Politics 2014

[lost highway]

I think a lot of the tension in these conversations come from the psychological weight (and sometimes lack thereof) of the concept of war.  I think both sides of the political spectrum like to state that they dislike war, would rather it not happen, and believe in finding every other solution possible before resorting to it.  Yet, one side is always so quick to jump to it. 

 

There is a strong bias among a certain set of Americans about using the military to solve problems.  I have stated before that I believe this is the lasting effect of our involvement in WWII, which had a way of defining our view of what the American military does for our own well being, as well as the world at large.  This very romantic notion ignores the unparalleled singularity of that war, as well as the occasionally disingenuous, revisionist telling of our motivations for engaging in it (as well as the handling of the aftermath- i.e. Pakistan/India, Israel/Palestine).  This utterly baffling milestone has hypnotized so much of our nation into believing that war can be a productive and useful act, which flies in the face of every major military engagement since.  In spite of decades of evidence many Americans erroneously believe that  an act of war is fundamentally good for our economy, our safety and the stability of foreign nations.

 

There is a whole other element to this that deals with our mythology of heroism, and the way war has been portrayed in American cinema, but that's a long one I wont get into here.

[Hixter]

I think both sides of the political spectrum like to state that they dislike war, would rather it not happen, and believe in finding every other solution possible before resorting to it.  Yet, one side is always so quick to jump to it.

I hope you meant "one side or the other" and not a particular political party, since history would not bear that out.

 

This utterly baffling milestone has hypnotized so much of our nation into believing that war can be a productive and useful act

I disagree. I think our nation and its leaders in both parties understand fully the costs and consequences of military action.  

[lost highway]

I hope you meant "one side or the other" and not a particular political party, since history would not bear that out.

 Good point, both parties have had their hawks and their isolationists.

[lost highway]

I disagree. I think our nation and its leaders in both parties understand fully the costs and consequences of military action.  

I'd say that's a little Pollyanna of you.  At least in the recent Iraq quagmire I would say that Bush never understood which shows how daft and easy to manipulate he was, but Cheney knew exactly what the costs and consequences could be.  That demonstrates what a sociopath he is.

 

I think Obama understands, and makes some pretty serious ethical compromises, yet his understanding is what has slowed his hand and infuriated the hawks.

[Hixter]

 Good point, both parties have had their hawks and their isolationists.

Kennedy got us embroiled in Vietnam, invaded Cuba and brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Carter invaded Iran. Clinton brought us the debacle in Somalia, was hours away from invading Haiti, bombed Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan and invaded Pakistan. Do you consider them to be hawks? I consider them to be men who made difficult decisions in defense of the nation and its interests. 

 

At least in the recent Iraq quagmire I would say that Bush never understood which shows how daft and easy to manipulate he was, but Cheney knew exactly what the costs and consequences could be.  That demonstrates what a sociopath he is.

 

I think Obama understands, and makes some pretty serious ethical compromises, yet his understanding is what has slowed his hand and infuriated the hawks.

I'm sure that Bush, Cheney and Obama have all spent many hours and days of agonizing over their decisions, and they will continue to do so for the rest of their lives. I'm not going to label any of them sociopaths.

[NoJ]

Umm.....just so we have all the facts here..........on the evening of December 4 1992, President George Bush made an address to the nation, informing the nation that US troops would be sent to Somalia. The decision to send troops to Somalia was not Clintons.

[Hixter]

Umm.....just so we have all the facts here..........on the evening of December 4 1992, President George Bush made an address to the nation, informing the nation that US troops would be sent to Somalia. The decision to send troops to Somalia was not Clintons.

I remember it well. I was referring to the post-Bush transition from a humanitarian mission to an offensive military mission that resulted in the infamous 'Black Hawk Down' incident. I should have been more clear.

 

Three or four days after the incident which included televised images of American corpses being dragged through the streets, President Clinton announced a pullout from Somalia. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein saw it as a sign that Americans didn't have the stomach for prolonged, boots-on-the-ground combat with heavy losses. They would both learn the hard way that they were wrong.

[NoJ]

I recall, when Bush did that, it seemed to me like he was leaving a big steaming pile of dung on the Oval Office's desk for Clinton to clean up. I wasnt too far off.

[Doug C]

Carter invaded Iran? Are you referring to the ill-fated rescue attempt of the hostages?

[Hixter]

I recall, when Bush did that, it seemed to me like he was leaving a big steaming pile of dung on the Oval Office's desk for Clinton to clean up. I wasnt too far off.

Yep, but the world was clamoring for it. Starving babies, multinational force, UN mandate, etc. 

 

Carter invaded Iran? Are you referring to the ill-fated rescue attempt of the hostages?

Yes. Can't say that I blame him for trying, but invading a country with a military force and killing people is an act of war. 

[Doug C]

No one else calls it an invasion. Google "Carter invaded Iran". Nothing. I found a few "should Carter have invaded Iran" but nothing referring to Carter invading Iran. I expect that you will say that by definition it was an invasion. History doesn't call it one, but this is the Internet, so you are free to say that Carter invaded Iran.

[NoJ]

Remember when Reagan invaded Lebanon and then split after 200+ Marines were blown up?

[Hixter]

I expect that you will say that by definition it was an invasion.

Call it what you will, but armed American troops entered a sovereign nation and killed someone. It's an act of war and could have kicked off a major war. The same can be said about the mission to kill Osama bin Laden.

 

Remember when Reagan invaded Lebanon and then split after 200+ Marines were blown up?

I remember it very well, since one of my friends was killed in the barracks bombing. It tracks very closely with Somalia: a UN-backed mission that ended abruptly when Americans were killed, thus leading our adversaries and potential adversaries to believe that we were a paper tiger that would run away if our nose was bloodied.

[IRememberDBoon]

Some Dirtbag shoots down an airliner accidentally and Hixter wants us to redouble our troop presence in Eastern Europe.

What is happening is exactly what should be happening. The US is backing NATO*OTAN while they take care of it and the sanctions are definitely working so no need for the schoolyard tactics of old. Welcome to the 21st Century.

 

[Hixter]

Some Dirtbag shoots down an airliner accidentally and Hixter wants us to redouble our troop presence in Eastern Europe.

I never said that.

[KevinG]

For what it's worth, your posts wouldn't lose any meaning or value if they weren't peppered with references to 'the Right.' I manage to make myself heard without constantly mentioning 'the Left' or 'liberals.' I also think we're wasting our breath if we resort to labeling the other person's opinions as 'talking points.' I don't think any of us are handed a written list of actual talking points - like a politician - and I'd like to think that we're capable of expressing our own views. One man's talking points is another man's (uncomfortable) truths.

 

I think it is important to label information from where comes from.  I would be less inclined to use phrase like the Right if it what you are saying was not a widely held position by that group.  Now I know you are not given talking points, but nearly everything you say is the same thing I have heard on FoxNews, Limbaugh, etc.  You have claimed you don't watch FoxNews listen to Right Wing Radio, but I find that hard to believe.  Nearly everything you post about the White House foreign policy seems like you are speechwriter for Ron Johnson or John McCain.  And for any other issue I can't pretty much guess what you will say, because I have heard it before, be it my In-laws or the various talking heads.  It may be that you have looked at events and have come to these conclusions on your own, but when your posts come a few days after I have heard the same things ad nauseam, I find that suspect.  

 

Here is the thing with your and the Right's criticisms of the President.  You want so badly for this President to be a failure you will latch on to events and try to shoehorn them to fit your narrative.  The President is weak, The President is a tyrannt, the President is a Socialist.  You seem to forget the historical context and the details of a situation.  Putin is "invading" Ukraine, it is because Obama is weak.  Was Bush II weak when Putin invaded Georgia?  Countries have been going after other countries all the time  I am not sure the US acting like the big swinging dick or not had anything to with it.    

 

I also I am having a hard time with really understanding your "plan" in dealing with Russia.  From what I gather you plan is to have our President on a World Stage poke at Putin and tell him that this aggression will not stand,  which on the surface will cost nothing.  But according to you we need to have troops at the ready.  Which of course means adding our military presence in Europe, which of course means money.  Money which again you are willing to deficit spend on people of another country when you don't see the need to do so for our own citizens.  You cannot have it both ways.  I don't think you can use words and not be prepared to back them up.  

 

You are right a lot has changed since the Berlin Wall fell.  I don't see treating this conflict or any other conflict like it is still up helps.  Diplomacy over bombs.  Your plan would deliberately antagonize Putin.  Your plan would end up costing money, your plan may end up costing American lives.  

[Hixter]

You have claimed you don't watch FoxNews listen to Right Wing Radio, but I find that hard to believe. 

You can either believe it or call me a liar and we can end this conversation right now. The only television I watch is the occasional downloaded show -- typically British fare. I don't have cable or satellite television and there are no antennas connected to my TV; I cut the cord years ago. I get most of my news from the BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Reuters, AP and local news websites. I haven't listened to the radio in years; all of my music is on various hard drives, thumb drives and iDevices.

 

If I've ever watched Fox News it's been against my will at an airport bar. I would rather chew my own fingers off than listen to any sort of talk radio,

 

Nearly everything you post about the White House foreign policy seems like you are speechwriter for Ron Johnson or John McCain.  

I don't know who Ron Johnson is and John McCain drives me crazy about 50% of the time he opens his mouth.

 

And for any other issue I can't pretty much guess what you will say, because I have heard it before

I'll bet you can't, because I doubt I even come close to fitting the mold of what you think "the Right" is all about.

 

It may be that you have looked at events and have come to these conclusions on your own, but when your posts come a few days after I have heard the same things ad nauseam, I find that suspect.

I arrive at my conclusions based upon 50+ years of experience; I don't need other people to do my thinking for me. If I post something about a renewed Cold War, it isn't because I'm parroting something Rush Limbaugh said, it's because I'm having a serious case of deja vu. Senator Feinstein and Secretary of State Kerry made the same point a few days ago, so are we all spouting the Right's talking points, or are we addressing current events and referencing history?

 

You want so badly for this President to be a failure

No I don't. Not even the slightest bit. I'm an American and I don't want the American president to be a failure. A person can point out someone's failings or predict imminent failure in a specific circumstance without wishing for it to happen.

 

From what I gather you plan is to have our President on a World Stage poke at Putin

A reminder and a warning are not pokes, they are a reminder and a warning. Putin may have no intention of grabbing further territory, so in that case nothing happens. He may have a plan to go just as far as we'll let him, so in that case he'd be informed that we would tolerate no further aggression against his neighbors. Or Putin may have a firm plan to tear through the old USSR and in that case there will be nothing to stop him except the USA.

 

But according to you we need to have troops at the ready. 

Only if we want to win the fight.

 

Diplomacy over bombs.  Your plan would deliberately antagonize Putin.  

So we slap even more sanctions on Russia instead? And that doesn't antagonize them? Exactly what do you think happens when diplomats sit around the table to hash things like this out? John Kerry will tell his Russian counterpart that the United States will not allow Russia to destabilize the region and we will defend our allies. Sound familiar?

[uncool2pillow]

I don't often read Krauthammer and when I do, I'm rarely impressed.  But this is a good piece.

 

 

 

The president’s demeanor is worrying a lot of people. From the immigration crisis on the Mexican border to the Islamic State rising in Mesopotamia, Barack Obama seems totally detached from the world’s convulsions. When he does interrupt his endless rounds of golf,fundraising and photo ops, it’s for some affectless, mechanical, almost forced public statement.

Regarding Ukraine, his detachment — the rote, impassive voice — borders on dissociation. His U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, delivers animpassioned denunciation of Russia. Obama cautions that we not “get out ahead of the facts,” as if the facts of this case — Vladimir Putin’s proxiesshooting down a civilian airliner — are in doubt.

Charles Krauthammer writes a weekly political column that runs on Fridays. View Archive

The preferred explanation for the president’s detachment is psychological. He’s checked out. Given up. Let down and disappointed by the world, he is in withdrawal.

Perhaps.

But I’d propose an alternate theory, less psychological than intellectual, that gives him more credit: Obama’s passivity stems from an idea. When Obama says Putin has placed himself on the wrong side of history in Ukraine, he actually believes it . He disdains realpolitik because he believes that, in the end, such primitive 19th-century notions as conquest are self-defeating. History sees to their defeat.

President Barack Obama reacting as he misses a shot while golfing. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,”said Obama in June 2009 (and many times since) regarding the Green Revolution in Iran.

Ultimately, injustice and aggression don’t pay. The Soviets saw their 20th-century empire dissolve. More proximally, U.S. gains in Iraq and Afghanistan were, in time, liquidated. Ozymandias lies forever buried and forgotten in desert sands.

Remember when, at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, Obama tried to construct for Putin “an offramp” from Crimea? Absurd as this idea was, I think Obama was sincere. He actually imagined that he’d be saving Putin from himself, that Crimea could only redound against Russia in the long run.

If you really believe this, then there is no need for forceful, potentially risky U.S. counteractions. Which explains everything since: Obama’s pinprick sanctions; his failure to rally a craven Europe; his refusal to supply Ukrainewith the weapons it has been begging for.

The shooting down of a civilian airliner seemed to validate Obama’s passivity. “Violence and conflict inevitably lead to unforeseen consequences,” explained Obama. See. You play with fire, it will blow up in your face. Just as I warned. Now world opinion will turn against Putin.

To which I say: So what? World opinion, by itself, is useless: malleable, ephemeral and, unless mobilized by leadership, powerless. History doesn’t act autonomously. It needs agency.

Germany’s Angela Merkel still doesn’t want to jeopardize trade with Russia. France’s François Hollande will proceed with delivery of a Mistral-class attack-helicopter carrier to Russia. And Obama speaks of future “costs” if Russia persists — a broken record since Crimea, carrying zero credibility.

 

Or did Obama think Putin — a KGB thug who rose to power by turning Chechnya to rubble — would be shamed into regret and restraint by the blood of 298 innocents? On the contrary. Putin’s response has been brazen defiance: denying everything and unleashing a massive campaign of lies, fabrications and conspiracy theories blaming it all on Ukraine and the United States.

Putin doesn’t give a damn about world opinion. He cares about domestic opinion, which has soared to more than 80 percent approval since Crimea. If anything, he’s been emboldened. On Wednesday, his proxies shot down two more jets — a finger to the world and a declaration that his campaign continues.

A real U.S. president would give Kiev the weapons it needs, impose devastating sectoral sanctions on Moscow, reinstate our Central European missile-
defense system and make a Reaganesque speech explaining why.

Obama has done none of these things. Why should he? He’s on the right side of history.

Of course, in the long run nothing lasts. But history is lived in the here and now. The Soviets had only 70 years, Hitler a mere 12. Yet it was enough to murder millions and rain ruin on entire continents. Bashar al-Assad, too, will one day go. But not before having killed at least 100,000 people.

All domination must end. But after how much devastation? And if you leave it to the forces of history to repel aggression and redeem injustice, what’s the point of politics, of leadership, in the first place?

The world is aflame and our leader is on the 14th green. The arc of history may indeed bend toward justice, Mr. President. But, as you say, the arc is long. The job of a leader is to shorten it, to intervene on behalf of “the fierce urgency of now.” Otherwise, why do we need a president? And why did you seek to become ours?

[Doug C]

Thanks for posting the above. Krauthammer seems to have captured it, as no other explanation seems to make sense. Impressive indeed. 

[Hixter]

But this is a good piece.

Agreed.

 

The latest issue of Time magazine (didn't realize it was still around):

 

[Albert Tatlock]

Palin's website ...

 

 

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/we-looked-at-sarah-palins-new-website-so-you-dont-have-to--l1H0WjJffl

 

Also, as indicated in a post above, there is also some opinion here that Obama is just phoning it in now.

[Winston Legthigh]

So this settles the stupid fucking Benghazi narrative, right?

 

http://gawker.com/gop-house-report-on-benghazi-concludes-there-is-no-beng-1615741728

[uncool2pillow]

Good lord, you really don't understand how the right wing media echo chamber works do you?  I have 5 FB friends whose pages I could go to right now still ranting and Benghazi and they will be next week.

[IRememberDBoon]

that was a republican led inquiry that came to that conclusion by the way and you wont hear a damn peep out of the right about it. they kept that narrative up for almost two years and we all know that they have never been wrong in their lives

[ih8music]

But...Benghazi!!!!!