Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAt a moment when the President is more popular than most of his signature policies, when weak-kneed Democrats threaten to bolt on healthcare reform and hypocritical legislators have turned Iran's election into a political football with little regard for the ramifications of their rhetoric for Iranian protesters, Obama worked hard to use his fourth press conference to refocus and reset the political debate.
Keeping his cool (even while sparring with a handful of snarky reporters), Obama displayed moral realism and principled respect for the courage, dignity and sovereignty of the Iranian people. He did what Iranian expert Trita Parsi advised: condemn violence, without picking sides.
In his opening remarks, Obama did sound a more impassioned note than at any time since the Iranian election in deploring the violence in the streets of Tehran. "The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions." Yet Obama was careful to continue, " I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs..... The Iranian people can speak for themselves." He referred again to Dr. Martin Luther King's powerful words, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice," to affirm the belief--as he did in his magnificent Cairo Speech-- that "suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.....those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."
Questions about Iran, and criticism of the White House's response, came rapid fire at the top, but much of the press conference pivoted to focus on the state of the economy, and the bruising fights ahead over regulatory reform and healthcare.
Asked about the Federal Reserve's new role and new powers, Obama used the presser to support Ben Bernanke and the proposed expansion of the Fed's power to monitor systemic risk in the financial system. (Many legislators and experts question giving new powers to an outlet that failed to do its job and is in thrall to the banks it's supposed to regulate. The good news: the idea faces real pushback from legislators. As William Greider has reported, some 230 House members have endorsed a measure to force GAO auditing of the Fed, "a small but important step towards dismantling the central bank's privileged secrecy and intimidating mystique.") To his credit, Obama seemed more animated in making the case for a new Consumer Finance Protection Agency that would curb subprime mortgages and credit card gouging among other abuses and, for the first time, give consumers and citizens a seat at the regulatory table, however flawed.
On healthcare, Obama spoke eloquently of how "the status quo is unsustainable," yet he refused to be pinned down to the specifics of a public plan--even dodging a question about whether it was non-negotiable. Nor was he prepared to use his pulpit to start banging some heads in Congress --which, as Michael Tomasky argues, he's going to have to start doing if he wants to be the president "who passed a comprehensive healthcare bill" and not "one more carcass thrown on the pile by the powerful lobbies who've always opposed it."
You have to wonder why some of these reporters sound like they're ventriloquists for Big Pharma or GOP Pollster Frank Luntz. We already know, as Senator Dick Durbin acknowledged about Congress, that the banks and their lobbyists "frankly own the place." So, what do we as consumers and citizens get: not one question about why single-payer, Medicare-for- All, is excluded from the legislative debate and process. Instead we get a handful of grumpy questions focused on the dangers of a public plan pushing private insurance companies out of the marketplace! Obama was clever in exposing the illogic of the insurance lobby and dog-eat-dog, anti-government GOP legislators (who, by the way, enjoy Cadillac government benefits): "They say government can't run anything. Why are they so fearful" of a public plan? As Obama put it, "it's an important tool to discipline insurance companies" and it keeps costs down. And he nodded to the overwhelming support a public plan commands--between 83 percent and 72 percent, depending on the poll--suggesting he needs to get out of DC and get out on the hustings to drum up citizen support for a plan that may well be endangered in the deal-driven, compromise-ridden hothouse of Washington.
And as we witness a jobless recovery, with the likelihood that unemployment will continue to rise for another twelve months, the President too quickly dismissed the idea that a second stimulus package would be needed. "I don't expect people to be satisfied," Obama said, "but it is amazing how resilient the American people are and more optimistic than the facts would suggest." But at a time when as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that "new mid-year FY 2009 shortfalls of $60 billion have opened up in the budgets of at least 42 states and the District of Columbia" and 46 states project deficits for the upcoming fiscal year, with more furloughs, layoffs and cuts in vital services, don't we deserve an open mind about a second recovery plan that will help deal with the economic hardship?
Right now, a majority do not hold Obama accountable for the condition of a recession-ridden economy; it is still Bush's legacy. And many leading economists believe a second round of stimulus is vital; we haven't confronted the severity of the current recession. Obama's reference to his Administration's longterm investments in healthcare, education and energy are all fine and good, but as the Economic Policy Institute's Larry Mishel said the other day: "I regard all this talk about how the recession is maybe going to end, all the talk about deficits and inflation, to be the equivalent of telling Americans , 'You are just going to have to tough it out.' But we're looking at persistent unemployment that is going to be extraordinarily damaging to many communities. There is a ton of pain in the pipeline."
If Obama really wants to build that new foundation for a new, healthy, just and sustainable economy, we need his laser-like focus on the recovery's missing ingredient: new jobs.
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
It's about time Obama spoke out against the Iranian government. Khamenei threatens his own people, and even blames them for trying to steal the election when the government already did (you can hear his quote here) http://www.newsy.com/videos/iran_elections_worth_the_fuss. These elections show just how far away, and how close its people are, to true democracy and it is our responsibilities as America to stand up for the oppressed.
Posted by koalakit at 06/23/2009 @ 2:39pm
"Keeping his cool (even while sparring with a handful of snarky reporters), Obama displayed moral realism and principled respect for the courage, dignity and sovereignty of the Iranian people. He did what Iranian expert Trita Parsi advised: condemn violence, without picking sides."
Well, maybe he needs to hire some plants like Jeff Gannon, like Dubya did....but really, as you noted, he doesn't NEED to, does he?
Second, add to Trita Parsi, the likes of Pat Buchanan, George Will, your friend Joe Scarborough, even the inimitable Bill O'Reilly as those saying Obama "playing it right"....which is a big ol' punch to the breadbasket of the more vitriolic right-wing talk show hosts and bloggers with their "He's not saying enough!!!".
BTW, don't you find it ironic this "newfound" love of the Iranian people by the neo-cons, who, just a week or so ago, were so keen on BOMBING them, via Israeli proxies?
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 2:41pm
Katrina barks about "snarky reporters"....why of course, don't the reporters know their job is apparently not to report the news but to be official mouthpieces and promoters for Obama!
You have to give Katrina credit, she has no clue what she is doing as she types stuff on the computer keyboard...she is clueless that she is putting stuff down that somebody like me will make fun of her about........
how so, you may ask?
Here's how....Katrina barks about GOP legislators having "Cadillac government benefits"!!!
Bad choice of words for an analogy, Katrina...you probably should have thought of something else....
Because Cadillac benefits ARE Government benefits now that Obama runs General Motors!!!!
I feel I need to keep reminding everybody that this is the same Katrina vandenHeuvel that said on this site (as she was preparing to be on the ABC Sunday Morning talk show with Karl Rove) that she was going to "push back" against Rove on the show.
And she certainly did not do that, she just repeated standard leftist talking points.
But I guess she did acquit herself OK on that particular show in the sense that she did not, on that occasion, stick her foot in her mouth!
I have maintained before and I still say that Comedy Central ought to have a link to this site.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/23/2009 @ 2:42pm
"....that she was going to "push back" against Rove on the show.
And she certainly did not do that, she just repeated standard leftist talking points.
But I guess she did acquit herself OK on that particular show in the sense that she did not, on that occasion, stick her foot in her mouth! "----Posted by sjchermak at 06/23/2009 @ 2:42pm
SJCHER looking for that job as a professional wrestling referee!....heheh "Chair? What chair? I didn't see Rove use no chair?"
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 3:04pm
BTW, with photos of the killing of "Neda" spreading...even by right-wingers...
how do they (the neo-cons) EVER pull off their "Israel should bomb Iran" rhetoric EVER again....when the same type of photo of "collateral damage" would be shown???
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 3:45pm
Mask-the-inimitable! Some of your finest series of relentless jabs here. A very fun read. Fascinating to watch the old, reliable bogeymen of both hard left and right stumble into one another. Took sooooooo long to get to this half-ass point. And IMHO that's a reason to be thankful, very, very thankful. Every SJCHER, McSame, Happ comment is a nice reminder of this fact.
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 5:26pm
The Difference between Providing health insurance (Universal Health Care/Medicare-For-All) and a mandated Requirement that we get health insurance (at least through a Public Option): "Health Care Solved! Are You Poor? Sorry. www.seaclearly.wordpress.com
Posted by SeaClearly at 06/23/2009 @ 6:07pm
Ain't it nice to see "smart" at work, and the best the opposition can do is start rumors that this man, with an above average intelligence quotient, is the anti-christ.
Posted by julien38 at 06/23/2009 @ 7:16pm
Magnificent and eloquent
his words poignant and sparse
though it is more than evident
he has got us by the arse
Posted by chinpoko at 06/23/2009 @ 7:23pm
"suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.....those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."
Fine sentiments but that is not the issue in Iran. It is not so much about suppressing ideas, which can always live on in the mind anyway but rather the suppression of a people.
That is always the case in autocracies, it not the ideas that get hurt it is people and that is Obama's disconnect here and in other areas of policy where he is seen as a reactionary rather than a political leader.
In fact in his use of that statement one cannot help but see that what is important to him is being on the "right side of history". Which suggests his is an uninvolved academic interest.
Maybe that is why highly intelligent academics rarely make good political leaders. In the end the best democratic ideas and ideals will accomplish no practical end unless leaders, men and women, labor and even suffer to bring those ideas to fruition.
So sitting back and trusting that such ideas will become reality without using means to accomplish them is nothing but a cargo-cult mentality of the worst kind.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2009 @ 7:29pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2009 @ 7:29pm
Party of No? WHO exactly floats your boat vis a vis Iran? What are they doing that's somehow not involving words/ideas?
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 8:03pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 2:41pm </i>
Those who would suggest Obama isn't speaking sharply enough would be correct. What's going on in Iran isn't "violence" in the abstract, it's specifically the government (armed) seeking to repress huge masses of the people (unarmed). Refusing to choose a side is morally and logically incoherent.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/23/2009 @ 8:47pm
Party of No? WHO exactly floats your boat vis a vis Iran? What are they doing that's somehow not involving words/ideas?
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 8:03pm
Got nothing to do with my boat but the difference between a bystander and a participant. There is a truism that actions speak louder than words. Let's hope Obama also begins to act on that principle. In the end it cost MLK his life. That probably did more to galvanise fence sitters than any of his fine ideas and sermons.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2009 @ 8:56pm
Let me say that I wince every time the word "reset" is used to describe every attempt by a politician to sound like some kind of innovator.
To "reset," as it is used in contemporary political parlance, commonly means absolutely nothing except to declare that one wants to pretend that the past, often the very recent past, does not matter, whereas in fact it nearly always does. I hate everything about the recent political application of this word, from its implication that people are like video players to its paucity of content.
'There is a truism that actions speak louder than words. Let's hope Obama also begins to act on that principle. In the end it cost MLK his life. That probably did more to galvanise fence sitters than any of his fine ideas and sermons.'
I can agree with you halfway, "lrjones4." Obama does have to act, and in many cases he could do much more than he does, for example to re-regulate the banking industry and to establish meaningful limits in his proposed cap-and-trade program.
However, in the case of Iran, I don't believe the United States CAN act constructively. Our policy toward Iran over the last few decades has been to threaten with sticks, but to offer no carrots. This doesn't offer us much flexibility. We can either continue to threaten with sticks, or we can use them, probably with disastrously counter-productive results. If we were Europeans, of course, we could be withdrawing some carrots right now. Their carrot-and-stick strategy gives them more options.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/23/2009 @ 9:16pm
'What's going on in Iran isn't "violence" in the abstract, it's specifically the government (armed) seeking to repress huge masses of the people (unarmed). Refusing to choose a side is morally and logically incoherent.'
I agree, "Thrawn," that there is an old habit, now nearly universal among journalists, to say that a demonstration "turns violent" when what has actually happened is that government agents have violently attacked peaceful demonstrators in order to disperse them.
I don't believe Obama has failed to take sides here. He is clearly on the side of the Iranian people. The problem is that it is unclear what the Iranian people really want, because their election has been falsified. Quite a lot of Iranians did vote for Ahmadinejad, though we don't know exactly how many.
The United States, unfortunately, sets a poor example if what we want is for elections to be decided by respecting the rights of all voters and by scrupulously counting their votes, rather than by issuing court decisions.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/23/2009 @ 9:27pm
"But at a time when as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that 'new mid-year FY 2009 shortfalls of $60 billion have opened up in the budgets of at least 42 states and the District of Columbia' and 46 states project deficits for the upcoming fiscal year, with more furloughs, layoffs and cuts in vital services, don't we deserve an open mind about a second recovery plan that will help deal with the economic hardship?"
Or one that deals with the existing health care system. Medicaid is state run and county-administered. But state and county workers are getting furloughed and laid off. The states are cutting health and social services, and, thanks to the GOP "moderates" (Snowe, Collins and then-GOPer Specter), the stimulums did not include enough money for the states. It's really hard to hear about how wonderful the new health plan will be, when there's no commitment to making sure the government plans that are already here keep functioning.
Posted by RLawrence at 06/23/2009 @ 9:34pm
You've been contrasting mere ideas, ideals, detached, academic -- your words - including, "uninvolved academic interest", a 'bystander not a participant'.
This is such a silly, overbaked gimmick. And you prove it's emptiness when you refuse to name anyone in actual reality who exemplifies the opposite of all you criticize Obama for - some perfect person of action, who embodies the concept of actions speak louder than words.
You further prove this when you try to make some nonsensical claim that ? the ACTION of assassination is more powerful than words/sermons.
First, the great tragic/hero figures like Christ, Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln had BOTH. The life of inspiring others cut short through another's coldblooded hate-generated actions.
But what the hell is your point with respect to Obama? Why call him an "uninvolved academic interest", a 'bystander not a participant', all about empty words / ideas... THEN try and prove your assertion by contrasting MLK's 'ideas and sermons' to indirectly declare the ultimate importance of the ACTIONS of James Earl Ray?
How exactly is James Earl Ray relevant in your analysis of Obama's shortcomings??
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 9:35pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2009 @ 8:56pm
You've been contrasting mere 'ideas, ideals, detached, academic' -- your words - including, "uninvolved academic interest", a 'bystander not a participant'.
This is such a silly, overbaked gimmick. And you prove it's emptiness when you refuse to name anyone in actual reality who exemplifies the opposite of all you criticize Obama for - some perfect person of action, who embodies the concept of actions speak louder than words.
You further prove this when you try to make some nonsensical claim that ? the ACTION of assassination is more powerful than words/sermons.
First, the great tragic/hero figures like Christ, Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln had BOTH. The life of inspiring others cut short through another's coldblooded hate-generated actions.
But what the hell is your point with respect to Obama? Why call him an "uninvolved academic interest", a 'bystander not a participant', all about empty words / ideas... THEN try and prove your assertion by contrasting MLK's 'ideas and sermons' to indirectly declare the ultimate importance of the ACTIONS of James Earl Ray?
How exactly is James Earl Ray relevant in your analysis of Obama's shortcomings??
Sounds like the same coded stuff Limbaugh, Savage and the Clear Channel propagandists spout all day long.
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 9:37pm
"You have to wonder why some of these reporters sound like they're ventriloquists for Big Pharma or GOP Pollster Frank Luntz.... So, what do we as consumers and citizens get: not one question about why single-payer, Medicare-for- All, is excluded from the legislative debate and process. Instead we get a handful of grumpy questions focused on the dangers of a public plan pushing private insurance companies out of the marketplace!"
Very disgusted by the press today. I think it was Judy Woodruff I heard on Jim Lehrer today asking dumb "hasn't the President changed his position on Iran" questions. What she really means, and what all the reporters at the presser meant was, "We are ignorant. We don't speak Farsi, we don't know anything about Iran, and we have no curiosity abuot it. So we are going to wait for someone from the other party to criticize you, then ask you about their criticisms."
Posted by RLawrence at 06/23/2009 @ 9:39pm
i couldn't disagree more with thrawn's claim that obama has not "chosen sides."
apparently he missed obama's presser today.
Posted by darladoon at 06/23/2009 @ 10:14pm
how do they (the neo-cons) EVER pull off their "Israel should bomb Iran" rhetoric EVER again....when the same type of photo of "collateral damage" would be shown???
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 3:45pm
no, it wouldn't.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/23/2009 @ 10:15pm
Refusing to choose a side is morally and logically incoherent.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/23/2009 @ 8:47pm
reagan would have just sicced saddam on those bad guys.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/23/2009 @ 10:22pm
Neda's a chick not some huge city?? Damn, the days of man-sized collateral damage are sadly fading fast.
At least so laments one Neocon *caught on tape*!
- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -
Nixon compares his bombing of Vietnam with that of American commanders in other wars. "Good God, when you think of what basically Eisenhower did in World War II -- I mean, he decimated cities. . . . Not because he wanted to kill people, because he wanted to end the war. Why did Truman drop the atomic bomb? Not because he wanted to demolish cities, because he wanted to end the war. Why did Eisenhower bomb the s---- out of the cities of North Korea? That's what ended the war, you know." (Today's socialist LA Times).
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 10:33pm
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/23/2009 @ 9:16pm
There are two separate issues that require two different possible responses from the US and the West more generally.
1. What seems to be a government's heavy handed response to demonstrators in what they and others inside and outside Iran perceive to be a flawed if not rigged vote.
If that's all there was and we were not aware of the systematic human rights abuses in Iraq then obviously Obama's cautious approach had some merit.
The Europeans knowing that the demonstration was a symptom of a deeper malaise responded swiftly by calling on the leadership to show restraint. That was all that was needed, not to influence the leadership, which seems to thrive on condemnation from the "degenerate" West but rather to stand in solidarity with those who want the sort of political freedoms and rights we in the West enjoy.
No attack on Iran or bombs needed in this case.
2. The threat Iran may pose to its neighbours and ME security generally should it get a nuclear weapon.
This is where a consideration of whether military options or even a strict sanctions regime is more appropriate.
A fuller democratic solution of the former may well come about by internal forces and in fact make the second possibility less likely.
That is why all those faithfulsw who rush to support Obama's tardiness are just not even aware of what is involved. Axis of evil may be too provocative but it may just be preferable to a blinkered approach to a very nasty HR violating and potentially more widely dangerous regime.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2009 @ 10:53pm
How exactly is James Earl Ray relevant in your analysis of Obama's shortcomings??
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 9:37pm
You need to read through what you have written just to see how irrelevant it is.
The distinction I made was between ideas and action based on those ideas. No idea ever brings "itself" to fruition. It takes human involvement for that. That is one thing.
The assassination of Dr. King came to mind as Obama was in fact quoting him. That my friend is what is known as an illustration and has absolutely nothing to do with the motives of J E Ray viz an illustration that his words were matched by total commitment to what he said and what he believed.
Obama's mouthing of those words means nothing until he also leads the way. In this case in solidarity with those who are seeking what he claimed, at Cairo, is inevitable. But without any help from me, he has implied, until I make up my mind who is worthy of my support. In the end public opinion probably shamed him.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2009 @ 11:33pm
As partisans bicker and dicker for fame
Ideologically more of the same
Obama pragmatically disses their game
And reminds one and all of germane.
The right and the left are diminished returns
When economies recess and credit adjourns
Obama pragmatically turns to the spurns
With intelligent ire and a logic that burns...
Inherited crises, unferreted dreams
We've glanced at tomorrow with yesterday's schemes
Obama pragmatically reminds us and deems
Today we are born in alacritous memes.
Blame seekers squander and wander afar
Parties to no... fancy feather and tar
Obama pragmatically pickles the mar
Complexities fathom the deeper we are.
Believe in democracy, bring to the table
The succours of thought, the witness of fable
Obama pragmatically leans to the stable
We're able to do more to do what we're able.
Posted by ttr at 06/24/2009 @ 12:38am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/24/2009 @ 12:00am
Maybe but one gets the impression that he either doesn't know what to do or is a little slower in making up his mind than one would expect from a "quick" mind. One doesn't really need a post tertiary education to be afflicted in that way. I know some who didn't make it beyond primary school.
I don't think Obama is at all averse to plenty of bim bam boom as his purposeful escalating of the Afghan/Pakistan conflict so powerfully indicates. So he's no pacifist and probably in the neo-con camp, whatever that is, but no one's been game to tell him yet.
I take it that apart from protecting the homeland from terrorists aka " kill em over there" he also has a bit of good news for the long suffering natives. Can't do much about the ones he's already sent to kingdom come but Harvard or not I'm sure justice, for those poor A/Ps is in his heart as much as in his speeches.
In fairness he probably is being led by the nose by his military advisers. I mean what would a lawyer know about the finer details of war. We'll have to see how it goes before we compare him with the C grader. It took him about four years to work out his generals were piss wits, after which discovery he took over the war to get his democracy project back on course.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2009 @ 02:07am
"It took him about four years to work out his generals were piss wits, after which discovery he took over the war to get his democracy project back on course."----Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2009 @ 02:07am
Seriously....that is CULTISH adoration of Bush.
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 09:33am
KvH: "....Obama worked hard to use his fourth press conference to refocus and reset the political debate.
Keeping his cool (even while sparring with a handful of snarky reporters),...."
Come on, Katrina, was Magic really trying to "refocus and reset" or perhaps something more sly?
"sparring"? "snarky"? Well, how dare them? In the Land of Ob!
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:02am
For those folks who do not have health insurance or can barely afford the insurance they do have, don't worry about it.... our president has addressed the matter "eloquently."
He isn't going to do anything to change the situation, but he sure has got the rhetoric down. We are so fortunate to have an eloquent leader.
Posted by Citizen54 at 06/24/2009 @ 10:12am
We are so fortunate to have an eloquent leader.
Posted by Citizen54 at 06/24/2009 @ 10:12am
One mustn't forget to give equal credit to his "eloquent" Teleprompter.....the HAL2009 of the Magic Ship.
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:26am
KvH: "And as we witness a jobless recovery, with the likelihood that unemployment will continue to rise for another twelve months,.."
Well, here's one group of causalties from them huge, months-old increase in the tobacco tax....my guess is all 500 of them workers must be smokers themselves (per MASK) and they deserve to suffer!
===============================
By MICHAEL SASSO | The Tampa Tribune
Published: June 23, 2009
Updated: 06/23/2009 07:00 pm
TAMPA - Tampa will lose part of its cigar heritage in August when Hav-A-Tampa shuts its factory near Seffner and lays off about 495 employees, closing a factory that has been operating since 1902.
The company announced the closing today.
....Altadis USA,...tried to keep the plant open by closing it for a week or two at a time and furloughing workers. Eventually, though, the company couldn't cope with a steep drop in consumer demand, brought on by the recession and a large new tax on tobacco products, McKenzie said.
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:35am
KvH: "And as we witness a jobless recovery, with the likelihood that unemployment will continue to rise for another twelve months, the President too quickly dismissed the idea that a second stimulus package would be needed"
Typo alert! Please change "jobless recovery" to "lessjob recovery".....and alos, rethink even using the word "recovery".
We are, as Ms. KvH acknowledges, likely to see increased unemployment.
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:38am
We are, as Ms. KvH acknowledges, likely to see increased unemployment.----Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:38am
So HAPP, are you saying it's possible upto a year after a President's economic plan is enacted that unemployment might still go up, thus proving it a failure??!!???
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 11:12am
The assassination of Dr. King came to mind as Obama was in fact quoting him. That my friend is what is known as an illustration and has absolutely nothing to do with the motives of J E Ray viz an illustration that his words were matched by total commitment to what he said and what he believed.
Obama's mouthing of those words means nothing until he also leads the way. In this case in solidarity with those who are seeking what he claimed, at Cairo, is inevitable. But without any help from me, he has implied, until I make up my mind who is worthy of my support. In the end public opinion probably shamed him.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/23/2009 @ 11:33pm
3rd try - give one example of WHO exemplifies the positive pole of your repetitive simplistic analysis in the real world today vis a vis the ME.
Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 11:22am
According to latest NYTimes report, Obama is open to reframing health care insurance with the private option taken right off the table. Not much of a reframe there, just continuation of status quo with some new window dressing.
We the Little People betrayed again.
Posted by sloper at 06/24/2009 @ 11:27am
It took him about four years to work out his generals were piss wits, after which discovery he took over the war to get his democracy project back on course.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2009 @ 02:07am
Would those "piss wit" generals, be the same ones who were RIGHT about Iraq when W and Cheney were wrong? Or would it be all the ones he FIRED because they told him something he didn't want to hear at the beginning of his illegal war?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/24/2009 @ 12:21pm
Stephen, LR is a Michael Savage / Rush Limbaugh, Happy type, just lobs bombs, e.g., "piss wits" "Magic" - can't back anything up with specificity.
Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 12:42pm
Maybe he should stop talking eloquently and actually do something. Where is single payer? Why are we miring ourselves in Afghanistan? My glasses are not not rose colored enough to have witnessed a recovery, apart for Wall Street and the banks stuffing their pockets with our money.
Posted by pachonegro at 06/24/2009 @ 12:44pm
Who is your model for 'actually doing something' regarding the ME, who comes closest?
What actions have they taken that impressed you??
Always helps to be able to hold up an exemplar, and do something more than fault finding, if you can.
Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 12:53pm
BTW, don't you find it ironic this "newfound" love of the Iranian people by the neo-cons, who, just a week or so ago, were so keen on BOMBING them, via Israeli proxies?
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 2:41pm
No inconsistency, no change of view. It isn't about bombing population centers. That's not where their nuke facilities are located. They are in fact quite remote.
And yes Mask, conservatives maintain that we are more concerned about liberty than liberals. After all, it is liberals who are 1)seeking to expand govt control over all areas of our lives, 2)willing to accomodate and compromise with oppressive leaders like those in Iran without any pre-conditions.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 1:09pm
I've noticed that the media and the rethugs want to talk about anything but a public healthcare coverage package. They'll talk about defending Iranians, the very same people they thought were evil and were trying to destroy our "good work" in Iraq. They'll talk about the North Koreans and how they're such a major threat to the U.S., but heaven forbid they consider looking at providing health coverage for folks making 50k or less.
These stupid ass neocons don't seem to understand how much it costs to live in this country. After paying the mortgage or rent, food bills, car bill, gas/sewer/water/garbage, electricity, car insurance and any miscellaneous that would be added to this, where do these morons think the money is going to come from for these folks to pay the kind of money the insurance industry wants them to pay?
I know a guy who is presently using his cobra insurance benefit (if you can call it that) and he's just insuring his family because he can't afford to insure himself and his family. So, here's a hard working guy who pays his bills, works full time and is sinking by the second and the insurance industry is whetting their beaks on people like him. What the insurance industry is doing with these people should be criminalized.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/24/2009 @ 1:57pm
And yes Mask, conservatives maintain that we are more concerned about liberty than liberals. After all, it is liberals who are 1)seeking to expand govt control over all areas of our lives, 2)willing to accomodate and compromise with oppressive leaders like those in Iran without any pre-conditions.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 1:09pm
Oh, there you go again, Anti -
1. Under W, the Federal government ballooned in size, so the old "liberals wants to increase the size of government while conservatives don't" argument is only so much BS and holds no water. As Molly Ivins would say, "That dog don't hunt."
2. Under Republican (and unfortunately Democratic) Presidencies during the last 50 years (and longer), our government has "accommodated" and "compromised" with oppressive leaders the world over. I am sorry, but the "saintly" Republican party that you seem to believe in has never existed. Also, Obama has NEVER said (and I dare you to find the quote) where he will meet with any "oppressive leader" without any pre-conditions. He didn't say it; he never said it; it's a right wing myth that he said it. What he said was he would be willing to meet with leaders of nations who are our enemies. That, my friend, is called diplomacy. Nixon did it. Reagan did it. Teddy Roosevelt did it. Every President does it.
Finally, just because conservatives "maintain that we are more concerned about liberty than liberals" doesn't make it true. Then again, the Republican Party "maintains" a lot of things that aren't true. Republicans say a lot of things that rarely have facts behind them; that's always been the secret of the Republican noise machine: "Who needs facts? If we say it, then we say it LOUD! If we say it LOUD (and often), it must be true!"
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/24/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/24/2009 @ 1:59pm
I am the one who put the label "oppressive" in my statement, but are you saying that the leaders in Iran are not oppressive?
Are you now saying that Obama DIDN'T say he would meet with Iran without preconditions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
<BEIJING, June 6 -- U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday in a major speech to the Muslim world in Cairo that the United States is willing to move forward with Iran without any precondition and based on mutual respects.
"This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and Islamic Republic of Iran," said Obama, referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions which was accused by the west of trying to make a bomb.>
http://tinyurl.com/mblxuz
As to liberty;
More taxation is not liberty
govt controlled healthcare is not liberty
Govt redefining religious terms is not liberty
more gun control is not liberty
govt takeover of automakers is not liberty
govt handing over more control of our financial institutions to the Federal Reserve is not liberty
Coercive govt mandates on environmental issues is not liberty
Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:23pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:23pm
1. No, I am NOT stating that the regime in Iran is NOT oppressive and I think you already know that and seem to be trying to get my goat. That's just silly.
2. OK. You're right, he said, "I would" when the question was asked in the debate that included the term "without preconditions." However, did you , or anyone else on the right, bother to listen to the REST of his statement, or did your ears simply close up after he said, "I would?"
3. Regarding your tiny.url post, I noticed that you did not include this quote: "Any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power, if it complies with the responsibilities of the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty," he said, adding that "I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal." The word IF in the middle of that statement IS a precondition, as in, "IF they do this, we'll do that." Again, it's called negotiation.
4. "More taxation is not liberty" - Obama has lowered taxes on 90-95% of Americans, including YOU, I might add.
5. "govt controlled healthcare is not liberty" Obama's plan does not have gov't "controlled" healthcare, but it will hopefully provide a public option to private health insurance, like 72% of Americans WANT. This will FORCE the insurance companies to expand services and lower premiums...why is that bad for the American people?
6. "Govt redefining religious terms is not liberty" WTF? (Pause) Ohhhh... gay marriage. I don't think the Feds will be redefining anything soon, or did you miss how the Obama administration stabbed gays in the back a couple of weeks ago?
7. "more gun control is not liberty" what "more gun control?" They just opened up the National Parks.
continued on next post ~
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/24/2009 @ 5:51pm
"It took him about four years to work out his generals were piss wits, after which discovery he took over the war to get his democracy project back on course."----Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2009 @ 02:07am
Seriously....that is CULTISH adoration of Bush.
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 09:33am
Hmmm. Four years to work out that his generals were losing the insurgency part of his democracy project and you think that is adoration Mask? To me that indicates that, like Obama has, he too a similar flaw viz a bit slow on working out what is going on.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2009 @ 6:04pm
8. "govt takeover of automakers is not liberty" Would you prefer total destruction of the American car industry? Cause that's the ONLY other option. And the takeover is temporary. So, the greed and stupidity of an entire business sector should win over the lives of millions of people affected by that industry?
9. "govt handing over more control of our financial institutions to the Federal Reserve is not liberty" Agreed, but if the guy YOU voted for, hadn't F'ed it all up, we wouldn't be IN this spot, would we? Obama has proven himself, time and time again, to be a friend to big business. Personally, I'm not happy about that, so you should be.
10. "Coercive govt mandates on environmental issues is not liberty" Hmmm. Just wondering if you have kids. I do not. I don't have to worry about what the world will be like for my grandchildren. But I do have enough compassion to believe that if industry won't do it itself (which it won't), then government mandates are the only way to ensure that there IS a future for everybody else's grandchildren...or don't you care about them?
Now I have some for you...
Spying on American citizens is not liberty
Starting an illegal war is not liberty
Lying to the American people about the reason for said illegal war is not liberty
Torturing people is not liberty, nor does it provide liberty, nor does it provide security
Outing CIA operatives for a personal vendetta is not liberty
Breaking international treaties is not liberty
Manipulating the Treasury to benefit the rich is not liberty
Deciding when and where the Executive will obey the mandates of the Constitution is not liberty
Shall I go on? I got eight years of this crap and I am only scratching the surface....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/24/2009 @ 6:08pm
4. "More taxation is not liberty" - Obama has lowered taxes on 90-95% of Americans, including YOU, I might add.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/24/2009 @ 5:51pm
I have repeatedly exposed this lie and it is a lie.
<WASHINGTON (April 30) - Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring. The government is going to want some of that money back.
The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month. But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.
At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income. The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.>
http://tinyurl.com/d6sv5k
Additionally, I have previously supplied the IRS data that 40% of Americans currently do not pay income taxes. So if you already pay zero, how do you get a tax cut?
So these refundable tax credits become another form of Federal marxist welfare (from each according to his ability, to each according to their need).
Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 6:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 6:08pm
I wasn't talking about the windfall tax credits (I am sorry if that's what you were discussing and I missed it).
I was talking about the reduction in the Federal income tax rates for most working schlubs. Hey, I noticed that I get more money every two weeks. Have you checked your pay stubs lately?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/24/2009 @ 6:18pm
40% of Americans currently do not pay income taxes.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 6:08pm
What percent don't pay income taxes OR other sorts of taxes (gas, cigarette, groceries, commodities, materials' taxes, municipal/city/county taxes/fees, property tax, cell phone taxes/fees, doc stamps, car registration, fishing / weapon "license" fees, police/fire/rescue assessments)??
Which is larger (so to speak) the income tax they aren't paying or the other taxes/fees they are?
Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 7:27pm
Multinational corporations with huge lobbying influence on both parties, with huge non-bid DOD contracts, with huge media arms, with the VP's wife on their Board of Directors....
is not liberty.
Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 7:31pm
I wasn't talking about the windfall tax credits (I am sorry if that's what you were discussing and I missed it).
I was talking about the reduction in the Federal income tax rates for most working schlubs. Hey, I noticed that I get more money every two weeks. Have you checked your pay stubs lately?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/24/2009 @ 6:18pm
I wasn't referring to "windfall tax credits". That information was specific to the Obama refundable tax credits that he claims 95% of Americans will receive.
It's a lie and I just showed you the data and the IRS notice.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 7:41pm
3rd try - give one example of WHO exemplifies the positive pole of your repetitive simplistic analysis in the real world today vis a vis the ME.
Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 11:22am
That hardly needs to be said. But being slow on the uptake seems to be be the norm here so me help you.
All those in your Congress who, in 1998, voted for the removal of the Saddam regime to be replaced by a democratic one, Bill Clinton who signed into law the "Iraq Liberation Act 1998" and GW Bush who, for all his faults and inadequacies, implemented that Act.
So even if many ME Arabs "hated" America for its interference, the word democracy was forced on to the agenda of every state in the ME and I would suggest is responsible in a large measure for the ferment for better governance in the wider ME.
So Obama with his platitudinous approach to justice is almost irrelevant. It's already under way.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2009 @ 9:41pm
You're saying you'd likely be in favor of Obama pushing congress to enact an "Iran Liberation Act 2009"? Care to define what actions would back up this sort of big tough worded document?
Would you possibly be for some sort of 'shock and awe' attack by the US military??
How about the subsequent occupation of Iran by US forces???
What would your exit strategy be????
Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 9:51pm
Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 9:51pm
No not at all. Iran is a totally different kettle of fish from Iraq. Perhaps it would show that Obama was not all wind if he signed an Iran LA 2009 but it would also show that he was out of touch with what is required at this juncture in the ME.
Iran, whatever its HR record is not a patch on the horror that was Saddam's Iraq. So all that is required at this stage is a bit of moral support for those Iranians who seem to be agitating for a more liberal democratic Iran.
The other but separate issue, is a consideration of whether military action is necessary should Iran get a nuclear weapons capability. But at worst that would have more to do with targeting Iran's nuclear facilities as I think Liberty has suggested here.
There is no need need for an I(ran)LA as the Iranians can probably do that (liberate) themselves through political means and bombing nuclear facilities is not meant to be an act of liberation so it also does not require an ILA for its prosecution.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2009 @ 10:47pm
Obama said that if his stimulus package was passed, unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. Obama's stimulus package was passed. Unemployment has risen above 8 percent.
Obama now owns this recession. His handling of it is clearly inept. You need to stop blaming Bush for Obama's abject domestic failure. Next thing you'll do is blame Bush for Obama's weakness on the international stage.
Enough is enough.
Posted by JackDavis1 at 06/24/2009 @ 10:54pm
Obama decided to let the British and French lead the way in Iran. We later found out why, Obama sent a reconcilitary letter to the "Supreme Leader", he was hedging his bet on negotiating with the mullahs. Hopefully , that whole premise is out the window. Yes, Medicare for all is a wonderful goal, perhaps to be strived for, but isn't the medicare we now have prepared to bankrupt the country? I will give the politicians carte blanche to move forward with Medicare for all, once they fix the Medicare we now have.
Posted by Sctts001 at 06/25/2009 @ 04:40am
To IlyaKuryakin: Do not concern yourself with Obama's policies. Simply bask in his aura, and know that with him as president, everything will be alright. I find his resonant baritone to be extremely soothing.
Posted by jonny_amplesack at 06/25/2009 @ 06:03am
To IlyaKuryakin: Do not concern yourself with Obama's policies. Simply bask in his aura, and know that with him as president, everything will be alright. I find his resonant baritone to be extremely soothing.
Posted by jonny_amplesack at 06/25/2009 @ 06:03am
Now there's a man who knows what is important in a president.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 06:08am
JackDavis1,
You said (and I agree):
"...... Obama now owns this recession. His handling of it is clearly inept. You need to stop blaming Bush for Obama's abject domestic failure. Next thing you'll do is blame Bush for Obama's weakness on the international stage.
Enough is enough. ........"
The thing is, even though enough has been enough for a long time now, some libs will keep coming with this ("this" being blaming things on George W. Bush) and coming and coming....they just will not back off.
I will not be alive to see it, of course, but I swear I would be willing to bet that 100 years from now, some lib will blame something wrong that happens then on something George W. Bush did 100 years before!!
(P.S. to Mask: No, Mask I won't make a bet with you because I couln't collect if I won or pay off if I lost. And even though it is only 3.5 years away I have said I am not going to bet with you on whether the GOP Nominee (next-President Palin, by the way) will comment on global warming)
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 08:45am
Good article. Good magazine. But, you know, there are so many trolls camped on this site posting inane comments that is no longer worth reading the comments. There is no possibility of conducting an intelligent debate on this site. That is really sad.
Posted by plover at 06/25/2009 @ 11:40am
So even if many ME Arabs "hated" America for its interference, the word democracy was forced on to the agenda of every state in the ME and I would suggest is responsible in a large measure for the ferment for better governance in the wider ME.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/24/2009 @ 9:41pm
A couple of thoughts: interesting that you used quotation marks for the word "hated" as if it's not "really" what they feel towards America. No, many Arabs genuinely hate America for our interventionism, just like many Americans genuinely hate them. However, I believe that many more Arabs actually like us than hate us.
I would argue that a revolution from within Iran that brought down their government, would be far more successful (and legitimate) than one fomented by outsiders (like America, Europe, etc.) . So statements of support to the people of Iran, exactly what Obama has been offering, are really the ONLY thing we can do. Even today, "Imadinnerjacket" was telling Obama to stop meddling when Obama hasn't BEEN meddling: the point being that the Iranian hardliners are TRYING to blame America and Europe, to reflect the blame from themselves that they have been killing their own people.
Your point above seems to give credit to W's war in Iraq for fomenting the protests in Iran, but no credit to Obama's speech in Cairo (just weeks ago) about democracy in the ME. That seems disingenuous at best, and a little war-mongering at worst. You seem to think that only war (from without) brings (or can bring) democracy to the ME.
I posit that revolution (from within) is the only successful way to bring about true democracy to any country ruled by oligarchs and mullahs (or in our case, monarchs). Democracy must come from "We the People," wherever they are.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 12:59pm
Many issues in one article... all important. I remember a conversation Obama had w/a young woman holding a child in her arms during his electoral campaign. As he very gracefully approached her she point blank shot two questions in rapid succession. One was about Health Care and Single Payer being considered and the second about the lack of oversight in the Bail-Outs-Give-Aways. Obama said: "... you will have to make me do it". I believe it's the secret to generating a power force within the population, one that has been too passive for too long. I believe that Single Payer must be a seriously considered and discussed option in the adoption and planning of the next Health Care Program affecting the nation. To insist in dismissing that option would be equivalent to betraying not only the people who put him in office but his own spirit that moved his speeches... which moved us all and allowed us some degree of trust in government. It would be a sorry day if that were to happen. For all involved!
Posted by Gustav at 06/25/2009 @ 1:09pm
I quadruple dare you.
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/24/2009 @ 10:48pm
Uh oh, you even went past Schwartz's triple dog dare!! I guess it's time to put the tongue to that frozen metal pole now : )
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 1:16pm
I posit that revolution (from within) is the only successful way to bring about true democracy to any country ruled by oligarchs and mullahs (or in our case, monarchs). Democracy must come from "We the People," wherever they are.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 12:59pm
Look that is your opinion but not one that I share nor was it one that the majority of your Congress held when it passed the ILA1998.
My interest in Iraq began in the early 1990s, in Australia, when I worked with some professional Iraqi engineers who had then recently fled from horrific personal attacks on their families by Saddam's security forces. So I came to that position, about the impossibility of regime change from within, through their first hand accounts of what was essentially a police state.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:06pm
So I came to that position, about the impossibility of regime change from within, through their first hand accounts of what was essentially a police state.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:06pm
That is not why the U.S. invaded Iraq nor is that a valid reason for the U.S. to invade any sovereign nation.
Though the argument may be true that Saddam was a horrific leader still doesn't give the U.S. the right to go barging into each and every country it believes is inflicting wrongs on it's people. If that were the case, we'd be attacking a multitude of countries around the world, not just Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran as the right wing elements would have it. Since the U.S. is going is having heavy financial difficulties, I don't think being the world police force now (or ever) would be in our own interest or even our own national security interests.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:50pm
Wolfgang1,
You said ".....Though the argument may be true that Saddam was a horrific leader still doesn't give the U.S. the right to go barging into each and every country it believes is inflicting wrongs on it's people......."
Don't forget, though, Saddam was going to be making new WMD once off of the hook, and he would have been off of the hook once Blix concluded he had no more weapons, and since he was moving towards more and more ties to terror organizations, it is extremely likely some of that WMD would have wound up in the hands of terrorists to use to kill millions of us with.
That part gets left out a lot, in discussions about Iraq and Saddam and WMD.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 3:53pm
Blix concluded he had no more weapons, and since he was moving towards more and more ties to terror organizations, it is extremely likely some of that WMD would have wound up in the hands of terrorists to use to kill millions of us with.
That part gets left out a lot, in discussions about Iraq and Saddam and WMD.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 3:53pm
Problem is that you don't have any proof that Saddam was gaining ties to terrorists. Most of the reports on that have been found to be false rhetoric drummed up by the Bush administration once they realized that Saddam didn't have any WMD.
Invading Iraq was stupid then, looking back on now makes the move look stupid and it will be viewed as stupid in the future. Iraq is still a mess. If you hadn't noticed there are still bombs going off and 30 people here, 60 people there are dying. We replaced one asshole with another. In 20 years, Iraq will probably end up just the way it was under Saddam.....don't believe me, take a look at how our foreign entanglements in Iran have turned out.
Quit buying into the right wing propaganda for once and think for yourself. Do you think you can control everyone in your neighborhood? That's what you think we can do on the world stage....it's impossible.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 4:53pm
Don't forget, though, Saddam was going to be making new WMD once off of the hook, and he would have been off of the hook once Blix concluded he had no more weapons, and since he was moving towards more and more ties to terror organizations, it is extremely likely some of that WMD would have wound up in the hands of terrorists to use to kill millions of us with.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 3:53pm
Supposition: "Saddam was going to be..."
Supposition: "...he would have been off the hook..."
Supposition: "...since he was moving towards more and more ties to terror organizations..."
Supposition: "...it is extremely likely some of that (supposed) WMD (that didn't exist) would have wound up in the hands of terrorists to use to kill millions of us with..."
An entire post of supposition (read: totally made up), then you make the statement: "That part gets left out a lot, in discussions about Iraq and Saddam and WMD."
There's a reason it's "left out" of the discussion. Normal people don't deal in alternate realities, except physicists...and you right wing guys don't like scientists anyway, right?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 5:07pm
<i>Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 1:16pm </i>
I never understood why "dog" was even part of the phrase; it just didn't seem to add anything, except maybe some oomph somehow?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2009 @ 5:26pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:06pm
That is not why the U.S. invaded Iraq nor is that a valid reason for the U.S. to invade any sovereign nation.
Though the argument may be true that Saddam was a horrific leader still doesn't give the U.S. the right to go barging into each and every country it believes is inflicting wrongs on it's people. If that were the case, we'd be attacking a multitude of countries around the world, not just Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran as the right wing elements would have it. Since the U.S. is going is having heavy financial difficulties, I don't think being the world police force now (or ever) would be in our own interest or even our own national security interests.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:50pm
It is the only valid moral reason the US had for invading a nation that had lost its sovereignty to virtually one man or in the very least to a regime.
The only reason WMD would have been a moral reason is if the US homeland was threatened by Saddam's WMD.
It should have been obvious that it was not as Iraq had no means of delivering whatever nuclear weapons or other WMD it was thought to have had.
Don't know if you've followed the ILA1998 trail but that tells in no uncertain moral terms why Saddam's removal and the replacement of his regime with a democratic government had become official US policy. There is no escaping that reality. This was not some idiosyncratic Bush war but one which the US Congress and hence the American people also owned.
(A lesser moral argument may have existed in protecting ME allies or countries as perWW2 British ultimatum to Hitler,"invade Poland and it is war").
Neither Afghanistan or Iran had or has the same moral justification. Afghanistan was originally more a payback operation for 9/11.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 5:57pm
Stephen_Carver1,
You say "......it is extremely likely some of that (supposed) WMD (that didn't exist).....
I KNOW THAT the WMD I am referring to DIDN'T EXIST.
The WMD I am referring to is WMD he had not built yet.
It is WMD he was going to be making once he was let off of the hook.
1. Once Blix declared he could not find any WMD in Iraq, the "Saddam" problem would have been declared over, the sanctions would have been lifted. The world would have rejoiced that "Saddam has been disarmed".
Few people would have been of mind to worry about Saddam any further. The French were eager to get back to the cozy trading relationship they had with Iraq.
2. Saddam would have gone back to making WMD again. HIS OWN PEOPLE said so. The Kay report after we went into Iraq discussed this.
3. Saddam was developing more and more ties to terror. This was documented in that Pentagon report that came out a few years ago. You probably remember it only from it's "finding" that Saddam and al-Qaeda had no connection that could point to any Saddam involvement in 9/11. Libs rejoiced in that, overlooking the Bush Administration never claimed that or cited that as justification for taking out Saddam for being responsible for 9/11.
4. So what you claim I made up are in fact fairly solid "knowns" and then if you advocate that there was no danger at that point, that Saddam would not have given or sold WMD to terrorists, and that the terrorists would not have used it against us, or even if there was a danger you pull a Neville Chamberlain and say we could not go to war and you do not go to war unless attacked first - then you are naive and advocate irresponsibility, when dealing with the chance that millions of people could be killed.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 6:29pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 6:29pm
So...about your "fairly solid knowns." Would those have been some of Rumsfeld's fairly solid "known knowns" or would they perhaps have been in the category of Rumsfeld's fairly solid "known unknowns," or maybe somewhere in his fairly solid "unknown unknowns" category?
Because someone says a thing, does not make a thing true, except to neo-cons and the people who believe them. Just because "his own people" say a thing MIGHT happen (if he were "let off the hook" - a pretty big assumption on your part), does not mean it WILL happen. Your argument is STILL based entirely on supposition because no one knows what would have happened, because it didn't happen that way! Instead, our administration, desperate to get "boots on the gound" in Iraq lied to the American people time and time again, pulling every possible excuse out of their collective ass to justify their illegal war.
There were no WMDs dude! So no, you cannot accuse me of pulling a Neville Chamberlain, except in your wholly made up fantasy world in which a bunch of stuff MIGHT have happened.
But seriously, I'm NOT saying Saddam was a good guy, nor was he a friend to the U.S. What I am saying is it would have been a lot less expensive in American lives (not to mention Iraqi lives), materiel and dollars, to leave Saddam where he was because he was (to use your phrase) a "known." We had the no-fly zone. We had satellites and spies. He was chafing under all of it...but BUSH/CHENEY were the ones who wanted a war! You seem to believe that Saddam "could have" reconstituted his entire WMD arsenal (from scratch), opened up negotiations with Osama (who hated him) and sold his stash to terrorists WITHOUT ANYONE NOTICING.
Man, stop drinking the kool-aid!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/25/2009 @ 7:29pm
Jones -- after multiple nonresponses and more requests, you finally came out with your vague view -
very indirect/near incoherent - apparently that Obama should push forward a version of the Iraq Liberation Act - - applied to Iran.
Anyway, you're great at lobbing bombs, the whole Palin/McCain "soaring rhetoric" / passive / ideas no action simpleton bs... No wonder, your actual proposal is McSame! Based on the specifics associated with the specific Act you cite as what Obama should do, you're suggesting:
'It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Ahmadinejad from power in Iran and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.'
This of course is the same idiot stuff your man Bush DID ACT ON. So I asked about this. And surprise, you're not for taking this sort of action - according to your next post... So it's back to words. You're apparently somewhere between Bush and Rush, which is a tight, smelly space. Your man Rush is all words. 3 hours a day of words. And all the same fault finding variety, with no actual clear proposal for action - just wants failure. Stupefying and supremely ignore worthy.
Posted by winyahn at 06/25/2009 @ 8:50pm
americans ARE going to have to tough it out. these are the days of lowering expectations. get used to it and quit whining about it.
you lost your 401K, did you? tough break. so did a lot of other people who bought into the politics of greed.
you lost your job, too? ditto. tough break. find another one.
you say you're going to lose your house? your kids will have to put off college?
guess, what? it's a new world.
as for iran...come'on. anyone who didn't know how this was gonna turn out has not been paying attention.
Posted by SHUNK at 06/25/2009 @ 9:57pm
Posted by winyahn at 06/25/2009 @ 8:50pm
You apparently lack poor comprehension skills. What's with the education system over there? (you and Mask are not relatives by any chance?)
Here is my position made as simple as possible for you.
1. GW Bush's Iraq war has provided the environment in which a government was democratically elected to office, through a national vote. That in the form of a democratic parliamentary system with a wide diversity of representation.
2. Military action was the the only way possible to bring democracy to Iraq.
3. That action also put democracy on the Arab ME agenda.
4. There is a high likelihood that the pro-democracy movement in Iran has been encouraged by its observation of what has been brought to Iraq.
5. Because the regime in Iran is no where near as gross a human rights violator as the Saddam regime in Iraq was, there is no need for military intervention as there was in Iraq.
There are signs that a more liberal democratic system is in the process of formation. That of course confirms point 5. This would have been an impossibility in Iraq under Saddam.
What seems to have got your knickers in a knot is that what is happening in the ME right now has little , if anything, to do with Obama's platitudes delivered from Cairo or anywhere else. His turn will come to do something useful so let's hope he has learned from his tardiness, in getting his bearings, before saying what should have been reflexive for a believer in justice and democracy.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 10:45pm
Stephen_Carver1,
Your stuff is hilarious. It's amusing - you lay down this argument that what I said is "supposition" and therefore, in your mind, wrong, etc.....and then you just declare the Iraq war was based on lies, etc........
even though you have no proof whatsoever that was the case.......
since it is just your opinion and your proof if you were to supply it, and you probably will try, is just other lib's opinions........
It is one thing if people argue facts or logic or opinions back and forth but.....
you go and declare my logic or opinions are invalid and unsupportable then just state your opinions (with no other support) with the implication that they are ironclad fact....
You seem to be unaware that such a line of argument as the one you engaged in leaves you with no credibility whatever.
You believe Conservative or "neocon" logic that says the conditions would have led Saddam to remake WMD, get away with it, and give it to terrorists is just conjecture and non supportable but then .....
You believe that lib conjecture that nothing bad at all would have happened is somehow ironclad truth and fact.
You probably ought to apply something YOU said above to yourself about things you say and about what other libs say:
"Because someone says a thing, does not make a thing true"
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 08:19am
You believe that lib conjecture that nothing bad at all would have happened is somehow ironclad truth and fact.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 08:19am
First of all, I DON'T believe the "lib conjecture that nothing bad at all would have happened." Don't put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard).
What I DO believe is that we'll never know, because I don't live in that alternate reality you want to bring about, in which Saddam did something bad. As for whether Bush/Cheney lied to get us into Iraq...well, nothing I say to you will convince you of the numerous FACTS that prove it, so I won't bother to try. You have obviously only been watching FOX news for the last eight years or so.
Evidently, you haven't even heard the sound bites where Bush admits there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, which was their FIRST stated reason we were going into Iraq. Then it Then it changed to WMDs: Saddam was going to give nukes to terrorists...when they knew he didn't have any nukes to give, not to mention that Osama hated Saddam, which they also knew. Do you not remember Rice's "mushroom cloud" comment?
Then it morphed into "Saddam was a bad guy," then finally morphed into "bringing Democracy to the Middle East."
NONE of those things was true...with the exception of "Saddam is a bad guy." But they knew that Saddam is a bad guy would not be enough to get the American people behind a war, so they LIED. The war is about oil, oil and more oil. Bush/Cheney are oilmen who know that to control the oil is to control the wealth.
So, while I still believe that just because someone says something does not make it true, when it comes from Bush/Cheney, I assume it's a lie.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/26/2009 @ 12:45pm
For those of you Libs still working past the next decade or so, you will finally be in high-tax heaven!
CBO Paints Dire Portrait of Long-Term Revenue, Spending
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 26, 2009
The nation's long-term budget outlook has darkened considerably over the past six months,.....
Already heavily in debt, the nation would be forced to borrow ever more massive sums to keep the government afloat, the CBO warns, with the national debt nearly 200 percent of the overall economy by 2035.
"We're drowning in unprecedented levels of red ink, and there is no plan to fix the situation. Having spent over a decade worrying about budget deficits, I can quite honestly say that things have never looked as bad as they do now," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "...
Posted by Happy at 06/26/2009 @ 4:25pm
Refusing to choose a side is morally and logically incoherent. Posted by Thrawn at 06/23/2009 @ 8:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is a lie. Obama has not refused to take sides.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2009 @ 5:12pm
Enough is enough. Posted by JackDavis1 at 06/24/2009 @ 10:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's gonna be a long three and a half years for you. Obama is president of the United states at least until Jan 19th 2013.
maybe longer. suck it up.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2009 @ 5:22pm
I cannot understand why so many worthies here spend their time arguing the same points, Saddam's WMD etc, with the same idiots, over and over again.
can we turn the page?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2009 @ 5:33pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2009 @ 5:12pm </i>
Yes and no. He has (at last) come out and explicitly condemned the human rights violations that have been taking place. As of recently, however, he had invited Iranian governing officials to come to the US for a 4th of July party. You don't think that makes protestors on the ground wonder whether he really opposes what this government is doing? He's withdrawn the offer, but still. I recognize that you have to sometimes choose a lesser evil when diplomacy is relevant, but there's a point at which condemning egregious abuses means not grabbing hot dogs with the abusers. That's why I think that unless there was a clear and huge risk of Soviet expansion resulting from it, failing to divest from South Africa's apartheid government was wrong.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2009 @ 10:24pm
I see an enormous contrast of such a great thinker, intelligent and honest man, with his seemingly lack of political capacity to lead the Democratic party to reach the goals of the people: say it universal health care or job creation.
He was an organizer in the city of Chicago. I think his problem is to try to reach consensus, he is all inclusive. That will never be possible. If some people don't want to get into the train, that's it, sorry for them... He does not need to make visible he imposes something to Congress, but he should make sure under the table that he forcefully backs some stances and will punish certain Dems that are not voting progressive enough (punishing by supporting for example alternate candidates for the next elections).
I would really love that Obama have success. It makes me nervous though, that he is going too slow.
Posted by Frank42 at 06/27/2009 @ 03:06am
As of recently, however, he had invited Iranian governing officials to come to the US for a 4th of July party. You don't think that makes protestors on the ground wonder whether he really opposes what this government is doing? He's withdrawn the offer, but still.
another confused and confusing post. he rescinded the invitation. not good enough for you?
perhaps he should have invited them and served them the corpses of their children, as was done in ancient history.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 08:16am
It makes me nervous though, that he is going too slow. Posted by Frank42 at 06/27/2009 @ 03:06am | ignore this person | warn this person
this is his great strength. going slow allows for calm deliberation.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 08:18am
obama is weak. Fellow liberal Democrats, had enough yet? Elect a real Democrat in 2012.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/27/2009 @ 09:28am
2012 is a long long way off. don't panic. let the guy govern, as he was elected to do.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 10:28am
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 08:16am </i>
My point is that until pretty recently, when people actually started complaining about it, the invitation was there. He was right to withdraw the invitation, but the fact that he had it in the first place might give protestors pause.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 11:05am
look, america is just not that important. I think you are under the misapprehension that Obama invited Iranian diplomats to come from Iran to the states. not so. here's what really happened
AP Tuesday, June 02, 2009
SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras -- In a new overture to Iran, the Obama administration has authorized U.S. embassies around the world to invite Iranian officials to Independence Day parties they host on or around July 4th.
A State Department cable sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates late last week said that U.S. diplomats could ask their Iranian counterparts to attend the festivities, which generally feature speeches about American values, fireworks, hot dogs and hamburgers.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 11:17am
look, america is just not that important. I think you are under the misapprehension that Obama invited Iranian diplomats to come from Iran to the states. not so. here's what really happened
AP Tuesday, June 02, 2009
SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras -- In a new overture to Iran, the Obama administration has authorized U.S. embassies around the world to invite Iranian officials to Independence Day parties they host on or around July 4th.
A State Department cable sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates late last week said that U.S. diplomats could ask their Iranian counterparts to attend the festivities, which generally feature speeches about American values, fireworks, hot dogs and hamburgers.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 11:19am
Iran's tenth presidential election was held on 12 June 2009.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 11:41am
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 11:41am </i>
And of course, the invitation was immediately rescinded once the repression really got going...right?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
first you bitch about the extended invitation, which may have heartened ALL Iranians, especially those well disposed to the US.
then you bitch about that the invitation was not rescinded fast enough.
then you repeatedly misspell the word protester. unforgivable.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 3:27pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 3:27pm </i>
No no. Here's what I'm saying. The administration extended the invitation to the Iranian leadership. This was the right move. What I'm saying is precisely that the invitation wasn't rescinded quickly enough. Once the regime began killing and mass-jailing its citizens, that should have been the cue not to give candy to its leadership.
And yes, I suppose I did misspell protester. My profoundest apologies. I should hope that a slight and easily-made spelling glitch would not overshadow the actual merits of this issue.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 3:48pm
"The administration extended the invitation to the Iranian leadership".
this is not true. see above
the spelling correction was in jest.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 4:33pm
we can't really go much further on this.
it was a diplomatic nicety, not a great breakthrough. its rescinding too is a diplomatic signal, no more.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 4:37pm
When will America stand strong and prosecute the bush cheney criminals that have brought shame and disgrace to our country! The answer is when Democrats get the courage to stop kissing pubie ass and vote all of them out of office. There is not such thing as a true republican anymore. It is most certainly the party of cowards, criminals and killers.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/28/2009 @ 12:28pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 4:33pm </i>
OK, the administration AUTHORIZED the invitation. The difference is real, but only marginal.
And sorry I snapped on the spelling correction; I didn't realize you meant it in jest.
I agree with you that it was a diplomatic nicety, and that the administration was absolutely right to do it. I'm agreeing with its signaling function, and that's the reason I think it should have been withdrawn earlier. It's a signal not just to the regime but to the people on the ground (as many Iranian NGO's have made clear).
Posted by Thrawn at 06/28/2009 @ 1:09pm
When the anti-American Spiegel speaks, should the US Left listen?
06/25/2009
OBAMA'S MISTAKES
Chancellor Merkel Visits the Debt President
By Gabor Steingart
The occupant of the White House may have changed recently. But the amount of ill-advised ideology coming from Washington has remained constant. Obama's list of economic errors is long -- and continues to grow....
Ex-President......Now, Obama is displaying the same zeal in his own war against the financial crisis -- and his weapon of choice is the money-printing machine. The rules the new American president is breaking are those which govern the economy. Nobody is being killed. But the strategy comes at a price -- and that price might be America's position as a global power.....
Obama's Cheney
Obama's Cheney is named Larry Summers. He is Obama's senior-most economic advisor, and like the former vice president, he is a man of conviction. The financial crisis may be large, but Summers' self-confidence is even larger. More importantly, President Barack Obama follows him like a dog does its master.
The crisis, Summers intoned last week at a conference of Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen Society in Washington, was caused by too much confidence, too much credit and too many debts. It was hard not to nod along in agreement.
But then Summers added that the way to bring about an end to the crisis was -- more confidence, more credit and more debt. And the nodding stopped. Experts and non-experts alike were perplexed. Even in an interview following the presentation, Summers was unable to supply an adequate explanation for how a crisis caused by frivolous lending was going to be solved through yet more frivolity....
Posted by Happy at 06/28/2009 @ 2:39pm
Spiegel, continued:
The Obama Administration's Five Errors
Mistake number one: It's not as bad as it seems....
Second: It is generally assumed that the money is part of an effort to resuscitate the crisis-plagued economy and is thus serving a good purpose....
The third error: Many believe that when the crisis ends, borrowing will automatically fall. The truth is that it could climb afterwards....
Fourth: The world believes that the US is borrowing money from capital markets....But the truth of the matter is that trust in the gravitas and reliability of the United States has suffered to such a great degree that fewer and fewer foreigners are purchasing its government bonds. That's why the Federal Reserve is now buying securities that it has printed itself. The Fed's balance sheet has more than doubled since 2007, making the US central bank one of the world's fastest-growing companies. The purpose of this company, though, is to create money out of thin air.
Fallacy No. 5: The additional money is harmless because the economy is starting to pull together again and there is no threat of inflation. The truth is that...
=================================
If you value international opinions, especially from those closer to your own anti-Bush, Lefty ideology, go read SpiegelOnline's for full article!
Posted by Happy at 06/28/2009 @ 2:46pm
Impeach obama... He is weak and not a Democrat.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/29/2009 @ 5:38pm