New Election 2008 thread

[Beltmann]

Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

[bjorn_skurj]

Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Hmm. I was trying to think of who said that late last night. Thanks!

[sweetheart-mine]

Let me ask everyone here - do you REALLY want someone as president who is and has been so certain of his own judgment and the principles he or she bases that upon that he or she never changes his or her mind on anything? In the Bjorn Book, if you are so stupid that you cannot change your mind based on new information and improved reasoning, then you are f unqualified to be an ice cream man (woman), much less president. Sheesh. We have a lot of shit bass-ackward in this society, yes we do.

my hat is off to the Bjorn Book. the charges of flip-flopping flying back and forth lately are silly and a waste of time and energy. i hope they both knock it off.

 

other than the changes in the reasons for our invasion and occupation of iraq (changes that were only for convenience anyway), i'd say we have a good example right now in the white house of someone unable to change his mind based on new information and improved reasoning. it's one of the top three scariest aspects of the current administration.

[sweetheart-mine]

"Saint Obama" is much like "Bitter Michelle" in that both are cartoon characters that exist nowhere but in the paranoid nightmares of Republicans. These visions have nothing to do with the real Obamas, of course, but when reality stands in the way of demonizing your opponent, it's always been politically convenient to believe the cartoon. When you buy into the myth, it's much easier to work yourself up into a lather and justify your irrational hatred. (The same thing is happening with "Addict Cindy," who I suspect bears zero resemblance to the real-life Cindy McCain.)

 

The irony is that the Obama "messiah" sarcasm is often mouthed by the same people who believe George W. Bush is God's agent.

yes.

 

and gwb believes it himself, or so he has said in the past. another of the top scariest aspects.

[mountain bed]

Oh no. Here we go again:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_...ccain_terrorism

 

The thing that really blows my mind is that we have a sitting President, the least popular of all times (possibly), who has made glaring error after error in this 'War On Terror', and John McCain has voted the way the White House would want him to (in regards to the 'War On Terror') time after time - but according to most polls, Americans (by a wide margin) think he would do better combating terrorism than Barack. I just do not understand the logic here (if there is any).

[sweetheart-mine]

Oh no. Here we go again:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_...ccain_terrorism

 

The thing that really blows my mind is that we have a sitting President, the least popular of all times (possibly), who has made glaring error after error in this 'War On Terror', and John McCain has voted the way the White House would want him to (in regards to the 'War On Terror') time after time - but according to most polls, Americans (by a wide margin) think he would do better combating terrorism than Barack. I just do not understand the logic here (if there is any).

some people mistake mccain's endurance as a vietnam p.o.w. ca. 35 years ago for experience that qualifies him to protect the country against anything related to war, including the so-called war on terror. yes, it's a gigantic stretch, especially when, like you point out, his sticking to the not-only-failed-but-extremely-destructive policies of the bush administration demonstrates a pretty warped view of reality. it's not 100% warped, though, because there are, in reality, people who will automatically feel more secure due to mccain's heroic and military image. i think it's more image than logic at work here, unfortunately.

[mountain bed]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that because of McCain's 5 years as a P.O.W. he is actually less equipped to deal with protecting the country against terrorism. No one really knows how the trauma of something like that has affected his mental stability (and his medical records, glimpsed ever-so-briefly, don't give much indication). We all have friends and/or relatives who came home from Nam with PTSD, and few were subjected to levels of torture that McCain was. Just sayin'.

[Good Old Neon]

Noam Chomsky on whether a democrat will bring significant change w/r/t our Middle East policy. And yes, it is long-ish.

 

Can a Democrat change US Middle East policy?

 

Noam Chomsky

 

Recently, when Vice-President Cheney was asked by ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz about polls showing that an overwhelming majority of US citizens oppose the war in Iraq, he replied, "So?"

"So -- you don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked.

 

"No," Cheney replied, and explained, "I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in public opinion polls."

 

Later, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, explaining Cheney's comments, was asked whether the public should have "input."

 

Her reply: "You had your input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up."

 

That's correct. Every four years the American people can choose between candidates whose views they reject, and then they should shut up.

 

Evidently failing to understand democratic theory, the public strongly disagrees.

 

"Eighty-one per cent say when making 'an important decision' government leaders 'should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public's views,"' reports the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in Washington.

 

And when asked "whether they think that 'elections are the only time when the views of the people should have influence, or that also between elections leaders should consider the views of the people as they make decisions,' an extraordinary 94 per cent say that government leaders should pay attention to the views of the public between elections."

 

The same polls reveal that the public has few illusions about how their wishes are heeded: 80 per cent "say that this country is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves," not "for the benefit of all the people."

 

With its unbounded disregard for public opinion, the Bush administration has been far to the radical nationalist and adventurist extreme of the policy spectrum, and was subjected to unprecedented mainstream criticism for that reason.

 

A Democratic candidate is likely to shift more towards the centrist norm. However, the spectrum is narrow. Looking at the records and statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is hard to see much reason to expect significant changes in policy in the Middle East.

 

IRAQ

 

IT IS Important to bear in mind that neither Democratic candidate has expressed a principled objection to the invasion of Iraq. By that I mean the kind of objection that was universally expressed when the Russians invaded Afghanistan or when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait: condemnation on the grounds that aggression is a crime -- in fact the "supreme international crime," as the Nuremberg Tribunal determined. No one criticised those invasions merely as a "strategic blunder" or as involvement in "another country's civil war, a war (they) can't win" (Obama, Clinton, respectively, on the Iraq invasion).

 

The criticism of the Iraq war is on grounds of cost and failure; what are called "pragmatic reasons," a stance that is considered hardheaded, serious, moderate -- in the case of Western crimes.

 

The intentions of the Bush administration, and presumably McCain, were outlined in a Declaration of Principles released by the White House in November 2007, an agreement between Bush and the U.S.-backed Nuri al-Maliki government of Iraq.

 

The Declaration allows U.S. forces to remain indefinitely to "deter foreign aggression" (though the only threat of aggression in the region is posed by the United States and Israel, presumably not the intention) and for internal security, though not, of course, internal security for a government that would reject US. domination. The Declaration also commits Iraq to facilitate and encourage "the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments" -- an unusually brazen expression of imperial will.

 

In brief, Iraq is to remain a client state, agreeing to allow permanent US military installations (called "enduring" in the preferred Orwellism) and ensuring US investors priority in accessing its huge oil resources -- a reasonably clear statement of goals of the invasion that were evident to anyone not blinded by official doctrine.

 

What are the alternatives of the Democrats? They were clarified in March 2007, when the House and Senate approved Democratic proposals setting deadlines for withdrawal. Gen. Kevin Ryan (retired), senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center of International Affairs, analysed the proposals for The Boston Globe.

 

The proposals permit the president to waive their restrictions in the interests of "national security," which leaves the door wide open, Ryan writes. They permit troops to remain in Iraq "as long as they are performing one of three specific missions: protecting U.S. facilities, citizens or forces; combating Al Qaeda or international terrorists; and training Iraqi security forces." The facilities include the huge U.S. military bases being built around the country and the U.S. Embassy -- actually a self-contained city within a city, unlike any embassy in the world. None of these major construction projects are under way with the expectation that they will be abandoned.

 

The other conditions are also open-ended. "The proposals are more correctly understood as a re-missioning of our troops," Ryan sums up: "Perhaps a good strategy -- but not a withdrawal."

 

It is difficult to see much difference between the March 7 Democratic proposals and those of Obama and Clinton.

 

IRAN

 

WITH regard to Iran, Obama is considered more moderate than Clinton, and his leading slogan is "change." So let us keep to him.

 

Obama calls for more willingness to negotiate with Iran, but within the standard constraints. His reported position is that he "would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek 'regime change' if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues," and stopped "acting irresponsibly" by supporting Shia militant groups in Iraq.

 

Some obvious questions come to mind. For example, how would we react Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he would offer a possible promise not to seek "regime change" in Israel if it stopped its illegal activities in the occupied territories and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues?

 

Obama's moderate approach is well to the militant side of public opinion -- a fact that passes unnoticed, as is often the case. Like all other viable candidates, Obama has insisted throughout the electoral campaign that the United States must threaten Iran with attack (the standard phrase is: "keep all options open"), a violation of the U.N. Charter, if anyone cares. But a large majority of Americans have disagreed: 75 per cent favour building better relations with Iran, as compared with 22 per cent who favour "implied threats," according to PIPA. All the surviving candidates, then, are opposed by three-fourths of the public on this issue.

 

American and Iranian opinion on the core issue of nuclear policy has been carefully studied. In both countries, a large majority holds that Iran should have the rights of any signer of the Nonproliferation Treaty: to develop nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.

 

The same large majorities favour establishing a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel." More than 80 per cent of Americans favour eliminating nuclear weapons altogether -- a legal obligation of the states with nuclear weapons, officially rejected by the Bush administration.

 

And surely Iranians agree with Americans that Washington should end its military threats and turn towards normal relations.

 

At a forum in Washington when the PIPA polls were released in January 2007, Joseph Cirincione, senior vice-president for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress (and Obama adviser), said the polls showed "the common sense of both the American people and the Iranian people, (who) seem to be able to rise above the rhetoric of their own leaders to find common sense solutions to some of the most crucial questions" facing the two nations, favouring pragmatic diplomatic solutions to their differences.

 

Though we do not have internal records, there is good reason to believe that the Pentagon is opposed to an attack on Iran. The March 11 resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of the Central Command, responsible for the Middle East, was widely interpreted to trace to his opposition to an attack, probably shared with the military command generally.

 

The December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had not pursued a nuclear weapons program since 2003, when it sought and failed to reach a comprehensive settlement with the United States, perhaps reflects opposition of the intelligence community to military action.

 

There are many uncertainties. But it is hard to see concrete signs that a Democratic presidency would improve the situation very much, let alone bring policy into line with American or world opinion.

 

ISRAEL-PALESTINE

 

ON ISRAEL-Palestine too, the candidates have provided no reason to expect any constructive change.

 

On his web site, Obama, the candidate of "change" and "hope," states that he "strongly supports the US-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East."

 

Transparently, it is the Palestinians who face by far the most severe security problem, in fact a problem of survival. But Palestinians are not a "strong ally." At most, they might be a very weak one. Hence their plight merits little concern, in accord with the operative principle that human rights are largely determined by contributions to power, profit and ideological needs.

 

Obama's web site presents him as a superhawk on Israel. "He believes that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged." He is not on record as demanding that the right of countries to exist as Muslim (Christian, White) states "should never be challenged."

 

Obama calls for increasing foreign aid "to ensure that (the) funding priorities (for military and economic assistance to Israel) are met." He also insists forcefully that the United States must not "recognise Hamas unless it renounced its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel." No state can recognise Hamas, a political party, so what he must be referring to is the government formed by Hamas after a free election that came out "the wrong way" and is therefore illegitimate, in accord with prevailing elite concepts of "democracy."

 

And it is considered irrelevant that Hamas has repeatedly called for a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus, which the United States and Israel reject.

 

Obama does not ignore Palestinians: "Obama believes that a better life for Palestinian families is good for both Israelis and Palestinians." He also adds a reference to two states living side by side that is vague enough to be unproblematic to U.S. and Israeli hawks.

 

For Palestinians, there are now two options. One is that the United States and Israel will abandon their unilateral rejectionism of the past 30 years and accept the international consensus on a two-state settlement, in accord with international law and, incidentally, in accord with the wishes of a large majority of Americans. That is not impossible, though the two rejectionist states are working hard to render it so.

 

A second possibility is the one that the US-Israel are actually implementing. Palestinians will be consigned to their Gaza prison and to West Bank cantons, virtually separated from one another by Israeli settlements and huge infrastructure projects, the whole imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan Valley.

 

Nevertheless, circumstances may change, and perhaps the candidates along with them, to the benefit of the United States and the region. Public opinion may not remain marginalised and easily ignored. The concentrations of domestic economic power that largely shape policy may come to recognise that their interests are better served by joining the general public, and the rest of the world, than by accepting Washington's hard line.

 

(This article is adapted from the updated paperback edition of Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy. By Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar published by Paradigm Publishers, September 2007)

[uncle wilco]

"Saint Obama" is much like "Bitter Michelle" in that both are cartoon characters that exist nowhere but in the paranoid nightmares of Republicans. These visions have nothing to do with the real Obamas, of course, but when reality stands in the way of demonizing your opponent, it's always been politically convenient to believe the cartoon. When you buy into the myth, it's much easier to work yourself up into a lather and justify your irrational hatred. (The same thing is happening with "Addict Cindy," who I suspect bears zero resemblance to the real-life Cindy McCain.)

 

The irony is that the Obama "messiah" sarcasm is often mouthed by the same people who believe George W. Bush is God's agent.

Beltmann, you are generalizing those who do not support the policies of Obama. There is no hatred whatsoever in the equation. disagreement is not based in hatred and it is definately not buying into myth. If a voter has done their research on a candidate and formed their opinion, their point of view is their point of view...period. not recognizing that is arrogance.

 

liberals need to realize that there is another VALID point of view opposite to their own. one does not have to support bush or even mccain to disagree with barack's talking points. if you haven't noticed, bush's approval rating is in the toilet across the board. he is a non-factor in all this and especially in regards to the propping up of mr. obama. bush is not looked upon fondly by conservatives in general, since he isn't even one himself. demonizing bush will only get you nods of agreement no matter the persons politics. i recognize that there is always another side to an issue. politics are flawed, as we all are.

 

the obama "messiah" crap is manufactured by the media and his own campaign. the faux-presidential seal is an example of that arrogant mindset. barack would be well served to recognize that he needs independent voters to go his way in order for him to prevail. and independent voters are beholden to no party because they are largely fed up with the arrogant b.s. and corruption of the two major parties to begin with. if barack wants to continue to read his own press-clippings and play into that, he's going to have a rude awakening come november. people are seeing through all that and the longer he keeps fumbling over his own statements, the clearer it will be to others.

 

people aren't as stupid as some liberals think they are. here's an article on the obama "messiah" machine. go ahead and keep comparing bush/mccain/cindy mccain, etc. because nobody gives a damn about them in regards to his "obamaness." it certainly doesn't change the fact that obama isn't going to get my vote simply because i disagree with his particular brand of "change." millions of people happen to agree with me that barack is not worthy of office and they can't stand bush either. many, including myself, are also not very fond of mccain. throwing out those tired comparisons is a non-mover and only serves as an attempt to distract from their own pathetic candidate. are all those nobama people full of hate simply because they disagree? that's pretty weak.

[sweetheart-mine]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that because of McCain's 5 years as a P.O.W. he is actually less equipped to deal with protecting the country against terrorism. No one really knows how the trauma of something like that has affected his mental stability (and his medical records, glimpsed ever-so-briefly, don't give much indication). We all have friends and/or relatives who came home from Nam with PTSD, and few were subjected to levels of torture that McCain was. Just sayin'.

i don't think that case can be made. the guy has been functional since those years. he hitched himself to the wrong wagon after 2000, but that was simply a combination of ambition and poor judgment. and if there were such a case, you can be sure someone in the media would be making it based on some little piece of "evidence," even if only circumstantial, in his medical records.

[Guest Jules]

chompsky

[JUDE]

chompsky

 

I didn't read one word of that article.

[ikol]

Let me ask everyone here - do you REALLY want someone as president who is and has been so certain of his own judgment and the principles he or she bases that upon that he or she never changes his or her mind on anything? In the Bjorn Book, if you are so stupid that you cannot change your mind based on new information and improved reasoning, then you are f unqualified to be an ice cream man (woman), much less president. Sheesh. We have a lot of shit bass-ackward in this society, yes we do.

 

I'm all for changing your mind based on new information and improved reasoning, unless the only new information is that changing your opinion is more likely to get you elected. What change in reasoning caused Obama to change his mind on campaign financing? Maybe his position all along was that you should use public financing unless of course you raise a shit-ton of money and it's so important that you get elected so you can save the country. Maybe he actually held to the letter of his promise (if not the general principle) by making a half-assed attempt to negotiate with McCain. In that case, lets hope he's a more effective negotiator when it comes to Iran.

[ikol]

Oh no. Here we go again:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_...ccain_terrorism

 

The thing that really blows my mind is that we have a sitting President, the least popular of all times (possibly), who has made glaring error after error in this 'War On Terror', and John McCain has voted the way the White House would want him to (in regards to the 'War On Terror') time after time - but according to most polls, Americans (by a wide margin) think he would do better combating terrorism than Barack. I just do not understand the logic here (if there is any).

 

Maybe most Americans were originally for invading Iraq but recognize that the war was mismanaged by the Bush Administration.

[Good Old Neon]

Beltmann, you are generalizing those who do not support the policies of Obama. There is no hatred whatsoever in the equation. disagreement is not based in hatred and it is definately not buying into myth. If a voter has done their research on a candidate and formed their opinion, their point of view is their point of view...period. not recognizing that is arrogance.

 

liberals need to realize that there is another VALID point of view opposite to their own. one does not have to support bush or even mccain to disagree with barack's talking points. if you haven't noticed, bush's approval rating is in the toilet across the board. he is a non-factor in all this and especially in regards to the propping up of mr. obama. bush is not looked upon fondly by conservatives in general, since he isn't even one himself. demonizing bush will only get you nods of agreement no matter the persons politics. i recognize that there is always another side to an issue. politics are flawed, as we all are.

 

the obama "messiah" crap is manufactured by the media and his own campaign. the faux-presidential seal is an example of that arrogant mindset. barack would be well served to recognize that he needs independent voters to go his way in order for him to prevail. and independent voters are beholden to no party because they are largely fed up with the arrogant b.s. and corruption of the two major parties to begin with. if barack wants to continue to read his own press-clippings and play into that, he's going to have a rude awakening come november. people are seeing through all that and the longer he keeps fumbling over his own statements, the clearer it will be to others.

 

people aren't as stupid as some liberals think they are. here's an article on the obama "messiah" machine. go ahead and keep comparing bush/mccain/cindy mccain, etc. because nobody gives a damn about them in regards to his "obamaness." it certainly doesn't change the fact that obama isn't going to get my vote simply because i disagree with his particular brand of "change." millions of people happen to agree with me that barack is not worthy of office and they can't stand bush either. many, including myself, are also not very fond of mccain. throwing out those tired comparisons is a non-mover and only serves as an attempt to distract from their own pathetic candidate. are all those nobama people full of hate simply because they disagree? that's pretty weak.

 

I agree that much of the hype surrounding Obama was and is generated and perpetuated by the media. But again, the same can be said of the tough, decisive, no bullshit aura surrounding Bush, most if not all of it was, we now know, total bullshit. The same could be said of McCain as well

[EL the Famous]

Beltmann, you are generalizing those who do not support the policies of Obama...

 

unc, i love you buddy, but aren't you consistently generalizing those who DO support the policies of Obama? that entire post was one for your 'greatest passive/agressive' hits.

[fatheadfred]

This is not directed at you directly per say, but this is just more rhetoric. What are the strategic avenues for winning this war on oil? What is the battle plan?

 

Solar power technology has not advanced to the point of being feasible on a large scale, nor has wind power. Hydro is quite efficient but has other adverse side effects, i.e. wildlife and topography. Corn based bio-fuels are grossly inefficient in Btu output and the energy costs associated with production.

 

It is good enough at this point to chip away at our dilemma, as well as begin our education as to what needs to be done in terms of solar and wind. Many countries in Europe use substantial amounts of alternative energy. I am aware that these are dense populations, however, we could enact similar situations here within counties.

[Good Old Neon]

I didn't read one word of that article.

 

How interesting. I

[EL the Famous]

In the future, I

[uncle wilco]

Further, Bush was viewed much the same way from his supporters on the right

[JUDE]

It is good enough at this point to chip away at our dilemma, as well as begin our education as to what needs to be done in terms of solar and wind. Many countries in Europe use substantial amounts of alternative energy. I am aware that these are dense populations, however, we could enact similar situations here within counties.

 

That

[EL the Famous]

CHOMPSKY!

[JUDE]

finally, something we can ALL agree on!

 

You are a true bipartisan.

[Good Old Neon]

dude...that's so "out there" i don't even know what to say...

 

nobody ever saw bush in that light, except for maybe bush himself while shaving.

 

is that how the left sees current or former bush supporters?

 

wow

 

"But while Bush's public comments about faith have been mostly within the mainstream tradition of presidential rhetoric, his supporters lately have gone in a less-familiar direction: conveying the idea that God is responsible for Bush being in the White House.

 

"He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge," said George Pataki in the high-profile introduction of Bush at the Republican National Convention, an introduction almost certainly scrubbed if not written by the White House." - Slate.com

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2106590/

[uncle wilco]

unc, i love you buddy, but aren't you consistently generalizing those who DO support the policies of Obama? that entire post was one for your 'greatest passive/agressive' hits.

ahh, hell...nobody's perfect.