Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDick Cavett got it about right when he wrote the other day, "There's something almost funny in the idea that she [Palin] is being speedily stuffed, Strasbourg-goose-style, with knowledge she should have had before she was selected." Judging from her first interview, when she clearly didn't recognize the term "The Bush Doctrine," Palin needs more time and more stuffing.
Has she been paying that little attention to world events? Maybe. Do Americans care that a potential Vice-President is unable to identify the term that has been the guiding principle of the most colossal foreign policy disaster in US history--taking the lives of thousands of Americans (and now, perhaps, her son's precious life), the lives of more than 100,000 Iraqis and which may ultimately cost this country several trillion dollars. I hope so.
But Palin's cluelessness should elicit more than anxiety, concern, snickering-- or disgust that McCain was so cynical and reckless in selecting her. Not that those reactions aren't warranted. But for those who care about this country's security, for those who put country above partisan gutter politics, what's key is that we repair the damage the misconceived Bush doctrine has inflicted on our security and engagement with the world. Palin may not have known what the Doctrine meant. But her answers revealed, clearly, that she and her running mate will inflict more damage and destruction on our country and world with their hyper-militarized, pugilistic and atavistic Cold War policies, temperament and mindset.
So, the first order is to defeat these Republicans. Yet, as we work hard in these next days and night, we must also be honest about the work demanded to craft a sane security policy because our political system continues to evade the challenge of finding an exit from the "war on terror." At a time when we need a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine and an alternative vision of what this country's role in the world should be, we see both parties calling for intensifying the "war on terror" --even for increasing the size of the military, and for expanding its ability to go places (Afghanistan, Pakistan) and do things.
Obama has spoken, well, of "ending the mindset" that took us into Iraq. But in recent months, he hasn't fleshed out what that means. It may well be that this campaign, with Republicans desperate to make it a referendum on swine and lipstick, moose and baby bumps, and not on the ruinous policies of these last 7 years, doesn't leave room for fundamental questions of life and death, war and peace. Who's asking, for example: Won't a war without end do more to weaken our security and democracy than seriously address the threats and challenges ahead?
Witness the collateral damage already done to our democracy. This Administration has used the "war" as justification for almost anything--unlawful spying on Americans, illegal detention policies, hyper-secrecy, equating dissent with disloyalty and condoning torture. A Democratic Administration would likely rein in the excesses of these abuses; but war--especially one without end--always corrodes a nation's democratic values.
The Administration has also justified the expansion of America's military capacity--over 700 bases in more than sixty countries, annual military budgets topping $500 billion -- as necessary to counter the threat of Islamic extremism and to fight the "war on terror." What too few politicians are willing to say is that combating terrorism--a brutal, horrifying tactic--is not a "war" and that military action is the wrong weapon. Illegality and immorality aside, it simply doesn't succeed.
A recent report by the conservative Rand Corporation concludes that the whole notion of the "war on terror" has been counter-productive---inflating our enemies, providing them with global credibility, isolating us from allies. Yes, terrorism does pose a threat to national and international security that can never be eliminated. But there are far more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic world. Indeed, the failed Iraq War demonstrated anew the limits of military power.
Fighting terror requires genuine cooperation with other nations in policing and lawful and targeted intelligence work; smart diplomacy; withdrawal of support for oppressive regimes that generate hatred of the US; and real pressure to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and justice and a secure state for the Palestinians. (There are other effective means of combating terrorism; what is important is that they are harnessed and coordinated so as to provide a true alternative to hyper-military ventures.)
It is also worth remembering that military invasion and occupation, and crusades masquerading as foreign policy, divert precious resources from real security. Five years ago, the doubts and warnings about military action in Iraq were brushed aside (including those clearly and consistently expressed by the Nation). Now that reality has confirmed the argument, isn't it time to act on the knowledge?
Alongside the get-out-of-Iraq debate, the political system needs a parallel debate that lays out how we will exit this "long war" -- which is a formula for unlimited militarization and recurring wars. (As an industrial project for the arms industry, it could be even more open-ended than the Cold War.) We need a debate that confronts the danger of inflating a very real, but limited threat of terrorism into an open-ended global war, to be fought simultaneously on countless obscure battle fronts, large and small, visible and secret.
Major political leaders in both parties continue to buy into a view of US global supremacy--the "indispensable nation" scenario. They were silent when the Pentagon opened a new "Africa Command" to hunt down Islamists on that continent. Nor they did object when CIA gunships bombed villages earlier this year in Somalia. When Bush announced intentions to increase Army troop strength by 90,000, Democrats boasted it was their idea first.
To what end? These new troops won't' be available for Iraq. Are they for the next war or occupation in Afghanistan? The delusion of military power is deeply rooted. Tragically, Afghanistan might well become the place where the dreams and hopes of the Obama Administration are buried--if precious resources he needs to deal with our problems at home are drained in occupation and war.
We would do better--both in addressing the danger of a wider sectarian war with failing regimes in the Middle East, and in combating terrorism--to reduce the heavy US military and geopolitical footprint in the region. That means withdrawing US forces from Iraq and organizing regional diplomacy, including with Iran and Syria, to contain the civil war from spreading to other countries in the region. It would mean addressing the legitimate grievances that arouse the passions of many in the Islamic world, especially Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And it would mean changing the conversation with the people of the Arab and Islamic worlds from the danger of extremism to the promise of more economic opportunity.
A purposeful opposition must form to rethink America's role in the world. There are large and fateful questions to confront: What kind of country does the US want to be in the 21st century? Republic or Empire? Global leader or global cop? Where, as Sherle Schwenninger asked in the Nation's pages a few years ago, "is the America that is less one of warrior and preacher/proselytizer and more one of architect and builder?" How can America act like an imperial power in a post-imperial world? Much can be accomplished by focusing on the questions that conventional opinion ignores. And starting the discussion/debate now can help establish new terms and limits for the next president elected in 2008.
Concretely, (and don't hold your breath waiting for Charlie Gibson to ask the Presidential candidates about this) Congress should be pushed to take legislative action to renounce the Bush doctrine of "preventive war" enunciated before he invaded Iraq. As The Nation warned in our "Open Letter to the Members of Congress" on the eve of the 2002 war resolution vote, "the decision to go to war has a significance that goes far beyond the war....It declares a policy of military supremacy over the entire earth-- an objective never attained by any power. ...The new policy [of preventive war] reverses a long American tradition of contempt for unprovoked attacks. It gives the United States the unrestricted right to attack nations even when it has not been attacked by them and is not about to be attacked by them...It accords the US the right to overthrow any regime--like the one in Iraq--it decided should be overthrown...It declares that the defense of the US and the world against nuclear proliferation is military force." Declaring the Bush doctrine of endless war defunct will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future.
With the 2008 election in its final throes, it is unlikely that the Democrats (with a few honorable exceptions) will rethink their official national security strategy in any significant way. But citizens committed to a vision of real security can launch a debate framed by our own concerns and values. If we have learned anything in the past seven years, it is that even overwhelming military power is ill suited to dealing with the central challenges of the 21st century: climate crisis, the worst pandemic in human history (AIDS), the spread of weapons of mass destruction, stateless terrorists with global reach, genocidal conflict and starvation afflicting Africa, and a global economy that is generating greater instability and inequality.
Recently, senior US intelligence analyst Thomas Fingar presented the findings of a new report, "Global Trends 2025" that concluded that US leadership will erode "at an accelerating pace" in "political, economic and arguably, cultural arenas." According to the report, "the one key area of continued US superiority--military power--will be the least significant asset" in dealing with a world reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change and destabilized by regional upheavals over shortages of water, food and energy.
A real security plan would widen the definition to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world – reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half.
Yes, at home, all this will take time and have to overcome the fiercest kind of political resistance. Yet this is not an impossible political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option leads. Dealing intelligently with reality is not retreat. It is the first wise step toward restoring real national security.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Well, two points-
1. Even local right-winger 2HAPPY admitted that the reason for Palin's pre-Charlie Gibson lack of press exposure was so that she could "bone up on national and foreign policy"...
obviously they know she's not upto-speed, but frankly don't care. Some of them are apparently under SOME delusion that should McCain win...Palin will actually influence Maverick John to the Right. Odd?
2. Sun Tzu wrote "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."
And I think....JOHN MCCAIN knows that...maybe even read "The Art of War".
It's why I'm fairly certain if he wins, that he will almost immediately "declare victory in Iraq"...put any strikes against Iran on the back burner...try to suck in the UN or more NATO in Afghanistan...and as Warren Harding said "return to normalcy".
He CANNOT be the guy who "gives us another 4 years of war"...and survive to a second term, relevance, or a "place in history".
I think he'll disappoint the Right as much as anybody when he tries to do what Nixon wanted to do...be the guy who ended the previous guy's war, get a Nobel Prize nomination for it maybe, and cut spending ON war to say he's "balancing the budget" and boost the economy.
Some consider McCain to be a warmonger....I say he's self-interested and will return to "McCain-2000" if it serves his interests.
Palin is arm candy and red meat to his Right, so that they'll vote for him and if he wins and he's in the mood, he'll drop out in 2012...riding high in the polls and let HER take on Hillary and go down to a VERY bad defeat after her "Quayle'ness" is revealed....and become "beloved" as Bush-41 is.
If he does what the Right wants...he'll suffer the same approval numbers and historic fate as Dubya....i.e. in the toilet.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/14/2008 @ 10:07pm
(Ran out)
Final sentences are...
I don't think he's that dumb...or image suicidal.
Hope he doesn't win...but won't be Dubya-II if he does. He's not that stupid.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/14/2008 @ 10:09pm
Ms. vanden Heuvel,
When it's all said and done I am still quite confident that Barack Obama is going to win on November 4th and I will be just depressed instead of terrified.
But in the meantime, I believe that it's an absolute necessity for the Obama camp to attack McCain's weakest point --that point is Sarah Palin.
One way to do this is to have a ready-made moniker that catches on with the public and is impossible for the target to shake loose from.
I've heard the term "Caribou Barbie" bandied about of late but I had a sudden stroke of insight for a much better term I think:
Drag Queen Dubya
I'd be tickled if we could all start spreadin' the word.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/14/2008 @ 10:12pm
Okay, I'm off to watch Mad Men.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/14/2008 @ 10:14pm
During the 1980 primary Jerry Brown was asked if we could survive a limited nuclear war. He gave a very nuanced answer, describing the disruptions losing Chicago or St. Louis would cause. But the real damage he said, with even the smallest target, would be the deep psychological damage we would suffer if we witnessed an attack that most Americans believed in their heart of hearts would never happen. Even a very limited strike would be devastating, no matter how contained the physical damage or loss of life.
Some weeks later, surrounded by a protective circle of Young Republicans, Ronald Reagan was asked the same question. He gave a typical energetic Reagan answer full of patriotic fluff and jingoistic assurances that nothing so insignificant as a little nuclear attack could change America the Amazing.
Well, Jerry Brown should pat himself on the back. We have become a nation divided between the perpetually fearful and folks like me who knew it would happen here someday, know it can and probably will happen again and still never lost a minute of sleep worrying about what Saddam Hussein was up to.
We have read 1984 and recognize how the fear that allows perpetual war is created and we will not acknowledge or accept it as necessary to our survival. Vigilance is one thing, government induced and nurtured paranoia is quite another.
Those on the other side of this divide will squander all this country's riches trying to protect themselves from fear itself.
Sad, frightened, small people elect exactly what they deserve-small, greedy, arrogant leaders. We can't let this happen.
Posted by Pogge at 09/14/2008 @ 10:31pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/14/2008 @ 10:07pm
That scenario is being bandied about, but if the old man drops dead it's President Palin and not even her own constituents seem to know what that would mean. Nothing good I fear.
McCain may be just kissing up to Bush and the right to win the election, but Palin is a true believer.
Posted by Pogge at 09/14/2008 @ 10:35pm
If the economy is the most important issue why on earth doesn't Obama run ads with McCain admitting he knows nothing about the economy over and over and over and over and over again? Obama is so bloody polite, like Kerry or Gore was, it kills me. Politeness never won any election.
Posted by mystic at 09/14/2008 @ 10:46pm
you couldn't fit a quark's worth of logic or reality in or between:
Hagee-Cheney-Palin
yawn, it's paleotime again
... u guessed it, u r with 'em or your a commie -gay -crossdressin - treehuggin -moosefearin-unAmerican-pinkysocialisto
terror/fear/hell ------ staples
white working class murdoch rednecks lap it up
"the world is a very dangerous place"
said McCain looking in the mirror
Posted by winyahn at 09/14/2008 @ 11:21pm
Ms. Vandenheuvel,
The role of the US in the world, and the collision of two worlds: the West and the Muslim world. Big issues.
Just twenty years ago, power was hold by the USA and the USSR, the rest of the world paid insurance ( I call it that way) to the US in the form of military protection. They paid it by sustaining the US deficit and keeping investing in the US to keep our market as the "stronger in the world". Now the US is the solitary power with imperialist vocation, Russia is in the middle of the way of finding its identity and being an outcast to the West and China and India are substitute markets - even with certain advantages to the US market....and yes, fundamentalistic Islam is in the raise (can we learn from this that every fundamentalism or narrow literal interpretations of any religious beliefs is fundamentally wrong?). And it is not about fundamentalism, but about the moral values of the West contrasted with their moral values.
We can see right away that the prospect is of a multilateral, multicultural, descentralized world where US's military foreign interventions will be increasingly questioned. We can see altogether that the US will hardly intervene in about six countries (say for instance the nuclear powers) in the world (unless attacked) because of the risk of an enormous war, and those will increase their political and economical leverage.
I can see that the only real positive prospect for our country to maintain strong leadership is to keep its leverage by leading in aerospace, computer science, biotechnology but specially on democracy and observance of human rights and dignity. So me must turn inward to export really good moral values and legitimize our power in the world.
I can only
Posted by Frank42 at 09/15/2008 @ 12:34am
That scenario is being bandied about, but if the old man drops dead it's President Palin and not even her own constituents seem to know what that would mean. Nothing good I fear.
McCain may be just kissing up to Bush and the right to win the election, but Palin is a true believer.
Posted by Pogge at 09/14/2008 @ 10:35pm
One easy way to check out what Palin's America is likely to be like is to check out the state of Alaska. It seems to be just like any other US state with all the same freedoms that all Americans enjoy. One difference is they get better fringe benefits courtesy of Palin's economic skills. Skills which constitutional lawyers are generally unlikely to possess.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/15/2008 @ 12:35am
lrjones-Alaska is,very much,another world and one cannot go by whatever goes on there to make guesses about what may go on in the rest of America with Palin in charge.And Palin has not been in charge long enough for you to arrive at the conclusions that you arrive at.America isn't Australia.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/15/2008 @ 12:59am
jomamma-If you google a map of America you'll discover that Chicago is more America than Australia is.In fact,southside Chicago can,very much,be considered to be America because of it's racial,diversity,and other such things.Remember that you don't know enough about Palin to arrive at your conclusions,but if you move to some place named Palin then you will become an expert on her like living in Lincoln,Nebraska made you an expert on Abe Lincoln, as you earlier stated.The earlier discussion,that you ran away from, was about experience prior to becoming POTUS and not church attendance.Once again,you have only made yourself look quite ignorant with your latest Lincoln remark.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/15/2008 @ 01:29am
For more info on her foreign policy and lack thereof - check this out -
http://dailysource.org/palin
It is the most comprehensive page of information on Sarah Palin on the Internet ... including videos of her saying the Iraq war is a "task from God," stating her proposed $30 billion pipeline is the "will of God," and that a month ago that she doesn't know what the vice-president does. Also her recently praising the biggest pork barrel spender in Congress.
It has in-depth research, audio clips, videos, excerpts, and links to hundreds of articles, including many from newspapers and TV stations in Alaska. It has rare footage footage you won't find anywhere else, including her telling the ‘08 convention of the Alaskan Independence Party, whose aim is to give Alaska a vote on seceding from the U.S., to "keep up the good work." The level of research is unparalleled.
The site's editors and volunteers include an Emmy-award winning CNN reporter, the former operating editor of the Monitor's web site, the former head of NPRs News Blog and the Executive Director of the Online News Association -
http://dailysource.org/about/team
Americans have the right to know more about anyone who might be a heartbeat away from being president.
Posted by ds2oo8 at 09/15/2008 @ 01:30am
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/15/2008 @ 12:35am
Some years ago I was in a watering hole having a brew with my fish & chips in a west coast city & a group of guys pouring down the suds at the bar began boasting that "Australia is your best friend. We're more like you than anyone else & that includes Canada!" Everyone was a little wasted & in good spirits, but Jones, you too,sound a little too familiar. A little declasse, Don't want to sound elitist or anything, but "we" had some experience with people seemingly a bit like yourself. We used to call 'em the Sidney Ducks. Mostly just joshing you Jones, but do try & be a little more circumspect. The world has changed & you should too. Apparently Alaska has changed & for the worse. Great Blasket, here I come.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2008 @ 01:43am
jomamma-You,very much,ran away,but I did enjoy your very poor attempt at,yet,another put down.You wasted quite a bit of time avoiding the discussion and wasted quite a bit of time responding to me with immature attempts at put downs,but,now,claim that you could not have spent the time you wasted posting juvenile responses by posting facts and having the mature discussion that I wanted to have. .Let me repeat this one more time and,hopefully,you can remember it this time.I have not found another Lincoln in Obama.The discussion was about experience that one has before becoming POTUS.The only laughing,guffawing,etc that was done is when you claimed that living in Lincoln,Nebraska made you an expert on Abe Lincoln.Since you have made it clear that you are not here to engage in mature discussions and only want to post lies about what posters like myself say and to post childish put downs then I,now,know not to bother with you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/15/2008 @ 02:29am
Please, get the focus OFF Palin & on to McCain the Same.
You're playing right into the GOP's desperate trap with all this Palin palaver.
She's not the main event, McCain & Bush are. As long as McCain can stay alive till Election Day, he, not she, should be the target.
Otherwise, the Dems may lose the unloseable election.
Posted by sloper at 09/15/2008 @ 05:56am
For all of us who are truly concerned about the security of the nation. A vote for Obama in November would do more for national security in one day than anything that has been done since 9/11.
The International Community by and large loves Obama more than some of us do. Even the worst of our supposed "enemies" seem somewhat placated by the prospect of his election. Whether or not he delivers on those expectations remains to be seen. But one nightmare situation that would insure the mistrust and resultant lessening of national security in this nation would be the election of the McCain/Palin ticket.
Is it even possible that the American people would be that foolish? I wonder..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 06:53am
Does this remind ANYONE of.....LINCOLN? In any way?
Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 01:18am
By 'this,' I take it to mean that you are referring to Obama's candidacy.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/15/2008 @ 07:15am
Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/15/2008 @ 01:36am
I'm glad to see you're betting your "credibility" here on John McCain NEVER dropping below 50% in the polls again nor Obama pulling ahead of him in a majority of them.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 07:16am
jomamma-If you google a map of America you'll discover that Chicago is more America than Australia is.In fact,southside Chicago can,very much,be considered to be America because of it's racial,diversity,and other such things...
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/15/2008 @ 01:29am
By the same token, Obama himself is much more 'America' than are J. Bush McCain or Sally Palin.
More specifically, BO is more representative of the US in the 21st Century - multi-ethnic with middle class roots, well educated, yet with traditional virtues - an enduring marriage to the same woman and present in the lives of his children most prominent among them.
McNasty and Palin are comparative shells, both stuck "pre-911" - each insular in his/her (respectively) own way, the one a huckster willing to say anything to get elected, the other imbued with certitude of her views (which appear to be based on faith rather than verifiable fact), both viscerally incapable of an expanding world view.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/15/2008 @ 07:27am
"For all of us who are truly concerned about the security of the nation. A vote for Obama in November would do more for national security in one day than anything that has been done since 9/11.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 06:53am"
-And here I thought it was the Right that was trying to sell us on fear.
Posted by State17 at 09/15/2008 @ 07:30am
If your smart forget the polls. They are skewed by the corporate media. The polls are being kept close by a bunch of political bookies who want to keep the steam up in the locomotive of profit.
The only two polls that matter are (1) Who You are voting for, and (2) What the exit polls show. Period. Everthing else is either bullshit or mental masturbation.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 07:44am
The only two polls that matter are (1) Who You are voting for, and (2) What the exit polls show. Period. Everthing else is either bullshit or mental masturbation.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 07:44am
The repukes showed in 2000 that even actual vote tallies don't matter.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/15/2008 @ 07:48am
-And here I thought it was the Right that was trying to sell us on fear.
Posted by State17 at 09/15/2008 @ 07:30am
The Right are the only ones trying to sell us on corrupted forms of fear. Crooked, perverted and twisted fear. Healthy fear results in decisions being made that are rational and productive. Fear is one of the oldest human instincts and when considered with a sane rational mind result in positive results for survival. One doesn't have to sell "Healthy Fear". It sells itself.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 08:04am
When will Americans wake up from the illusion of the Wizards? Republicans are terrible on Economics and they are terrible on National Security. They have Led us into a Fake & Phony war and have yet to fully implement the recommendations of the 911 Commission to keep this country safe and secure. That is not being strong on National Security! Ground Zero is still a Dark Hole & open Wound and a symbol of their failed polcies! That is not change we can believe in and Enough is ENOUGH! Let's expose the myth, deception and lies of the Wizards -- GOP (Grand Opposition Party)! Let's get off the Yellow Brick Road of lies and deception and realize that the power lies within the people to so produce a working government for the people not a government hiding behind a Curtin of corporate greed and special interest groups! They have failed the American people and they have failed themselves. There is no lasting prosperity for theives and liars and the wrong one does will eventually come back to be reckoned with. This is their recokening. Now the Grand Wizard, McCain, who is 72 years old has allegedly put his Country First and nominated for V.P. someone totally lacking in national and foreign policy, who would be a heart beat away. Woodward in his recent book "The War Within" states that the two sleeping giants when someone takes the oval office come January 2009 will be Iraq and Afghanistan, something Woodward says Bush was disconnected from. There will also be another Giant to face -- that of the economy. Brokaw said to Sen. Shumer on Meet the Press Sunday past -- I thought when one picks a V.P. pick that they pick the most qualified candidate, referring to Obama not picking Clinton and chosing Biden instead. This goes both ways and McCain did not pick the most qualified person. A
Posted by Angellight at 09/15/2008 @ 08:05am
The repukes showed in 2000 that even actual vote tallies don't matter.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/15/2008 @ 07:48am
Yes they did. And they will try to steal this election aswell. They are doing it now. Like the millions of absentee ballots they are sending to democrats with the wrong return address on them. And they are not official forms. They even have extra boxes and such.
The Neo-Cons will never win an election honestly. That's why any election the Democrats win has to be by an overwhelming majority. So the vote has to get out in such a way that no doubt exists.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 08:14am
A vote for me is a vote for the middle class. I will protect you and your family from a corporate take over of your rights. Unions and everyday americans join me in getting your country back.
I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message!
Posted by tylerdrew at 09/15/2008 @ 08:29am
What really surprises me are the polls. Granted that modern polls have serious predictive problems, but there are people out there willing to say Mccain/Palin out loud. I didn't realize that she, Palin, had so much appeal to the "ameners". Even the republicans are going to have trouble pivoting and undoing this mess. Bill Clinton, himself, wouldn't touch this one. I read somewhere on this site that there was a sign attached to a hockey stick that said: "what's the difference between george bush and Sarah Palin? Lipstick. I don't think Mccain/Palin can be elected, but then I didn't think George Bush could be elected, twice.
Hey kids, get out there and go vote.
Posted by lachatte at 09/15/2008 @ 08:44am
Another commentary has moved pretty far off track; to be expected with all the party-line tension in these last few weeks before the election.
Back to the article, however, I think it would be prudent to investigate mccain's past regarding foreign policy. This man obviously has a gigantic chip on his shoulder. Another politician who learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam. Another veteran and POW who should have used his experiences to condemn war, realizing that aggression and occupation don't work against desperate nationalism and terrorism. This guy just wants to participate in some sort of military "victory". Look into his connections to the Contra deals in central america in the 80's. Look into his war-mongering during the Clinton era regarding N. Korea. Listen to the tirades in '02 about Afghanistan and Iraq. A McCain win means more jingoism and more aggression. We simply cannot afford this any longer, morally or economically.
Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 09:26am
Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 09:26am
No, you're just listening to the stuff he throws out to the Hard Right.
Remember, this is a guy who, while in 2007-2008 he and the Right were attacking Obama for saying he'd talk to Ahmadinejad (but who said he WOULDN'T talk to terrorist groups)...
in 2006 in Davos, Switzerland, McCAIN was saying we SHOULD talk to Hamas as they were government of Palestine.
He's cynical and self-interested. Even on the Surge, he hedged his bets.
If the Surge had gone very badly, he'd have said "Bush didn't put ENOUGH troops in" and would have said we needed "___ more brigades". Surge SEEMS to do well...and he takes credit for it.
Look at his positioning on Iraq...he went from "100 year presence" during the primaries...dropped to "I will have most troops out by the end of my 1st term (2013)" when he secured the nomination...
to just a few weeks ago saying "He could see" an Obama plan for out in 16 months working to Stephanopolous. (Which he quickly caveated, before going into the GOP Convention).
A potential "President McCain" doesn't want to ride out 4 more years of war...and see his approvals go from maybe 50% on Inauguration Day, down to BUSH's numbers before the beginning of 2010.
If he wins, he'll likely sell out the Right, the neo-cons, the hawks...and he knows it. Just like he knows his talk of "more tax cuts" and "making the Bush cuts permanent" is so much talk...because unless he won 40+ states and by 7%+....a Dem Congress will never pass that.
But the Repubs eat it up...as long as he keeps Caribou Barbie distracting them.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 09:57am
If he wins, he'll likely sell out the Right, the neo-cons, the hawks
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 09:57am
Mask, I agree that this McCain 2.0 of the last two years is a shadowy right-wing doppelganger of his former self - hell, he even had me interested as a lesser of two evils candidate in 2000, but his reputation as a hawk speaks for itself.
I don't think he'll sell out to the Neocons, he's already there.
I think he's been a standard bearer for that "movement" since its inception, whether he knows who Strauss is or not. The sell-out that most startles me (and gets far too little attention, in my opinion) is to the christian right. The agents of intolerance have given him a free pass since his Palin pick.
Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 10:12am
The agents of intolerance have given him a free pass since his Palin pick.----Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 10:12am
And THAT is clear evidence of my point.
Elephants don't forget...even when they're Republicans.
NOBODY forgot "agents of intolerance"...the Religious Right didn't. Neither did McCain.
It's why he sought after Hagee...and why the RRs, scared of "Temple Mormons" (Mitt) and "recent adulterers" (Guiliani), when Huckabee proved unviable...EVENTUALLY supported, though weakly, McCain.
Palin was the "balm of Gilead"...aka "red meat for the Hard Right" and ...a distraction.
We actually have Righties here who somehow think that Palin is going to MATTER in a potential McCain Administration...when she'll obviously just be the blocker on McCain's front line to his own Right. "Dan Quayle with hornrims and a skirt" would be the sum total of her "power and influence".
I fully see McCain if not a potential "Bush-41" ("kinder, gentler"...working with the Dem Congress)...as a potential "Nixon".
Remember, Nixon was the one who signed off on the EPA, OSHA....met with Mao...created detente with Brezhnev. AND "ended the Vietnam war"
Nixon went to China...would a potential "President McCain"...go to Teheran????
Hmmmm?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 10:22am
I'm pretty sure Lieberman would cattleprod McCain to death before he attempted any diplomacy with Tehran.
For all the damage caused by the Nixon/Kissinger presidency it is interesting to consider the positives. He even pushed for universal health care, what a commie!
Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 10:32am
Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 10:32am
Nixon's Right were aghast that "Dick Nixon, nearly as staunch an anti-Communist as Joe McCarthy" went to Beijing (then Peking).
But he knew that he better. Because it gave him leverage against the Soviets and it allowed for him to "triangulate" (as it were) the Soviets versus the Chinese on foreign policy issues.
Now imagine a "President McCain"...possibly with NO fear of losing in 2012, because he's already decided to not run...opening up to Teheran, giving him leverage against the Russians AND the Chinese both geo-strategically and on OIL (as well, as helping to secure Iraq).
Like the Taiwanese under Nixon, the Israelis might get pissed and scared....but McCain wouldn't be worried about harsh cries of "sell-out" because he had already built up a good solid reservoir of "McCain's tough on terror" and "McCain won't back down in the face of evil"....just as Nixon had built up a reservoir by bombing Cambodia and getting a peace deal signed that SEEMINGLY kept South Vietnam intact.
Go back and listen to Nixon's rhetoric in 1972 on Vietnam...and how the Right painted McGovern....very similar.
Yet what happened?....NIXON signed a peace treaty with the NVs the SAME MONTH that he was Inaugurated. And the troops started coming home in bunches.
Which was EXACTLY what McGovern was proposing.
Again, I think I see McCain's "Presidential influence"...and it's NOT "Dubya"....it's "Dick".
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 10:45am
jomamma-This is a public forum which means that I did take it public and you were unable to show that the premise was incorrect..
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/15/2008 @ 10:46am
Mask, If McCain's presidential influence is Dick and not W, we can expect posturing in the form of diplomacy to insure corporate resource control. This type of "diplomacy" does nothing to replace the cost in lives and treasure that we've seen in all the years of American imperialism since WWII. Along with this posturing will we see CIA backed regime changes in south and central america? Iran? Pakistan? McCain and the republican congress of the 80's had no problem selling weapons to Iran to pay for the war against the Sandinistas. How many of these weapons are now in the hands of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other puppets of Iran? Are we fighting terrorism or keeping it alive and well? Would Iran even be a member of the "Axis of Evil" if the west hadn't overthrown their democratically elected leader, Mossadeq, in 1953 during Operation Ajax? Islamic extremism found a righteous a place in the hearts of the oppressed under Shah Palavi. This meddling needs to stop. This is the point of the article.
Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 11:16am
this is now officially the deadliest year ever for troops in afghanistan, something the bush/mccain camps would seek to downplay; if the surge "really" is so successful, can we now use our troops to actually defend our country or make it safer somewhere which actually had anything at all to do with 911;
btw: we now have commandos, aka blackwater, without permission, going into pakistan and attacking militias, after bush buddy musharraff finally had to step down..
I sure am glad we don't have some doofus on top and that we are in good hands...
let's spin the fact galveston island is no longer uninhabitable by turning it into some kind of animal sanctuary or something GOP can latch onto...
with all the million dollar resort homes there, lehman bailout is not looking likely as the money will be funneled from taxpayer coffers into rebuilding homes for the rich, which will be good for homebuilders...
banks being bailed out while americans are losing jobs makes perfect sense, since when poor and middle class are bankrupt, there is less spending pressures, and hence less inflation and gas goes down, and GOP can spin this, as well, and in fact already have this morning by stating inflationary pressures have eased and now rates will not be going up anytime soon "for responsible savers"....
git r dun
Posted by jrs112 at 09/15/2008 @ 12:03pm
"McCain and the republican congress of the 80's had no problem selling weapons to Iran to pay for the war against the Sandinistas."-----Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 11:16am
And the same Hard Right who lambasts the Iranians today...."thought it was a neat idea" because Colonel North TOLD them to think that.
"President McCain" tells them that "talking to Teheran, helps us reign in Putin and Beijing!"...
the PONTIFICUS guys will say "Attaboy, John...you show them Russkies and Chinese!" and flush their previous "We can NEVER talk to the Iranians" rants down the memory hole.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 12:22pm
Hmmmmm....lemm see if I got this right.
In GOP-land, Obama's popularity is a bad thing, Palin's is a good thing. Obama's intellect is effete and snobbish, Palin's clueless "moose in the headlights" is endearing. If McCain tells the same lie 3 times it becomes facts and the past can be rewritten as many times as needed to achieve the desired goal.
Is that about it there fellas? Up is feet, down is blue and north is the way to Santa's House.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 12:25pm
By the way, could we please stop selling Afghanistan as the good war? I find it deeply troubling that neither party is in opposition to this idea. I'm voting for Obama, but primarily on sound domestic and economic policies. When it comes to foreign policy, we get war either way.
Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 12:37pm
>>>Obama has spoken, well, of "ending the mindset" that took us into Iraq. But in recent months, he hasn't fleshed out what that means.<<<
Since Obama is perceived as "weak" on defense, I don't think we are going to hear a lot about alternative world vision from Obama during the campaign, other than to point out that leading with diplomacy makes more sense than leading with the military option.
Instead of a "war on terror", I think the focus will be a war on "those who killed American in 9/11". But this can be a more targeted special forces operation that doesn't require hundreds of thousands of troops.
Increasing the size of the military is perceived as a deterrent to other rogue nations that think they can exploit our being stretched too thin in certain conflicts. I really don't think Obama is planning "another war", but recognizes we have to wind down the current wars in a smart and responsible way.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/15/2008 @ 12:56pm
Let's see, Palin's management style is reported to be one of lying, and secrecy. Those are the hallmarks of George W. Bush's administration that the American people have endured for nearly 8 years. We have proof positive this style doesn't work for America. McCain is going down the very same path as Bush. Our country can not withstand this style any longer. The Republicans have proven they don't know how to manage and they have us in a canyon of trouble.
ENOUGH!
Vote wisely America!
Posted by Thunderfoot3 at 09/15/2008 @ 1:11pm
Posted by Pogge at 09/14/2008 @ 10:31pm "...still never lost a minute of sleep worrying about what Saddam Hussein was up to."
I did. What he did to the Iraqi people was horrific. He was a horrible, sadistic man who made people live in fear of him for years. I "lost sleep" just imagining the women who lost their husbands and their dignity at the same time. The children who lost their parents and with them, any hope for a childhood.
I'm not so idealistic as to think we can save the world, but part of me wants to keep trying anyway.
The US didn't enter WW2 until we were attacked (giving our government a "right" to do so), even though Hitler was killing and torturing Jews. Similarly, we didn't invade Iraq until we were attacked and had a "reason" for invading, even though Hussein had been killing and torturing people for years. It's a shame we had to come up with a "legitimate reason" to do the human thing.
There were mistakes made, of course. There are in every war. But if you ask those people who had been oppressed, tortured, raped and murdered under Hussein, they're grateful to the troops in Iraq. It's those who were NOT oppressed, tortured, etc who wish we'd have stayed on our little continent and built up walls around ourselves...to ignore the plight of the rest of the world as long as it doesn't directly affect us.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/15/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/15/2008 @ 1:17pm
Then why are virtually NO neo-cons from Bush to Bill Kristol....
calling for an invasion of Sudan to save Darfur?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 1:34pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 1:34pm
MASK, you've had it explained to you at least a hundred times. If you didn't listen then, why would you listen now?
Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 2:05pm
Ponti-Actually,none of you have explained it nor have any of you been able to show that you care about Iraqis with your fight them over there and not over here thing.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/15/2008 @ 2:16pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 1:34pm
I was merely posting my opinion on the horrible oppression most Iraqis were suffering under Hussein. That alone is enough of a reason for me personally to support the government's efforts to remove that man from power. Unfortunately, the majority of US citizens didn't think so. We had to have a "legitimate" reason for invading Iraq. Once we thought we had one, we were able to "justify" it.
I'm uncertain of your definition of a neo-con, but I suppose the lack of support has it has to do with the fact that so many people oppose the Iraqi war, despite the good it has done for many Iraqi citizens. Why would a politian, even in good faith, support military action that the people he represents would be against? Political suicide, I say.
I'd love for the majority of Americans to want to help these people just to help them, but most want to know what's in it for them. And I also understand that that is in the best interest of our country.
I support the efforts of the peaceful, innocent Iraqi people and all the troops aiding them in their efforts to reclaim their rights as human beings.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/15/2008 @ 3:16pm
"Even the worst of our supposed "enemies" seem somewhat placated by the prospect of his election."
Which of our "enemies" would like to see Obama in the White House? That little bit of info could play heavily into which candidate many independant voters choose.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/15/2008 @ 3:26pm
The ultimate irony of Sarah Palin may be that the same people who are jumping for joy over her selection as VP candidate are the same people whose religious beliefs would prevent her from having any authority over any males in their church. I can't understand the logic that says she would be wonderful as an authoritative Vice President but not as their Pastor able to speak from the pulpit. The same people that have preached for decades that a woman must be subordinate to her mate and remain in the home to take care of the family are now thrilled that a working mother of five may be the next VP. Does this mean that she will defer to her husband as VP the way her religious beliefs tell her to?
Posted by aljstl at 09/15/2008 @ 3:26pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 2:34pm
"That statement alone is sufficient reason to vote for McCain over Obama. I would love to see the Dems campaign on that premise with higlights of Obama's speech to the Germans. Americans would move in even larger numbers over to McCain. SO please keep pushing this aspect."
You said it, my friend. These people think the world is one large theme park. It's the same old thing: people in the States have been insulated from the realities for so long, even the most deluded theories on how to manage our standing in the world, eg., 'if we're just nice to people, they'll be nice to us' are taken as gospel. God help us if these folks get actual responsiblities again.
Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 3:39pm
Posted by aljstl at 09/15/2008 @ 3:26pm
There aren't as many churches which prevent women from holding "higher" office as you might think. I'm a member of the United Methodist Church and we have a female preacher.
The only confusion at first was what to call her. (We generally call our preachers Brother "insert first name") We couldn't very well call her Brother Sarah*, but we eventually settled on Pastor Sarah*. (*I'm hesitant to post her real first name.)
You'll find many "forward thinking" people of the Christian faith if you're open yourself and don't fall prey to sterotypes and assupmtions.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/15/2008 @ 3:42pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 2:05pm
Try again, PONTI.
Omar al-Bashir kills his own people....he harbors terrorists....he has OIL....
why not invade and save those in Darfur, like we did in Iraq?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 3:43pm
lvliberty, So you're saying that the multitude of evangelicals that have been critical of women working outside the home for decades are now all for women leaving the home to go to work? And yes, my head is throbbing trying to absorb all of the hypocrisy. Can you limit yourself to talking about the specific churches that Palin has actually attended and what is preached in those churches?
Posted by aljstl at 09/15/2008 @ 4:00pm
jayneslilsis, Unfortunately forward thinking Christians like yourself are being drowned out by the message put forth by the radical religious element that has hijacked the Republican Party.
Posted by aljstl at 09/15/2008 @ 4:07pm
"Similarly, we didn't invade Iraq until we were attacked and had a "reason" for invading,"
Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/15/2008 @ 1:17pm
Egads .. we've been attacked by Iraq? When? Quick, stop the presses.....why haven't we heard of this?
Uh .. oops, maybe this should be on the "reality" thread, cause last time I checked, Iraq hadn't attacked us.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 4:08pm
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 4:08pm
I think jayne would try the "Iraq attacked Kuwait...our ally...ergo 'attacked us' in 1990....and since it 'violated the cease-fire' it allowed us to invade in 2003" talking point, LOC.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 4:40pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:16pm
I'm kind of curious on aljstl's other point, LL....
haven't YOU guys been telling us for years that "feminism is destroying families" and how "women need to stay in the home with small children"..."natural order of things", etc.
Yet NOW, you'll all keen on women becoming "executives" in government, even when they have babies at home...and letting the husband take care of them?!?!?!?!?
Or did I miss a memo change?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 4:44pm
Okay, a bit off topic but could someone here enlighten the great unwashed? Just saw the SNL skit with Palin and Clinton(Fey and Poehler). Hilarious! Having read a few weeks ago the lively discussion about MILFs between BENCHREST and Darn the Troll_
Exactly! She's a total MILF!
Posted by Darn_the_Troll at 09/04/2008 @ 12:00pm |
Why don't you show your wife that post, and tell her what those letters stand for, Mr. Family Values.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/04/2008 @ 12:13pm
can someone explain to me what a "FLRG" is? I Googled it and got nothing, must be something in the spelling?!
Posted by meathelmet at 09/15/2008 @ 4:47pm
Posted by meathelmet at 09/15/2008 @ 4:47pm
Not sure where you're getting "FLRG"....
but "MILF" (both Darin AND MAASCH/JOMAM's term for Palin) is "Mother I'd Like to F**k".
Which thanks to them being on the Right, suddenly means it's okay to talk about Palin's looks and not be a "smearing liberal"!
Thanks guys
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 4:57pm
The same people that have preached for decades that a woman must be subordinate to her mate and remain in the home to take care of the family are now thrilled that a working mother of five may be the next VP."
I am not thrilled that a basic lier, pork spender, abuser of her position to demote personal enemies, enemy of the environment, and a wanting to do war with Russia person wants to be vicepresident. I am sad for America.
I am thrilled on how you folks can answer with such cynicism naming God in your side when the gehenna waits for you for being such arrogant fools.
Posted by Frank42 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:47pm
The same people that have preached for decades that a woman must be subordinate to her mate and remain in the home to take care of the family are now thrilled that a working mother of five may be the next VP." Frank42
Yep, it's still about breeding whitey to stave off brownie. Remember the 'same people' were also into lynching, Jim (as opposed to Russell) Crowe and segregation.
Posted by winyahn at 09/15/2008 @ 6:48pm
It would be nice if every family was left alone to work out what they felt was best for their family situation. In my family's case we were able to make do when my wife quit work to stay at home with our children. Many families aren't able to make the same choice due to any number of different circumstances. That doesn't even take into account the many women who choose to leave the home and go to work everyday simply because they want to, or the men who stay home with the kids for the same reason. Every family is different. The problem arises when judgmental outsiders tell people how to live because they think they speak from some moral high ground. You can't spout the opinion for decades that the downfall of our society is because women have left the children behind to go to work and then abruptly say otherwise when it serves your political purpose. Be consistent. If you blame some parents when their teenage daughter becomes pregnant then you must also condemn with consistency.
Posted by aljstl at 09/15/2008 @ 7:44pm
It is admittedly a nuanced issue. The ideal taught by evangelicals is that it is preferrable for a mother to stay home so as to nurture the children while also providing stability in the home environment.....
I think in Gov Palin's case, there is a unique historical opportunity and she and her husband have made the decision that she should not decline that opportunity.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:07pm
In other words, YES, NORMALLY a right-wing Christian DOES insist that the mother should stay at home with small children...
but LL is happy to be a hypocrite if it suits a political purpose like not criticizing Sarah Palin.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 8:58pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 8:58pm
BTW, is there ANYBODY who doesn't think if Palin were a Democrat and Obama's Veep...
LVLIB would be saying the EXACT OPPOSITE...with no talk of "nuances" and "historic opportunity"!?!!???!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 10:41pm
its spelled "FLIRG" folks ... it stands for "First Lady is Really Gay"
And as Gov'r of a AK, Palin would be a GILF. And while I don't agree with her politics, worldview, or anything else, after 5 or 6 moose farts (see below), I bet I could have her barking like a moose and voting Democrat. LOL
http://www.expertvillage.com/video/66107_iced-drinks-moose-fart.htm
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 10:47pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 10:58pm
No, YOU are lying, LL.
ANY other situation, it would NOT be "nuanced"...you'd be saying "It's important for young children to have their mothers around."
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 07:24am
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 4:08pm "Egads .. we've been attacked by Iraq? When? Quick, stop the presses.....why haven't we heard of this? Uh .. oops, maybe this should be on the "reality" thread, cause last time I checked, Iraq hadn't attacked us."
Geez! I didn't think we needed a history lesson on the thread just to make a point! Okay, I'll break it down for you since you don't want to understand it any other way.
1. We were attacked on 9/11 2. Terrorists in Afganistan 3. WMD in Iraq
1+2+3=potential of terroristic treat from Iraq.
I'm not arguing whether or not there actually were WMD. What I'm saying is, that the US found a reason to be offensive with the situation in Iraq rather than defensive.
The point is that US citizens need a "reason" for helping the suffering Iraqis rather than just to help them.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/16/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by aljstl at 09/15/2008 @ 4:07pm "jayneslilsis, Unfortunately forward thinking Christians like yourself are being drowned out by the message put forth by the radical religious element that has hijacked the Republican Party."
And unfortunately, some people are so threatened by others' faith, that they lump everyone together. Frankly, I'm tired of people assuming I'm so judgemental because I'm a Christian. They're the ones being judgemental. *sigh*
Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/16/2008 @ 3:27pm
To me, a war on "terror" indicates something to do about the terror of of people like Sara Palin.
A funny and scary description of the Charlie Gibson interview can be found at:
http://www.wordmystic.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-denies-blinking.html
The Word Mystic
Posted by wordmystic at 09/16/2008 @ 8:44pm
Hey kids, get out there and go vote.
Posted by lachatte at 09/15/2008 @ 08:44am | warn this person
gotcha...
Posted by Daisenryaku at 09/17/2008 @ 7:45pm