My students taught me that everything was personal - history, politics, foreign relations - but this approach creates boundaries as well as connections
Quote of the day
 NavigationOur writersPopular Articles |
 |
Right On Day 1Right On Day 1 Twice on Iraq Barack Obama has summed up things with a simple precise phrase. Before the war he said he was not opposed all wars, he was opposed to dumb wars. It drew our attention to the core of the matter. What made this war, at this time, in this way THE way to proceed after 9/11, and against Islamic Radicalism. The wisdom to act is not wisdom in the actions chosen. With respect to where we are now, Obama has said we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. Again right to the heart of the matter. We cannot leave Iraq spiral down into a catastrophic failed state. Success in leaving behind an even tenuously stable state is the only ‘victory’ we can achieve now. Osama bin Laden has already won the Iraq round in our confrontation with Radical Islam The relative appeal of the jihadist agenda has grown in the Arab/Muslim world since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The debate isn’t over whether to achieve a stable Iraq, it is over how best to do it. Framing the debate around the level of American troops in Iraq at some given time is something the administration’s supporters are all too eager to do. The administration’s critics understand we have long needed to significantly widen an essentially military commitment to meaningfully include political, economic and diplomatic initiatives. Senator Obama has indicated he means to do just that. In the process, applying pressure on Iraq’s factions to politically reconcile by drawing down our troop levels is one legitimate avenue to be explored. But the bottom line remains as Obama has framed it: we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. Two ‘spot on’ insights, ‘spot on’ in their placing in time as well. And we can elect this guy President! Do we want to go with someone who has been so sharply and unerringly right, or someone who saw less clearly (Hillary Clinton), or with little clarity at all, who has more or less been in the corner of an administration that has been virtually without any clarity at all: John McCain. Why should we now have confidence in the judgment going forward of a John McCain? Why should we apriori accord him credibility, and deny it to Barack Obama (on the basis of ‘experience’ no less!), when Obama’s clear and timely insights have been so pointedly right? If Obama has chosen (and he is far from alone in this) to champion a far broader and encompassing reconstruction of our effort in the confrontation with Radical Islam, why should we not accord what he proposes respect and careful consideration. Most (all?) of what we have heard from McCain emphasizes an essentially military engagement – albeit one which now encompasses a broad counter insurgency strategy – as opposed to merely more troops on the ground, or what McCain seemed to be proposing for most of time he was fitfully in opposition to Bush’s course in Iraq. In 2004, McCain had a real opportunity to change the administration’s course. Instead he backed Bush wholeheartedly while still entertaining, he would have us believe, a conviction things were seriously wrong with Bush’s efforts. Does anyone really propose McCain believed his Senate colleague, John Kerry, who had elected to go to war for his country in Vietnam, served, was wounded, and decorated for his service, would ‘cut and run’ in a matter so clearly of great consequence? Does anyone believe McCain could have seen so great a gulf between the two, that he had no choice but to uncritically support, and not substantively challenge, Bush on policies McCain believed were so very wrong? He might have had a real effect, but chose not to act. Wisdom? Judgment? Experience? Right on Day 1? With Barack Obama, we have substantive evidence that, in the moment itself, there is reason to have confidence that he will be: Right on Day 1.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-02-12 01:43
I think you mean...LEFT on Day 1
"...With respect to where we are now, Obama has said we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
That’s not a policy. That’s not a strategy. It’s a meaningless bumper-sticker! Ronr, it amazes me that you can offer in-depth critical analysis of the current administration and Republican candidates, and accept Democrat rhetoric without the same scrutiny. Obama is a powerful speaker (as long as he has a teleprompter) who excites people ready for change, without specifically defining what that change will be. He’s an empty suit without substance or experience and it appears you are crowning him messiah with the same enthusiasm as the 20-somethings who are drawn to his siren song of change…whatever the hell that change happens to mean to you. With Barack Obama, we have substantive evidence that, in the moment itself, there is reason to have confidence that he will be: Right on Day 1.
What substative evidence??? You offer no evidence and neither does Obama. Not that I’m a fan of Hillary, but at least she has the guts to talk real policy. Yes. He’s the candidate of change and the American people are ascribing their own visions of what that change means to them, because Obama has carefully declined to do so. I laughed when I saw interviews of Obama supporters who simply gushed with enthusiasm, but could not name one accomplishment of their candidate. One lady commented that his “inexperience” was actually his strength because the more experienced candidates haven’t done any better. How about that for logic—elect the least experienced candidate because he couldn’t do any worse! What a sad commentary on democracy. The irony is he will probably be the Democrat candidate in the fall. It will be interesting to see if McCain has any more luck pinning Obama down than Hillary. I suspect if Obama actually puts out real policy, it will be more along the lines of his far-left voting record which is unlikely to enamor him with moderates. So I think its more accurate to say, "Obama is LEFT on Day 1."
Bumper Stickers
Iron Mike,
I had a home room teacher in high school who had a ‘riff’. It was about Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Beautiful words, but meaningless, nothing really there. I was startled, inclined to disagree, but had to admit there seemed to be something to be said for it. It was only later, with some time and the river flowing, that I realized he had it all wrong. It was beautiful, but far from meaningless, it said exactly what needed to be said, and said it with spare and surpassingly eloquent perfection. . "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. "
There is scarcely a line of it that could not be dismissed as a ‘bumper sticker’.
My point about Obama’s two observations was that they were, in the moment, right as rain, and exactly on the money. Setting aside the ‘bumper sticker’ label, do you deny the essential wisdom of either. I am inclined to believe that bespeaks real insight.
And I said so.
Yes. He’s the candidate of change and the American people are ascribing their own visions of what that change means to them, because Obama has carefully declined to do so. Obama’s campaign kicked off last February with much publicity and media coverage of a ‘charismatic moment’. From there on things were seen to fall into a kind of ‘sough of despond’ where his appearances assumed aspects of the professorial. As actual voting approached, quite as should be expected, the inspirational reappeared.
As for positions you might consult: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ For my own particular ‘take’ on Obama, I would ask you to consult the ‘Reflections’ piece posted below on 2008-02-01. In THAT light, consider the quote that greeted me at the top of Obama’s web site: “I am asking you to believe. Not just about my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I am asking you to believe in yours.”
P.S. Have you seen the Anthony Barnett piece: Taking Obama Seriously here on OpenDemocracy.
We need leadership from the head, not the heart.
Perhaps its my long experience in the military, but I learned early in my career to separate facts from feelings. Decisions must be made from the head, not the heart. There is a time for each, but when lives are at stake, emotion must take a back seat to rational logic and assessment unclouded by emotion. There is no easy way to give orders that you know will cause the deaths of others and endanger those you lead. It is that level of gravity I expect in a President. As I recall, your background is in science, not English Literature or Philosophy. I would think you would place a higher premium on policy over oratory. Yes, I read your reflections piece. Nicely written by the way. It expressed your hope for the future despite your angst of the present. To retain optimism in the face of disappointment is in itself a victory that not everyone achieves. I really do appreciate how the statement at the top of Obama's website would resonate with you on an emotional level. But in a time of war with an economy threatened by recession, I want a president that can lead, not just make my heart flutter. So I can set that oratory aside and say, "Show me the beef." Peggy Noonan expressed it well. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009388 It seems to me that our political history has been marked the past 10 years by lurches, reactions and swerves, and I wonder if historians will see the era that started in the mid-'90s as The Long Freakout. First the Clinton era left more than half the country appalled--deeply appalled, and ashamed--by its series of political, financial and personal scandals. I doubt the Democratic Party will ever fully understand the damage done in those days. In reaction the Republican Party lurched in its presidential decision toward a relatively untested (five years in the governor's office, before that very little) man whom party professionals chose, essentially, because "He can win" and the base endorsed because he seemed the opposite of Bill Clinton. The 2000 election was a national trauma, and I'm not sure Republicans fully understand what it did to half the Democrats in the country to think the election was stolen, or finagled, or arranged by unseen powers. Then 9/11. Now we have had six years of high drama and deep division, and again a new savior seems to beckon, one who is so clearly Not Bush.
We'll see what Sen. Obama has, what he is, what he becomes. But right now he seems part of a pattern of lurches and swerves--the man from nowhere, of whom little is known, who will bring us out of the mess. His sudden rise and wild popularity seem more symptom than solution. And I wonder if historians will call this chapter in their future histories of the modern era not "A Decision Is Made" but "The Freakout Continues." As you noted... Setting aside the ‘bumper sticker’ label, do you deny the essential wisdom of either.
Absolutely not. But LOOK at what he said..."we need to be careful getting out." How wise and how generally meaningless. Has anyone suggested that we should NOT be careful getting out? He also said he was "opposed to dumb wars." WOW! What insight! I'm opposed to "dumb wars" too. But Obama has yet to define with any detail what is a "careful way to get out of Iraq" or what he considers a "smart war." So with this "wisdom," he's relegated back down to sound bites crafted by political advisors and focus groups---the bumpersticker campaign. Ron,
Not only do I agree
Ron, Not only do I agree with Mike’s comments I really hope the American public thinks Considering Obama
Chris, Before you generate any more steam, I am curious as to whether you have looked at Anthony Barnett's OpenDemocracy article 'Taking Obama Seriously.' What is your reaction to it? As for McCain's 'experience', how do you deal with the issues I raise in the piece that heads this thread? Leadership
Iron Mike,
We need leadership from the head, not the heart. Agreed!
It has not been my point that the two Obama statements aren’t bumper stickers, but that they are precise and unerringly right in the moment. THAT bespeaks substance to his thinking. But Obama has yet to define with any detail what is a "careful way to get out of Iraq" or what he considers a "smart war."
Have you begun to check out the issues statements? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ Note also, the ‘Blueprint .pdf document does not appear to encompass an exact transcription the foreign policy issues page. Whatever you might conclude about what is there, something is there. However that may be, the guiding principle for what is proposed is exactly right. Thank you for kind words on the ‘Reflections’ piece. (And I am quite aware you are highly unlikely to subscribe to my ‘take’ on the interactions between the right and the Clintons during the 90’s) To return to ‘Reflections’ for the moment. The three footnotes were not some sort of obiter dicta. They were entirely integral to the piece. The first sketched in how things had changed significantly as we moved from the end of WWII through the 50’s to 60’s. A world had redefined itself and we sensed a need for new understandings. [For one exegesis on this there is David Halberstam’s The Fifties. Incidentally, Halberstam’s last book [he was killed in a freak automobile accident in which he was a passenger as the book was in the final stages of production] is The Coldest Winter on the Korean War. It is not a good book; it is a GREAT book. It brilliantly interleaves a complex and critical moment in modern history with searing accounts of the extraordinary courage, fortitude, and resourcefulness of the troops we sent to fight it.] The second note suggested if we do not find what we are seeking, things ‘will out’ anyway, and the youth culture of the late 60’s might be considered the way out that was found. The third note proposes that (as things always change) one great strength of democracies may be some permanent ability to evolve change from below – evolving it from democracy’s (by definition) broad base.
After 9/11 things have again redefined themselves. We are again in a moment seeking new understandings, and with that, meaningful change. These moments are not constant, and the virtues appropriate to them cannot be considered any sort of permanent necessity in the process and processes of democracies. Neither, in any way, does the occurrence of such moments preclude a need for sound and serious policy considerations. The roll a Kennedy (or an Obama?) can play is to help catalyze the process. It is my claim that, in such a moment, a leader can inspire confidence in us that we will succeed in our search, and, in such a moment, that is not trivial. If that leader is truly exceptional, he (or she) will be able to see the most useful and constructive elements in what emerges, and help ‘midwife’ them into being. Kennedy did not live for us to see whether or not he would have accomplished this, but his (at first) grudging acquiescence to the emerging Civil Rights movement, and the near breathtaking traversal from the Vienna confrontation with Khrushchev, through the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the test ban treaty could be considered encouraging signs. I believe this moment is evolving with another matter in play. It is my sense that, ironically, just as the brewing Reagan revolution was helped by ‘The New Deal’ story growing old, so now the Democrats are being helped by the ‘story’ Conservatives have been pumping out for so long (‘The Government is the Great Satan’) becoming ‘old hat’. The public is growing tired of it. It is also my sense in this moment that we have grown something close to definitively tired of all the contentions we have been wrangling over. The broad experience of our history is that, after batting our heads together, we resolve matters and move on. At times, the contentions linger on for so long, with the sense we need to forward becoming steadily more insistent, we will look for governance that will accomplish resolution and ‘move on’ nearly above all. Ron,
No, I did not read it,
Ron, No, I did not read it, but I might when I Here’s my prediction,(just for fun) when Cheers. bonr Likes What He Hears? Save Us
bonr; From listening to empty phrases and sound bite logic you think Obama has the answers on Iraq? That type of blind faith puts you in the same league with those who listened to the evidence and voted for invasion. Congratulations.
We need a Reagan, not an Obama.
The roll a Kennedy (or an Obama?) can play is to help catalyze the process. It is my claim that, in such a moment, a leader can inspire confidence in us that we will succeed in our search, and, in such a moment, that is not trivial. If that leader is truly exceptional, he (or she) will be able to see the most useful and constructive elements in what emerges, and help ‘midwife’ them into being.
Even here on OD, the old adage holds true, "Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line." I appreciate Ronr's passion and idealism. We DO need a charismatic leader who can unite the American people. Of course Ron sees that in Obama, while I am looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Sadly, I don't see that in John McCain. But I do see someone with whom I am more ideologically aligned. To paraphrase one senator, I'd rather fight with McCain 20% of the time, than Obama 90% of the time. I think your crystal ball may be the clearest Chris. Obama wins the Democratic nomination his politics will come to the forefront, unlike now. When that happens, Americans will begin truly scrutinizing his policies, and the man, and begin wondering if they haven’t all been duped into some mass hysteria by the leftist media – even though it’s really their own damn fault – when this happens, Obama’s lustre will begin to fade and McCain will carry the day.
I've wondered along the same line. McCain has signaled that Obama's rallying message of hope will become a target in the fall. "To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." John McCain bonr?
tt, Your last was 40 words! The 25 word criterion came from YOU. I have merely been your humble servant. the freakout continues ;-)
I'm not going to vote for Obama, or be happy about McCain being the only other choice I have. We need a Reagan, not an Obama?
Owly, Do you now accede that there MAY be some substance to Obama? And, if so, is your prediction (hunch, based on lack of knowledge?) more or less confident? We at least agree that ‘inspiration’ is a component worthy of real consideration. Are we squared away that my claims for the provenance (and putative gravitas for Obama) of those two sound bite, obvious, jejune phrases lies in the fact they were spoken when it mattered, and happen to be exactly what needed to be said? Your point that no one is for ‘dumb wars’ is equally (eternally!) true, but Obama was talking about a war that was actually about to be launched. It was a DUMB WAR, and the quintessential question to be asked (What made this war, at this time, in this way THE way to proceed after 9/11 and against Islamic Radicalism?) was not being brought forward by anyone in a clear and direct fashion. What would have happened if our political elites(eventually those who 'voted for the war'), our military elites (General Zinni?) our public intellectuals, our media commentariat, and even the war’s opponents (at least in any clear and direct way – more heat than light with those folks), had engaged in a forceful public dialog on this precise point? And what would have happened if our news media had accompanied the challenge just proposed with an adequate job of vetting the administration’s case for war? Obama was effectively alone in being so direct and in the moment. I will concede that an injunction ‘ . . . . to be as careful getting out . . . . .’ is of no decisive merit without some specific implementation in mind, but there is material on Obama’s site that does address the question. The points which will serve as the basis for contention are likely to be his proposals (stated elsewhere as well) to use troop drawdowns, and an intention to reject some residual American occupation of the humongous bases we have constructed (and continue to construct). I believe both of these to be matters properly on the table and hardly to be dismissed apriori. Iron Mike and Owly, In respect to Obama’s resume, I would call your attention to his stint as President of the Harvard Law Review. [For background on this see; http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full]Let me be the first to say, even insist, that the qualities that might recommend someone to be the Law Review President, and the qualities needed to be an adequate, let alone a good or great, President of the United States, may hardly be considered to be the same. Nevertheless: ain’t no dummies to be expected as the Harvard Law Review President. THAT, at least, would testify to the intellectual command needed to comprehend the range and depth of the problems he will encounter. A President of the Harvard Law Review, I understand, is considered able to more or less write their own ticket with any law firm in the country. Obama came to Harvard from working as a community organizer in Chicago, planned to return there, and did so. I do not bring this up out of some notion of contributing to an aura of quasi sainthood for Obama - to which I am in some cult like thrall (too old for that kind thing!) - but because I find it to define an interesting and unexpected course, i.e. worthy of reflection, nothing more. Finally, both of you seem inclined to believe McCain will put Obama through a firestorm over the war (both the Iraq War, and the War on Terror) and he will wilt. But neither of you deal with the case I have made above against McCain.. And THAT case, one must anticipate, WILL be made against McCain. Tsk, tsk Candace...
The vast, vast, majority of people living
Obama under a microscope
Ron, We agree that inspiration is an important component we like in our ideal candidate, but inspiration has to have something to back it up. Obama has an incredible intellect. I don't dispute the significance of his accomplishments as editor of the Harvard Law Review. But that is still in the realm of the theoretical, not getting your hands dirty with crafting policy and living with the success or failure of policy decisions. In that area, Obama is still a rookie, not ready for the big leagues. "...both of you seem inclined to believe McCain will put Obama through a firestorm over the war (both the Iraq War, and the War on Terror) and he will wilt."
I don't think he will wilt at all...but his popularity will. I believe once the American people hear and contrast his policies on Iraq, GWOT and domestic agenda with McCain, his inspiration may seem to be as empty as Hillary has proclaimed it all along. He has successfully deflected Hillary's attempt to pin him down on policy issues--that will not last. After the coronation as the democratic candidate, expect to see more exposed by the full weight of the GOP machine about Obama's socialist agenda and international socialist connections, including who is financially backing him. George Soros' money will become a millstone around his neck along with the endorsement of Moveon.org. Here's a sample of what you will see highlighted more and more. Obama’s International Socialist Connections
The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/
Or how about something more recent....
Now here's one that should get every taxpayer's attention... Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body. In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
Let the Swift Boating Begin
Iron Mike, With respect to the '!!!!SOCIALIST!!!!' screed, it will work with your base (OF COURSE!) but will be water off a duck's back with the public at large. Oh, and have you fogotten the 'Great Rebranding'? Socialist/Communist have lost their sting. Nazi! ISLMAOfaschist! Obama is a LIBERAL FASCHIST!. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!!!! As for the 'financials': A per cent of GNP is just that, so your 65 billion 845 billion numbers have relevance only based on some specific projection as to GNP. Where did you get it. There is a well known proposal in the international community for the nations of (at least) the developed world to devote 0.7 percent of GNP to Foreign Aid. Then, is the legislation referred to currently framed in terms that require that amout of money to be handed over each year, or rather is that level of aid to be cosidered as a goal which any given Congress (or Parliment, or Diet, or whatever) in any of the countries should consider. The latter would seem to me to be by far the likely reality - and almost certainly what would be enacted. We both agree that confronting Radical Islam is a project which needs to engaged over an indenfinite period of time with a comprehensive approach addressing many fronts, eplicity to include an economic one. Shouldn't this be a colleagial effort, rather than some essentially unilateral one? Working together with allies is how we (successfully!) addressed the Cold War. We ARE all in this together. Assumming you agree so far, why do I take it you appear to believe merely invoking 'United Nations!!!!' participation automatically damns any effort, of any sort, whatsoever. The UN, after all, remains the only widely acknowleged (accepted?) vehicle with the level of international connectivity we seek to engage. What, exactly, is wrong with proposing a through overhaul, re-creating the UN into something like what America (an the rest of the world) originally hoped it would be. I proposed above the Ameican public is looking for something new, and I (at least) believe the 'old stories' are on the verge of becoming wizened fruit. For my own views in re the economic issue there is this from my blog site: 4 – Prosperity First. For the long haul, we seek to diminish the appeal of radical Islam to an absolute minimum. Providing young Muslims with alternative constructive outlets for their energies, ways to make a life for themselves and their families, offers the most creative and promising avenue for engagement. In a world that prospers by the educated creativity of its people, strong successful societies emerge from the conjunction of that creativity with the discoveries of modern science and technology. Over the last three hundred years those discoveries have yielded up a cornucopia of opportunity for human creativity, as both invention and enterprise, to feast upon, and feast it has. Mass prosperity has resulted. That sets the stage and eases the way for democracy. Promotion of such means as will produce broadly based prosperity throughout the Arab/Muslim world becomes the central element in our long term strategy. Just as a recovered and prosperous western Europe (think Marshall Plan), and a recovered and prosperous Japan were central to the eventual outcome of the Cold War, so broadly prosperous Arab/Muslin populations around the world will be absolutely central to success in this second Cold War. Both we, and those constructive elements in the Arab and Muslim worlds we seek to work with, must be acutely aware that the vast opportunities that open broadly to people in the modern world also mean vast (and destabilizing) transformation. The educated populations that drive this modern explosion of prosperity will not be content with little or no say in the direction of their societies. To fail to provide substantive governance in consultation with and by consent of the governed, cripples the effort and promotes failure of its purpose. Genuinely broad prosperity prepares and strengthens populations and the societies enfolding them for change. At the same time, government in consultation with and by consent of the governed is unquestionably the most difficult and complex organizational structure ever attempted by human societies. Nothing else is so moment-to-moment 'labor intensive'. [We elect Dog Catchers!] For its part, the developed world must be ready to help mightily, and to understand the range and depth of difficulty our Arab and Muslim allies will be dealing with. What, together, we must seek to devise is utterly unprecedented as a purposed project, let alone for what will be, of necessity, a long, voluntary, profoundly collegial effort.
If "Swiftboat = Truth," then bring it on!
Among Democrats, "Swiftboating" is a euphemism for an aggressive campaign to sink an candidate, while among conservatives it means holding a candidate true to their own record, refusing to let history be re-written. Let it begin? It already has and Hillary is at the tiller of Obama's swiftboat. If Hillary fails (and it appears she will) McCain will learn from her example and adjust his strategy appropriately. The problem you have is there is nothing fundamentally wrong with either of the articles I provided. They are the truth. Obama IS funded by George Soros. He IS endorsed by Moveon.org. He WAS groomed and backed Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. What little detail that can be gleaned from Obama's platform IS decidedly socialist. Have those terms lost their sting? I don't think so. But terms are not as important as the very personal impact of socialist policies on ordainary people. You can quibble over numbers but Obama IS advocating a huge tax on the American people, likely on fossil fuels, that will be administered by the UN. In a distressed economy, labels like "socialist" may be irrelevant, but but "higher taxes" and "more government control over your life" and "turn over tax money to the UN" WILL NOT be irrelevant! Given their long history of corruption and impotence, the UN is largely dismissed by the majority of Americans (and a good portion of the rest of the world) as a largely ineffective international body. I'm not one of the "kick the UN out of the US" crowd, but I do believe there needs to be fundamental reform in the structure of the UN and representation proportionate to the contributions of the member nations. Ghana's vote should not be equal to the US if they are not making an equal contribution in resources.
who to vote for
I know I’m terrible, Chris. I recently found out that McCain has supported prayer and religious symbols in public schools. He also believes that teaching Creationism or Evolution should be left to the states to decide.Yikes, if he wins, I hope he isn’t motivated to make that a reality. But really I haven’t looked into it that much so I probably shoudnt have said anything here yet. Truths or half truths?
Iron Mike,
One can transmogrify Thou salt not commit adultery to That shalt commit adultery and arguably be 80% ‘true’.
Obama IS funded by George Soros To what extent? He IS endorsed by Moveon.org. So? And how many right wing organizations of some questionable provenance will back McCain? He WAS groomed and backed Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. And NOT, at some point, the Democratic Party organization? What party line(s) was he listed on. Which do you suppose really counted? What little detail that can be gleaned from Obama's platform IS decidedly socialist. More than a little detail! Decidedly !!!!!!SOCIALIST!!!!! In Iron Mike’s opinion. Have those terms lost their sting? I don't think so. I DO! Remember rebranding. If I am right we will hear a lot more about Obama ‘the liberal fascist’ in the general than ‘Obama the Socialist’. Time will tell! [Assumming Obama is the candidate] but Obama IS advocating a huge tax on the American people, likely on fossil fuels, that will be administered by the UN. In a distressed economy, labels like "socialist" may be irrelevant, but but "higher taxes" and "more government control over your life" and "turn over tax money to the UN" WILL NOT be irrelevant! He IS? Just like that, in so many words. Administered by the UN? Does anyone imagine anything so bald faced could ever pass an American Congress? ‘Higher Taxes’? How about not making the ‘throw Mama from the train’ tax cut for those earning over $200,000 permanent? “more government control over your life”?. How about more government oversight to keep the playing field level for the middle class?
Iron Mike, in this truly critical moment in our history, do we REALLY want another Presidential race conducted on this basis? Thoroughgoing reform [REVITALIZATION!] for the UN? Absolutely! Oh, and do you ever plan to get around to addressing the case against McCain above which almost certainly will be made against him by either Hillary or Barack?
The issues of moderates will decide the election.
Ron, With regards to the issues I raised, your questions are all as valid as they are irrelevant. Ultimately, this election will be decided by moderates who will make a decision based upon facts without great depth of analysis that you suggest. I'm not denigrating moderates--I'm just pointing out there is a limit to the degree of examination that will be done on candidates and when taken as a whole--the "Obama package" may not be a sell at election time. The whole "charisma" phenomenon will fade with the short attention span of the American public and decisions will be made on the impact each candidate will potentially have on each voter's life. In other words, while the amount of money or influence is theoretical, the mere facts of support George Soros and Moveon.org, and the DSA will be enough for them to be suspicious of Obama's allegiance. Moderates will not want to return to the seventies---double digit inflation, mortgage interest rates, and taxes or the thirties with federally funded CCC-style work programs. I haven't dealt with the "case against McCain", because honestly, I don't get it. What case? I can't buy into the premise of your argument. I see nothing to suggest that McCain considers essentially military-only solutions to terrorism. Where do you see that? McCain supported the Bush administration? Based on the totality of the evidence at the time, McCain backed Bush's decision to go to war, but was highly critical of how he did it. Sure, with the clarity of hindsight, knowing now that Saddam waged a highly succesful disinformation campaign about his WMD program, its easy to blame Bush and those who supported going to war with Iraq----including Clinton and the majority of Democrats. Perhaps if Bush had listened to McCain, the security might have been established early and we would be further along with political reconciliation---a subject near and dear to your heart. For Candace: I don't believe McCain is against after school programs or programs benefiting the disadvantaged. He is against federally funding them when these can and should be state programs if that's where the people in the states decide they want their tax money spent. He can support allowing prayer in public schools all he wants, but he's never advocated the federal government take an affirmative role in making that a reality, has he? Once again, that's a state's rights issue. He also believes that teaching Creationism or Evolution should be left to the states to decide? So what? That's democracy in action and teaching both as theory does not threaten your freedom or security. Nor have I seen where he has taken a stand where the federal government will step in and mandate a particular cirriculum, have you? for what its worth
Well Mike, I was kinda just voicing my cynicism about Republicans, but here is something I found that might be of interest: Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers".
To increase appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers. Voting YES would increase funding by $51.9 million for after school programs run by the 21st century community learning centers and would decrease funding by $51.9 million for salaries and expenses in the Department of Labor. Voted YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools. Vote to declare that erecting religious symbols and praying on public school campuses as part of a memorial service does not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, and to provide legal assistance to any government entity defending such a case. Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. Cut off federal funds to school districts that deny students their right to constitutionally protected voluntary prayer. Supports tax-free savings accounts for education expenses McCain co-sponsored the Education A-Plus bill in 1997 (which Clinton vetoed) and again in 1999, to allow parents to open tax-free savings accounts for their children’s educational expenses - including tutoring, computers, and tuition. Unrestricted block grants--let states decide spending McCain would be reluctant to tie federal dollars to a school’s academic standing. But he seems intent on pleasing conservatives by extracting the federal government from most school-level spending decisions. McCain has said he would present most federal education money to states in unrestricted block grants -- he would include an additional $500 million earmarked broadly for teachers’ merit pay -- and leave it to the states and districts to spend as they see fit. He also believes that teaching Creationism or Evolution should be left to the states to decide? So what? That's democracy in action and teaching both as theory does not threaten your freedom or security.
Religion needs to stay out of public schools. Parents can teach their kids about Creationism. Nor have I seen where he has taken a stand where the federal government will step in and mandate a particular cirriculum, have you?
No I haven't but is he opening the door for one to be submitted and accepted? ;-) Moderate Perceptions
Iron Mike,
. Ultimately, this election will be decided by moderates who will make a decision based upon facts . . . Or half truths? . . . without great depth of analysis . . . So, while I would not expect anyone to welcome “another Presidential race conducted on this basis” , you believe that is the best we can expect? Those feckless Moderates! I haven't dealt with the "case against McCain", because honestly, I don't get it. What case? I can't buy into the premise of your argument. It wasn’t a premise, it was a bill of particulars. I see nothing to suggest that McCain considers essentially military-only solutions to terrorism. Where do you see that?
I was specifically addressing the arc of his record on Iraq, not beyond to the war on terror. And I conceded there might be more, even on Iraq, but his criticism with regard to the war in Iraq was pretty much restricted to a military need for more troops on the ground. Where have we seen him advocate broader engagement until Petraeus elaborated his current strategy? And that affirmation was directed at a broader use of our military.
McCain supported the Bush administration? Based on the totality of the evidence at the time, McCain backed Bush's decision to go to war, but was highly critical of how he did it. Highly critical? NOT! The high water mark was a call for Rumsfeld’s departure, but McCain quickly emphasized that must be left to the President. Sure, with the clarity of hindsight, knowing now that Saddam waged a highly successful disinformation campaign about his WMD program, its easy to blame Bush and those who supported going to war with Iraq----including Clinton and the majority of Democrats. Ahh Yes Hindsight! But ONLY Britain’s intelligence agency joined with ours in affirming ‘the evidence’ required War with Iraq in the first quarter of ’03. It was a DUMB war and many of our oldest and best allies knew it. But not the ‘experienced’ McCain.
Ahh Yes Hindsight! But ONLY
Ahh Yes Hindsight! But ONLY Britain’s intelligence agency joined with MI6 did no such thing. MI6 sent a body of evidence and assessments to the JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) which produced a report for Ministers. The Blair Administration used this report and the subsequent dossiers which was basically written by John Scarlett to bolster its case. As to the thrust of the comment the French, German and many other intelligence services all concluded that Saddam still retained a WMD capability, as did many of the Iraqi General Staff. I also attach a link which takes you to an earlier version of the dodgie dossier. Frankly it is a boring read - no wonder they 'sexed it up' !! http://www1.sky.com/news/complete%20draft.pdf The Evidence For Saddam's WMD Was Saddam
owly; In addition to German, French and British Intelligence services. Italy also thought they had definite proof of Saddam's WMD. Just prior to leaving office as US Secretary of State, Colin Powell told an interviewer that both Egyptian and Jordanian Intelligence had told him the same thing. If the myth of WMD lies with anyone, it lies with Saddam by his own words. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago on OD that the sole interrogator of Saddam after his capture in December 2003 was an FBI agent of Lebanese descent. He was interviewed recently on the American program "60 Minutes" (the same program which broke the Abu Ghraib photos). He spent seven month talking to Saddam and learned that Saddam maintained the facade of WMD in order to bluff the Iranians and to keep a high profile in mideast affairs. The bluff worked too well. Saddam also told him he had every intention of reactivating his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. Those who benefitted from Saddam's bribes under the oil for food program could have had a lot of blood on their greedy hands. MI6 and Iraq
Owly, I will freely conceed your point on MI6, but Britain WAS the only one of our old traditional allies to conclude Iraq was 'worth doing' in the first quarter of 2003. Saddam also told him he had every intention of reactivating his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. Those who benefitted from Saddam's bribes under the oil for food program could have had a lot of blood on their greedy hands.
Have had something of my 'fill' on this one with no one pointing out that, after 9/11, a blythe removal of sanctions was significantly unlikely, no matter how Saddam might scheme and lobby for it. Bribes under oil for food should hardly be taken as some harbinger for courses of action after 9/11, and in the face of world wide security concerns.
.
Ron: Owly and Tt beat me to the punch on the intelligence issues. My only addition to the issue is to remind you that Intelligence agencies gather and analyze, planners develop courses of action, but it is solely the civilian leadership which make decisions that going to war is required. BTW, interesting turn of events this weekend as the Clinton attack machine starts to chew into Obama, asserting he is all talk and no plan, and much of the talk itself is plagiarized. For Candace: Religion needs to stay out of public schools. Parents can teach their kids about Creationism.
The constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Whether Creationism is as much a theory as evolution is irrelavant. It should be up to the states and local school boards to make the decision--not the federal government. Recently, this very issue was debated at the local school board which ultimately decided that evolution as a theory will be taught as the foundation of science, but creationism (intelligent design) could be taught as an alternative theory, since neither could be entirely proven. Voila! Democracy in action and it didn't take the federal government to step in and Nanny the community into a federally approved cirriculum. IM: Nor have I seen where he [McCain] has taken a stand where the federal government will step in and mandate a particular cirriculum, have you?
Candace: No I haven't but is he opening the door for one to be submitted and accepted? No. If your position is the federal government is not in the business of mandating cirriculum, then it applies to ALL cirriculum, not just the cirriculum you agree with. I like your avatar; it suits you. :-) Point of Order
You can't prove such theories, only disprove them. The only reason creationism is taught is because a whole load of people in the USA (misguided in my view) believe in it. If it were taught on the basis of proof (or lack of disproof) then there are an infinite number of possible theories including (say) one where the universe was created 10 minutes ago along with all our memories etc etc. Perhaps the study of UFOs should also be taught as a very large minority believe in their existence too. It is, as you say Mike, democracy in action which is, perhaps, a sad indication it does not always work well. Mike,
What about muslim
Mike, It is nice to see everyones avatars now, instead of the red X. 
McCain is somewhat a
McCain is somewhat a maverick in his own party and reminds me of Theodor Roosevelt. Obama is lots of sweet talk like from a poetry book. Reminds me of an e-mail lottery scam and makes me nothing but EXTREMELY suspicious. Clinton will just repeat the past. Ehhh .... if we only had Gore again....... ronr,
I suggest you actually
ronr, I suggest you actually go and read the link I posted. What I did not realize is that, according to today's Times, the guy who wrote that draft was Jack Straws spin doctor in the Foreign Office. If you compare that version with the 'doggie dossier' they are remarkably similar. As I said MI6 and SIS seem to have had nothing to do with there creation. As to your point about the rest of the Allies do us all a favour. The French and Germans were far too in bed with Saddam so they put their business interests first. And frankly they are lilly livered. It is also noticable that you utterly fail to see just what a menace Saddam actually was. With your much vaunted liberal principles you ought to be glad that a wicked and evil tyrant was overthrown and hanged. Shouldn't you actually congratulate President Bush for doing something morally right ? Huh?
Iron Mike, BTW, interesting turn of events this weekend as the Clinton attack machine starts to chew into Obama, asserting he is all talk and no plan, and much of the talk itself is plagiarized.
MUCH! More of that vogue for half truths to which our fitfully attentive moderates are so susceptable? This isn't even a half truth, more like a hundredth! A busy day today, more on this business later. Owly, Shouldn't you actually congratulate President Bush for doing something morally right?
Morally right and utterly catasthrophic. The wisdom to act is not the wisdom in the actions chosen. What made this war, at this time, in this way THE way to act after 9/11 and against Islamic Radicalism? Obama: "I am not against all wars, I am against dumb wars" Said when it needed to be said!
Context
If you wanted to know what anyone meant in what they said you would want to know the context along with the specific ‘text’ of the matter. We take this for granted, barely thinking about it at all. And we all understand there is nothing like being there in the moment itself.
I suppose one can divide up the question of ‘context’ in many ways. I will propose three: (1) the logical context: what was the flow of argument? (2) the historical context: what was the historical frame within which something was said? (3) the particular context of the moment in which something was said: what was the tone and tenor of the moment, and the manner of the speaker in that moment?
So – to begin with - let’s get to the ‘PLAGIARISM’ moment
It was a POLITICAL RALLY! A LARGE one, with an excited and enthusiastic audience. In that moment Obama was carving out a rhetorical and emotional arc. For political figures such a moment is like singing an aria. Would you expect someone to pause to insert a ‘credit’ in such a moment? In fact wouldn’t it seem almost odd – in such a moment? It’s not that some graceful acknowledgement was not possible, but hardly to be a ‘required’ thing – in such a moment. THAT was the ‘nature’, the CONTEXT of the moment. For me, the third context above defines the moment. The ‘logic’ of the argument wasn’t defining, because the moment was one of exciting enthusiasm, and the ‘historical’ context become what one expects at a demonstrative political rally.
GET SERIOUS! The Plagiarism issue in CONTEXT was, and is, nonsense. Not worthy of consideration.
When Joe Biden, m-a-n-y years ago, got into trouble by quoting a British Pol - Niel Kinnock - without attribution, it was in a stump speech, and I do not know the exact context as is the case above, but one must wonder:
(from Wikipedia): In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate. When the campaign began, he was considered a frontrunner because of his moderate image. However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. Why did he omit the reference on this one occasion? Did he get ‘carried away’ at that particular moment. With all due respect, that kind of thing was not then, nor is it now, generally associated with him. He is known for verbosity, but not for getting swept away.
Probably more than you wanted to know! I have seen this kind of context ‘game’ run above on Obama, run far, far too often on just about everybody by everybody else. True, it is political hardball, but it doesn’t mean I have to accept it without remaking upon it. What remains most vexatious about this isn’t context free presentation, but the all too often seen placing, indeed careful placing, of the of the moment into a context of the presenter's choosing. The Michelle Obama ‘moment’ coming up? Fire when ready Iron Mike.
Political posturing--nothing more.
I actually agree with you on the Obama plagiarism charge. That wasn't my point. It was the ferocity of attack by the Clinton political machine that I was taking note of. As Clinton's presidential hopes slip away, the real Hillary is revealed--Obama's taming of the shrew. I think Michelle Obama's remarks were more deliberate, but spare me the phony outrage from both right and left. This is simply a socialist revealing her true self. Since I already knew where she (and her husband) stand politically, I was not surprised. With Obama maintaining momentum, she can afford to show her true self. Is this really a surprise or an issue? !!!!SOCIALISM!!!!
What nonesense. Socialism has never enjoyed any real status in American Politics, and has had virtually zero regard from rank and file Democratic politcians. It is true that Marxist outlooks gained influence in with academics in the wake of the Great Depression (not unexpected!), but those same academics came to more or less reject them in favor of Roosevelt's practical implementation of various relief measures. It may fly with you, but not the public at large, who, I expect, may be growing tied of the whole gestalt. HI L.W.,
For me, this is
HI L.W., For me, this is too On a side note, I
My prediction
[quote=chris9234 Cheers. Chris, And my prediction is that lots of the democrats simply do not want Hillary that's why they rather have McCain and are now voting Obama cause they know he stands no chance with McCain while Hillary could be difficult if she runs against McCain. On election day half of those who now voted for Obama, if not even more than a half, will be voting McCain. Plus Republicans in many states had their polls open only for their party leaving the independants and the non partisans with no choice but to pick one of the democrat choices. In November though, when independents and non partisans can vote for whomever they want regardless of party, most of their vote will leave the democrats and will go with McCain. BTW. This election will become really interesting If McCain and Condolezza Rice par for president and vice president...lol
Re Chris: Cynicism
Chris, You know what I find even more cynical? The sugar-coating with hope and innocence of what's going on. Lets be real on one thing. It's not a hope that's driving the voters, it's mostly naivety, ignorance, fear, racism, sexism, religion and anything but common sense or hope. It's a shame that black voters will vote for Obama just because he is not white or white people will not vote for Obama just because he is not white. It's a shame that there are women who vote for Hillary just because she is a woman and men who do not vote for her because she is a woman. It's a shame that people will not vote for McCain because of his age or vote for him only because of his heroic background. You get my drift. This el |
Posts: 618
Joined: 2003-02-15