifixes when “Pope Bob” visited the White House. Victorian America, that supposedly repressed, high-button era, not only tolerated Ingersoll, it celebrated him, rewarding him with respect and wealth and honors. Mark Twain called Ingersoll a “master,” and Walt Whitman described him as “a bright, magnificent constellation.” But Ingersoll struck a chord that reverberated beyond the cultural elite. Tens of thousands of Americans, from Buffalo to New Orleans, paid money to listen, laugh and learn at the feet of the Great Agnostic, even if they didn’t share his views. Clerics were often spotted in the crowds.

Faith is a deep wellspring of American political tradition and practice. But the political class has reached a bipartisan consensus to honor that fact by muscling out other views and revising both past and present to suggest faith is the only wellspring. Ingersoll, after all, was hardly the first doubting Thomas ever to have crossed the White House threshold. Thomas Jefferson produced his own, radically truncated, version of the Bible, in which miracles were absent. He described religion as a private matter in which the public had no right to “intermeddle.” In how many congressional districts today could a candidate of like mind stand for election and not be torn to pieces by the enforcers of public piety?

Looking back from this era in which political discourse is bound by religious strictures, Ingersoll’s legend seems not only distant but tall, as though he were a kind of Paul Bunyan of blasphemy. Today, no major politician would risk association with the brilliant and big-hearted Great Agnostic, whose oratory commanded the late 19th century stage like no other. Devoted father, husband, friend and patriot be damned. Piety trumps all.

 

[mobvok]

Iraq's national security advisor already expressed his ideas about withdrawal, all of which were conditions based, and different from anything Obama has suggested.

Everyone would prefer that the United States be able to withdraw from both Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. But saying you would like to see US troops leave by x date or y date, does not mean that one has dropped the position that an US withdrawal first be based on conditions on the ground and not some arbitrary time table. The Iraqi government does not want to see US combat brigades leave before they are ready to handle the security situation on their own. They have never expressed in any way shape or form that they want US troops to leave the country regardless of the readiness of their security forces or the security on the ground.

Oh, we're not talking about Maliki anymore? With this attempt to change discussion from Maliki's position in the Der Speigel interview to whatever the National Security Advisor once said (oooh!) I'm glad to see that you now implicitly acknowledge that Maliki agrees with Obama's basic position.

30 pages ago when I and others got sick of Strongbow's endless unsubstantiated claims and called him out on it, he finally bothered to look up the Foreign Affairs article. I could ask for a source on the 2007 spending bill claims too, but that's all a distraction from the real issue: Barack Obama is currently running for President. Barack Obama is currently running for President on a plan for Iraq which is not exclusively time-based. This is undeniable. Arguing about whatever he advocated earlier is irrelevant, because he has a plan NOW that he wants to enact.

So this is wrong:

You should ask yourself that question since you and others seem to think that Maliki no longer believes in a conditions based withdrawal and now wants an exclusively time based withdrawal like Obama.

He is not advocating that plan. He might have (for the sake of argument). But past tense is not present tense. Maliki is in agreement with Obama's position.

 

[maycocksean]

Your continued pigheaded refusal to acknowledge this is jaw-dropping. Spin, spin, spin. Message, message, message. It's utterly ridiculous.

But it also has an awful kind of beauty to it, doesn't it.

 

[maycocksean]

I think Irvine's articulated quite well why Obama could still oppose the surge while at the same time acknowledging that it has helped to reduce violence.

That said though, I agree that it is a little awkward politically for him to say he'd still oppose it in the face of it's "success." But it's a Hobson's choice. If he says, "Yes, it was a success" the Republicans will jump all over that and there will be an avalanche of ads trumpeting how even Obama himself has admited he was wrong but McCain was right all along. But if he says, no he'd still make the same judgement call--well, then he has to resort to the kinds of contorted answers we hear in the Couric interview which can make some question his judgement. Either way, it hurts him politically. I guess he decided the former option would hurt him more.

 

[deep]

I think Irvine's articulated quite well why Obama could still oppose the surge while at the same time acknowledging that it has helped to reduce violence.

That said though, I agree that it is a little awkward politically for him to say he'd still oppose it in the face of it's "success." But it's a Hobson's choice. If he says, "Yes, it was a success" the Republicans will jump all over that and there will be an avalanche of ads trumpeting how even Obama himself has admited he was wrong but McCain was right all along. But if he says, no he'd still make the same judgement call--well, then he has to resort to the kinds of contorted answers we hear in the Couric interview which can make some question his judgement. Either way, it hurts him politically. I guess he decided the former option would hurt him more.

and the good judgment thing - a myth?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Lamer than lame Senator

time.com

July 22, 2008 7:00
McCain Meltdown
Posted by Joe Klein

John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

 

[2861U2]

This made me laugh. You know all the uproar about John McCain referring to Czechoslovakia? Olbermann hasn't stopped talking about it, yet he has done the same:

OLBERMANN [11/8/2005]: Let's play Oddball....To Prague in Czechoslovakia, where the country's newest reality show...

OLBERMANN [3/22/2004]: Here are Countdown's "Top 3 Newsmakers" of this day: No. 3: Three 14-year-old school boys in Czechoslovakia...

OLBERMANN [4/12/2004]: Let's play "Oddball." In Poland, they throw water on each other in the festival of Schvingus Gingus (ph); In Czechoslovakia, they celebrate with an Easter Birching...

Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Talk about an ignorant baffoon.

 

[A_Wanderer]

More from the vast right-wing conspiracy

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.

Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

washingtonpost.com

 

[Irvine511]

and the good judgment thing - a myth?

how was his judgment in 2002?

 

[A_Wanderer]

That depends on his reasons for opposing the war in 2002.

Just as the reasons for supporting the Iraq war can't be viewed through the prism of No WMD, as though that makes it all a deliberate frame up on Saddam Hussein.

 

[Irvine511]

More from the vast right-wing conspiracywashingtonpost.com

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

so ... this op-ed is to have us believe that the gaping 7 month difference between Obama's 16 months and the Iraqi government's "by the end of 2010" means that they don't support Obama's plan?

this is an absolutely preposterous distinction.

if you want another, we can note that "by the end of the year" does not actually mean "the end of 2010," so this gaping 7 month difference could actually be less should things go better than expected.

 

[Irvine511]

That depends on his reasons for opposing the war in 2002.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

sounds pretty good to me.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

YouTube - ¨Pump¨ TV Ad

 

[BVS]

Well unfortunately that one will work for most of the Republican base.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

How low will they go?

Huffington Post

The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment to preventing a future genocide was not sincere, attacking the Democratic candidate during his appearance at the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem.

In an early morning press release, entitled "Obama on Genocide," McCain aide Tucker Bounds emailed reporters a quote from Obama's appearance in which the Illinois Democrat reiterated the cry "never again." He followed that quote with one taken a year ago from an interview that the Senator gave with the Associated Press in which he said that genocide or humanitarian crises were not a prerequisite for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq (a statement he has since walked back)

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces," said Obama, "then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now."

The message was fairly explicit: Obama's commitment to stopping future Holocausts is in doubt. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb responded:

"Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"

It's a heavy charge to make, not least because Obama had just wrapped up his visit to the Holocaust memorial. In addition, there are, for better or worse, outstanding implications when discussing genocide when it comes to Jews -- and the insertion of the issue into the presidential campaign will border for some, on the taboo. Moreover, on the topic of Iraq, Obama has said he would leave a residual force to intervene in potential humanitarian crises and that he reserves the right to intervene militarily with international partners in order to "suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

"I'd love to know more about Obama's residual force," said Goldfarb, when asked about it. "How big is it, where is it based, what is its mission, how long will it remain in Iraq? Nobody knows the answers to those questions, and I'd encourage the Huffington Post to inquire further with the Obama campaign."

Here is the full press release:

Obama on Genocide

Obama today at Yad Vashem:

"Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim 'never again.' And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

Obama on July 20, 2007:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now -- where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife -- which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

 

[BVS]

Yeah McCain has been going much lower than I ever expected him to go...

In fact McCain has completely shattered any "maverick" respect I had for him.