A picture of what Obama said on Iraq, and when he said it
Engram nails it again. Hmm, that phrasing sounds familiar.
When Obama says "I've always said", it's time for a little fact-checking. On Bill O'Reilly's comedy hour, Obama said:
"I think that the surge has succeeded..."
The thing is, he has never previously credited the strategy for the gains we've made since General Petraeus came on board, and it's unclear if he gave it credit on the O'Reilly Factor. Why is it unclear? Because I can't tell if he was talking about the increase in troops (which was only part of the strategy) or the strategy as a whole. Prior to the show, Obama said the improvements were because of the Sunnis in Anbar, al Sadr crumbing, and the skills of our fighting men and women, but never the actual strategy that enabled the Sunnis to stand up to al Qaeda, or helped cause al Sadr's militias to crumble. Nor has he lauded the actual strategy that our troops actually employed to improve the situation. Obama's "plan", if you can call it that, was (and is) to get our troops out of Dodge. Nothing else.
What did McCain say in early 2007? This:
"I am not guaranteeing that this succeeds," said Mr. McCain, who has long argued that additional troops were needed. "I am just saying that I think it can. I believe it has a good shot."
For me, I wasn't sure if it had a good shot, but I believed that it merited a good shot. Actually, a last shot. The bottom line is this. McCain was right on Iraq and Obama was wrong, and Sarah Palin had the audacity of hope to point that out:
"But just last night, Senator Obama finally broke, and brought himself to admit what all the rest of us have known for quite some time, and that's thanks to the skill and valor of our troops, the surge in Iraq has succeeded," Palin said referring to an answer Obama gave to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly Thursday.In his first appearance on "The O'Reilly factor" Obama said that the troop surge succeeded 'beyond our wildest dreams.' "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters," he told O'Reilly.
Palin took issue with Obama's response and reminded voters that John McCain initially supported the troop surge.
"I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone was wrong too. But I remember it a little differently. It seems to me there was one leader in Washington who did predict success, who refused to call retreat and risked his own career for the sake of the surge and victory in Iraq and ladies and gentlemen that man is standing right next to me. Senator John McCain," Palin said.
I shouldn't have to explain why this is important, but here's one reason. Iraq is on a favorable trend line but Afghanistan is not. Barack Obama has proposed more troops for Afghanistan, and so has McCain. The difference is that Obama hasn't said a word about the strategy those troops should actually implement when they get there, McCain has proposed a counterinsurgency strategy similar to what is working in Iraq. What's more, our Marines in Afghanstian's Helmand province are using the very counterinsurgency tactics in Afghanistan that they learned in Iraq, and it is indeed working. This is change I can trust.
[Update:] The picture only goes back to June 2005, so it doesn't cover what Obama said prior to that time. Any liberals unsatisfied that the picture doesn't go back to October 2002 will just have to live with that.
--
"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Bird Dog's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Where are her quotes at the various points in time? "What's a surge?"
When the surge was first proposed in absence of a complete overhaul of tactics and significant political developments inside of Iraq, the intelligent response was indeed "What, more troops will fix it?" The fact that Bush & Co were right/lucky one time compared to the every other time Obama was right about this, well, ok. Want a cookie?
- Login or register to post comments
)Are the gains posted due to COIN tactics which are likely to lead to a stronger central state, or are they due to buy-offs of local leaders and ghettoization of Baghdad neighborhoods, neither of which are sustainable after the US presence comes to an end?
That's a much bigger deal, and it has to do with our nation's interests and security. This diary is just more usage of the war for partisan ends.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)It's unclear how federalist Iraq will end up being. Power-sharing between the federal government and provinces is still being worked out. It's also unclear to me how the surge strategy will affect power-sharing one way or the other. The ultimate make-up will be determined by Iraqis.
You may have missed the NYT link above re the handover of Anbar province. The Iraqi government (not the U.S.) will pay the Sons of Iraq, although it's uncertain how many Sunnis will continue to receive compensation. I presume the handovers in other provinces are being handled in similar fashion.
I take issue that Baghdad is ghettoized. The walls are intended to keep terrorists and paramilitias out, not residents in. The residents are inconvenienced, but they retain freedom of movement.
Your opinion that the situation is unsustainable remains an opinion, not a fact. It seems to like the best way to enhance sustainability is to withdraw our troops as conditions justify doing so, which strikes me as very much being in our nation's interest. If you think that's for "partisan ends", well again, you have your opinions.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )due to buy-offs of local leaders and ghettoization of Baghdad neighborhoods, neither of which are sustainable after the US presence comes to an end
Why? The central government is running a significant surplus and the population of Baghdad seems to have caught on to the idea that concrete barriers between their factions keep more of them alive than otherwise . Can you expand on what counter-trends you see working against these?
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The barriers have led to economic ruin for the merchants within. The blast walls keep kids out of school.
The fish tanks we've created are now run by street gangs. Baghdad is dying. It's died before in wartime, the Safavid dynasty from Iran destroyed it twice and it never recovered. Power moved to Damascus and up into Turkey.
More ominously, refugees are still fleeing Baghdad, if they can. The bombings have begun again. Baghdad's doctors are not returning. The Iraqis still can't turn the power back on. We're finding some of the bomb making materiel, but the bombers are returning to their deadly craft. And, of course, US troops are still being killed by such bombs.
There's no surplus worth mentioning. All that money is being stoppered up by the regional authorities, who refuse to come to any political conclusions. That surplus is crazy talk.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Doctors and Refugees are the worst trend you've noted.
OTOH, the bombings haven't necessarily "begun again"--bombs that wound lots of people have been a low-grade background noise over the last few months. According to Brookings, the numbers on multiple fatality bombings have stayed pretty constantly in the range of around 18 to 23 a month for a while now. The numbers on weekly attacks have stayed pretty constant.
As for the power, the average amount of daily power in Iraq has reached what the interim U.S. target was that was set about five years ago. Baghdad has less than it did before the war, but the rest of the country has more.
Now, the fact that things are holding at awful instead of nightmarish doesn't mean it's all rainbows and sunshine. But unless Maliki decides to make all-out war on the Awakenings (as opposed to some arrests, which is all that's happened to date), I don't see a lot of the Ba'ath insurgents or JAM returning to large scale fighting. There seems to be a pretty serious exhaustion factor on all sides save for the fanatics.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That the U.S. was going to pay the Sunni awakening councils and then, gradually, they would become integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. The Al Maliki government has shown itself very reluctant to do the latter. They opposed the awakening from the beginning and continue to oppose it.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The US soldiers patrolling the walls and staffing the checkpoints have essentially no interest in accepting bribes, looking the other way when parts of walls come down, etc. Separately, there aren't a ton of extra Iraqi security officers to go around in a general sense.
Do you really think that the average person in Baghdad views the walls as a permanent phenomenon?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )....both problems can be and probably will be handled by throwing money at the problem. If you need to suppress the acceptance of bribes, then you need to pay enough to keep the agents in question from thinking it's a good way to supplement income. Likewise for creating additional agents. Were this a typical strapped-for-cash third-world situation, that wouldn't be viable, but Iraq has $80+/bbl going for it, if nothing else.
The second point is a valid concern, I think, but how temporary is temporary? I imagine that if you told them you were going to tear down the barriers tomorrow, most of them wouldn't be thrilled. I'd wager nobody wants them to be permanent, but a few years =/= permanent.
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Well, if it's a few years after we leave, it can be decisively blamed on the Democrat in office, so I guess that's a net plus.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What is your definition of the Surge, BD? Let's just start there, because it's a whole lot more than putting more troops on the ground.
As for the counterinsurgency techniques we're learned in Iraq, excuse me a rude laugh. We've stopped fighting the real enemy in both countries. The Sunnis who were busily murdering us in Anbar are being bought off with 300 dollars a month. Is that part of your precious Surge? What's going to happen if we stop paying them? The Byzantine Empire bought off their Sunni enemies for 400 years, didn't save them. As for Afghanistan, our enemies are funded with drugs money. Simple fact. Since 9/11, Bush has done nothing about it. Fact is, he got rid of the Taliban regime, which was doing something about the opium.
So let's review. The success of the Surge is pure fiction. It did succeed beyond our wildest dreams, because nobody in his right mind could believe Bush and Petraeus would let themselves be bent over the desk and screwed by the Sunni warlords in Anbar Province, and likewise screwed by the Shiite warlords in Baghdad. We've built blast walls in Baghdad, we haven't stopped anything. We don't even go behind those blast walls anymore. Nobody does. Not even the press.
Dream on BD. We're paying our enemies not to fight us. Some Surge.
- Login or register to post comments
)It's based on what is laid out in FM 3-24. What's yours?
Anbar was turned over to the national government last week, so the payments to the Sons of Iraq are now Iraq's problem, not ours. Quote:
The question now is how many SoI al Maliki will keep in the government. I understand that the Sunnis were fighting us before the surge strategy, but so what. The whole point of COIN doctrine is to turn them around, showing them it's more costly to fight than to join.
This isn't to say that the success so far is unalloyed, and Iraqologist has an analysis of the current political situation. A lot of this boils down to al Maliki and his allies. No doubt there are some old tribal and religious hatreds. I don't know how those dynamics will play out, and you have quite a bit more certitude.
As for Afghanistan, I won't defend Bush because I have no confidence in him or his government.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A strategy looks like this:
1. Who are we?
2. Who are they?
3. What is our goal?
4. What are our resources?
That's strategy.
As for your happy talk about what happens in Baghdad, it's a farce. That's only maybe half of the Anbar Awakening militias. The Shiites have already started arresting the Sunni leadership.
Now here's the way it's going to go down. We're going to leave Anbar, saying it's all pacified, yay USA. The Shiites won't dare go into Anbar: for all practical purposes it will become as independent as Kurdistan. The newly-discovered oil and gas in Anbar will keep the Sunnis are on a fairly good financial footing. The Sunnis own the roads from Damascus and Amman, owning that nexus of control means Maliki will be forced to deal with the other half of the Sunni Awakening.
When the Shiites default on one payment to the Sunnis, all hell will break loose and they'll start dynamiting the blast walls. Maliki is banking on his Shiite army to hold the fort, but they won't. Baghdad will become another Beirut. To forestall such a cataclysm, the US will still pay the militias.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and I gave you one. FM 3-24 was written with Iraq in mind. MNF-Iraq also has information on current goals.
I didn't say a word about Baghdad, so I don't know where you're getting this "happy talk about happens in Baghdad". I share the same concerns as Petraeus, Odierno and Crocker, but I also think it's fair to say that the strategy is working, and I've said so since the beginning of this year.
Do you have a cite for the "newly discovered oil in Anbar"? That's the first I heard of it. The lack of oil in the Sunni-dominated areas was one of the reasons for the strife with the Shiite-led national government. If all three major groups have big pots of oil, then it should ease the revenue-sharing situation.
Again, as for the Sunnis and Shiites, your certitude doesn't match mine. I am concerned that al Maliki will make major power plays against the Sunnis, but he would take a big risk in doing so.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I've read it at least two dozen times. But it's not a strategy. It doesn't ask the Four Questions.
Your link said
and
Ninety-nine minus fifty four leaves forty five remainder, so yeah, about half the Awakening folks remain on the payroll, even though we won't have any supervision of them in Anbar. Remember, we just ceded control of Anbar.
Oil and gas in Anbar Huge game changer.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Here's the new strategic ROE for Iraq and Afghanistan:
1. Minimize US casualties.
2. Ignore political failure.
Bush, Cheney, Gates, Rice, Petraeus and every flag officer in the situation has given up the War on Terror. It's an absolute disgrace. We see complete capitulation to terrorists and warlords everywhere. The net results of our War on Terror are two more Islamic Republics, governed by puppets and weaklings, incapable of surviving without continued US troop presence. The powers-that-be have done exactly what the British did in both Afghanistan and Iraq, right down to the letter.
Let's get real here. Bush's War on Terror is over: he gave up. It was over eighteen months, maybe two years ago. McCain talks a good game, but he's an ignorant old fool. Since 9/11, we've failed to achieve one meaningful objective in the War on Terror. If McCain thought things were bad when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, wait until he tries to push out the new warlords. Baitullah Mehsud has 200,000 men under arms. On the Afghan side of the Hindu Kush, there's one industry: opium. On the Pakistan side, there's one industry, warlordism.
Gosh. Opium and warlords. You'd think, given fifteen seconds of earnest thought, if we took the opium away from the warlords, we'd make a difference. But hell, we can't do that, of course not, that would force us into open warfare for the opium fields, and that would drive up casualties. We can't buy the opium, either, despite the obvious need for morphine in the world. Bang the drum, support our troops, and anyone who dares to say there's a political solution is a craven coward.
All this bushwa and hooey about What Obama Said about Iraq makes me laugh out loud. The elephant in this room is our rank capitulation to the very people we're sending our troops to fight.
Fact is, Bush and McCain know perfectly well we can't win this war with soldiers. As for McCain specifically, Palin says he's the only one of these candidates who fought for his country. It's time someone did fight for this country, and waged a real war on terror. But that someone won't be John McCain. He learned absolutely nothing from our war in Korea, nothing from Vietnam, nothing from the Balkans War, nothing from 9/11, nothing from Iraq, nothing from Afghanistan. Soldiers only fight for land, they can't bring the peace. There's only one candidate in this race who understands that simple fact: Barack Obama, and he's being run into the ground by people who don't Get It either.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Okay, I might be missing something as I don't read Arabic, but most everything I've seen on the Awakenings and the insurgents who have (at least for now) "flipped" is that they've realized that Ba'ath rule of the entire country is simply not coming back.
Also, it's not capitulation to one's enemies when they give you their biometric data and home addresses. The Awakenings guys in Western Baghdad have taken far, far more casualties than the U.S. has against AQI, and their demands are incredibly modest, viz., 1) uniforms and a government salary for the work they're already doing, and 2) the government go through with promised elections in the near future.
These facts don't seem to match the picture you've painted of MNF-I simply giving up and paying insurgents.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They follow an ancient pattern: first they begin as hired muscle to protect a clan or a neighborhood against outside predations. They graduate to mobsters, extorting what isn't willingly offered. They form up under whoever is willing to pay them and they just as quickly disappear from the ranks when the money stops.
They want more than uniforms. They want weapons and vehicles. They want intelligence on their enemies. But mostly, mostly they want money, and every one of the foot soldiers pays a cut of it to the warlord.
What we really want is the color of law, not the law of color. We used to have a law against posse comitatus: soldiers can't also be policemen. That law's gone, but it was first put in place after the Union soldiers abused their authority in the occupied South.
The last thing Iraq needs is a Reconstruction-style occupation. Iraq must be a nation of laws, not hired muscle. We need more than cops, we need lawyers and judges and police commissioners and mayors and the only way such things can possibly work is with the consent of the governed. That's not happening in Iraq, the Interior Ministry is run by the Shiites alone. Reflagging a militia and calling it an security mechanism is just madness, it doesn't matter how sincere these Sunnis might be. Until they consent to be governed, we are only creating the next civil war in Iraq.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is that it is based on the assumption that lower civilian casualties = surge success. Or that the surge is the cause of the lower civilian casualties. You know , the old "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy?
There are whole books about how to mislead with graphs, maybe they can include this one?
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
)and it's an important one for measuring the success or failure of a COIN strategy. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the surge gets no credit for the improved environment, just as I don't think it's reasonable to say that it gets all the credit. Your opinion sounds like it gets none, which is your opinion, and which I think is wrong.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What is it you call it, the Karnac Award? Or something like that.
Instead of trying to read my mind why not answer the points I actually make?
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You've been downtalking Iraq and the progress and the surge since I've been here. What else am I supposed to think? Answer these questions: Does the strategy get credit for the improved situation? If so, how much?
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )saying it gets a lot of credit. I also find it meaningless from a US security point of view.
If by 'downtalking' you mean that I think the whole Iraq endeavor was a huge mistake since whatever we may get out of it is not worth the cost, then yes, you are correct.
But that's not relevant my point, or points. I will repeat them (in rough order of importance):
1) You can't pick and choose comments based on what YOU think is relevant or not. That's the first reason this graph is misleading, if you are going to include Obama's comments on the surge then it should also include Obama's views on the war itself. Then let people judge accordingly.
2) Since the only variable depicted are civilian casualties its hard not to read the graph as claiming that civilian casualties is the correct metric to measure success. But as several have pointed out, that is false.
3) Finally the graph implies causality between the surge and the reduced numbers of deaths. If you are going to use this graph to attack Obama then you need a lot more than the simple timeline to show that the surge is the reason behind the drop.
Bottom line: This graph is useful as politcal propaganda but is utter crap as an accurate display of relevant information. Maybe this Engram dude should take a class in statistical presentations. Ever read Tufte's books?
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )most important statement of all, the one BEFORE the war?
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
)You mean the most over-leveraged statement in the history of politics? A position taken by a politician that was extremely popular with his constituency, yet which he has used with great success (due to a willing suspension of critical thinking by a great many primary voters) as supposedly clear evidence of such great judgment and prescience that it overrides his lack of experience as a qualification to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. in a time of war and other significant, complex national security threats?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'd say opposition to the war in the south side of Chicago would have had a plurality. In Illinois as a whole, probably close to even (and he was in a Senate race at that stage.) However, look back at the popularity of the first Iraq war. Once it was over in 4 days, the approval rating jumped into the 90s and all the Dems that opposed it were left embarrassed and politically exposed.
Don't pretend there wouldn't have been a price to pay if Obama had been wrong. His aspirations to higher office (including the Senate) would likely have ended right there.
Also, I think you're putting the cart in front of the horse. Experience, by itself, has no value whatsoever. It's only value is in how it illuminates judgment. On the key foreign policy question of our time, Obama had it right (and for the right reasons) and most of the Washington and the media establishment had it wrong.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Missed your comment yesterday (sorry).
I'd say opposition to the war in the south side of Chicago would have had a plurality.
My understanding is that opposition to the war would be the position of substantially more than just a slim majority of voters in his district -- that it would be extremely popular. We can try to fact-check that premise if you question it.
In Illinois as a whole, probably close to even (and he was in a Senate race at that stage.)...Don't pretend there wouldn't have been a price to pay if Obama had been wrong. His aspirations to higher office (including the Senate) would likely have ended right there.
That's a reasonable point, and one that had occurred to me. But, while it does change the probabilities associated with his likely political calculus at the time (i.e., what he likely saw as to his political advantage in terms of his career overall overall) vs. if he had no aspirations to statewide office, it is still quite possible that he saw that position and that speech as a better bet overall for his political career (and in turn that this consideration was enough of a factor to lead him to take that position), and all I'm saying is that people should be cognizant of this possibility (as opposed to simply accepting, without critical thought, his position as a result of his best judgment), not that people should conclude that he definitely did not sincerely, unselfishly, and objectively arrive at his position based on his best judgment. The same could (and should) be said, of course, of any politician. But we should consider factors that are likely relevant to that politician's calculus at the time (e.g., views of his overall constituency at the time; views of key supporters then and for higher office he anticipated seeking; views of the larger constituency he anticipated seeking; etc.)
Also, I think you're putting the cart in front of the horse. Experience, by itself, has no value whatsoever. It's only value is in how it illuminates judgment.
Of course (a bit of an overstatement, but essentially yes, correct). And no, I'm not putting any cart before the horse.
On the key foreign policy question of our time, Obama had it right (and for the right reasons) and most of the Washington and the media establishment had it wrong.
Well, we've just come full circle into something of a tautology, if that is, we are still discussing the question of whether or not Obama's position and speech reflect his judgment at the time as opposed to being tipped to that side by personal political (career) considerations. This final, overall point of yours is predicated on the premise that his position and speech did indeed reflect his judgment. But that's the very question we have before us.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oh boy. All this rah-rah Git 'Em ranting and frothing about this Iraq War.
The only suspension of belief in this entire situation is the fairy dust about Victory in Iraq. What the eff does that mean, Brooks? We're no longer fighting that war, and you can't make the case that we are. Bush has just wussed out. He's fired all the naysayers, he's keeping our troops inside the wire, he's abandoning any semblance of actually fighting Osama bin Ladin -- tell me, if you can, just how we're fighting this war on terror? G'wan and tell me what McCain's gonna do to change things.
You know perfectly well he can't do anything. We don't have enough assmeat in uniform to make a difference. Bush lacks the political will and military muscle to invade Pakistan to go after Osama bin Ladin, and obviously McCain doesn't either, that creaky old lunatick.
Do you have any idea of what it's like to fight a war of counterinsurgency? Of course you don't. Let me tell you, I've fought in one for two years and dealt with the refugees of three other such wars. Here's how it's done, Brooks. Pay attention. Learn something.
An insurgent is a fish. He swims in the lake, he's easy to see, if he's near the surface, but awfully tough to catch. If you don't get in the water, there's only one way to kill all the fish: you drain the lake. Even dynamiting the lake won't work, some get away and then they repopulate the lake, only the next time, they know how to survive the dynamite.
That's what we've got on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq. OBL survived the Tora Bora raid. He's been replaced by a far more effective organic warlord, Baitullah Mehsud. That Mehsud runs a pretty large army, larger than ours. If you count up every Eleven Bravo in uniform today, Mehsud's got twice as many infantrymen as we do. Plus, it's his briar patch, he has the drop on anyone who invades. We haven't begun to put a dent in his troop strength.
Mehsud's Taliban is far better funded than the American troops: running 90% of the world's heroin is a mighty profitable trade. By contrast, Mehsud's troops make twenty times more than we're paying the Afghan soldiers, and Mehsud also supports the families of his casualties, which is more than we can say over here in the USA, where soldiers have to fight a bureaucracy to get anything from the VA. What's more important, there's nothing else to do on the Pakistan side of the mountain, so everyone's volunteered. As long as the heroin money keeps rolling in, we're facing an implacable army of well-funded, well-equipped, highly motivated local warriors who nobody in the history of the world ever conquered.
You think Obama is wrong on the Iraq invasion? Of course you do. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Iraq could have been put off until we'd settled the score with Osama bin Ladin? That part you ignore, preferring to scoff at Obama, who was correct while everyone else, including a whole lot of Democrats, were rah-rah-ing and fearmongering about Condi Rice and the Mushroom Cloud.
Obama's answer is Get Them Out of Iraq. I have some problems with Obama's positions on Afghanistan, too. Will Obama do anything about the Afghan opium? He hasn't said anything about it yet. What do you think we should do about the Afghan opium, every last microgram of which goes through the mountains into Pakistan. Maybe our troops are looking the wrong way, they should be looking back into Afghanistan, not peering over the border into Pakistan. Stop looking over there. It's pointless. Bush is too much of a wussified idiot to prosecute a real war on terror, where the terrorists actually live, and too stupid to see how he could cut off the terrorists money, by buying up the opium.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )1 giving Iraq back to its people
--2. a stable republic where the three main players have a seat at the table.
"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You think Obama is wrong on the Iraq invasion? Of course you do.
Thanks for yet another example of just one of the reasons I generally don't bother trying to have substantive discussions/debates with you: Blatant, baseless, oblivious (and yet confident) presumptuousness and putting-words-in-other's mouth. Oh, and another is irrelevant, straw-man-ish responses in lieu of addressing the argument that has actually been made.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That would be you.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that if you are going to assess Obama's judgement on Iraq you can't pick and choose which of his comments you think are relevant and which not. Unless, of course, you are running McCain's campaign but that's not the case here.
This, by the way, is simply the first of many problems this diary has. As usual, when I ask technical questions, BD is nowhere to be found.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sure, I get your point, and it's obviously valid. But my point is that folks shouldn't suspend their critical thinking skills in favor of reflexive partisan conclusions as they consider each supposed manifestation of his judgment. Obama supporters seem to have (apparently obliviously) forgone such critical thinking with regard to Obama's 2002 statement and its implications for his supposed judgment.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What you say of Obama supporters applies equally to McCain supporters so that line of argument doesn't get us anywhere.
We can debate if Obama's positions were sincere just like we can debate if McCain's are sincere. I'm not sure how useful that is when dealing with politicians but to each their own.
But what you CAN'T do, as BD did here, is to cherry pick some comments and ignore others when trying to assess a candidate's judgments. That's sloppy analysis (or outright lying of the kind political campaigns practice).
THAT was my point.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sure, people shouldn't cherry-pick. As I've said, I agree with you on that one. I'm making a separate point.
And you may be missing my point about Obama's supporters' willfully naive consideration of the 2002 statement. It's not just a matter of sincerity. Even more important is that Obama has been able to use his claim of superior "judgment", using that 2002 statement as his evidence, to override concern that he is too inexperienced to be president (particularly in a time of war and other great, complex national security matters) and to gain an advantage over opponents. Without that claim based on that statement, Obama's chances at the nomination would have been significantly lower and his chances in the general election would be significantly lower. And yet a great many people are swallowing his claim hook, line and sinker, apparently without even considering if the decisive factor in the position he took in 2002 was the strong preference of his constituency or his sincere judgment.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let's put the whole speech on the record. Here it is.
Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )man, you really don't get it. You could at least try to demonstrate with less consistency that you are utterly unable to grasp the meaning of an argument that has been presented. Unless you actually want to consistently remind me why I don't bother trying to engage in rational discussion/debate with you so you never have to deal with it. hmmm.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Seriously, man, not everyone who disagrees with you is dumb.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if they disagree with your own politics, and have the colossal gall not to vote for Obama? I ask because that's what you just said in another thread in your comment no. 117785.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There is no way you are not capable of reading a two paragraph statement, so I'm gonna assume you're just ginning up the outrage-ometer for some personal reason and let you go on your merry way.
Besides, we already know my theory of whence your ideology springs, and it has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with benighted miserliness.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I neither know nor care whence your whatever springs from its wee hiding place.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Of course not, but your comment was. When people are not being logical, I point it out. When people are addressing questions or arguments that are fundamentally different than the one's I've asked/made and are substituting easier questions/arguments to address (e.g., a straw man or irrelevancy), I point it out. When someone consistently throws out that kind of garbage, I conclude that they are probably either not engaging in good faith or are just not capable of rational, logical discussion/debate (call it "dumb" if you wish), and regardless of which it is (or some combination), that person is not worth much of my time.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obama's words are as true today as they were in 2002. They echo across the years, the only sane voice in that whole mad sea of Rush to War. Democrats all fearful of taking the wrong side in a war which might have pushed the price of gas back to a dollar a gallon, yeah, people were making noises like that. Gosh, Rumsfeld said the war would pay for itself.
Stick your fingers in your ears and sing La La La I Can't Hear You, Brooks. Maybe you'll actually read the speech, but it's clear to me you haven't read it.
As for not bothering trying to engage in rational discussion/debate with you so you never have to deal with it, well, truer words were never said. You haven't bothered to utter a rational word since you got here. Bird Dog, Tomsyl, everyone else around here who differs with me, hey, we get along, we take each other seriously. We have to concede points here and there. We instruct each other. But not you, Brooks. You yammer on endlessly repeating the same tiresome lines, over and over and over.
Of course you're not going to engage in rational discussion. You've shown yourself incapable of rational discussion.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Maybe you'll actually read the speech, but it's clear to me you haven't read it.
Once again your consistency is proven. Erroneous, presumptuous statements criticizing someone else, based on absolutely nothing (except whatever, for some reason, passes for logic and valid inference in your head), stated confidently as a clear conclusion. Yeah, I read it long before today, and nothing I've said indicates otherwise in the slightest, your non sequitur notwithstanding.
Oh and re:
You've shown yourself incapable of rational discussion.
Aside from the silly, uncreative, reflex-like, "I'm rubber, you're glue" nature of that response, the fact of the matter is that your lack of capacity for rational discussion is closely related to a lack of capacity to correctly diagnose that in others. You lack the ability to make the necessary fundamental distinctions. But we really should get away from addressing each other's capabilities, since that's a rules violation.
Anyway, tell ya' what: Since now and then it's probably useful for me to check if it's possible to have a rational discussion/debate with you -- or to prove once again that it isn't -- tell me something:
1) Why did you post Obama's speech in response to my point? What was my point, and in what way does posting Obama's speech address my point?
2) On what basis did you presume that I had not read Obama's speech?
3) Why did you address the matter of "cherry-picking" to me and what was your point?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )So I thought I'd put the whole thing in the record, Brooks. All your arguments are answered. We can either argue about what he said, where he was wrong, where he made sense, what he missed ---
Or we can talk, once again, about my irrational behavior.
Talk about what Obama actually said, a valid conversational topic, the sort of thing we do around here, the push and shove of opinions and strong wills and old goats.
Or -- let's make this about me, which I consider to be against the posting rules. And then you'll hurt my widdle feewings and trust me, I am at my most inventive and cruel when my widdle feewings get hurt. You haven't been around here long enough to see me in action. Trust me, it's a rhetorical treat for the onlookers, but my victims remember me to their dying day.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )2nd try. Please answer my questions.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )1. To give you more cherries to pick.
2. Because you do pick and choose, as Gabriel said.
3. (as one might speak to a small child) Let's review
If there's nothing naive in our beliefs about what was said in 2002, let's see what's so naive about it in retrospect. Now that you have it, complete, we can discuss what's so naive about it. That subject you won't address. Instead, you make it about BlaiseP.
That's okay. I'm meaner. And I'm older. And I've read more. I know more about Iraq. Now, maybe Obama and his followers are a bit naive, but I'm not. But I think you are way out of your league, and I'm going to cruelly toy with you for a while. It amuses me to watch you squirm and resort to ad hom, for the facts are not on your side. They're all on my side. Most everyone else around here seems to respect me, and now I'll show you why that's so.
Now stand up and defend your argument, Brooks. Attack me, and I'll torment you, delicately and precisely, all the live-long day.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Recap of my attempt to engage you rationally:
1. Three questions from me.
2. One evasive response from you.
3. 2nd request for answers from me.
4. Three non sequiturs masquerading as answers that make even a small degree of sense from you (including the first one that hardly seems honest -- it's just too much of a non sequitur to be a sincere answer).
Thanks for proving my point once again. I'm satisfied that I gave you the chance to prove me wrong and you clearly failed, and quite thoroughly and efficiently, for whatever that's worth.
The reason it's not worthwhile to spend much time trying to rationally discuss/debate matters with you is not because I dislike you, it's because it's bound to be a fruitless effort and total waste of time. You just don't understand what is being argued and on what basis (premises, logic, analysis, values, opinion, etc.), you don't correctly distinguish one argument from another, you go off with all sorts of presumptuous, baseless, erroneous attributions of premises, positions, statements, beliefs, ignorance, etc., to others, you throw out straw men and non sequiturs, you get evasive when your asked a direct question or presented with a clear argument that you think threatens your argument or position, etc., etc.
Oh, and thanks for the chuckle from all the trash talk. It's really funny to see that kind of desperate, ironic, obviously invalid (and I think more likely than not disingenuous), "I'm rubber, you're glue" defensiveness.
Not that you're likely to take my advice, but I suggest you familiarize yourself with the structure and elements of an argument, generically speaking. Premises, logic, etc. Then learn to more accurately recognize what is being said, what isn't, what is probably being implied, what probably isn't but may be, etc., and learn to ask questions rather than jump to presumptuous and rather baseless assertions or arguments based on presumptuous assumptions regarding the other person's position/argument. In other words, take another moment to think about the argument you're about to respond to, and take an extra step to check if your understanding of the point and the premise/logic/rationale is correct -- is really what that person is saying and on what basis, and ASK if your understanding is correct before going off with your typical kind of response based on what could very well be a misunderstanding on your part. Just a friendly suggestion.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What's so naive about Obama's 2002 speech? Hmmm? (ugly grin) You just walked your argument into my crosshairs, how 'bout you just take a few moments from your busy day to start digging a foxhole? Either that, or run away as fast as your stubby legs will carry you. I really don't care.
Naive. I love that word. It's such a hopeful word. Hope's the emotion people feel before anything's happened yet. Like the wisdom of despair, naivete presumes it understands, when all it's accomplished is quitting.
And that's what you are, Brooks. You're a quitter. You don't really defend your arguments. You quarrel on the basis of procedure. Rhetoric is beyond you. Now stop whihing, pull your head out, get your ducks in a row, start in making some pink boxes with some quoted text in 'em, and let's discuss the Naivete of Barack Obama.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What's so naive about Obama's 2002 speech?
...let's discuss the Naivete of Barack Obama
LOL, Geez, man, this is really something. Even as I try to get through to you that you just don't get what the argument that someone is making actually is and that you confuse it with something else that your mind conjures for some reason, and even as after I suggest that you take a moment and think and ask if your understanding of the argument is correct...you exhibit the same sad (but sometimes funny) combination of oblivious confusion, cockiness, and baseless criticism.
News Flash: I wasn't saying that Obama's 2002 speech was naive, nor was I saying that Obama was naive.
See? You...just...don't...get it.
And: Not...worth...my...time.
I gave you some advice. Maybe if you take it, the next time I give you a chance to demonstrate that you are capable of rational discussion/debate, you won't so clearly and pathetically demonstrate otherwise.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Gosh, I'm so dense, just you tell me what I'm missing here. (grins) Maybe I can't read. Political dyslexia. Terminal naivete. You know, Obama supporters are all So Naive, consider your mission to clue us in.
Now here's how it's done. You scroll back up, pick a part of the 2002 speech, which I so helpfully provided, which I'm still convinced you haven't read, cut and paste, surround it with quote tags, and put a title on the post, like "Here's Something Naive Barack Obama Said." Then press the little button which says Post Comment.
Quite simple really. But it does seem to elude you, Brooks, which leads me to the conclusion you may need more instruction than I can give you. The mods may find your continual personal attacks interesting, I can cut and paste if you can't. Yes, I did write them about your previous go-rounds with me, and they're not the only people who've read my little screed. Did they forward it to you? Feel free to go on attacking me, Brooks.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )i cant brain today...
--. .
[]
---
...i have the dumb
Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )All this talk about qualification to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. in a time of war and other significant, complex national security threats.
Jeez, did you feel better qualified after our little war? I sure didn't. All I got out of it was a lasting dread of the Fourth of July and fireworks. Specially those big boomers.
Now I know I'm a cruel old bastard. Can't be helped. But nothing makes me laugh harder than some gung-ho idjit clamoring for war. Boo-yah! Gonna go kill me some Ennumies of the Newnighted States! Have you ever seen someone survive a few dozen mortar rounds who still thought that way? Oh, there's plenty of brave men who soldier well after a good pasting, but they don't have that thrilling idiocy of the FNGs.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )After a single tour in Viet Nam I feel pretty qualified to talk about the resources needed to occupy a country and bend them to your will. Our country does not have the willpower or the resources to do that to Iraq without committing genocide.
As to fireworks, I love the smell, and like you don't like the big boomers. Other things that should scare me just don't. I saw one kid put a .22 round in another kid's ear a couple of years ago, amongst a huge beach crowd, and from a distance of less than 10 meters, and rather than scream or duck, I simply chased the shooter until I lost him in an alley. (he was caught minutes later) Perhaps if the sound was from a larger weapon I'da ducked. Who knows.
A few weeks after returning to the world, I went to SF Chinatown for the Chinese New Year's celebration. No huge booms, but the firecrackers deeply unhinged me. I was a basket case for hours. Not a big fan of the firecrackers, or the fireworks either. I do, however, like those little worms you light on fire. And the sparklers. Sparklers have a nice soft sound. They remind me of cute little girls laughing and dancing.
Obama would make a fine c-in c, because he comes across as thoughtful and rational.
McCain is wholly unqualified for the office due to his temper, his health, and the fact that he actually still thinks we could have "won" the war with Viet Nam if not for the media and the "liberals". His choice of that greasy little viper as his vp pick shows that he values his political career and legacy more than the office of the President, or our country's future.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Never did like the idea of a general in charge of civilians. There are a few notable exceptions: George Washington, but he was strict about first becoming a civilian again, before becoming a president.
Politicians start wars and only politicians can end wars.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Now here's how it's done. You scroll back up, pick a part of the 2002 speech, which I so helpfully provided, which I'm still convinced you haven't read, cut and paste, surround it with quote tags, and put a title on the post, like "Here's Something Naive Barack Obama Said." Then press the little button which says Post Comment.
I'll bold it this time. Maybe that helps it sink into your skull:
News Flash: I wasn't saying that Obama's 2002 speech was naive, nor was I saying that Obama was naive.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let's review
due to a willing suspension of critical thinking by a great many primary voters
That's me you're talking about. So now you tell me which part of that 2002 speech required Willing Suspension of my Critical Thinking, fella. And don't you dare try to run off and tell me what you Didn't Say. That's what you said. Now defend it, or back off from your assertion of who's doing any critical thinking. You stuck your fat ass out the window with that remark, and now I'm shooting at it.
Now you listen here, Brooks, here's your chance. Tell me what was naive about that speech. That's the task at hand. I am a cruel taskmaster, but I'm reasonably fair. Which part of that speech, which seems amazingly prescient given how little anyone knew about the Iraq situation at the time, was naive. C'mon, you can do it.
Tell you a little story about James Baker, Bush the Wiser's Secretary of State. After this war in Iraq went sideways, he was interviewed and said something which went like this:
"Y'know, when we put an end to Desert Storm, people used to ask me, 'Why didn't you go to Baghdad? Why didn't you take out Saddam Hussein?' Well, guess what, they don't ask me that question any more."
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Just stop. You may eventually feel very embarrassed. At some point you may realize, or (more likely, but still not more likely than not) someone else here whose judgment you trust will point out to you that you have made no sense throughout this exchange, and your latest comment is just the latest addition to your string of non sequiturs. You apparently can't even make the very simple distinction between, on the one hand, commentary on Obama supporters and the manner in which they consider an Obama speech, and, on the other hand, Obama and the speech itself. You mistake one for the other, and then you seem to use them interchangeably. It's quite strange. Not sure what it would take to get you to stop asking me to defend an argument I haven't made. Maybe you should take a break, email a link to this exchange to a friend or relative, and ask them if you are making sense and if not, to explain to you why not.
[edit below]
Suggestion: take a look at Wagster's rational, relevant response to my argument here http://theforvm.org/diary/bird-dog/a-picture-what-obama-said-iraq-and-wh.... See how he addresses and disputes the premises of my argument rather than going off on some imagined arguments that I didn't make or premises I didn't state or imply? Learn from that.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You're saying the speech itself wasn't naive, it's just Obama and the Obama followers who are naive. People like me, who actually saw that speech. People like Rev. Paul Rogers and all those old Vietnam vets who turned up, there were only a few hundred people at the rally, and I wouldn't have been there at all if I couldn't walk over there from Michigan Avenue.
We're the naive ones. The speech itself exists independently, like those kabbalistic interpretations of the Mystic Gematria of Torah, where fallible rabbis preach eternal truths to fallible people, and inscrutable summations of numbers appear in deathless fire against the darkness of the desert, like the Burning Bush.
Is that the take-away from this, you would-be Rambam? You'll be the incarnation of the Guide to the Perplexed, the Sequitur, the Correcter of All Naivete, a Clue to the Clueless Liberal, the Brazen Serpent lifted between earth and sky upon whom the braindead may gaze and be thereby saved?
I see. It's we Obama's followers who are naive. Don't you put on airs, my good man. Here is the reason we believe in Barack Obama: the false prophets of the Iraq War and the Surge have failed and been proven liars.
It seems to me it's you who's exhibited the naivete, not we who from the beginning said this war in Iraq was not only the wrong war, but would also trap our military in an endless war. Maybe it's you who needs to re-enter the Reality Based World. Stupidity has consequences. Obama warned that little gathering on the Federal Plaza that day, and we got a few squibs in the Chicago Tribune. But mostly we were ignored, preaching to the choir, a few gray old veterans who'd seen the country led to war on the basis of another pack of lies.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )More proof it's impossible to have a rational, logical discussion/debate with you. Learn to make at least the simplest and most fundamental of distinctions, and to apply logic, and maybe at some point we can have a real discussion/debate.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Again, nothing about the speech, nothing about the supposed naivete, just a bit of fluff about the political calculus of Chicago, my city.
Don't you dream of condescending to me. You've been handed an opportunity to tell me exactly what's so naive about this speech. Again, you fail.
Do you want to know exactly why I'm pinning you down on that speech? Because I was at the rally where he gave the speech, on Oct 2, 2002 in the Federal Plaza. I walked over from my gig It was the first time I ever saw Barack Obama. I hardly knew who he was at the time, I knew he was running for the Illinois State Senate.
The reason I went to the rally, other than the fact it was convenient, was my friend Rev. Paul Rogers, chairman of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago was speaking. Jesse Jackson, a man I've always disliked, was the headliner.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Mwahaha. War and other Great Complex Security Matters. Eet eez to larf.
Which do you think was the greater objective after 9/11 and the embassy bombings and the Cole, Osama bin Ladin or Saddam Hussein? Who was the greater threat?
I eagerly await your answer, Brooks.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the most pivotal decision he had to make was how to go forward on Iraq. What he said in 2002 is irrelevant to his poor judgment on the situation in 2007-2008.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Not really.
If you wish to claim that Obama has shown bad judgment on Iraq then you need to look at ALL his judgment. You can't pick and choose which decisions you consider relevant or irrelevant. Remember, Obama, like McCain (and every other candidate in history), is running on the totality of his experience, not just on his years as Senator.
I think we can leave the silly political posturing to politicians, If you want to make an analytical point and be taken seriously you need to address the questions asked.
There are several other questions regarding your diary, that I've listed elsewhere. But let's see if you can address one at a time.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Because of the time and cost and incompetence of Bush & Co., the Iraq venture wasn't worth it. In that regard, he was correct. Had we enough manpower and had we actually implemented the post-war plans that the various agencies had devised, the situation would likely have been vastly different, but we can never know because it's hypothetical. Since the invasion, Obama's positions evolved. In 2004, he was publicly in synch with Kerry-Edwards. On the most important decision since the AUMF was passed, Obama was completely wrong.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you are going to use a graph to depict Obama's positions the make sure you include ALL OF THEM. NO CHERRY PICKING.
OK?
If he was correct in the original, most important question, whether we should invade or not, and McCain was wrong, then that's a relevant piece of information. If Obama was complete wrong on the surge but right on the war itself, and McCain was completely wrong on the war, but right on the surge, that might indicate Obama has the better judgment.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm under no obligation to address the history of Obama's judgments and opinions. Implicit in this post is that the decision was made and we are where we are. If you want to revisit Obama's original Hyde Park speech, or if you'd like to reconstruct a graph going back to October 2002, the "new diary" button is yours to click.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You are under no obligation of posting something that is a truthful depiction. And you didn't disappoint.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There you go with your insufferable arrogance again. Just because I don't write something that isn't Gabriel-approved, doesn't mean anything is untruthful.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that's the correct description of this diary. The graph is a terrible piece of misinformation. Read Tufte.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )For inserting your favorite hobby horse into a post about a graph that only goes back to 2005. That's all you've done, downtalk what Obama's done while a U.S. Senator, spotlight his October 2002 speech and denigrate those who don't agree with your conventional wisdom. There's nothing misleading about that observation. Here's another thing that's not misleading. You've been downtalking the strategy and the progress that's been made since I've been here.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and focus on the topic at hand. Will you?
I can't even believe you wrote something as silly as "You've been downtalking the strategy and the progress that's been made since I've been he