Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIf, God forbid, foreign policy had to be the deciding factor in choosing between Barack Obama and John McCain, then last night's terrible showing by Obama would make me a Ralph Nader voter in a heartbeat. Obama's performance was nothing short of pathetic, and only a Democratic-leaning analysts and voters with blinders on could suggest that Obama won the debate. More important, he utterly blew a chance to draw a stark contrast with John McCain on America's approach to the world.
He checked all the boxes. Barack ("Senator McCain is right") Obama couldn't find anything to disagree with the militarist Arizonan about. Support for NATO expansion? Check. Absurd anti-Russian diatribes? Check. Dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Check. I'm ready to attack Pakistan? Check. (Actually, on this one, McCain was the moderate!) Painful sanctions against Iran, backed up by the threat of force? Check. Blathering about the great threat from Al Qaeda? Check. It went on and on.
Here's Obama on Afghanistan:
Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better. ... So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.
Obama on invading Pakistan:
You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops. And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions. ... You don't muddle through the central front on terror and you don't muddle through going after bin Laden. You don't muddle through stamping out the Taliban.
When McCain bumbled by calling Iran's Revolutionary Guard the "Republican Guard" (that would be the name of Saddam Hussein's elite force, not Iran's), Obama bumbled along, stupidly agreeing that the Guard is a "terrorist" group:
I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.
Sure, Obama said he would talk to Iran, but so did McCain. And they both cast Iran policy as related to US support for Israel, our "stalwart ally," Obama said. Like Sarah Palin, Obama isn't about to second-guess Israel.
On Russia, Obama acknowledged that the US can't go back to a Cold War posture, and then he proceeded to do so, sounding exactly like McCain:
A resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region.Their actions in Georgia were unacceptable. They were unwarranted. And at this point, it is absolutely critical for the next president to make clear that we have to follow through on our six-party -- or the six-point cease-fire. They have to remove themselves from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
It is absolutely important that we have a unified alliance and that we explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship.
And we also have to affirm all the fledgling democracies in that region, you know, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Poles, the Czechs, that we are, in fact, going to be supportive and in solidarity with them in their efforts. They are members of NATO.
And to countries like Georgia and the Ukraine, I think we have to insist that they are free to join NATO if they meet the requirements, and they should have a membership action plan immediately to start bringing them in.
He added, for good measure: "I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues." No criticism at all of McCain's idiotic concept of a League of Democracies, which McCain touted last night. No criticism at all of McCain's thundering demand to kick Russia out of the G-8.
On torture, Obama totally blew it. "I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security," said Obama last night. Come again? This is the McCain who supports waterboarding, who wouldn't force the CIA to adhere to military standards about torture. Did you miss that, Senator Obama?
Where was Obama's criticism of the "Bush doctrine" -- you know, that thing that Palin likes, about shooting first and asking questions later? Where was Obama's vision of an effort to reach out to Muslim countries with a new vision of US-Muslim cooperation? What about casting the principle challenge of foreign policy in terms of hunger, disease, lack of housing and access to clean water, that plagues the Third World and drives desperate people to violence?
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Obama is not an idiot and everything you suggest he should have said is exactly where he is most vulnerable. All he had to do was put this damn debate behind him since this is all McCain has to run on.
The most common criticism of Obama out here in right wing world where I live is that he would never stand up militarily. It sways a lot of fearful people who aren't really all that keen on McCain. I will be happy enough if they just stay home because they figure the kid will do okay.
Chances are Obama can broker a solution in Afghanistan and eliminate the need for boots on the ground, but he can't do it if McCain wins.
Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 10:03am
Look, despite the Naderites and The Nation, Obama has one MAIN problem he MUST overcome...and every analysis shows it...
he MUST make the AVERAGE voter feel comfortable with the man as Commander-in-Chief.
Appealing to Robert Dreyfuss or those like him on national TV does NOT help that. It plays to the old stereotypes of the Democrats as "weak on defense" and there is NOT enough time in 40 days (or a 90 minute debate for sure) to correct that image by getting into a long-winded discussion of how hunger, poverty, etc. are the "real causes" of our foreign policy or international difficulties.
If Obama tried that, McCain would come off to the moderates and independents as "the one who'll protect us, even if it means 10 more years of war and another 7 Trillion in debt"...
and Obama would come off as "another pansy pacifist Lefty who'll try to kiss Ahmadinejad's ass and pull a Neville Chamberlain to Kim Jong-il".
The disappointment of "The Nation" staff and others....
is EXACTLY what Obama needed to gain from last night.
It means the 40% in the Middle of the country WASN'T!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 10:15am
And don't forget that McCain mentioned the possibility of reducing the defense budget through reining in contracting fraud.
Posted by john.halle at 09/27/2008 @ 10:18am
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 10:15am
Mask, as one who lives on the far left, I have to say you pretty much nailed it here. I found myself wanting to see him absolutely stomp McCain, who, frankly, is a low life. And I suspect he'll hit him with increasing force in the next couple, and over the duration of the campaign. But he opted to look presidential and in doing so, made McCain look like an old man with the maturity of a 2-year old (apologies to 2-year olds, actually - most of them are more mature than McCain has aever been). Barack is by no stretch the most liberal member of the Senate. Neither was Jack Kennedy. The bottom line is that you can't do squat if you don't win. And winning is all that matters here. I wish this country were a progressive place, but it isn't today, and it isn't going to get there with reactionaries in power. But Barack can move the discussion and the consciousness out of this right-wing cesspool. And that's better than a start. That's progress that's been missing for a generation. As a far lefty, I'll take that. Gladly.
Posted by jmusolino at 09/27/2008 @ 10:34am
oops - has EVER been (ignore misplaced a).
Posted by jmusolino at 09/27/2008 @ 10:35am
wow. what debate did dreyfuss see?
so when a debating candidate agrees with his opponant should he lie and take an opposing stance?
does this look better than a little honesty?
i think what few people truly understand about obama is that he IS trying to change the game of politics
and whats all this crap i'm hearing all over about how mild and polite the debate was?
1. there was actually a lot of policy duscussion, considering the format.
2. what the hell? these two men want to be president. should they go at each other like springer show guests? can the average american (including all too many of the punditocracy) understand how a dignified, mature, mannered debate works?
so obama agrees with flippy mac on a few things.
SO WHAT? what should he have said?
new politics being interpreted by old style analysis.
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:38am
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 10:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
what you said...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:40am
If Obama did what the author wanted him to do I'd be voting for McCain, as would most everyone like me..
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 10:48am
i thought obama looked presidential.
by the way - i respect jim lehrer a lot but that crap where he was trying to goad them into a jerry springer catfight...kind of irritated me.
i dont WANT to see serious presidential candidates catfighting like borderline retarded drug addicts with serious personality disorders (springer guests). jeez!
truth is, sure we want to see a little direct exchange between the two, but they were not there to answer each other as to speak to the voters...so again that little fight baiting crap just irritated me...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:00am
I very much enjoyed the debate. I thought both canidates did well. The most telling part is Sen. Obama usually agrees with Sen McCain on foreign policy. Sen McCain has been right on Iraq, Georgia, and Iran. He has the leadership capabilites this country needs.
I was also glad to see they both support a "bailout" of the finacial system. WIthout it credit will seize up and people will not have access to credit.
Posted by Redneck4Bako at 09/27/2008 @ 11:15am
redneck-McCain said that we could quickly win in Iraq by fighting war on the cheap.Please,provide facts that show that the war ended in Iraq prior to the surge and then explain why we had the surge if the war was over and we won.Please,explain in what way McCain was right about Georgia and Iran.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 11:21am
the two candidates circled each other cautiously early. obama fought a masterful defense, seeming to wear out his older, slightly out of shape opponant, while landing a steady stream of body blows. not flashy, but effective.
eventually the cagey old veteran was forced into throwing some haymakers in order to score the big knockout, but barry o managed to stay just out of reach and held on to score a points victory...
obama won - look at the polls...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:24am
Just a perfect analysis of what happened in the debate last night, so don't hesitate to find a way to vote for Nader, Robert. It was as though - and I predicted this here a day or so ago - Joe Frazier was starking another fighter bur this time it wasn't even close to being Ali. Newsweek has a blow-by-blow which, like you, highlights the way McCain just battered Obama by keeping him on the defensive last night. Obama's absoolute lay-down on the "surge" so utterly nausiates that I think even Sarah Palin could have done better. And this jackass will be our next President. Call it four more years!
Posted by john lowell at 09/27/2008 @ 11:34am
I agree it was a debate about the least worst. It belongs on "Countdown" with Kieth Olbermann.
Posted by lachatte at 09/27/2008 @ 11:39am
Yes, the whole lack of any significant difference on how to approach foreign policy is a problem.
I only read the transcript, but Obama read sharper than McCain although both were talking about policies I don't like.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 11:49am
"Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night's debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better."
http://tinyurl.com/49csf5
who won the debate?
WHO WON THE DEBATE?
obama won the debate. by two scores...by points and almost comfortable so...
OBAMA WON.
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:51am
The bottom line is that you can't do squat if you don't win. And winning is all that matters here. I wish this country were a progressive place, but it isn't today, and it isn't going to get there with reactionaries in power. But Barack can move the discussion and the consciousness out of this right-wing cesspool. And that's better than a start. That's progress that's been missing for a generation. As a far lefty, I'll take that. Gladly.-------Posted by jmusolino at 09/27/2008 @ 10:34am
Every "purist progressive" needs to read that and learn it. Fortunately there are fewer of them now than in 2000, as most have learned the lesson (ergo, Nader's abyssmal 0.34% vote total in 2004). Waiting for the return of Eugene V. Debs or Norman Thomas, just gets you idiots like Bush or dinosaurs like McCain...and a country that's worse off.
Of course, I think SOME of those purists...want that, to give themselves something to rail against hold out hope that things "get so bad that the country will demand somebody like Ralph as President".
Unfortunately, if it did, we'd see somebody worse than Dubya and guys like Ralph AND the purists would end up in one of RESE's now-mythical "Halliburton labor camps!"
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 11:54am
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 11:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
obama won the debate. he did/said nothing stupid and looked pezidentule and fought like a shao lin master.
and the polls say he WON...
jeez, lol, what the hell is wrong with these purist progressives?
i expect rightwing trolls to hoot and howl ridonkulously but whats this sillininnyness?
obama won...(!)
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:59am
johnlowell-Instead of just putting down Obama tell us why we should vote for your guy,McCain.Please,don't lie, again, and claim you aren't a McCain supporter.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 12:01pm
wow. if obama were as extremist as mr. dreyfuss here, he wouldn't have made it through the first round of primaries.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 10:15am
Exactly!
Despite, the respectable-sounding handle, the Dreyfuss Report has nothing on Mask Analysis!
Dreyfuss makes a ridiculous, delusional leap in his presumptions.
Still hanging on to the left's flatlander presumption-projection that since they can be persuaded by logic, their brothers and sisters across the political divide must be the same...
Sure Drey! If you take WMD YelCake Abu nobidgiveaways USAttys scadalathon Gashike .... GoldmanMerrillAIG out of the equation---
It's a LEARNING DISORDER at the very least.
The Nation's rigidity every election is inadvertent poison. For starters, we need every single redneck possible to stay home because Obama's not super gay hippie lib peacenik enuf to get 'em off the couch. Hence: 'we took our eye off the ball... I'll kill Osama, etc."
Mask, Pogge and others have far more cred, not to mention flair! PLEASE make Mask your newest blogger.
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 12:18pm
well, the media is reporting through their polls that obama is winning over more independents than mccain is.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:26pm
I guess you missed this part of the debate, ROBERT DREYFUSS:
Obama said McCain was WRONG on WMD in Iraq, he was WRONG on taking his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and in claiming we can "muddle our way through Afghanistan", he was WRONG to sing the "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" song, and he was WRONG to view the surge as anything other than a "military tactic" when we need a "strategy" so that we don't get involved in these entanglements in the first place and a strategy that ends these mistaken conflicts swiftly and wisely without "fixating" on victory or defeat.
Obama also chastised McCain for always 'leading with the military option" rather than exhausting diplomatic means first, and for refusing to meet unconditionally with rogue leaders if preparation indicated that such meetings could be beneficial to the welfare of the United States.
Maybe you should watch the debate again, and pay closer attention this time.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/27/2008 @ 12:30pm
Obama definitely seemed more presidential while McCain scored better in going for the visceral. In short, they both acted their parts. The problem for McCain was that this was supposed to be his strong debate, and he was not a clear winner. I was cringing with a lot of what Obama was saying, which I normally do anyway. But he walks a tight wire--he cannot appear to be an "uppity nigger" or whatever term the conservatives will put out there to appeal to racists--but he also must be forceful enough to make people, particularly undecideds think he can lead on foreign policy. He did that.
Posted by onthehelm at 09/27/2008 @ 12:31pm
C'mon, if you're going to get elected US president, you have to be for some war.
Ask Kucinich, he'll tell you exactly what happens to candidates who aren't for war.
Posted by sloper at 09/27/2008 @ 1:12pm
What planet are you living on? I have read many articles on The Nation but I followed this link from Yahoo News where it was listed as the most popular opinion this morning ? Oh yea. Obama should have channeled Kucinich.. maybe Nader.. wonderful.
You cant do Jack if you dont get elected. One reason Democrats have a hard time getting elected is in the words of the sage Will Rogers. "I dont belong to an organized party, Im a Democrat". I can well understand peoples frustrations with the DLC wing of the democratic party, but here is some breaking news you may have missed. Obama beat the DLC wing of the party, you know.. Hillary. The onionheaded Nader voters may well have given us 8 years of Bush. Keep up the good work.
Posted by CaptainStormfield at 09/27/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by Zero at 09/27/2008 @ 12:57pm
Gotta love the ZERO angle on everything...
bitch and moan and act like you're better than everybody else!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 1:28pm
Far left? pander to the middle? do what ever it takes to win? Look presidential? Yeah, Right. Just keep telling yourselves that. What a load of crap! How about "Backpedal" Or "Cave" Or "Go back on your Campaign Promises". Let's try another, "Sell Out". But hey, don't vote your beliefs. Just do what ever it take to win. Go ahead sell your soul. It's a small price to pay... Judging on what folks are saying it IS a small price to pay as your souls don't seem to be worth much. 'Far left Obama supporter' is an oxymoron, emphasis on the 'moron'. Wake up and smell the senatorial feces. If you don't vote your beliefs, how can you expect to get what you want? Have a nice day.
Posted by Tht1Gy! at 09/27/2008 @ 1:31pm
Tht1Gy-The only way to vote for your beliefs is to vote for yourself.My Soul isn't affected by voting for the one who is closest to being the one I feel can do a better job.If we all just vote for ourselves then I don't think that anyone will get what they want.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 1:37pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 11:54am
Every time you bring up the purist discussion, please also talk about opportunism and how you define the two.
Example: My central issue is peace and a sane foreign policy. Which candidate was speaking to me last night? Since the answer to that question is neither, please feel free to explain how voting for Obama - who in some ways in scarier than McCain - is a smart move for someone like me.
See, the only way you can sell this one is if you package it as "progressive" politics largely defined. But there are plenty of "progressive" policies I am against - gun control, increase of federal power, etc. There are also things that Obama has stood for - like granting retroactive immunity in FISA, that I'm positively against.
So, in short, it's a bit more complicate than the facile little "purist" argument you like to make, and I'd like you to get a little more sophisticated in your argumentation to reflect that.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 1:38pm
It's easy to be a purist politician,like Nader, if you aren't running for anything you can win and where your purists views are not put to the test.First,run for and win a lesser political position and then work your way up so we can all see if you will remain a purist.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 1:44pm
I would love to know the last time time Mr. Dreyfuss debated in front of a billion people worldwide?
To condemn Obama for also calling the revolutionary guard the republican guard, well that is just ridiculous. It is a level of fastidiousness that points to a underlying problem with liberals, we tend to focus on the minutiae and miss the big picture.
If he loses, we are doomed, simply doomed.
Scott Big Sur, CA
Posted by BigSurScoob at 09/27/2008 @ 1:52pm
Example: My central issue is peace and a sane foreign policy. Which candidate was speaking to me last night? Since the answer to that question is neither, please feel free to explain how voting for Obama - who in some ways in scarier than McCain - is a smart move for someone like me.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 1:38pm
please explain, how is obama scarier than mccain? i'm dying to hear that one.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 1:52pm
This is the truth: If your central issue is peace and a sane foreign policy, the best plan would be to emigrate to Sweden.
Martin Luther King Jr said that a "nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
That was 41 years ago. We're into spiritual rigor mortis by now.
Posted by masussman at 09/27/2008 @ 2:02pm
One more thing:
If there is any progressive out there that thinks that this country will be better off with your years of a McCain administration than a Obama, please make your case. I would love to hear it.
Senator Obama is the best presidential candidate I will have had the opportunity to vote for in the 28 years that I have been allowed to vote.
If nothing else, Senator Obama has given me hope for the future of this country. And for someone as cynical, jaded and just so damn afraid of getting my hopes up again only to have the chair pulled out again, that is saying a lot.
Scott
Posted by BigSurScoob at 09/27/2008 @ 2:05pm
If there is any progressive out there that thinks that this country will be better off with your years of a McCain administration than a Obama, please make your case. I would love to hear it.
Posted by BigSurScoob at 09/27/2008 @ 2:05pm
i second that.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:10pm
i second that a third time.
Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 2:24pm
For Obama to prevail on November 4, he must contrast himself to Senator McCain. If "Change" is his primary theme, I would suggest this is not the way to present that theme:
"I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility…"
"Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…"
"He's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…"
"John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right…"
"John is right we have to make cuts…"
"Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…"
"John -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…"
"Senator McCain is absolutely right; we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…"
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 2:25pm
palehorse -
I don't want to speak for srjenkins, who clearly can give you answers of his own. And, given a choice between a frighteningly out-of-touch-with-reality McCain-Palin ticket and an at-least-in-some-ways progressive Obama-Biden ticket, the latter will still be getting my vote this November.
That said, I see alot to be concerned about in Mr Obama's debate on foreign policy. Put it this way: he's letting himself be drawn into a pissing contest with an older man whose entire life has been based on how far he could pee.
The young guy may well be able to pee further, but at the end of the day we don't need another president who gets us into pissing contests with the rest of the world.
Obama is frightening because he casually invokes military rhetoric, promising to capture and kill Bin Laden (with what? his bare hands?), but doesn't always seem to put that rhetoric in the appropriate perspective.
I hope he wins. And I hope cooler, calmer heads surround him as he builds a new foreign policy for our country starting in January.
Posted by canaro71 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:30pm
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 2:25pm
because john mccains initial facts are right doesn't mean that he and obama interpret them in the same way. people are acting as if they shared the same views every time barack agreed to something mccain said. they didn't list the "...however" moment.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:33pm
VOTE WHITE-VAN AUKEN FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml
Posted by mikerol at 09/27/2008 @ 2:34pm
One more thing:
If there is any progressive out there that thinks that this country will be better off with your years of a McCain administration than a Obama, please make your case. I would love to hear it.
Posted by BigSurScoob at 09/27/2008 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thirded!
==============
Anyway if there ever was a good reason to be for Nader it was that he promised in 2000 to help build something new to challenge the two-headed monster. But he reneged on that promise! Totally! So if we're to hold people accountable, then Nader has to get thrown in a bucket of disappointing has-beens. Been there. Done that. Bush/Cheney happened.
Posted by masussman at 09/27/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by canaro71 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:30pm
the rest of the world is hoping we elect obama, and that speaks volumes. that means they don't believe this guy will do what bush has done, go it alone international community be damned. barack has said numerous times that diplomacy should be utilized and exhausted before military action is put on the table.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:33pm - in part
they didn't list the "...however" moment.
Whether Obama agrees with McCain on the basic issue is not the point. The point is, as I said, the presentation. He, and I am sure this will make it into a McCain ad, again and again stated that they were in agreement. This is not the way to articulate change. I just wish he had done so in a more effective manner.
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 2:43pm
i get what you're saying, but you shouldn't disagree just for the sake of disagreement. for instance, mccain said he agreed that presidents need to be prudent in what they say and obama agreed. would anyone actually disagree with that? to disagree just to disagree would look very childish. if mccains campaign wants to advertise that obama can work in a bipartisan manner and agree with an opponent so be it.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:55pm
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 1:52pm
"You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops. And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions. ... You don't muddle through the central front on terror and you don't muddle through going after bin Laden."
That's war with Pakistan. If you don't find that scary, you should.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 3:04pm
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:55pm
I'm not trying to over think this. When Obama's turn to answer the question came, that's what he should have done, not voice his agreement with McCain. If his answer resulted in people concluding that on some points the two were in agreement, fine. The election will not be decided on the candidate's common ground, it will decided on were they differ.
Posted by Incoming at 09/27/2008 @ 3:13pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 3:04pm
trust me, the ramifications for pakistan going to war with the united states are much higher than if the united states has to go to war with pakistan.
nobody is advocating war with pakistan, but let's face it: pakistan can barely control their own country. they certainly don't have any control over the FATA, so it's pretty much a safe haven for al qaeda to regroup in. if the US intelligence community gets credible intel that senior level al qaeda members are in there and pakistan can't or wont act, what would you suggest we do?
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by BigSurScoob at 09/27/2008 @ 2:05pm
"If there is any progressive out there that thinks that this country will be better off with your years of a McCain administration than a Obama, please make your case. I would love to hear it."
Which is better, a hot poker to your eye or to your genitals?
From a foreign policy perspective, I'm not sure who is worse. McCain makes jokes about bombing Iran. Obama suggests war in Pakistan. Both are talking tough with Russia.
I've got a "choice" between the same militarist ideology promoting two different wars of aggression - both of which flaunt international law and common sense. If you doubt the common sense angle, please feel free to explain how war with Russia makes sense or makes anyone safer.
It's enough to make one long for the days when people's aspirations were limited to island nations (Grenada) or conducting death squad proxy wars. At least the scale of the horror was somewhat smaller.
Look, the fact is that Obama is the lesser evil. But, let's not fool ourselves that he is going to be any different from Kerry, Gore, or Clinton. No matter who you vote for, government gets in.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 3:18pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 3:18pm
you know, i wish we could all just live in peace and harmony, but it's just not realistic. obama's central theme may be hope, but he's not naïve enough to believe that we can all get along. obama's not talking about invading pakistan as we did afghanistan and iraq, he's talking small groups of special forces. i seriously doubt the pakistani government will do anything about the border incursion other than talk tough to keep the militants from bombing something else because they helped the americans.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:24pm
"It's enough to make one long for the days when people's aspirations were limited to island nations (Grenada) or conducting death squad proxy wars. At least the scale of the horror was somewhat smaller."
Well, those little chickens do add up & they're coming home to roost. $700 billion worth of chickens in one grand handout
And most of it will leave the country asap, into euros & swiss francs, and then watch the country sink as the dollar sinks ... all at the hands of its own "leaders."
This isn't a bailout, it's a once in a century handout. Do it, and kiss our democratic republic goodbye.
The MSM's owners certainly want it done. Just check the NYTimes ... compromise, compromise, the deal is almost done & the economy will be saved. Tinker, tinker a bit here & there, but get the cash handed over. The rest, well, who cares about the rest ... sure, equity, but not too real ... sure oversight, but not too intrusive.
Po' Obama, there ain't a damn thing substantive he'll be able to do once in office, he'll be so hobbled.
Posted by sloper at 09/27/2008 @ 3:35pm
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:14pm
"...the ramifications for pakistan going to war with the united states are much higher than if the united states has to go to war with pakistan."
No matter what how you slice the ramifications, they are all bad. It's a stupid idea that plays well in Americastan, but not so much with anyone that knows anything about South Asia.
You should spend some time learning something about Pakistan - particularly the Soviet experience there, the connections between FATA and the Pakistan government, and what the likely outcomes will be with any large scale conflict in the region.
"If the US intelligence community gets credible intel that senior level al qaeda members are in there and pakistan can't or wont act, what would you suggest we do?"
What's next, going to talk about ticking bombs and Jack Bauer? When you are considering an action the generally accepted procedure is to see if it can be universalized. Let's try that with your question:
"If the X intelligence community gets credible intel that senior level [insert terrorist group name here] are in [the United States] and [the United States] can't or wont act, what would you suggest X do?"
Let's make X, any country you like from this list - French, Russian, North Korean, Indian, or Chinese. All of whom are nuclear powers just like Pakistanis.
In other words, bad idea. Maybe we stick with the time tested approach of law enforcement where you regnognize that there are certain things that you can't do - because it's unwise or illegal - and you focus on disrupting the groups ability to function where you can do so to greater effect. Definitely a better choice than committing an act of aggression with a nuclear power.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 3:38pm
you act as if they are just going to write off a check for $700 billion. that's not how it works. the government will buy the crap mortgage-backed securities at a premium price (stupid), the legislation says that the debt to the national government can't be more than $700 million at any time.
i wish they would just let the companies implode. it's not like credit is easy to get nowdays anyway.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:40pm
What's next, going to talk about ticking bombs and Jack Bauer? When you are considering an action the generally accepted procedure is to see if it can be universalized. Let's try that with your question:
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 3:38pm
first off, i don't appreciate or respond well when dealing with condescension. second, it seems you need to do some research on the FATA. you think the pakistanis are just going to waltz in there are handcuff bin laden? did you happen to see the islamabad marriott bombing? their hands are effectively tied.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:46pm
plus the fact that you are comparing our law enforcement agencies with pakistan's. that's like comparing an apple to a rotten apple.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:50pm
...connections between FATA and the Pakistan government, and what the likely outcomes will be with any large scale conflict in the region.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 3:38pm
what part of "small groups of special forces" implies a large scale conflict?
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:55pm
Despite all this war talk, Obama assured the American people that his administration (his 'doctrine') will concentrate on diplomacy at all levels. He never blamed a nation or a religion and its peoples--he knows that governments and individuals are at fault here (and he damn well knows one cannot conflate the government with its people) and he knows that diplomatic negotiations/agreements are necessary to "root out" terrorism. And as Obama stated in his response to the terrorist attack in Pakistan, terrorists target all religions and put all nations at risk. He is reflective about history--he knows why terrorism heightened in Iraq and he knows Bush's aggressions made things worse in the Middle East. Peace--that simple, one syllable, five-letter word--will not be easy to accomplish after decades of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. He's a flaming liberal on social issues but a pragmatic moderate on political and economic issues.
Posted by genie_yoo at 09/27/2008 @ 3:58pm
but the thing is, if we go into pakistan, it absolutely must succeed in getting bin laden, otherwise we would lose the tiny sliver of respect we still have in the world community.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 4:06pm
I do have to agree w/ Maskdelta. He's right about appealing to the independents and undecided.
Posted by groucho55 at 09/27/2008 @ 4:16pm
i would think that the vice presidential debates would have a huge impact on the independent/undecided vote. sarah palin is bound to scare some of them. i know she gives me the willies.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:46pm @ 3:50pm
"[Y]ou think the pakistanis are just going to waltz in there are handcuff bin laden?"
If you asked fewer questions like this one, you might perhaps get treated with less condescension. I'm not talking about Pakistan law enforcement, at all. I'm also talking about disrupting an international criminal network - something that doesn't lend itself to military solutions, one country's police or facile ideas about just capturing or killing leaders.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:55pm
"[W]hat part of "small groups of special forces" implies a large scale conflict?"
The part where small groups of special forces in Pakistan lies on the absurdity scale right there alongside the Pakistani military/police arresting bin Laden. Further, I'd bet classified missions already have happened in a limited capacity in both Iran and Pakistan. So, we just add to that? Ever consider what happens when a member of a team gets killed/captured?
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 4:06pm
Please feel free to explain what capturing bin Laden does to his network. He could very well be in a secret CIA prison and being used as a bogeyman for both sides at this point.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 4:50pm
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 4:18pm
I'm sure it will be as "exciting" as Cheney/Edwards.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 4:51pm
Problem is, Obama is not going to change when he's elected. He is clearly telling us he is not the 'change' candidate. The goal is to 'win'?Actually the goal is not to win, it is to change the direction of the country. If you win, and you do the VERY SAME THING, then we the citizens do not win. Only Obama and the Democratic Party win.
The only bet you can make on this is that he will have a 90% turnaround when he's elected. I don't think so, and the evidence for that is small. He's already dodged the bailout issue, leaving it to Pelosi/Frank to seal the deal with Bush.
The other theory is that he has to win the centrists. Well, while he thinks he's winning the centrists, he's definately losing the left. Most centrists who are not persuaded that our security is better served by less "Bushism", not more, are going for McCain. Why buy the fake when you can have the real thing? Just like Dukakis in a tank. Fuckin ridiculous.
Posted by ElyDog at 09/27/2008 @ 5:25pm
As a victim/veteran of the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972) it royally chapped my anti-war liberal ass to hear Barack Obama channelling Richard Nixon in response to Panama-John McBush's Barry Goldwater. As we used to say back during America's ever-glorious War on Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos): "No matter how you voted, you got more of Vietnam."
Today, Grandpa Simpson McBush wants more Vietnam in Iraq and a little less Vietnam in Afghanistan. Boy Blunder Barack Obama wants more Vietnam in Afghanistan and a little less Vietnam in Iraq. So, by all means, let us have more Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism for the broke and deadbeat United States of America. Let us have more war on Vietnam-X somewhere, anywhere.
As in 2004, so too in 2008: John Kerry II still promises to do Tora Bora better than the incumbent Republican Party candidate, Deputy Dubya Bush III, who has moved on to doing Baghdad even worse and forever. Viewing the debate, I swear I could just see Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy each daring each other in 1960 to start a nuclear war with China over the two microscopic islands of Quemoy and Matsu that no American then or now could ever locate on a world map.
What a pathetic, peurile pissing contest, indeed.
Sure, I'll vote for Barack Obama -- because I want to preserve Social Security (about the only thing of value the Democratic Party will ever fight for), but I totally agree with Barbara Tuchman that "The American government reacts [only] to intimidation by the rabid right at home and to the public dread of [XXX-ism] that this plays on and reflects." An obviously intimidated Barack Obama has imbibed the reactionary rubrick of the rabid right at home and so he threatens to change nothing but himself.
Posted by mikemurry at 09/27/2008 @ 5:30pm
Robert Dreyfuss, I ask you why shouldn't foreign policy be the deciding factor in awarding the presidency? After all, it is the policy that determines everything else, including our future as a nation. It determines whether we live out our lives or die in a flash of radiation. It determines whether we live as international debtors with diluted dollars for the necessities of life or prosper as competitors in trade. It is the area of unique power vested in the presidency, with only advisory powers left to the Senate and spending power left to a compliant House. What is more important, the economy?
Yes, the economy is important but not from the domestic prospective. It is important to the imperial presidency, because it supports the armed forces. With a president, either McCain or Obama, whose focus is the Middle East, Central Asia, the Far East, Eastern Europe, the economy is vital. It is vital but not because McCain or Obama is worried about better lives for the people of the US. It is vital for the role of paramount interest to them: "leader of the 'free' world."
What a tragedy! After waiting for eight years, we shall have another imperial president. He may be a young man who presents himself as sophisticated and charming, or an older man who wears the mantle of patriotism like a Roman consul. The tragedy is that they are both dangerous men, and we are in for more war, more debt and less peace of mind than under Bush.
You really should vote for Ralph Nader, but Nader cannot save us now.
Posted by goedel at 09/27/2008 @ 6:07pm
Scott
Posted by BigSurScoob at 09/27/2008 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hee hee! yeah! what the hell choice does the purist have?
ask for twice what you think you really need and be happy if you get half you asked for...
i swear...the level of cynicism approaches the self destructive zone with some hard core progs.
you gotta work with what you got. if moping around a coffee shop and bitching at the universe is yer progressive cup of jave, well...dont vote obama and have some sweet bong smoke philisophizin' and bitchin an=bout how everything sux...
lol!
welcome aboard scotty! big sur, cali, eh? sounds like a nice place...
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 6:08pm
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 6:08pm
It's not self-destructive to recognize that electoral politics is the citizen's weakest weapon - and that at the Presidential level there are few differences between the parties on major issues like foreign policy.
It's realistic - even though the "idealists" that believe their vote matters like to pretend THEY are the realists.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 6:17pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i just dont see the numbers nor willingness to work nor support in any alternative political movement beyond dems and pubs.
where are the teeming hordes of young turks and revolutionaries? i'm not seeing them.
political parties are like school systems - favorite kicking dogs of the frustrated. the idea that there is no difference between dem and pug parties is absurd. its a fallacy to equally demonize two sides in a conflict if the facts don't support such.
i think the dems may have found their voice and hit their stride. if that results in half the reforms i want, fine - thats more than twice the reforms the pugs would institute and god help us if their "reforms" look anything like their ideology.
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 6:45pm
What matters first is the occupation of Iraq. Obama recommitted himself to a timeline for withdrawal and since al Maliki has himself called for one, Obama will put the US on the right side of international law. McCain will keep the US a rogue nation. Dreyfuss is obviously too much of an addled hippie to understand what Obama is saying about the surge: "it may well have been more successful than I imagined in reducing ethnic tension due the heroic efforts of brave US soliders but it utterly failed to meet its objective, i.e. to create space for national reconciliation."And if you can't understand that is what Obama is implying, Biden spelled it out clearly for you, Dreyfuss. So Obama will not fail to recognize some good the troops have done. They are not the enemy; he is praising them. But in spite of their success the objective was not met. It is time to force national reconciliation by withdrawing our troops. And Obama is willing to live with an Iraq that won't see Iran as a mortal enemy and that will be too independent to be a client state. McCain will not leave until he has anti-Iranian client state in Iraq. He'll never get it, so then he says we have to try because of the costs we have already sunk in the occupation. This is above VandenHeuvel's and Dreyfuss' heads (I don't care about their credentials), but this is the fallacy of sunk costs. And Obama is free of it. If you don't work hard for his victory, you are an addled hippie.
Posted by hartal at 09/27/2008 @ 7:23pm
Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 6:45pm
Did someone say, "the level of cynicism approaches the self destructive zone with some hard core progs" ?
Nor will you likely ever see "the numbers nor willingness to work nor support in any alternative political movement," if you continue pretending there is that much difference and working "hard for his victory" makes a difference.
You end up where you started. It's the most realistic position, and the funny thing is that people that want to cast their vote and pretend that changes things - so they can go home and continue life as they know it without having to actually do anything themselves - like to cast the other guy as an idealist. Oh really?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 8:39pm
yes i think obama blew it last night, however, i feel he must be elected first to make a change, americans cannot afford 4 more years of the same. As an outsider, the american people deserve better than what they have gotten over the last 8 years, sept 11 2001 i cried for america. But when you guys decided to attack iraq...i lost respect for the govermnent and the people of this great country. i could not see how a country that the world looks to for leadership, integrity, and decency, allowed innocent people in iraq to be killed... micheal jackson song "man in mirror" should be obama calling song.
Posted by ianb242 at 09/27/2008 @ 9:03pm
And don't forget that McCain mentioned the possibility of reducing the defense budget through reining in contracting fraud.
Posted by john.halle at 09/27/2008 @ 10:18am
Ya, that was the best joke of the night by either candidate!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:39pm
I did not like the Lehrer approach of trying to get the two talking to each other. Anyone with some experience in courtrooms or legislative bodies knows that what a party is recognized, statements are made to the chair or other presiding officer. Back and forth bantering looks amateurish and unpolished.
Posted by jsens at 09/27/2008 @ 10:46pm
Posted by Zero at 09/27/2008 @ 12:57pm
Z, here's the problem. In 2000, Nader ran, among other reasons, because he loathes Gore on a personal basis. Nader stated that the country would be better off with Bush in the WH if it came down to that. Most sentient beings knew that to be nonsense, and the ghosts of 3,000 on 9/11 (which Gore would have prevented), 4,100 US service people and 1.2 million Iraqi civilians - that's 1.2 MILLION civilians - would likely attest to that. But they're not here, because the country, and the world, are far worse with Bush. Nader was wrong. And he was curiously missing while that election was stolen in a judicial coup. Like I said, I'd love to live in a progressive country, but this ain't it. So I'm damn glad to take moving in that direction. Any movement forward is orders of magnitude better than where we are now.
Posted by jmusolino at 09/27/2008 @ 11:03pm
Well, despite my previous stance of not wanting to waste my time watching these two people debate since I'm not going to vote for either one, I watched the debate @ Hulu.com in toto. I'm still not going to vote for either one. I will say that it seemed that Obama filled time with new ideas debate wise and McCain filled time with the phrase "I know how..." rather than actually share what that knowledge might be. I once heard it said "The problem with Washington is there are too many politicians and not enough Statesmen". And while I'm not an Obama fan, Obama sounded more like a 'Statesman' and McCain sounded more like a 'politician'.
Posted by Tht1Gy! at 09/27/2008 @ 11:07pm
And while I'm not an Obama fan, Obama sounded more like a 'Statesman' and McCain sounded more like a 'politician'.
Posted by T ht1Gy! at 09/27/2008 @ 11:07pm |
McCain knows how to grease the wheels of the system he's been a part of for almost 30 years. The old, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. McCain's back has been scratched one hell of a lot and he owes a lot in return.
I don't know what Obama will do as president, but we are guaranteed what McCain will do. Scratch, scratch, scratch....
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:33pm
If you asked fewer questions like this one, you might perhaps get treated with less condescension. I'm not talking about Pakistan law enforcement, at all. I'm also talking about disrupting an international criminal network - something that doesn't lend itself to military solutions, one country's police or facile ideas about just capturing or killing leaders.
Please feel free to explain what capturing bin Laden does to his network. He could very well be in a secret CIA prison and being used as a bogeyman for both sides at this point.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 4:50pm
ok then, suggest a way other than capturing or killing the planners (KSM, which has already been captured, and al-zawahiri) and financiers (bin laden) that would effectively cripple al-qaeda. i've heard a lot of ways that won't work from you but i haven't heard any suggestions as to what will.
i'm positive we're in pakistan (waziristan) already, i wouldn't doubt if we were in iran too.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:38pm
"... but the thing is, if we go into pakistan, it absolutely must succeed in getting bin laden, otherwise we would lose the tiny sliver of respect we still have in the world community. Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 4:06pm
Good point.
But the thing is, according to Benazir Bhutto predicting her own death shortly before she was murdered, bin Laden is dead, killed by Omar Sheik. This was broadcast globally in her long interview with David Frost. On rebroadcast by the BBC, this brief but explosive revelation was censored out. And US MSM ignored it.
How come?
Because bin Laden's death guts the stated rationale for staying in Afghanistan, not to mention "incursions" to kill in Pakistan.
Without a bin Laden bogeyman to chase, we're left with a rather more substantial reason for war in Afghanistan, a subdued people so a US oil pipeline -- offered to but rejected by Taliban -- will be built & left defended at immense cost to the Afghan people.
Now who in the US is willing to go to war for a pipeline (besides Sarah Palin & her god in Alaska)? Not many.
Hence we sorely need bin Laden. Because if it gets out that he's dead, what reason do we have for killing Pakistanis?
Posted by sloper at 09/28/2008 @ 01:03am
The article is a fine and sharp analysis. But it has one glaring omission.
What stuck in my craw most was that Obama's whole anti Iraq war argument was purely in American self- interest ie saving our boys' lives and not spreading the terrorist net wider. Doesn't the moral imperative count at all? Wouldn't it be great if points like an illegal invasion, the presidential lies that brought it about and the more than 85,000 Iraqi civilian deaths that resulted were actually persuasive arguments for a significant number of American voters!
As T.S.Eliot observed :Mankind cannot stand too much reality.
But the threshold in the US right now seems to be especially low.
Posted by pongacat at 09/28/2008 @ 02:42am
Obama is not an idiot and everything you suggest he should have said is exactly where he is most vulnerable. All he had to do was put this damn debate behind him since this is all McCain has to run on.
•••• exactly. look BUILTFORDTOUGH. allay the fears of the afraid people.
The most common criticism of Obama out here in right wing world where I live is that he would never stand up militarily. It sways a lot of fearful people who aren't really all that keen on McCain. I will be happy enough if they just stay home because they figure the kid will do okay.
•••• that's what i'm saying.
Chances are Obama can broker a solution in Afghanistan and eliminate the need for boots on the ground, but he can't do it if McCain wins.
•••• cross your toes and hope the treasury's writhing agony convinces him of said direction.
Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 10:03am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 03:35am
is EXACTLY what Obama needed to gain from last night.
It means the 40% in the Middle of the country WASN'T!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 10:15am
exactly. he had to sound like a u.s. president.
MR. CARTER: Mr. Stone, in my State of the Union address earlier this year, I pointed out that any threat to the stability or security of the Persian Gulf would be a threat to the security of our own country. In the past, we have not had an adequate military presence in that region. Now we have two major carrier task forces. We have access to facilities in five different areas of that region.
october 28, 1980
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 03:39am
MS. GEYER: Mr. President, in the last few months it has seemed more and more that your policies in Central America were beginning to work. Yet, just at this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. Is this not, in effect, our own state-supported terrorism?
THE PRESIDENT: No, but I'm glad you asked that question.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 03:51am
MASKDELTA, imnobody, frosty zoom, Pogge,
What your posts prove is that you, like most people in America, do not vote on any serious criteria that matters in running a government. What you jokers are suggesting is that Barack Obama say anything to get elected, because you then believe that he will pull a Bill Clinton and govern the exact opposite. And should Obama not campaign like a rightwing nut, some of you will vote for McCain just for spite.
It is this idiotic mentality, among others, which explains why America is going down the drain and dying. And with people like you running around to the polls, it deserves to die.
Posted by POSEIDON at 09/28/2008 @ 06:10am
After allowing the debate to gestate a couple of days I think that "The Senator" handled the debate correctly. All through the debate I had this real anxious feeling that Senator Obama was going to totally destroy our American Hero. He certainly was given plenty of opportunities. When Obama is elected president he is going to have to run the whole country and embarassing our hero would not have served anyone any value. Remember that politics is a zero sum game. For every winner there is a looser. I think this, "skinny black dude", is a friggin genius folks"
Posted by lachatte at 09/28/2008 @ 08:51am
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:38pm
So, what exactly is your special forces argument? If you acknowledge that this is already being done and being done probably to the extent where these kinds of forces can be used effectively and not get caught, then your argument doesn't present anything new or effective to the table.
"...suggest a way other than capturing or killing the planners (KSM, which has already been captured, and al-zawahiri) and financiers (bin laden) that would effectively cripple al-qaeda."
Part of the problem is you are asking the wrong questions.
"Successful operations against al-Qaeda's core have created new problems in the sense that al-Qaeda is no longer a hierarchical organization run by bin Laden. Rather, the terrorist threat has evolved into what some experts refer to as "franchised" terrorism. In this new phase, previously identified al-Qaeda leaders serve as examples and provide ideological rather than organizational and material support to terrorist operatives around the world."
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/ 2006_rpt/hpsci0606.pdf
So, as far as your question goes - mission accomplished.
The larger, better question is how do you address the fundamental causes of terrorism - particularly one's driven by a radical Islam ideology. I've cribbed a few ideas from a CRS report on Terrorism in Southeast Asia:
1. Leave Iraq. The ancient Spartans had a rule that they never fought anyone for longer than 2 years. Why? Because it trains your enemy in how to effectively fight you. Iraq centers the conflict in a way that makes it easier for conventional military power to confront it - but it is a loser's game because ultimately it acts as a great recruiting and training tool for terrorists.
2. Identify and eliminate training facilities. These are legitimate targets for a combination of coordination with local regional government and/or covert military ops.
3. Strengthen local judicial and police structures. Training and where appropriate, funding.
4. Develop better international police frameworks. Harmonized extradition agreements, develop international standards for evidence, and promote data sharing.
5. Strengthen local coast guards and navies. Cut down on piracy, gun running and other types of smuggling that fund terrorist activities.
6. Support local state-run schools. More alternatives means fewer children going to Madrassas to learn radical Islam ideology.
7. Engage Muslims economically. Radical ideology is frequently a function of lack of opportunity and not being able to put a human face on the enemy.
8. Institute real border security in the United States. Use Israel and other countries that deal with terrorism daily as a model - and separate the issue from immigration.
9. Disrupt finances more effectively. The money funding terrorism drives it, but many local governments haven't made much of an effort to seize assets. Find ways to do it better ourselves and local governments.
10. Manage communal tensions. Create international mechanisms of arbitration.
There are no doubt many other ideas. The bottom line is that al-Qaeda is not the problem. The problem is eliminating the underlying forces that groups like al-Qaeda used to fuel their ideology and their terrorist activities. Bombs and special forces can't address that underlying problem - and in fact, exacerbate it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 10:51am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 10:51am
The Terrorism in Southeast Asia report that I used to bring out some of the ten points above are available at the link below.
There are many good reports on the topic available from fas.org and elsewhere that explore the issue of alternatives to Bush's war metaphor than you and other progressives should consult before supporting the continuing of the Bush Doctrine in another theater.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL34194.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 11:00am
Posted by POSEIDON at 09/28/2008 @ 06:10am
No, what I'm saying is ...that Obama needs to realize a point YOU guys won't admit to yourself (and he does)...
You're no where need a majority of this country!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 11:58am
There are no doubt many other ideas. The bottom line is that al-Qaeda is not the problem. The problem is eliminating the underlying forces that groups like al-Qaeda used to fuel their ideology and their terrorist activities. Bombs and special forces can't address that underlying problem - and in fact, exacerbate it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 10:51am
of course. but that makes too much sense.
and it's not muy macho.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 12:27pm
you and other progressives should consult before supporting the continuing of the Bush Doctrine in another theater.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 11:00am
ah, many fist destiny.
when my buddy offers me a sandwich and asks if i want wonderbread or "whole wheat" wonderbread,
(which is wonderbread with a smidgen of bran)
i sigh
and pick the "whole wheat"
because i know the menu is very limited.
and then little by little,
with patience and education i attempt to show my buddy that his life will be better if he eats whole grain bread.
lower blood sugar, easier defecations.
but it takes time. and lots of persistence.
the green party of canada was founded in 1983.
just this year the party leader was able to penetrate the debate shield.......
one can't change the game in a day or an election.
maybe win a governorship or something, show people that sensible ideas can work....
just ramblin'.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 12:46pm
I thoroughly disagree with Mr. Dreyfuss; I can only conclude that either he watched a different debate then the one I viewed, or he in his illogical opinion of what "true" journalism is, is trying to instigate negative rhetoric against Senator Obama. The debate started of lousy by having a "unprofessional" moderator (which is not mentioned..), but Senator Obama "hands down" one the debate, by staying consistent and presenting more facts then McCain (well McCain honestly did not have any facts to put forth...except that he was a veteran).
Everyone has a right to ramble, but if you think you are doing in good with inept stories such as this.....I cannot concur with you at all.
Be a part of the solution Mr Dreyfuss not the problem..........people can review the "comic" section of any newspaper and find better "humorous story".
Posted by rayven at 09/28/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by POSEIDON at 09/28/2008 @ 06:10am
"What your posts prove is that you, like most people in America, do not vote on any serious criteria that matters in running a government. What you jokers are suggesting is that Barack Obama say anything to get elected, because you then believe that he will pull a Bill Clinton and govern the exact opposite. And should Obama not campaign like a rightwing nut, some of you will vote for McCain just for spite.
It is this idiotic mentality, among others, which explains why America is going down the drain and dying. And with people like you running around to the polls, it deserves to die."
Poseidon,
The filth, like these, that populate mainsteam liberal blogs, are the very expression of the reptiles for whom they shill. The reptiles are unprincipled, the shill-filth are unprincipled. When the cleansing comes as it must - and it fast approaches it would seem - perhaps those then in power, when finished with the architechs of our present dilema, will turn their attention to their enablers. Can we hope?
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 1:18pm
johnlowell-You are one of those who populate liberal blogs making you the filth that you called others.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/28/2008 @ 1:33pm
The candidates from both parties are supported by the people who gave us the sub prime mess. This is not an election! It is a contest to see who looks the most presidential. Who makes us feel good, safe, Or warm and fuzzy. Obama has been mouthing this idiocy for a long time. I'm going with Nader. He may not win, but my vote really would be wasted on the candidates from the major parties. No loosing candidate ever cost another candidate an election! You win or lose an election based on your own merits! We are in trouble.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/28/2008 @ 1:39pm
pjcasey-Nader is untested and thought that Gore and Bush were equally as intelligent which does not say much for Nader.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/28/2008 @ 1:42pm
pjcasey-Can you tell us how Nader has voted as an elected official or decisions that he has made as an elected official so we can see if he remained true to his views?
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/28/2008 @ 1:51pm
Posted by POSEIDON at 09/28/2008 @ 06:10am
poseidon,
See what I mean? All you have to do is kick in the door and shine a flashlight in the general direction of the floor and the resident roaches skurry in every direction. :-)
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 2:23pm
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 2:23pm
There is a difference between kicking in the door and being an asshat - particularly if you are arguing for a Quixotic candidate.
I'm likely going to vote for Nader, but you know as well as I do that he has no chance of being elected. The point of voting Nader - at least for me - is that it lets the two major parties know that I vote, and they aren't speaking to me in a way to get my vote.
It's basically a middle finger vote - and it is no more nobel than deciding to vote for Obama because the other guy is worse. And, it's about as effective, which is to say, it isn't. I could just as easily make my point by staying at home - which is what most people do.
I remember one time going to a socialist conference where the communists made similar claims to you - but about anarchists. They aren't effective. They would be put up against the wall along with the capitalists. And so forth.
Talk about new boss being the same as the old boss. I'll take the right-wing Republocrat system over any form of up against the wallism.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/28/2008 @ 1:39pm
"The candidates from both parties are supported by the people who gave us the sub prime mess. This is not an election! It is a contest to see who looks the most presidential."
"I'm going with Nader. He may not win, but my vote really would be wasted on the candidates from the major parties."
Amen! Why waste your vote?
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 4:25pm
johnlowell-You did the cockroach reference.Not at all original.If your going for put downs rather than maturity then tax your brain and be original.The cockroach one is so old.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/28/2008 @ 5:05pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 3:02pm
"There is a difference between kicking in the door and being an asshat - particularly if you are arguing for a Quixotic candidate."
I think you may have missed my allusion altogether, sr. As to "quixotic" candidates, as far as I've been able to discern over the years, only candidates that run against the system are accorded this description, never regime candidates. By your reckoning, would it not have been fair in 1936 to have considered Alf Landon quixotic or in 1912 William Howard Taft? It's the very signature of the present regime to regard anything that doesn't serve it as quixotic. I'd even go so far as to say that to employ the term is to participate in the very violence they do to democracy in this country. Every time a second party candidate is ridiculed in this way or muscled off a ballot, or kept out of a debate, the whole environment of oppression, the one which brought you the the bi-partisan war and foreign policy, the bi-partisan bailout, the bi-partisan FISA legislation is benefited. I'm pleased that you've decided to vote for Nader. Supporting second party or independent candidates is the only self-respecting choice one can make in the present circumstaners. A vote for the system is self-imolation.
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 5:21pm
"2. Identify and eliminate training facilities. These are legitimate targets for a combination of coordination with local regional government and/or covert military ops."
And if those training camps are in FATA?
Posted by brunowe at 09/28/2008 @ 7:15pm
Bill Clinton did more damage to America than George Bush.
When the **it hits the fan, the "purists" will be back here again saying 'I told you so' while the faux progressives make more excuses for the status quo. In reality, the faux progressives are the ones who don't believe America is ready for a different governing PHILOSOPHY. The faux progressives are the ones denying us our "Goldwater" moment. The faux progressives are the ones upholding the mandate for mediocrity. All of the faux progressives that snub their noses at "purists" are proving once again that they don't know what CHANGE really is. If we can't trust the democratic majority in Congress to stand up for our interests with a republican president, why should we trust a democratic Congress to stand up for our interests with a democratic president?
Posted by LiquifiedCoal at 09/28/2008 @ 7:24pm
Thanks for all your comments and a vigorous discussion. Those who disagree with me: if your point is that Obama is still "progressive" in spite of the fact that he supports an expansion of NATO, a bigger military budget, an escalation of war in Afghanistan, attacks on Pakistan, defense of Georgia, sanctions on Iran, etc., then I think we have to disagree. If you think that he is just saying those things to get elected, well, maybe--but politicians who do that usually end up governing the same way. If your argument is that anyway Obama is better than McCain, I agree! But so what? My job as a journalist is to point out the truth, and report it, not cheerlead for one candidate. Obama may be an improvement over the McCain, who looked like a wart-covered old frog and whose policies are even uglier. But I'm not writing here to praise Obama.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 09/28/2008 @ 7:57pm
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 1:18pm
Tell POSEIDON who YOU are voting for, jl?
or at all? And then explain why you are telling OTHERS that THEY should vote and for who?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/28/2008 @ 9:05pm
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 5:21pm
You mean Theodore Roosevelt. In 1912, Taft was the Republican nominee. But, I get your point.
The problem in your argument is that you are assuming I am talking about all third party candidates are Quixotic candidates. I'm not. I'm calling Ralph Nader's candidancy Quixotic. That's a different argument than the one you are arguing against.
Posted by brunowe at 09/28/2008 @ 7:15pm
"And if those training camps are in FATA?"
You identify them. Work with Pakistani officials to get them shut down. Keep track of the people, supplies and so forth going in and coming out. Get CIA plants in place. And you disrupt their operations.
In the end, it's a matter of law enforcement with some military and intelligence components. Same as you do with any criminal organization that operates in a country with a government that can't effectively stop what they are doing due to corruption, ignorance, unwillingness or any other factor.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 09/28/2008 @ 7:57pm
Agree with your point. Obama is telling us exactly what he is going to do. There is not going to be any Mask removal at the swear in ceremony where we all discover Obama is actually a "leftist" after all. People need to snap out of that little dream.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 9:45pm
I'll write the same stuff I wrote on Katrina vanden Heuvel's post. Obama is absolutely not PROGRESSIVE. I'm Panamanian and like the rest of the world we favor him by 92-8 over McCain.
He's a calm and smart guy even if he did come off as a hawk. I didn't particularly like that he called Venezuela a "rogue state." That's 200 miles away from me. But I know that Obama would never be so stupid as to aggress on Venezuela. He has to say this stuff and all the dumb things about religion and every other bit of right-wing palaver because that's what America's about. At least Obama has lived in other countries and has a sense of the cultural nuances. McCain's a psycho.
Nobody in South America or Europe or wherever is under any illusions about Obama. He could never get elected president of Panama. His stances in favor of the death penalty, incarcerating children with adults, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, commingling church and state, and against single-payer health insurance would make him completely untenable as even a right-wing extremist candidate in Panama.
Obama has never made any secrets about who he was. He was extremely upfront about his Fundamentalist Christianity, his discomfort with gay people, his views on criminal justice, his occasional hawkishness, his discomfort with Roe v Wade, his friendship with Lieberman, his friendship with Pat Robertson and Rick Warren. It was all in the papers here.
What does it matter? I don't need him to have President Torrijos's policies. Obama's not running here.
For an American, Obama's great. He's very smart and careful and has some sense of social justice. I believe he'll be a peacemaker.
Posted by DexterManley at 09/28/2008 @ 9:48pm
If your goal is peace at all costs then you might as well slit your throat and get it over with. A pure pacifist philosophy is merely one of suicide because the world and people are just not made that way. However, if you claim you are a pacifist, is there still a war you might fight? Would you have fought in WWII after Pearl Harbor? Would you kill someone if they are absolutely trying to kill you and it was the only way to survive, or does this really apply? What are your limits if any? I ask these questions because those of you on the far left seem to imply it's peace or nothing, yet you probably would not hesitate to participate in violent protest that might result in someone getting killed. It seems to me that claims of being a pacifist are really just political statements and you are actually capable of being just as violent as anyone else, assuming the agenda is the "correct" one.
Posted by pyeatte at 09/28/2008 @ 9:54pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 9:45pm
No, I meant Taft, not TR, sr. The point - must I explain it - was that there are losing bids like Taft's or Landon's involving system party candidates, so why single out Nader's to call quixotic. If he's quixotic, so were Taft and Landon. But no one describes their candidacies that way. Only second party efforts that frighten the components of the system are called quixotic so as to descourage voters from considering them. Its a way of muscling them actually.
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 10:09pm
POSEIDON,
Didn't take very long for this to become vermin night here at The Nation, POSEIDON, much as I'd reported earlier. If you pick up on a sewer-like smell its only because the latest arrival is close enough to you to detect the breathing. And I'd so hoped he'd cross his legs.
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 10:18pm
And if those training camps are in FATA?
Posted by brunowe at 09/28/2008 @ 7:15pm
just bribe the generals better than the other guys do.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 11:33pm
johnlowell-You are sitting alone at a computer so guess where the sewer like smell,you referred to, would be coming from?You aren't very good at put downs and I need you to try harder.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 12:20am
Posted by pyeatte at 09/28/2008 @ 9:54pm
There are many different varieties of pacifism. Please consult Wikipedia for a decent discussion.
Of course, pacifists are capable of being just as violent as everyone else. However, the important difference is that pacifists understand, correctly, that violence typically leads to more violence. As a result of that understand, they try to resist being violent. They may not always succeed, but I respect the effort.
As for my particular arguments, I think Tolstoy does a good job of explaining the problem in, "The Kingdom of God is Within You." Feel free to read at your leisure for a full explanation of my position.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 01:10am
lvliberty-It isn't Gore that led us into the mess we are in,now nor was Gore ignorant enough to throw his hat into the ring this time.Gore went into the army and went to Viet Nam even though he could have hid in the national guard and,even though,he was against the war.Gore has,not only proven himself to be far more intelligent than Bush,but,also,much braver and,most importantly,proved love of country far more so than Bush...Most of the modern right values ignorance and cowardice.Bush even talks like he barely made it through high school.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/29/2008 @ 01:15am
Posted by john lowell at 09/28/2008 @ 10:09pm
Yes, you must explain your "points" - particularly if you are going to make lame slippery slope arguments. You are basically saying that all campaigns are not Quixotic - which means "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals". This is obviously false. Counter-example: John Kasper of the States Rights party in 1964.
All I need to do is find one example that is Quixotic to demonstrate how your argument is wrong. If you don't like Kasper, try Earl F. Dodge, Macauley, Peltier or any other candidate getting less than a couple of thousand votes in a national, Presidential election running on a single issues like segregation, single tax on land, prohibition, etc.
Let's take a look at your argument:
1. If [Nader is] quixotic, so were Taft and Landon.
2. But no one describes [Taft and Landon's] candidacies that way.
3. Only second party efforts that frighten the components of the system are called quixotic.
C. This is to descourage [sic] voters from considering them.
So, I'm bringing the argument that there are Quixotic campaigns. Now, argue that they aren't. Let's use a specific campaign: Leonard Peltier's campaign in 2004.
Not quixotic? Explain why.
So, you've got sloppy argumentation where your conclusion is based on a modus tollens on a really weak conditional. Your 3rd premise is false, but really not related to the argument. And your conclusion, which is probably true, has practically no support from the arguments you make for it.
But the main thing is you present them like a first-rate asshat. Who are you convincing again? Alienating people because they can't follow your sloppy reasoning seems pretty stupid to me.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 01:27am
The difference between pacifism and self-defense is almost the same as the difference between a national heath service and single-payer health insurance. There is a difference.
Posted by LiquifiedCoal at 09/29/2008 @ 02:07am
I don't understand the hostility here. I'd like to, though. From me, you're getting a Panama perspective but both sides in this argument are right. There's a case to be made for pragmatism and a case to be made for idealism.
The two major party candidates who most resemble the heads-of-state in South America and in Europe were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Right now, either Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader would suit Panama or Belgium better than either Obama or McCain.
Obama is the likely winner of the election and he's not so bad as far as American presidential candidates go. McCain is crazy.
Outside the US, self-governing democratic republican or parliamentary capitalist states have gotten comfortable with the idea of not having a huge military or even a military at all. The focus is on fiscal, monetary and social policy. Strong central banks and a strong private banking system and liquid securities markets are more than enough to defend ourselves against US aggression or terrorism or whatever.
It's not an either/or kind of thing like it is in the US. Most countries use a flexible socially-conscious Keynesian fiscal model and a more conservative Fisherite style of monetary neutrality, loosening or tighten money supply to balance the problems of inflation and unemployment with the goal being steady growth. Social policy allows for civil liberties and civil rights.
The US is just not at that level of maturity in the social contract yet. This is why you have only a center-right party and a far-right party. Pick a country you think has a very right-wing government like Colombia or Israel. Uribe or Tzvi would never consider a DEATH PENALTY or NO SINGLE PAYER, but these are articles of faith in the US.
Obama's fine as a step forward.
Posted by DexterManley at 09/29/2008 @ 03:58am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 01:27am |
Aw, now I've gone and stomped on your exquisitely and finely tuned sensibilities, haven't I. Yeah, in your case, without the explantions - which are requiring some patience at this point - I'd never get past the presumption.
So if you wouldn't mind, lets look at your argument:
1. I'm sloppy because srjenkins says I'm sloppy.
2. That I must this or that I have to that to satisfy srjenkins.
That's about all it amounts to, sr, nothing more. And you call my post asshat? Entertaining. Let me see if I can be helpful to you. Try your hardest to grasp the concept that no political undertaking is trivial simply because there is no human being that is trivial. Can you manage to embrace that one or are we about to be regaled with the srjenkins hierarchy of intrinsic human worth. I'd fear that it might be the latter. I mean, if we were to pay you?
Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 07:55am
Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 07:55am
Still waiting, jl...
for you to tell POSEIDON who YOU are voting for (or that you're not voting at all) and WHY you think anybody should listen to a non-voter tell them who THEY should vote for??????
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 09:08am
Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 07:55am
"Try your hardest to grasp the concept that no political undertaking is trivial simply because there is no human being that is trivial."
Between your use of phrases such as "cockroach" and your rhetoric on how special everyone is - in the abstract, of course, not when having a dialogue with them, I'm having a hard time figuring out who the "real" John Lowell is here.
And since you won't actually defend your flawed arguments when you bother to present them, I think I can safely ignore the rest of your comments as much ado about nothing.
Cheers.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 09:09am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 10:51am
sorry about not replying immediately, been out of town. as far as your post goes, you have good ideas, though i'm very skeptical on training and funding local police and judicial structures. hasn't seemed to work well in iraq.
i thought supporting state-run schools and engaging muslims economically was your best points, as well as leaving iraq (duh) and enhancing international police framework and intelligence sharing.
all in all good post.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/29/2008 @ 09:47am
They may not always succeed, but I respect the effort.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 01:10am
you're welcome.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 10:44am
i thought supporting state-run schools and engaging muslims economically was your best points
palehorse67
give a human a job and respect.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 10:47am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2008 @ 10:47am
exactly. they might be less willing to use themselves as human bombs.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/29/2008 @ 11:06am
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/29/2008 @ 09:47am
Thanks. My tone in the beginning should have been better. It occasionally gets to me that progressives seem like they are just as eager to go to war as the neoconservatives.
I should do a better job of just presenting arguments. But, anger is a very difficult emotion to master.
It takes a lot of work to look for systemic effects and try to find and implement non-violent solutions to tough problems. And while it may be true that sometimes there is no way to avoid violence (I'm not so sure), it is also true that the alternatives are frequently not considered, much less tried. I believe it is well worth the effort to give it a better try.
Also, I wanted to thank you for the discussion. My thinking is a lot sharper on this point thanks to trying to address many of the legitimate points you raised.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 11:48am
I wonder how many of the posters who have used the word "quixotic" have actually read The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote de la Mancha. It is a treasure I had neglected until this very moment; I am currently on page 648 and find much wisdom and humanity in the Knight of the Mournful Countenance and his squire.
On the political issues under discussion, I am in complete agreement with the posters who argue for voting for minor-party candidates or writing-in a name. I stopped wasting my vote on the two-party system in 1994. That choice is between leprosy and the plague.
Posted by IceNine at 09/29/2008 @ 12:39pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 09:09am
"Between your use of phrases such as "cockroach" and your rhetoric on how special everyone is - in the abstract, of course, not when having a dialogue with them, I'm having a hard time figuring out who the "real" John Lowell is here."
The difference between intrinsic worth and what one makes of oneself through behavior is that hard to grasp, sr? I'd never have thought so.
"And since you won't actually defend your flawed arguments when you bother to present them, I think I can safely ignore the rest of your comments as much ado about nothing."
What's to defend, sr? Someone's actually brought a discernable polemic? :-)
Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 1:05pm
Posted by IceNine at 09/29/2008 @ 12:39pm
My sentiments exactly, IceNine.
Posted by john lowell at 09/29/2008 @ 1:10pm
Also, I wanted to thank you for the discussion. My thinking is a lot sharper on this point thanks to trying to address many of the legitimate points you raised.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 11:48am
well, you've made me understand that there isn't just a military solution to it, it's got to be a multi-faceted approach to take out the root problems fueling the extremists.
i can guarantee you there are no debates/discussions like this on any conservative boards.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/29/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by IceNine at 09/29/2008 @ 12:39pm
To satisfy your curosity, I read it in 2001. I agree it is an excellent book. Well-worth the read.
Let us know how you like the ending. I think the second part is a bit weaker than the first and the line between Sancho and Don Quixote gets more blurred as the book wears on.
Yes, the funny thing about the conversation is that I essentially agree with John Lowell about third parties being important to democracy and attempts to trivialize them are part of the problem.
But on the other hand, you can't pretend that having Leonard Peltier on the ticket in California isn't quixotic, in every sense of the term and such campaigns don't help us to move the political dialogue in any meaningful way.
While I think Nader does move the political dialogue meaningfully, I am also very much aware that he isn't building any kind of political movement, and he attracts a minority of asshat zealots that effectively undermine what little utility he brings to the table by turning people off to his message.
Personally, I'd like to vote for Green or even the Libertarian parties, but they are fielding 9/11 Truth McKinney and Patriot Act Libertarian Barr. I can find a way to vote for Nader. I simply can't for those two candidates - and no, my state only allows for approved write-in candidates or those listed on the ballot. So, I have a small universe to choose from if I am going to bother to vote at all.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 2:14pm
While I think Nader does move the political dialogue meaningfully, I am also very much aware that he isn't building any kind of political movement, and he attracts a minority of asshat zealots that effectively undermine what little utility he brings to the table by turning people off to his message.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 2:14pm
it's really their unwillingness to reach a compromise with any of their positions. that's what bush did just from a different direction.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/29/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by IceNine at 09/29/2008 @ 12:39pm
You can survive leprosy.
But voting for "Superman powers" and letting plague win....is (A) not going to get you super powers and (B) kills you from the plague.
Which is not smart.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/29/2008 @ 3:38pm
When your campaign is spiraling downward and you have an opportunity to get back in it you need a knockout, not a split decision. McCain may have won a split decision but at this point he needs a knockout.
Posted by aljstl at 09/29/2008 @ 4:23pm
"Work with Pakistani officials to get them shut down. Keep track of the people, supplies and so forth going in and coming out. Get CIA plants in place. And you disrupt their operations.
In the end, it's a matter of law enforcement with some military and intelligence components. Same as you do with any criminal organization that operates in a country with a government that can't effectively stop what they are doing due to corruption, ignorance, unwillingness or any other factor."
Except that since enough of the Pakistani military and ISI are unwilling, you don't really have that option. If, for example, the actual inhabitants of FATA are ramping up to do their own variant of the Sunni Awakening because of the Taliban's high-handedness, great. However, Taliban bases aren't just protecting the al-Qaida organization, they are also being used as guerrilla base camps, thus making them a military issue.
Posted by brunowe at 09/29/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by brunowe at 09/29/2008 @ 4:45pm
"The army began a sustained campaign against militants in Bajaur nearly two months ago...Some 300,000 others have fled east within Pakistan in recent weeks with many of them living in temporary camps...The military says it has killed more than 2,000 militants in the fighting."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ south_asia/7642015.stm
Personally, I don't think this is the right response, but it does suggest that your comments aren't accurate.
There is no reason that many of the tactics suggested above wouldn't work in the tribal region. And even in a military context, military strikes in the region simply give aid to their cause, just as bombing of hotels gives stronger support for U.S. arguments.
You simply can't go in an attack these groups because military problems are invariably tied with political problems, "politics by other means" and all that. U.S. military solutions might work if we were invited in and working with the Pakistanis - but I don't see that happening.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2008 @ 6:40pm
You Obama fans are misguided.
He is not trying to make undecided voters think he is safe or president or someone they can trust by being like McCain; only to later come back to his liberal sensibilities.
That IS the real Obama.
Wake up.
And vote Nader!
Posted by neaguy at 09/29/2008 @ 10:45pm
McCain made two HUGE Blunders-He repeatedly told Obama that there are things you just don't do! How about calling Russian Premier Putin K-G-B on an Internatinally Televised Debate-That's a REAL Winner in Diplomacy! Thaen when asked what programs he would cut if the Bailout affected his budget-The Hawk replied," I would FREEZE all Spending except Defense Spending!" YUP! The Economy can go in the Toilet, People can line up in Soup lines but our 800 Military Bases and two wars will get their needed Budgets by our next Commander in Chief! I also like his continuing reference to the Surge-Which Surge-The additional Troops, or the big Surge in the Defense Budget?
Posted by RITEON at 10/02/2008 @ 08:16am