Good watch
Interesting vodcast from Josh Marshall on Barack Obama's struggles in the polls, and he thinks he can trace it to Obama's statement that he would go after Osama bin Ladin, or other high-ranking al-Qaida leadership, in Pakistan if that government wouldn't act.
Marshall agrees with Obama, as do I, but it did set him up for a barrage of attacks which underscore a larger point ... that Obama, until this week, lacked a rapid-response 'War Room' that all other campaigns have.
Marshall agrees with Obama, as do I, but it did set him up for a barrage of attacks which underscore a larger point ... that Obama, until this week, lacked a rapid-response 'War Room' that all other campaigns have.
posted by Jmac at 1:26 PM
15 Comments:
Obama's point, as I understood it was: I would not have attacked an enemy--ie Iraq--but I will attack an ally, ie Pakistan.
Better luck in '16, Barack.
Hmm, that's interesting. What Marshall says makes sense, but how do we know that's the whole story?
One of the more popular Ron Paul videos on Youtube makes a very good use of that August clip from Obama's speech, showing that all the Democratic frontrunners are pro-war just like all the GOP candidates (not named Paul). The youtube video at least had the decency to show Obama's comment in context, but still it seemed misinterpreted. (In fact, I don't think Obama's position on this is any different than Ron Paul's. Except perhaps that Ron Paul would favor more private means of seeking out any known terrorists who were being harbored in Pakistan.)
But anyway, this idea that Obama needs a 'war room' intrigues me. I think it's a shame if it's true; the ideal Obama was trying to pull off was noble, I think. It's a pity to give it up.
To compare, Ron Paul faces a lot of misrepresentation of his views too, and I'm quite sure he doesn't have any campaign staff for a 'war room' either. But his message seems to keep gaining ground (so far) due to the rabid support of his followers, who will take it on themselves to 'control the story.' In the early 1990s the media would hear every day from Paul Begala or whoever else was in Clinton's war room. But today the media gets 2,000 messages from Ron Paul supporters in their inbox. It seems to have a similar effect, although a few media people are annoyed by all the e-mails (Pity on them!).
I just wonder why Obama's supporters, who are similarly rabid in the online community (Obama and Paul have the two largest internet followings, it seems), cannot do something similar for Obama.
Also, there's only so much 'war rooming' you can do at an actual debate, which is where Marshall's clips of Dems misrepresenting Obama's speech all came from. In these cluster@%$! debates, of course your position is going to be misrepresented by charlatans. At that point, there's nothing you can do but rebut the foolishness directly in your own alloted speaking time, or during post-debate interviews. There's not much need for a "war room" in those moments.
I didn't see the labor union/CNN debate back in August, since I don't have cable. How did Obama respond on the spot when Dodd and Clinton misrepresented his view like that?
Anon, I thought our enemy numero uno were the Islamofascist terrorists, Bin Laden in particular? If they are hiding in Pakistan, the very people who carried out the 9/11 attacks, then the fact that Pakistan is an 'ally' seems beside the point. All of a sudden you're wanting to play politics, when there are terrorists to kill and there's 9/11 blood to avenge?
Personally, I think Marshall was reading too much into it, but then again perhaps Obama was trying to push the message of a new kind of politics and the abolition of spin or sound bites is the appropriate way to go.
I'm torn because I agree it's a shame he abandoned that concept, but at the same time there's nothing to suggest that simply having a 'War Room' doesn't mean you can't elevate the debate and respond logically to criticisms.
I mean, that's what we do here, right? We post fast and furious, but most of our discussions and disagreements are rational and well-thought out.
Yes, but.......
The people who committed the 9/11 attacks are already dead.
Our current strategy isn't--or shouldn't be--about avenging 9/11; it is--or should be--about preventing the next 9/11.
An Osabama bin Laden, operating from the hinterlands with a marginally-funded (relatively speaking) operation can inflict only so much damage on the West. Someone who has, on the other hand, the infrastructure of an entire government at his disposal, ie Saddam Hussein in Iraq, has the potential to inflict almost limitless casualties and economic havoc.
Chasing through the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan for a few rogues is necessary and interesting, but the Big Boy work is in taking down the governments in Iraq, Iran, et al.
I'll vote for the candidate who is up for that job.
Limitless casualties?
Name one action Hussein could have done to inflict limitless casualties on the United States.
Name one reason why Kim was not similarly removed as dictator, given that he had more direct means of inflicting harm on the United States and was constantly demonstrating his willingness to do so. He had the tools, he was developing the talent, so why did the Big Boy ignore him and allow the State Department to use diplomacy and regional interaction to intervene?
Then, of course, there's the struggle with China, whose persistent and actually limitless cyber attacks on the United States don't even warrant a History Channel speculation.
Fuck "Big Boys". Courage is all but dead where it truly matters, and all but trumpeted among definitive cowards.
Name one?
None, that I know of.
The point was to get him before he could, as opposed to waiting til he could.
Hence the term "pre-emptive."
God help us!
So, you advocate pre-emptively striking a country who has no discernible plans to inflict great harm upon us that we know of, simply because they might have such plans at some point? But you only apply this pre-emptive doctrine to people who have not already attained a certain amount of power over our affairs? If a nation already has the weapons you are so worried about, then they get invited to the table of discussion.
I'm with pol. This is cowardice and murder at the same time.
So, any country that does not yet have nuclear weapons or other WMDs is now a legitimate target for us to 'pre-empt'? After all, the lack of any evidence that they are planning to attack us doesn't let them off the hook on your view, since the whole point of pre-emption is to strike them before they have such plans. This is madness.
Meanwhile, there is no definable end in sight (since we are fighting against an abstract noun), it costs us more money than we can afford, the dollar is becoming worthless (investors are moving to other currencies as we speak), but you're worried that some Islamic jihadists are going to take over our entire country or burn it to the ground? A feat the Soviets couldn't manage in 50 years of open hostility and distrust. But you believe that some 'rogue' state is going to destroy us all?
No. Not any country.
Just those that have violated UN resolution after UN resolution after UN resolution, ad infinitum.
Just those countries whose leaders violated repeatedly the terms of the cease fire that ended our initial military engagement with them.
Just those countries sited by the Clinton Administration as a target for regime change.
Just those.
So you believe that the U.S. should let its foreign policy be guided by U.N. resolutions (even when the U.N. in general disagrees with our interpretation of those same resolutions)?
Clinton was a charlatan, and I don't give a crap what he said was a nation that needed 'regime change.' You're trying to outflank me on the left by appealing to Clinton, but I'm not a liberal and I'm no fan of Clinton. I am a conservative who believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy. You know, like Pat Buchanan, or Thomas Jefferson.
And, since the initial war against Iraq in 1991 was unjust, I'm not moved by appeals to cease-fires from that war. Besides, I'm sure we all understand how it is that countries that are supposed to be sovereign over their own affairs chafe at the demand that they not do things that everybody else is allowed to do. All because they are supposedly more dangerous than those other nations.
"Stop doing such-and-such, or we'll blow you up." Notice, Iraq never re-invaded Kuwait or anything like that. They violated "no fly zones," which represent airspace within Iraq itself. Why the hell shouldn't Iraq be allowed to fly planes in its own airspace?
If China came to the U.S. and told us that they would take us over unless we agreed not to fly planes over New Mexico, would we acquiesce? Would that be a just 'request' by China? Apply the Golden Rule.
First you tell us that we attacked Iraq purely b/c of what they might do. Now you're telling us that it's b/c they were already on our hit-list, they violated UN resolutions (who cares? Aren't you a conservative?), and they violated unreasonable agreements that were forced on them in an earlier war (agreements that we would never submit to, if the shoe were on the other foot). How do any of these things justify...killing people? How, exactly?
I am not a pacifist, so don't try whatever response you normally give to pacifists. I believe that wars are sometimes justified. Sometimes it is necessary to kill people. But I am questioning how any of the stuff you have mentioned made it necessary.
So, in your mind, Saddam should not only still be in Iraq, he should also still be in Kuwait.
In my opinion, it's not our business who the ruler of Kuwait is. It's not like Kuwait is some peaceful community of hobbits overtaken by the wicked totalitarians from Mordor.
But, I know my position on the first Gulf War is in the minority. The fact remains that war should be a last resort, and done only for self-defense. So Saddam's failure to abide by our own stupid ceasefire demands hardly justifies all the lives we've lost. Not to mention the money we've spent. And that's true whether you supported Gulf War I or not.
I'm reminded of a bully. A bully believes that an open display of strength is to find the weakest kids and beat them up. Nerds, poor kids, kids with social disabilities, and ugly girls. You beat up the kids you know you can beat up. That's just sound economic principles. But the kids you can't, you know, the ones with switchblades and older brothers and already selling drugs, no bully in his right mind takes them on. That's just suicide and against the bully way of life.
Maybe you gotta work your way up to taking them on. Or, you know, join their way of life. Either way, you pass your time beating up the people who don't fight back. Teach them a lesson about being weak and impotent.
Because bullies always hate everyone knowing their own impotency and direct that anger to scapegoats. And, they'll always find the perfect reasons why scapegoats should be attacked, no matter how inconsistent: he looked at me funny, he's a fag, she's a teacher's pet, he violated UN resolutions.
This is straight from the Christian Bible, you see. We're defending this way of life, this strong, courageous life, and no activist school marms are ever going to change that, God save us all.
And the only thing I would add to Pol's magnificent bully analogy is that the psychology of bullies is mixed and varied, and so nobody should press the analogy so far as to think that Pol or I (though I can't properly speak for Pol on this) are saying that the U.S. somehow set out to be a bully, that it does not genuinely have worthwhile principles, that all war supporters are essentially sociopaths, etc.
There are many ways of becoming a bully. Some truly are just mean-spirited and enjoy torturing the weak for the sheer enjoyment of it. These are the most monstrous case, and are in fact less psychologically interesting I think. But as Charles already hinted, many bullies are afraid of their own impotence. They have malformed processes for dealing with their own vulnerability, which is something all of us must learn to deal with. Some bullies probably see themselves as noble, some see themselves as having no choice, and others probably don't quite feel in control of what they do. One thing they have in common is that they all rationalize it.
There are many options for explaining why bullies become bullies, then, and I would say that likewise there are many explanations of the national sociology that has caused the U.S. to act like a bully. The sad irony is that the U.S. has started to act very much like the totalitarians from the 1930s that the neocons constantly refer us to as a historical analogy for our current situation. The neocons, of course, would have it that those against the war are like Neville Chamberlain, while they are the brave and clear-sighted Churchill. But the twist (and thus the irony) is that the U.S. is acting much more like Mussolini's Italy in this (going after weak Ethiopia to show his true strength).
And before you accuse me of saying all sorts of terrible things, understand precisely what terrible thing I actually AM saying: The average Italian in Mussolini's time did not fancy himself as an oppressor or a warmonger, and probably had little place if he was being quite honest for fascism per se. He probably felt justified in supporting his country's aggressions, though, because he saw them as necessary. Very few are the people who say with Milton's Satan "Evil, be thou my good." Far more are those who end up doing evil because they, somewhere along the line, get mixed up about what the good actually is. I would accuse the U.S. leaders and the neocons who support their damned war of the same sort of mistake. Which is a very serious mistake, and I don't back down from the analogy to the older fascism one bit. But it is not to say that the average supporter of the war sees himself as a glorifier of war for its own sake, or that he delights in the destruction of innocents, etc. Motivations are complex, and I'm sure that holds true for most neocons as well. But this war is still awful, and those who support it are not showing courage as they claim. They are showing something else entirely, whatever the complex motivations underlying their decisions might be.
Post a Comment
<< Home