Here are the main foreign policy comments in the prepared text of Barack Obama's Minnesota speech tonight (via Drudge):
And it's not change when he [John McCain] promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians — a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.
So I'll say this — there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.
Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years — especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century — terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.
Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy — tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is.
There are hints here that Obama is starting to become more responsible on Iraq ["We must be as careful getting out of Iraq . . . ."].
Also, he artfully repeats the "hundred years" criticism of McCain in a way that may be misleading but is not false (since here he ties it to manpower needs, not necessarily continuing violence).
He is also very gracious in comments about Hillary Clinton.
UPDATE: Snarky in the comments points out that the language of "careful" withdrawal doesn't mean what I thought it meant. Obama has used much the same language to refer to rapid, phased withdrawal from Iraq:
September 12, 2007Given that Obama was wrong on the main foreign policy issue of his brief time in the Senate (whether the surge would improve the conditions in Iraq), I keep hoping that his obvious intelligence will lead him to recognize what is going on in Iraq and adjust his policies accordingly.Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year
January 21, 2008
"I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all of our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely."
March 17, 2008
What I do believe is we've got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. And that means, I believe, a phased redeployment, with a timetable, with a pace of about one to two brigades per month, pulling our combat troops out, but also redoubling our diplomatic strategy inside Iraq, as well as with the regional players, including Iran and Syria.
This kind of behavior is, sadly, the norm for politics, but that is not a defense. I'm voting for him, and doing it gladly, but I'm still a bit sad that his claim to be offering us a new kind of politics is b.s.
He has been saying this for many, many, many months. It's also a meaningless phrase. Did you really think he didn't want to be "careful" about getting out of Iraq?
Whenif Obama releases his high school transcripts, and his SAT scores, then each of us can decide for ourselves if he got into Harvard based on merit, or if he will be our first Affirmative Action president.Fair enough? Or is that out of bounds?
Elliot,
I appreciate your candor. two questions:
1. if your candidate is a dishonest conviving politican now, who will say anything and do anything to get elected, do you expect he'll reform after his election has demonstrated that the method woeks?
2. can you cite one or more examples of similar dishonesty by McCain to mislead the public on an important issue?
BTW: I agree. another Obama opus in prevarication. Like the historical Philly Post-racism speech was operable for 90 days. I thought this speech was pretty good, given the fact that it was an attempt cover a sh_tty policy in perfumed Christmas wrapping.
Of course, Guest 101, after all our brave soldiers have sacrificed, now that we are winning, we'd much rather leave and have another Lebanon in Iraq.
jBy the way, when are we getting out of Kosovo, Germany, Japan, South Korea and so on?
George W. Bush and, probably, a great many of his White House predecessors are "Affirmative Action" presidents, they just call them "legacy admissions."
The fairy-tale condition that McCain immediately tacked on after his initial "hundred years" comment is a pretty transparent attempt to blunt the force of his words. Let me ask you this-- how long will McCain persist in pursuing this elusive "victory" in Iraq before withdrawing, if the violence never ends, which seesm a lot more plausible? Do we spend fifty years pouring more American blood into Iraqi soil, at which point we can then begin our hundred-year reign of peace?
How about answering the question I posed: whether you agree or disagree with Obama about the wisdom of withdrawing from Iraq, how is it misleading in the slightest for him to accurately point out that McCain favors a continued U.S. presence there for the rest of our collective lifetimes?
Just off the top of my head...
I think what is becoming obvious about BHO is that he is championing change for change's sake, and ignoring that we have found something that works. But apparently the fact that it works is irrelevant if the goal is change.Cutting and running because we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place is just plain dumb.
And, there are plenty of good options left in Iraq, notably winning, which we are doing. For example, there were 300 violent incidents for the week of May 16-23, down from 1,600 a year ago this month, and the lowest level since March, 2004. By any metric, the situation has changed dramatically for the better over the last year or so.
The Hundred Years is obviously misleading, since McCain qualified it to equate the situation with Germany and Japan 63 years after the end of WWII. Maybe we should remove all our troops from those countries (or at least Germany) first.Earth to Obama, this is what is happening right now in Iraq. The latest operations have been entirely Iraqi with the exception that we supply close air support.
As to chasing al Qaeda around Afganistan - they aren't there, and haven't been for quite some time. They are most likely right across the border in the tribal areas in Pakistan, a putative ally. Besides, the honey pot of Iraq has destroyed al Qaeda far better than any operations in Afghanistan could. Earth to Obama, again. Roosevelt and Truman met with Stalin while he was still our ally during WWII. It was only later, after those leaders of ours gave him Eastern Europe, that he became our enemy. Kennedy, of course, met with the Soviets soon after being elected, and many view that as a major cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It's not out of bounds so much as stupid. Obama graduated in the top 10% of his Harvard Law School class, based mostly on blind grading. There's absolutely no basis -- other than racism -- for claiming that he wasn't qualified to be there.
How about he release his LSAT score too?
Mac's question ("By the way, when are we getting out of Kosovo, Germany, Japan, South Korea and so on?") IS the answer to your question. It cuts to the core of the deception Obama seeks to perpetuate. If you take McCain to task for his 100 years remark (see below), then you had better be prepared to address all of our long term military outposts in other nations. That is the kind of presence McCain was referring to.
McCains' actual statement:
Indeed, if the level of casualties were to decrease to that level, then why not stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future? After all, it is far better situated strategically than Germany, the UK, Italy, etc. (all where we have troops) these days.
That said, it is unlikely that we will be able to procure semi-permanent basing rights in Iraq. The Iraqis repeatedly disabuse us of any such idea any time that it percolates up, most recently last week.
Let me get this straight. As things stand now, Americans are being "injured or harmed or wounded or killed". Does that mean we should leave (which would, of course, guarantee that there'd be no more "injuries, etc.")? Or must we stay as long as it takes for them NOT to be "injured, etc."?
Folks lets go back 400 years of American history. Let us go back through slavery in the Colonial Period. Let us go through the Constitutional convention dealing with slavery. Let us go through the Civil War in which so many thousands died over slavery. Let us go back through Reconstruction. Let us go back through lynching. Let us go back through segregation. Let us go back through the Civil Rights movement. Let us go back to the 1963 I have a dream speech. Let us go back to the assassination of MLK. Let us go back through the past 40 odd years of battles about race. Let us go back through Shirley Chisholm's candidacy, Jesse Jackson's candidacy, Al Sharpton's candidacy, and Carol Moseley Braun's candidacy.
Keep in mind the 43 Presidents and the elections back to the beginning of this country in which all of the Presidential candidates were white males.
I am taking you through this so you have a sense of just how huge domestically Obama's presumptive nomination as the candidate of a major party is in the long view of U.S. history.
You may not feel the tremor yet, but I suspect you will over time. We are going into a very different space here - just like the Democrats went through a very different space with an African-American and a White Woman as the two candidates last standing.
And - in the West - to have a person of color as the nominee of a major party for its Presidency is simply something that may be too difficult for Americans who do not go abroad to comprehend.
And - in the rest of the world - looking at the United States, imagine the idea that one of the American candidates is a person of color named Barack Obama.
I encourage you to take a moment to think about this remarkable moment - whatever your party and whether you like or despise any of the candidates.
THAT, I would submit is the level that the discussion should begin to get too - rather than just subaltern comments.
Come on - did any of you really imagine this in your life time? This to me is like the fall of the Berlin Wall - I never expected the Soviet Union to disappear in my lifetime.
Best,
Ben
Obama has been using that phrase for well over a year. It is not a change.
Don't you mean that his name is...
Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
HUSSEIN.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
Didn't we invade Iraq to get rid of his kind once and for all??
(Sorry, I figured I'd throw this one out there with the appropriate level of disdain for its stupidity, before someone could seriously do it.)
Not out of bounds. While all black admits are not presumptively unqualified, there is little doubt that most fall short of the qualifications required of whites. We know top law schools have lower requirements for black admits. For example the Georgetown admit data released by Timothy Maguire in 1991 clearly shows the disparity in qualifications.
Let's do some numbers. The median LSAT score for Harvard is 173. How many blacks score that high? Answer almost none. In 1992 1,100 whites registered in law school scored 170 or better, while only 3 blacks did. That's for the whole country! Source: Barnes and Carr 1993. National Decision Profiles. Newton Pa: Law School Admission Services. Therefore it's safe to assume that almost all the black admits at Harvard Law scored below the median.
Since BHO is selling himself for president on the basis of his judgment and ability, it's fair to inquire as to what evidence exists that points to superior ability. If he had a substantial record of accomplishment, his scores would be less important. But he doesn't, so how are we supposed to judge him?
Pray tell, where?
Perhaps the part where Obama wants to cut and run "carefully?"
Who imagined a year ago that Iraq would be a political advantage for the GOP candidate?
Let me be the first to say:
Wow.
Just, wow.
"can you cite one or more examples of similar dishonesty by McCain to mislead the public on an important issue? "
The easiest example is on immigration - I'm at work so I don't have time to link or cut and paste everything, but go to www.slate.com, scroll through kausfiles for a while, and you'll certainly have "one or more" examples of McCain attempting to mislead the public on an issue that at least some think is important...
You do yourself no credit with that kind of silliness. No standardized test score could supersede his law school performance as a measure of judgment and ability. If you think anyone graduates in the top 10% at HLS without the native intelligence necessary to be POTUS, why would you think an SAT (or LSAT) score would matter?
But I'll tell you what. In the spirit of bonhomie of the day, I'll concede you this. Barack Obama will be our least qualified HLS graduate POTUS in the last 136 years.
Actually, this is just evidence that you have been tricked by Republican rhetoric and propaganda.
There is nothing new with this sort of rhetoric. An extremely superficial Google search reveals the following statements by Barrack Obama:
So, it turns out that Obama was being just as responsible all along.
That you thought otherwise attests to the power and ugliness of the Republican propaganda machine. Your false assumption was that Obama was interested in some sort of reckless withdrawal. Even though that is patently and obviously false, you believed it anyway.
Welcome to the power of Republican lies and propaganda. Even the educated and politically aware like Jim Lindgren can fall victim if they are not careful.
John McCain.
I do not think that 4,000+ deaths and 29,000+ wounded in the military to fight a war undertaken based on false pretenses will turn out to be a political asset. Even Scott McClellan admits that that the administration should have been more honest going in.
The bottom-line is that the administration wasn't honest, with its spin and propaganda. It is thus responsible for dividing the country on an issue as fundamental as war and its flawed approach has lead to unnecessary death.
The War in Iraq has now gone on longer than World War II.
One wonders when we'll get any such hints from Bush/McCain.
Seriously, criticizing Obama for not being sufficiently "responsible" towards the complete f*cking mess Bush/McCain got us into?
I do believe the word for that is "chutzpah".
Hey Lindgren, remind me again for whom you voted for in the last two elections?
Do you folks even understand how lame that makes you look? {I'll give a generous pass to those who missed my previous posts stating that I would gladly vote for Walter E. Williams, Bobby Jindal, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell or Bill Cosby if they were running, over any of the current jamokes].
If "racist" is all you can come up with, you're lame, every one of you.
Wasn't it Louis Farrakhan who said he'd insist on being operated on by a Jewish doctor over any black doctor? So I ask again:
Why won't Odumbo disclose his SAT [and LSAT] scores, or his high school transcripts? Hell, he won't even release his medical records, or allow his doctor to be interviewed! And citing is Harvard grades is just circular logic, since Harvard gives most students A's -- and black students no doubt get special petting.
So, how do you stand, name-callers? Should he release his grades & scores? Or must we assume that the geography-challenged Saint Obama is your Affirmative
ActionRacism HE-RO, based on your religious faith?Put up or shut up.
There are two issues I discussed. One was one had to do with group qualifications, and the other with BHO specifically. Let's deal with the latter. If BHO had a high LSAT score, then I should think he would have no qualms about telling us what it is. If it's low then we have to reconcile his class standing with the low score as LSAT is a fairly good predictor of law school performance. That requires more information.
"Let me be the first to say:
Wow.
Just, wow."
I guess you don't believe it. So tell your evidence to the contrary.
While all black admits are not presumptively unqualified, there is little doubt that most fall short of the qualifications required of whites.
Let me be the first to say:
Wow.
Just, wow.
So, was Mr. Zarkov factually incorrect, or just politically incorrect? Both?
and
The Hundred Years is obviously misleading...
I love this blog. where else do you see someone completely misstate obama's statement and then complain about obama misstating mccain only a few sentences later? it's absolutely hilarious.
You people must be stuck in high school...
Don't forget the 27,000,000 people who were freed from a brutal dictatorship and now have a chance to be free. That was one of the stated reasons for the war from the beginning.
No, armchairpunter, it's not. You omit my second response to Mac, which is, given the fact that we're nowhere near McCain's fantasy world in which Americans are no longer being killed in Iraq, how long are we supposed to stay there, sinking money and lives into a quagmire we never should have entered in the first place, in the vain pursuit of the nirvana that McCain so casually stipulates? McCain's answer implies that we have to stay in Iraq until that peace is achieved, and then stick around for a hundred years afterward to maintain it. Obama is being neither deceptive nor, in my view, imprudent to reject that approach.
You also omit to note the fact that I already quoted the relevant portion of McCain's statement; I rather resent the implication that I was hiding the context of his words.
Really? It looks to me like Harvard Law School has a forced curve for most courses:
From that article: "a basic distribution for its subjects of 8-11% A, 17-19%A-, 32-34% B+, 29-32% B, 7-8% B-, and 1% each of A+ and C or lower." Even if they only gave A's and A+'s finishing in the top 10% would require getting more A+'s then 90% of the class.
Also, of the courses I have taken at HLS the courses with blind grading have out numbered non-blind grading by 4 to 1 at least. So I don't know how they would have helped Obama or other black students out? Such a system would belie the general claim (truthfully made) that Blacks tend to finish at the bottom of their law school classes. You can't have it both ways.
There are much more substantive criticisms of Obama. You should try some of those.
My colleagues in academia are so tediously predictable. Only if one is caught up in the nonsense of identity politics would one compare the significance of "a person of color" being a major party presidential nominee to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
A high LSAT is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for getting good grades in a competitive environment. As a super bright guy you should know that.
If HLS really had anonymous grading when BHO attended and his standing was achieved with a fair and honest then he certainly deserves credit. The problem is BHO has walled off a lot of details about this life. We have very little information about him. Holding back data doesn't help build confidence.
You folks should quit trying to frame the argument Obama's way. It does not matter what BHO's grades were at Harvard. The essential point is: WHAT WERE HIS SAT, LSAT, AND HIGH SCHOOL GRADES??
Answer the friggin' question -- or admit that your Affirmative Action HE-RO made the grade by having the bar lowered.
To repeat: put up, or STFU.
Maybe in calmer and less insulting language you could explain to us, why his SAT, LSAT, and High School grades provide anything that his law school grades don't. What is so "essential" about them? And also, what those numbers would show you that his law school grades don't? For that matter, what do they say about anyone? If, hypothetically, he had a 4.0 or a 2.0 would that change your opinion of him? Would you change your current support (presumably for McCain) if you found out that 60 years ago, he was a below average high school student?
I really just don't understand.
"When Americans confront a catastrophe, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies, and rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. (Weak and confused applause.) Our disgraceful failure to do so here in New Orleans exposed the incompetence of government at all levels to meet even its most basic responsibilities."
- John McCain, June 3, 2008
I don't follow. Doesn't the fact that he finished higher than 90% of his class show that he belonged at HLS, regardless how he got there? Actually, come to think of it, isn't this an argument in favor of Affirmative Action?
No it isn't.
I graduated in the top 15% of a top ten law school. Yet I did relatively poorly on the LSAT, because I didn't bother to study for it. I had a pretty good idea that the rest of my qualifications would get me in regardless. (And I was right.)
The very opposite, Ben; it's you who cannot handle the significance.
Btw, it'll be a long time before we see a black man leading a major ticket in any European country, but the fact it's occurring in the U.S., only fifty-some years after MLK began organizing - in the early-to-mid 50's - surprises no one terribly much, which lack of surprise is integral to that significance.
Look, I support AA. But it doesn't mean I also have to lie about what it means.
Which folks, Smokey?
I don't know, and I don't care. I've done a lot of interviewing and hiring, and I've never known anyone to ask the LSAT score of someone who excelled at a top law school. I've seen candidates put their LSAT score on a resume in an attempt to buttress an argument that their law school performance was less than their full potential, but if you've done well enough at a good enough law school, nobody cares one iota how you did on your LSAT's.
Smokey, it's one thing for you not to know how HLS grading actually works (you obviously don't), but to continually make these blatant logical leaps surprises me. Bored HLS 3L has explained why his grades are relevant. What you haven't explained is why these other tests, whose only purpose is to predict the performance we have an actual record of matters at all? "Essential?" To whom, other than you and A. Zarkov? And if you think you're going to impress anyone whose mind isn't already set against Obama that these things matter, I invite you enthusiastically to devote yourself to that end.
But now a MAJOR PARTY has nominated an OPENLY DISABLED MAN as its candidate for the presidency. I NEVER thought this would happen!
To me, as a person of disability, this is as big as the fall of the Berlin Wall!
Can't you all take a moment to savor this historic moment?
A vote for McCain is a vote for HOPE and CHANGE!
What dishonesty. That line only started to be used after the WMD pretext was proven to be false, and the implied Saddam Hussein connection to 9/11 was proven to be false. No way would military action against Iraq have been approved just to overthrow a dictator. What a crock. The United States loves dictators when they are useful to the ruling class.
Let me talk about the 500,000 Iraqis killed, the billions in property damage, the unleasing of a civil war and the $3 trillion dollar cost to the U.S. taxpayer. Let me talk about the fact that even life in a country run by a not very nice secular dictator did not generally involve being without electricity, being blown up at the market, or having your family massacred. Let me talk about the fact that the United Stes has turned an entire country into a hellhole. Being freed from a dictator sure means a hell of a lot to the Iraqis right now, I'm quite sure.
You war supporters are immoral, dishonest and have no shame.
At this point, the "responsible" thing is to pull all troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible.
No? What about snuffing al-Qaeda pretty much for good, permanently discrediting "jihad" as a successful foreign policy, defeating (by proxy) Iran and thus dealing the mullahs a major propaganda defeat, or even planting the very first Arab democracy in the Middle East and demonstrating to the world's 1 billion Muslims that it's possible to be (1) Muslim, (2) a successful 21st century democracy, and (3) an American ally?
I think the Democrats secretly understand this. There's a good reason for the hysterical urge to get out now. It's not because of the horrible and enduring cost to America. It's because of the horrible and enduring cost to Democrats if the situation is allowed to continue much longer in the direction it's going, i.e. towards a resounding victory.
Part of his point is factually correct, and I don't think that's the part in dispute. The argument is about Obama's case, not the general one.
I know of exactly one employer who makes such a demand: Judge Kleinfeld of the 9th Circuit. I declined to apply for a clerkship with him specifically because I found the request so insulting. If every other legal employer in the world recognizes that the LSAT is irrelevant even for applicants coming right out of law school, it's simply absurd to suggest that it is remotely important to evaluating a man of Obama's accomplishments.
Your joke would be better were it not for Bob Dole.
Hope springs eternal, huh? :) Hussein Obama was not "wrong" on the "issue". He is actively in the employ of America's enemies. As for his "obvious intelligence", he may be well-spoken, but I'll reserve judgment on the rest, since odds are he, like most Affirmative Action benefitees, was and is is woefully unqualified for every position he's ever held. (Which would explain why he thinks he can be President after only four years in national politics. Everything else has been handed to him because of the color of his skin - why not the White House?)
Right, "Mission Accomplished".
Of course we could have done all this several years ago, without wasting 4,000 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and untold thousands of innocent civilians if we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.
???
If this is the case, why does McCain keep blathering on incoherently about the end-all-and-be-all importance of Iran?
"When Americans confront a catastrophe, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies, and rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. (Weak and confused applause.) Our disgraceful failure to do so here in New Orleans exposed the incompetence of government at all levels to meet even its most basic responsibilities."
- John McCain, June 3, 2008
"LHD:
A. Zarkov said:
While all black admits are not presumptively unqualified, there is little doubt that most fall short of the qualifications required of whites.
Let me be the first to say:
Wow.
Just, wow."
I work at a USNWR "Top Twenty" national university. I DON'T work at the law school. But I see a couple hundred files from admitted students every summer. There is absolutely no question that "persons of color" (What a horrible and intellectually vacuous construct) are admitted with significantly lower numbers than would be required of a white applicant. Even of a white applicant from a very strained financial and family background.
Legacies get some added help in gaining admission. But even they have far better numbers than, say, the average African American admit.
Again, I *support* my university's AA policy. In addition, the AA-admits almost always graduate (though with a rather lower than average gpa, according to the Office of Institutional Research). So there is no real question of them being UN-qualified. Just LESS qualified.
I assume our law school does the same thing.
Wow!
Just wow!
Um no actually that’s pretty much an accurate statement. Both Clinton and Obama have proposed to federalize the regulation of health insurance (which is currently mostly regulated at the State level) including by mandating that all private health insurance plans offer the same benefits (or greater) than their new health care entitlement. In other words, we will have private insurance in name only as no one will be allowed to buy a policy that covers just major medical expenses or that has a higher deductible (and hence lower premium) if that’s what they prefer.
That's the part of his statement I agree is accurate. And apart from LHD, who apparently has another view, that's not what the debate has been about.
That's the difference between you and me. I'm just out of control politically incorrect. Stop me before I offend again!
Seriously, we have a man of 46 who graduated in the top 10% of his class at Harvard Law—and you want to know what his grades were in high school?
The racism here is actually pretty easy to see. First he has to prove he wasn't unqualified to get in. Then when you point out that his grades were in the top 10%, it's because they gave him better grades for being black. Then when you point out that Harvard Law has blind grading, his grades don't matter because for some reason the only important thing is the entrance criteria. Basically, no matter what he accomplishes, it's only because it was black, and any evidence to the contrary is immaterial.
SHAME ON YOU!
I may have to file a grievance against you. With the British Columbia Human Rights Commission.
Because I think they now claim universal jurisdiction--even over the web.
[McCain balderdash snipped]
No one here thinks McRINO is a genuine conservative (witness his pandering to Katrina 'refugees' - as if it's the government's job to save you from acts of God). The best one can say about him is that he doesn't provide aid and comfort to our enemies, unlike some Presidential candidates I could mention (hint hint). I feel no need to take on his quotes.
I think Jim is (surprisingly to me) quite premature in his judgment that Obama was wrong on the central issue of his Senate tenure; I think the jury is still out. Of course things have gotten better in Iraq during the surge - that's not the point. Most people have thought for a long time that more troops were needed, and that conditions would improve when more troops were sent. The question will be how things look when troop levels return to their pre-surge numbers.
If I recall correctly, the last of the surge brigades are scheduled to be pulled out in July - not because things are going swimmingly, but because their tours are up, the Army refuses to extend their tours, and there are no troops available to replace them. It is not until the last of those surge troops go home and the remaining US and Iraqui troops are put to the test over a period of weeks and months that we will see if conditions have improved, and thus if the surge was successful. The whole point of the surge was to bring enough stability that the Iraquis could control things with American assistance _after_ the surge brigades were gone. Obama may well have been wrong (although I doubt it) but it is way too soon to judge one way or the other.
Get in line.
So, Elliot--When it comes to his career in national government--as opposed to *politics*--just what HAS he accomplished?
I can easily agree with you that focusing on test scores and grades is silly. But NOT racist. (See: "Qualye, J. Danforth--DePauw University." Cf. also, "Bush, George Walker--Yale University".) It doesn't get to be 'racist' now. Too late for that. Just silly.
Can we PLEASE stop talking about the Clintons?
I really say this in all sincerity -- I want very much for us to succeed in Iraq but I also identify, fundamentally, that our attitude has become very similar to an addict: we are always promising ourselves that we are "about to turn the corner" and that "this time things will be different".
Do you feel a need to take on Obama's quotes?
How about you, Lindgren, Volokh, others here? You guys obviously feel a need to take on Obama's quotes. I'd love to hear your take on the above quote by McCain. I mean, you guys are supporting him, right?
Do you agree with the above poster that it isn't necessary, because Obama "provides aid and comfort to our enemies"?
Firstly, that "line" was not primary, but it was used from the very beginning. Iraqi author Kanan Makiya's "Republic of Fear" and "Cruelty and Silence" are touchstones here, in terms of documenting that "line". Likewise, while the domestic terror unleashed by Saddam & Sons was not the primary reason advanced for overthrowing that regime, various people within and outside of the administration advanced that argument as a secondary and supportive rationale. Eason Jordan, representative of the media's status quo, would apparently have left the status quo of Saddam & Sons in place. Further, no one has suggested it was the only rationale, only that it was a supportive rationale.
Secondly, in terms of the WMD "pretext," various commenters have provided the litany of Democratic legislators who advanced that very concern, as early as 1998 and later in 2002/2003 as well, and supported that concern with votes in the Senate and the House. Likewise, the putative "pretext" line avoids other salient facts relative to Saddam & Sons' use of WMD - e.g., against their own Kurdish population.
As far as 9/11 and WTC '93 are concerned, we positively know one of the WTC '93 perps fled to Iraq and was given refuge by Saddam & Sons. We also know of formal of less formal associations with jihadist entities. Etc.
As far as the U.S. "loving dictatorships," that's neo-Marxian and derivative Marxian boilerplate that elides all manner of realpolitik and other factors, for example realities prevalent during the Cold War - a war we eventually won, btw.
A good deal more could be said in terms of expanding upon the points made and adding to those points, but that's sufficient to reveal the delusional "line" you're advancing.
(Kanan Makiya was a pseudonym for Samir al-Khalil, who prior to the overthrow was forced to use a pseudonym due precisely to the reign of Saddam & Sons.)
It most certainly and emphatically was the point in the run-up to the surge, when Obama and many, many, many others were pooh-poohing the very idea of a surge working.
How quickly, and conveniently, we forget. It's reminiscent of the Left's "support" of the campaign in Afghanistan, only moreso.
I'm not certain what you think I should comment on in the paragraph you quoted. Is it the incompetence of government, as someone above thought you meant. Or is it the addition of the word "hot" to his prepared remarks about supplying babies with hot water? Is this probable error at all amusing or potentially revealing?
When our daughter was a young baby, we heated up her water before giving it to her to drink, but maybe we were just too diligent in following the suggestions of experts.
I'm not quite sure what you think I should say: It's a good idea for parents to give very young children warmed liquids, but it's probably not something a government should be required to do. But that would depend on how hard it was to provide the water and the heat and how cold the water would be without warming.
Given that Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee, I suspect that his SAT and LSAT scores will be made public eventually (regardless of how meaningless they are).
Furthermore, given the man's obvious rather talents with language and his success at HLS, I suspect they may turn out to be... more than adequate.
So, I ask you: If it turns out that Obama's scores were above average even for an HLS admit, will you then change your mind about his qualifications to be President?
If not, why pursue the issue in the first place?
What's to "take on"? Everybody here knows that the New Orleans and Louisiana governments were hopelessly incompetent (and corrupt, if that's of any relevance.) So you want us to argue with McCain why???
I never asked you what you "should" say, but I sure wasn't referring to the temperature of the water...
Perhaps because you're voting for him?
I'm pretty sure that when he said "government at every level" he was including the federal government. And after all, he's not running for mayor, is he.
Zarkov, do you support George Bush? And is he qualified to be President? And you think he got in solely on merit(as a white guy, with his powerful family)? And what were his grades again?
This must be the the dumbest argument I've seen here in a while. Shouldn't feed the trolls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7RuX4pQPLY
It was made in New Orleans.
And apparently, a major focus of the speech was the proper temperature of water given to dehydrated babies...
"The right kind of change will initiate widespread and initiative reforms in almost every area of government policy: health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, the transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government are needed to meet our own challenges in our own time.
The irony is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events. And some of these changes have distressed many American families. Job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices to name a few.
But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse."
So, those of you who support McCain: Do you agree with these sentiments?
BHO's "talents" with language is very much an issue of note. It provides some notable discomfort to think of all the leaders during the 20th century alone who possessed such talent. Too often such a talent was the primary talent - if not quite the sole talent - of those leaders. It's a real pity that his talent with language was the only thing or at least the primary thing that came to mind in support of his candidacy at such a time in history.
Beyond that talent, what else commends his candidacy? (And please, don't invoke his rhetoric concerning Katrina or some other issue, I'm inquiring about something beyond rhetoric used to obfuscate and deny used to trade on au currant sensibilities. Rhetoric and oratory can certainly be helpful, but they need to serve a supportive, not a primary, role.)
As to why you continue to obfuscate the local and state governments' failures in N.O., that's plain enough. McCain, emphatically, sited govt. "at all levels," yet your focus is singular, even myopic.
Finally, thanks for the on-going links to McCain's speech tonight, it was a superb speech, one which demonstrates the need for the secondary and supportive role of rhetoric, rather than a primary role for that "talent". Too, there were some very astute comments in McCain's speech, not least of which concerns the use of repetition as used by BHO, in lieu of more substantial and insightful forms of communication by politicos.
Another point McCain brings home in his speech is that BHO has indicated he's "willing to talk in person and without conditions with tyrants in Havana to Pyongyang - but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with Gen. Petraeus ..."
Again, a superb speech that properly hits some critical points and that thoughtfully distinguishes McCain from the Left/Dems and Obama more specifically, so thanks for those continuing links. Related commentary, covering issues from failing schools to govt. spending, amuses as well.
Why would any (sincerely motivated) senator or congressman travel to Iraq? To see and witness to things on a more first-hand basis and because he's a member of the Senate, the foremost legislative body on the planet, responsible to his constituents and responsible for considering the future in terms of regional and global stability. Also, because he's running for the executive office. Why wouldn't he travel in order to help inform his more concerted views?
Btw, you failed to address Obama's and others' concerted opposition to the surge in the first place, commented upon here, immediately upthread. That was another point in time where witnessing to events on a first-hand basis might have tempered Obama's opposition to the surge, which opposition seems to have gone down the memory hole.
Likewise, if "Petraeus is a regular" suffices to explain anything, please provide evidence that Obama has learned from Petraeus's visits to the Senate. Petraeus visited the Senate prior to the surge as well, in part to support that strategic change and the successes which have resulted. So, why Obama's opposition and subsequent mischaracterizations of that change in strategy if your explanation suffices?
No,no and I don't know. George Bush's grades were low, but actually higher than Kerry's. Bush released his grades and other information during the campaign, but Kerry refused to. Later after the election Kerry finally did so. It was obvious that he was embarrassed.
My first year law school grades were mediocre, until I figured out that the "A" in "IRAC" didn't stand for "Analysis," but rather simply "Transition sentence between Rule and Conclusion." Once I discovered law school exams did not require the analytical depth or insight of an undergraduate philosophy exam, I could finish tests on time and almost always scored in the top 10% (or first). So now, I never put much stock in law school grades when I look at resume - I pay more attention to whether the applicant can string sentences together pleasantly and coherently in the cover letter.
Absolutely not. As I said, I agree that he performed well at HLS regardless of his LSAT score. It's his policies, lack of experience and lack of transparency that I object to. I object to his wanting to push even more AA down our throats.
Nor does the practice of law often require such depth.
Indeed, many and notable times the practice of law requires precisely the opposite, a determined and concerted lack of depth, fronted by a determined and concerted rhetoric. Thus the non-lawyer, McCain, vs. the lawyer, Obama; hence McCain's rhetoric, lacking sophistical gloss, vs. Obama's rhetoric, which serves as his primary talent.
No amount? How about 3 million American troops? We can do it, but we don't want to pay the price. That's the problem with a limited war where you want to "win the hearts and minds of the people." How come we were able to subdue and occupy both Germany and Japan? Answer, at least with Germany we were not afraid to employ a brutal occupation which included starving people into submission. The Allies didn't give a shit about the hearts and minds of the Germans.
Via youTube and starring, in their own words, Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod vs. BHO himself. Quoting the latter, emphasis added:
"we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region [...] that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."
And that's only the beginning of where this discussion can lead.
As to the political settlement, one step at a time. "Mommy are we there yet" isn't a formidable defense in an overall campaign that almost certainly will be inter-generational in nature, as I recently noted here, for example.
"It most certainly and emphatically was the point in the run-up to the surge, when Obama and many, many, many others were pooh-poohing the very idea of a surge working." - Michael B.
Perhaps I didn't state my point clearly, and for that I apologize. What I meant to say was that at this point we have no idea if the surge has worked or not. The surge is a process involving an increase of troops, followed by pacification of particular areas, building up of the Iraqi army, gains in infrastructure, resolution of key issues by the Iraqi government, etc. follwed by a decrease in troops and the Iraqi army taking over the role of maintaining the gains of the surge.
The first part of the surge is a success, but we won't know if the surge as a whole was a success until after enough time has passed to evaluate the second part. That time has not yet come - the second part won't even be beginning until August, after the surge troops leave in July. These are the terms that Gen. Petraeus has consistently insisted that he would use in evaluating the success or failure of the surge, and I think Jim (and Obama and McCain) should do likewise.
Carteresque confidence, through and through. Yet people, many of them still on a BDS based high, drinking it up as if it's Moses come down from Sinai. Quite remarkable what a certain rhetorical effulgence, no matter the realities, can do to entire populations.
Let me put it another way. Can you articulate under what conditions you would be willing to give up the fight in Iraq?
Hello, I agree in substantial part with your latter comment, I disagree with the gist of your earlier commentary. Still, what we know is that the surge has worked to this point. First and foremost we're facing an ideological war, with military subtexts that at times are absolutely critical. Hence strategies and tactics will always need to be adapted to that broader framework within hard-nosed, realist assessments over some considerable span of time, almost certainly an inter-generational span of time. (Even now, for some historical perspective, prominent vestiges of the Cold War - variously, in Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc. - remain with us and need to be factored into contemporary foreign policy and global considerations.)
This is a two-way street. You need to answer questions, overt and implied, asked of you as well, i.e. here, directly upthread. You can't simply stand on the sidelines, criticizing, without forwarding your own more positive views as well. The debate concerns the real world wherein real world decisions and policies need to take effect.
As to "weasel wording," not in the least. It was used in a very brief comment and served a general descriptive value. If it had been a part of a 5,000 or 10,000 word essay, perhaps your "weasel wording" description would have merit. As such, not in the least, not remotely so.
Senator McCain's obscure and absurd comparisons are...well, just that. Who cares (apart from committed lefties) if the US is in Iraq for a thousand years if that involves a mere base presence? That was not the rhetoric he was using and we all know it.
Authentic artwork.
Senators who travel to Iraq, especially those who happen to be Presidential candidates, are not really in a position to get that much of a "first hand" point of view.
Going to Iraq would be more of a PR stunt than a substantive means of getting information that would not otherwise be available.
That said, it probably would be a smart move for Obama to go to Iraq. Because there are enough people who do not pay attention to details, like the fact that security prevents major politicians from getting a truly unmediated experience when they visit Iraq.
I do not know why you are surprised. There are a lot of stupid people who vote Republican.
I encourage you to take a moment to think about this remarkable moment - whatever your party and whether you like or despise any of the candidates.
THAT, I would submit is the level that the discussion should begin to get too - rather than just subaltern comments.
Come on - did any of you really imagine this in your life time? This to me is like the fall of the Berlin Wall - I never expected the Soviet Union to disappear in my lifetime.
Best,
Ben
Ben, as a person of color, I frankly think Barack Hussein Mohamad Obama's skin color is irrelevant. Now, if the limosine liberals want to make a big deal about it, well, then I think their attitude speaks volumes about their attitude toward race and/or skin color.
Reduced violence? Always going to be violence. It's a human society and is currently in play with a few dead-enders. Several weeks ago, Chicago had more violent deaths in a weekend than did Baghdad. Pretending we have to reach zero is absurd, considering what the appalling violence amounts to background noise in certain parts of the world.
If the Iraq venture can be ruined, no matter the cost--damn the cost--then the left will have revenged itself on Bush, which is their sole motivation.