« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Opinions you are unlikely to agree with or respond to
Yeah, I know. I'm actually an evil, demonic, racist, neoconservative Republican concern troll, and I have been given the mission by Karl Rove himself to win the election for John McCain by convincing the left that Barack Obama is unacceptable.
Well, you're partially right.
I am drifting to the conclusion that Obama may in fact BE unacceptable to anyone who is a genuine liberal. He has advocated the invasion of a Middle-Eastern ally, he has proposed crippling the Palestinians' right to negotiate, and now he is on record supporting the Bush Administration's ability to cover its felonies, but actually circumventing the Fourth Amendment. This is not acceptable behavior from nor for anyone with a progressive attitude, and frankly it makes me wonder about his suitability to lead this country.
A question for those such as M. J. Rosenberg who attempt to defend their candidate by telling us that Obama doesn't mean it -- that he is lying to us: This is a defense??? If you think that's a good defense, you'll love this one: "Your Honor, I couldn't have robbed that bank. I was way over on the other side of town at the time, killing kindergarten children."
Besides, I think Obama is an honest man. I think when he makes a promise, he thinks he has based it on sound advice and analysis, and I think he means it.
For those who insist that there are no tactics sufficiently ignoble to be eschewed during a political campaign, you should know that Karl tells me he agrees with you. He says he would drug his opponent if he thought he could get away with it, and videotape him naked with a blood-spattered call girl, à la Godfather II.
One more thing. This is, of course, an important election. But to call it the most important election of the past 40 years is ludicrous. The 1980 election probably was the most important, although we didn't realize it at the time. As it turns out though, it was the election that made the 2000 election possible, irrelevant, and disastrous.
Comments (93)
Which Middle Eastern ally was that?
June 23, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Pakistanis do look somewhat Middle Easternish. ;)
In all fairness, it's right at the boundary.
June 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan is an ally? I'd never have guessed!
June 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. All it takes to be an ally is to say "I thee wed" or something like that.
June 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you guys prefer to debate or to be deliberately obtuse? I can play it either way. Just askin'.
June 23, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand what all the outrage was concerning Obama's comments re Pakistan. If that's being deliberately obtuse, so be it.
June 23, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm definitely more in a deliberately obtuse mood today. What's on the menu in that flavor?
June 23, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm definitely more in a deliberately obtuse mood today. What's on the menu in that flavor?
Disdain. Help yourself to a heapin' helpin'.
June 23, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thoroughly appreciate your post and the obviously unsettling paradoxes you point out, and of course we see a lack of an answer.
Before it wasn't "politics as usual" and now it's "they brought a knife so I had to bring a gun" (sorry folks, that's exactly the US passive-aggressive approach - if you recall us going into Fallujah with some soldier saying, "we were trying to be nice but now it's time for smash football". Our history is based ont the effectiveness of escalation).
Obama's crime policy is to throw a bunch more cops on the street - along with expanded drug treatment. That'll keep both sides happy. In an interview he was asked what happens if things "heat up" pulling out of Iraq - "well, we'll just reinvade". My, that's so different from stay the course and surge. A bit of heat and we're right back in. Let Pakistan handle its own affairs (Bhutto investigation) but if they're not cooperative, we take care of it ourselves. I pointed out his funny little clause on setting up an East Asian infrastructure to "promote prosperity" with Uncle Sam "work[ing] to ensure that China plays by international rules", and people were simply offended that I could relate this to the historical Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and question whether it'd be offensive to the Chinese (or used that way). (Obama's "policy" on NATO is just simply offensive as basically a traditional right-wing platitude & insult about how NATO/Europe's not carrying its weight in direct denial of facts).
Any weakness Obama had were supposed to be dealt with through his clever appointments. And then he starts of the post-primary season with some of the most tin-eared appointments evuh.
So now we have the post-primary "strategy" - "I'm just going to do whatever it takes to get elected, but don't worry - I'll be talking some shit, but come November it'll be alright".
Obama couldn't possibly be limp on FISA because we wants the extra power as President - he's just trying not to look weak on security (just like he couldn't be shutting down Dem 527's to control everything - he must just be doing it for effective campaigning). He couldn't actually be talking about unilateral military action in Pakistan - he's a Constitutional scholar after all - we're just not reading the full intent of his words into his words.
No, there will be no real answers in la-la land, only wishful unrealistic hoping. This is supposed to be the time of healing and getting ducks in a row. Is this why it was so important to have an early concession, so we could all take on right-wing talking points on a unity ticket?
June 24, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where'd you guys go?
June 24, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I've a little under the weather recently. It's part of what puts me in an obtuse mood. :P
June 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drugs are the answer to both problems.
June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am drifting to the conclusion that Obama may in fact BE unacceptable to anyone who is a genuine liberal.
If he's unacceptable to you, then vote for Nader.
HTH
June 23, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the suggestion. I was thinking maybe Russ Feingold.
But tell me something seriously: Do you agree with these positions? Assuming he is being sincere, you have no problem with a president who would bomb a country that (at least in theory) has been cooperating with the US for 6 years? You have no problem with a president who goes to war without Congressional declaration?
Assuming he is just lying to get elected, you're OK with a Democrat doing that?
And what's HTH?
June 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope This Helps.
HTH
June 23, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
With which politician with any chance of being elected president do you agree as to every public policy issue?
June 23, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not every issue. It's the important issues.
June 23, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong question. The correct question would be, "Is there a candidate with a chance of winning that would steer a course for this country that I would feel good about when considering my daughter's future."
The correct answer is, "I don't think so at the moment, although Obama has almost five months to redeem himself."
June 23, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming he is being sincere, you have no problem with a president who would bomb a country that (at least in theory) has been cooperating with the US for 6 years?
Oh, please. The rhetoric about Obama lately has been amped up like what you'd find on some junior high myspace page if junior high students cared about politics.
He said he'd prepared to launch attacks within Pakistan if Pakistan was providing cover for Islamic extremists. If Pakistan is providing cover for groups that are an active threat to the United States, saying that they are "at least in theory" one of our allies starts to look like a rather lame argument, doesn't it?
You have no problem with a president who goes to war without Congressional declaration?
When did he say he'd do that?
I don't think Obama is perfect. I think that as President he'll move the country in the right direction on foreign policy, and on respect for the Constitution, and so on. I'd rather give him the chance and see what he does as President, than get worked up over compromises he makes as a junior Senator in the middle of a campaign. YMMV.
June 23, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan was included amongst the USA government list of terrorist states until just after 9-11 when Bush decided he need its government's help in the so called war on terror.
June 23, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what you're saying is that by refusing to view Pakistan as an ally no matter how much they help our enemies, Obama would be taking us back to the way things were before 9/11. It's that "September 10th mindset" that McCain has warned us about!
June 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard: You have no problem with a president who goes to war without Congressional declaration?
Smorg: When did he say he'd do that?
OK, you DO want to play dumb. As I said, I can cope with that. Let's see how dumb you want to be.
See whether you can fill in the blank:
Sending missles into, flying over, bombing, sending troops, or otherwise impinging on the territory of a foreign country without that country's consent is internationally recognized as an act of _______.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constition states, in part, that "The Congress shall have power...to declare _______.
Hint: The same word completes both phrases.
Good luck! And thanks for playing!
June 23, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama said he would be prepared to attack Pakistan under certain circumstances (circumstances that would make it clear that Pakistan is no ally). He didn't say he'd attack without Congressional authorization. The part about Pakistan being an ally is something you got from Bush, though god only knows why you'd take Bush's word for that or anything else. Do you have an actual citation of Obama saying he'd attack without Congressional authorization, or is that something you just pulled out of your own ass?
June 23, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell you what. You interpret for me, seein' as how I just pulled this out of my ass. Here's a quote:
Now, I suppose he might have meant, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, I'll go to Congress and ask them to debate a declaration of war for a few days. Before we do that, though, we'll ask the terrorists not to move or hide themselves. Then when we have our declaration of war and President Musharraf won't act, we'll bomb them to kingdom come."
Is that how you interpret Obama's statement? If so, allow me to apologize for accusing you of pretending to be dumb.
June 23, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument is that there is no constitutional way to launch an attack quickly, in response to an imminent attack. Seriously?
You've obviously made up your mind. You argue with all of the logic and common sense of a fogu or gottalie. So just embrace the conclusion, whether that's Nader or McCain or someone else, and enjoy the freedom of knowing that you won't be casting your vote for someone who is not worthy of your support. Peace.
June 23, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you mind just answering my questions rather than simply tossing insults? I have no objection to being insulted; you may have noticed that I do some insulting myself from time to time. But I would really appreciate it if you justified the insult with something other than another insult.
As far as having made up my mind, you are mistaken. As I have said here and elsewhere, I am perfectly willing -- actually, I am eager -- no, in fact, I am desperate -- to support and vote for Sen. Obama if he stops acting like Dick Cheney.
OTOH, my impression is that you seem rather impenetrable to reason, emotion, or anything else. It sounds to me as if the Constitution means nothing, integrity means nothing, propriety means nothing unless the outcome means WE WIN!
Is there no abhorrent policy Sen. Obama might espouse that would turn you away from him? Ask yourself that question. If the answer is "no," then who is the one with the closed mind?
June 23, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just making shit up. First you take Bush's assertion at face value when he says that Pakistan is an ally. You didn't make that shit up, you took it from Bush, and you needed it for your accusation to work. It was pointed out that Pakistan not so much of an ally as you were pretending, and moreover, that in the scenario Obama describe it would very, very clearly not be an ally. You dodged that point, and moved on to the claim that Obama would attack in an unconstitutional manner. It was pointed out that Obama didn't say that. To try to justify it, you seem to be trying to argue that in order to attack at all, it would have to be in an unconstitutional manner because the alternative would be for congress to debate for days, in a scenario in which we face an imminent threat.
So to recap, Pakistan isn't an ally now except in the pretend world of Bush, and wouldn't be an ally in the scenario Obama described. So one of your accusations goes down the tubes. And second, Obama didn't say anything about going to war in an unconstitutional manner, you pulled that out of your ass. When you were called on it, you pulled more assertions out of your ass to try to claim that if Obama attacked at all it would have to be in an unconstitutional manner.
The reason I think you've made up your mind is that you aren't trying to make a reasonable case at all for the things you're so indignant about. You take assertions from Bush at face value when you need to, and pull stuff out of your ass when you need to. That's not the behavior of someone with an open mind, that's the behavior of someone who is so firmly attached to the conclusion that they don't really care how they get there. That was clear enough just from your starting point that only made sense if you took Bush's claims about Pakistan at face value, and you've only dug the hole deeper since then.
June 23, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rebutted, and rather effecively too if I do say so myself, here.
June 24, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't our current admin do something similar shortly after Obama's remarks? Certainly planned long bfore and certainly not in response to...does that mean we are currently at war with Pakistan?
June 23, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Obama said he'd fuck the terrorist motherfuckers up. What are you, a fucking pussy?
June 23, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do love the smell of eloquence in the morning. Smells like...pancakes.
June 24, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, what the fuck are you talking about? Pakistan is not our ally. Bush says it is, but a real liberal would know that is bullshit. You have heard of Pervez Musharref, no? What kind of ally harbors Bin Laden? Oh right, the kind of ally who does it at Bush's request because if Bin Laden is caught, he can no longer serve his role as right wing boogey man every election cycle.
And when did Obama declare his intention to go to war without congressional declaration?
If you could stick to the facts, and abandon the hysteria, it would be easier to take you seriously.
June 24, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan is not our ally.
I only threw in the word ally in the first place to emphazise that Pakistan is not a country with which we are at war. I think I could make a pretty good argument that it IS an ally, at least nominally, but that's tangential to the point I was addressing: the invasion of still another country without a declaration from Congress.
I have answered the challenge concerning whether or not Sen. Obama proposed such an unsanctioned invasion several times, so rather than typing it all out again, I will simply point you to this comment, which I note was posted some two hours before yours, and ask that you read it this time.
June 24, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
For crying out loud, he's not talking about carpet-bombing Karachi with cluster munitions. He's talking about going after Al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in the Tribal Areas, a swath of mountains where Pakistan exerts no actual civil authority and damn near no military authority.
The Afghan Taliban has regrouped there and is making fair to take Afganistan back from there. Perhaps even worse, a local varient of the Taliban has also arisen there under Musharef's impotent neglect. They're launching suicide attacks against Pakistan's cities, assasinating they killed Benazir Bhutto and gleefully took out hundreds of bystanders in the two tries it took them to do it, thanking God all the while for his divine grace in allowing them to murder this evil woman who whorishly bared her face and dared to have authority over men. They are formenting sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, and between Muslims and Christians, and they're threatening to launch a Talibanist insurgency throughout the country.
The Pakistanis are scared spitless of these people but they don't have the military capability to do anything meaningful about them. So, for damn near two years we've been attacking them there with Hellfire missles launched from Predator drones, and most likely JDAM's from real airplanes. We pretend we're not doing it, the Pakistanis pretend not to notice and, yes, I support it.
I am no warmonger but if a candidate said "I propose we address this problem by airdrops of rose petals and trying to change their propensity for mass murder and mutilation with public shaming," I would not vote for him or her.
June 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a declaration of war, required by the Constitution, would have what drawbacks, from your point of view?
June 24, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
ya got a point there! It's not like anyone has ever gone into the FATA (federally administered tribal areas) and exerted any real authority over the tribes there. and that's not just the pakistanis, but also the brits and many many others before them going back to alexander!
anyone remember the numerous failed attempts in the past few years to tame the area? recall the aborted operations by the pakistani military in wazirastan that resulted in hundreds of dead troops and a deal with the extremists? remember how the taliban just 'disappeared' during our fight in afghanistan? they didn't just disappear. they went across the border into pakistan! why? because their tribal lands are in both countries and they don't recognize ANYBODY'S authority over that land but their own. now, they're crossing the border and causing all sorts of havoc in southern afghanistan, KILLING OUR TROOPS!
not to mention, these are most likely the same folks harboring bin laden (if he still lives) and the al qaeda leadership. what's wrong with going after them if no one else is able or willing? these are the folks (not saddam and crew) who actually killed thousands of our fellow citizens. isn't it our duty to kill the bastards responsible for it? Isn't it notable that a freaking DEMOCRAT supports the idea and his supporters are too weak and spineless to back him? would you rather he called them on the phone and negotiate?
plus i find it humorous that you all are such musharraf supporters. this guy is a murderous dictator (not as bad as some others who have existed definitely, but still let's call a spade a spade...) who has gutted what civil and constitutional norms that existed in pakistan before, jails lawyers and judges, kills democratic activists and has produced very very few real big terrorists who are known to be in his country, refused to allow an independant interrogation and debrief of a KNOWN WMD PROLIFERATING scientist and you defend him as though he's indispensible! I agree he's probably the better option right now simply because he's a known quantity (even if he does leave much to be desired) compared to what may happen with a real democratic push in pakistan. but isn't that the same exact political calculation versus principle that everyone seems so up in arms with obama about regarding fisa?
June 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again I ask: And a declaration of war, required by the Constitution, would have what drawbacks, from your point of view?
June 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please leave La-La Land for a moment and think about what you're saying. A declaration of war requires a bunch of congressional reps debating and deliberating on the merits and then determining if they will vote yea or nay. That also entails the requisite media coverage with all of its pontification on the merits or lack thereof. As well as citizens doing the same and putting their input in. None of which occurs in a vacuum and is by definition not going to be a quiet or secret process.
Now, think for second about the types of folks we're talking about going after. Super high profile terrorist leaders who are being protected by locals in regions with virtually no central government influence and very little if any direct connection with outsiders. Basically the type of place where it is EXTREMELY difficult (if not outright impossibleat times) to get solid and trustworthy human sources who produce accurate and actionable intelligence.
we'll disregard the straw man argument you're putting up that to go after these specific individuals in circumstances where we have such actionable intelligence (which is what obama said he'd do) is the same as invading the country. we'll not even get into that point. we'll simply accept you're premise that it is. so saying that it is, are you seriously suggesting that when we find out and have accurate 'it's go time' information that high value target X or Y is at point A or will be at point B at time T that we then have a president go to congress and relay said information and wait for them to get back to him with a war authorization before he takes any action on such information?
do you have no understanding of what the world is really like? don't you realize that the moment word gets out (and if it's going for congressional approval it certainly will) that we know target X or Y is at point A or will be at point B at time T that such information is going to be relayed to said target and it will no longer be true because they'll immediately leave or change their plans?!
whether to notify and work with local authorities during such an operation is a real debate because (especially in a place like pakistan) you might have local officials who honestly don't want you to catch the guy and they tip him off. in fact it was such a concern and frequent thing that i believe that was one the concerns that lead to the expansion of the rendition 'snatch and grab' program in the first place and caused the situation in italy where the italians got pissed we would do such a thing and keep them out of the loop. why even consider it? because the more people who know the more people who talk and the more likely it is that you get our people killed in the process. can you imagine what happens to the troops trying to grab the terrorist in pakistan AFTER a congressional declaration or even the countless congressional press conferences about the deliberations??
come on. if obama said 'i'll take our military out of iraq and then send them to take over and clear the pakistani tribal regions of all extremists and those harboring terrorists...." THEN i'd agree with you that a congressional declaration of war would be required. the man said that if he knew where these guys were and we had a chance to get them and no one else was willing or able to do so then we'd do it our damned selves! what could possibly be wrong with that?
June 24, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'm rather happy here in La-La Land. It is a place where people who swear to uphold and protect the Constitution actually try to do so, and honorably. It also provides a rather comfortable place from which to field your questions.
are you seriously suggesting that when we find out and have accurate 'it's go time' information that high value target X or Y is at point A or will be at point B at time T that we then have a president go to congress and relay said information and wait for them to get back to him with a war authorization before he takes any action on such information?
No, I am not seriously suggesting that. You might note that I have made NO suggestions about how to handle the situation. Not my job. But two that immediately come to mind are getting approval in advance from the Pakistani government (if they are, in fact, our ally), or having a declaration of war from the Congress (if they are not). Besides, I'm sure that clever folks like you will come up with any number of additional solutions once you actually think about the issue and stop reacting with your gonads. I know that thinking beyond the next Paxil has gone out of style in Washington, but perhaps you are familiar with the expression that says Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance?
do you have no understanding of what the world is really like?
Sadly not. We have a very limited view of what you so charmingly call The Real World here in La-La Land. From what we hear, it's just a dreadful place to live, one where the Constitution is almost totally ignored, and Presidents are appointed by judges who in turn were appointed by the President's father. It gives us naive girls the vapors just to imagine what it must be like.
if he knew where these guys were and we had a chance to get them and no one else was willing or able to do so then we'd do it our damned selves! what could possibly be wrong with that?
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! What's wrong is that it's a violation of international law and the US Constitution! I was afraid you would never ask!
June 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But two that immediately come to mind are getting approval in advance from the Pakistani government (if they are, in fact, our ally), or having a declaration of war from the Congress (if they are not)."
Both of those options would allow the target to get away and most likely get our people killed or if we use a missile then a bunch of innocent folks get blown up. Remember 'the pakistani government' is similar to ours and others around the world in that it has many different entities with different agendas and some of them would very willing to do things like tip off a terrorist in order to make another part of the government (or americans) look bad or get killed or to simply help someone whose cause they support.
"Sadly not. We have a very limited view of what you so charmingly call The Real World here in La-La Land. From what we hear, it's just a dreadful place to live, one where the Constitution is almost totally ignored, and Presidents are appointed by judges who in turn were appointed by the President's father. It gives us naive girls the vapors just to imagine what it must be like."
well, you're right. it IS a dreadful place filled with a lot of people who have the motive and means to kill you. Part of the president's job is to protect you from said people. the second part of your answer is just a red herring. we're not talking about bush and his legitimacy or lack thereof. we're talking about your criticism of a foreign policy point made by obama.
"Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! What's wrong is that it's a violation of international law and the US Constitution! I was afraid you would never ask!"
and under that same international law these guys are criminals. but if no one else is willing to apprehend them then the real question becomes who enforces international law?? obama is saying that if no one else will get them we will. again i ask, what would you rather he do? typically we do get local government approval before doing these sorts of things. the italian situation shows the danger of not doing so but it's an inherently difficult thing since we can't always trust those we're working with to have the same agenda and it puts people's lives and the success of the operation at risk. is it better to do things by the book and fail or do them a little bit less than by the book and succeed? yes, this is an question of whether the ends justify the means. it's the same concept of progressives and liberals being so caught up in the principles of the process that they keep losing the elections.
as far as the constitution: any and all enemies. people who kill thousands of citizens who have the intention of doing so again if they can certainly qualify as enemies. bringing them to justice (whether that's the cell block of federal prison or the business end of a bullet doesn't make a difference) seems pretty clear cut as far as the constitution is concerned.
June 24, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both of those options would allow the target to get away
It appears you missed the phrase "in advance" in the sentence you quoted, as well as the sentences following that talk about Prior Planning. (For those of you who are reading this from the computer in the third grade classroom, the expressions "in advance" and "prior" mean that you think about something happening before it actually happens and make plans for it. Get your teacher to help you look up the word "contingency."
it IS a dreadful place filled with a lot of people who have the motive and means to kill you. Part of the president's job is to protect you from said people.
I understand that your President Bush feels the need to remind you folks of that fairly often. Having the opportunity to avoid listening to him speak is another huge advantage of living in La La Land. I really feel sorry for you Real Worlders.
under that same international law these guys are criminals. but if no one else is willing to apprehend them then the real question becomes who enforces international law??
The question is not whether or not anyone enforces international law to apprehend or destroy criminals. The question is whether or not the President of the United States is willing to become an international criminal, or whether he is willing to obey international law AND (and this is a point you continue to avoid) whether or not he is willing to abide by the Constitution of his own country.
again i ask, what would you rather he do?
Asked and answered.
June 25, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
as to your 'in advance' and 'prior planning' semantics, those sorts of agreements and understandings already exist. it's the reason such an operation is even considered conceivable in the first place! it's also the reason we don't do such things in iran or saudi arabia (a rather staunch ally no less!) because they don't agree with it and haven't given a green light to it. the problem is that many countries (even ones with which you have an understanding IN ADVANCE based on PRIOR PLANNING!) may misinterpret armed men in helicopters and trucks or armed aircraft dropping bombs and firing missiles as invasions or acts of war. this is considerably more true for nations like pakistan that have strong anti-american and anti-western opinion in large swaths of their population. also consider that pakistan and india are always just one misunderstanding away from another shooting war with the potential to go nuclear and again you can see how such a misinterpretation would need to be avoided. that is why on a case by case basis you have the issue of how deeply to inform the particular country and run the risk of the particular operation being compromised.
the fact that the world is dangerous place filled with people who disagree with you enough to kill you has nothing to do with president bush. It was that way long before he came to power or was even born. his current policies most certainly have added to the number of those willing to kill us but they didn't create the concept. it's been there for a long, long time. of course, i'm sure you don't care or worry about such things since obviously you or anyone you care about can't possibly be harmed or killed in La-La Land! unfortunately for those of us in the real world the possibility exists and determining the best ways to prevent it are a real concern regardless of whether a republican, democrat, independant or whoever else is running the country.
actually, you're wrong. it IS all about who enforces international law. it's not some abstract legal construct that is miraculously enforced by mythical entities. if there is no hard, tangible power behind it then international law is nothing more than pointless talk. recall how many times the UN takes some country to task for it's abhorrent behavior and nothing happens because there is no force behind it. without some power to enforce it international law has no authority. the issue turns on whether some country or group of countries has the ability and willpower to enforce international law. whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly a valid debate to have but to act like it isn't the case is foolish.
as for abiding by the constitution i guess it depends on your interpretation of the oath of office. I would consider protecting the country from those trying to harm it and its citizens to be paramount to the protection of the constitution (otherwise, what's the point?) but i guess i could see how someone else would reasonably not think that is so.
June 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
as to your 'in advance' and 'prior planning' semantics, those sorts of agreements and understandings already exist.
In the case of Pakistan, no, I'm afraid they don't, even in The Real World. If there were such agreements with Pakistan, Obama's statement would have been quite superfluous and I would not be criticizing it.
the fact that the world is dangerous place filled with people who disagree with you enough to kill you has nothing to do with president bush. It was that way long before he came to power or was even born.
I think that Pres. Bush has done quite a bit to make The Real World a more dangerous place, but that was far from my point. My point was that he has done his damnedest to amplify and reinforce the fear of the dangerous world in the minds of Americans.
actually, you're wrong. it IS all about who enforces international law. it's not some abstract legal construct that is miraculously enforced by mythical entities
You seem to miss my point, and repeatedly. I don't oppose the enforcement of international law by Obama, Bush, McCain, or Jesus. What I insist upon is that it be enforced legally and constitutionally. Don't tell me this can't be done. That doesn't make sense in La La Land, and I'll bet many bright denizens of The Real World could find a way to do it legally.
as for abiding by the constitution i guess it depends on your interpretation of the oath of office. I would consider protecting the country from those trying to harm it and its citizens to be paramount to the protection of the constitution
We have to breach the Constitution to protect the Constitution? The late, very great George Carlin would equate that to "screwing for chastity."
June 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In the case of Pakistan, no, I'm afraid they don't, even in The Real World. If there were such agreements with Pakistan, Obama's statement would have been quite superfluous and I would not be criticizing it."
for the reasons i noted before, the few apprehensions of terrorists which have occurred in pakistan could not have taken place had no prior agreement with the pakistani leadership been in existence on some level. when you read in the paper that terrorist X has just been captured in karachi it didn't happen without some element of cooperation, coordination and prior agreement and planning with someone very high level in the pakistani government. what obama is talking about is those instances where this occurs and for whatever reason that leadership doesn't want to go along with it and he's saying that if we're talking about high enough value targets then we'll do so even if they don't go along with it. which is something even the current administration has shown a reluctance to do and is an underpinning of his criticism that they talk tough but don't follow up that tough talk with tough action with regards to those who we know have and are willing to attack us.
"My point was that he has done his damnedest to amplify and reinforce the fear of the dangerous world in the minds of Americans."
I think we can agree on this point. My only caveat would be that while we can argue about the degree to which such 'fear' is explicitly focused upon (I think we both agree it shouldn't be exploited for political gain by either party) it's unrealistic to suggest it won't or shouldn't exist. as long as there are people who disagree with you (for whatever reasons!) enough to kill you I think it's prudent to be concerned about the best ways to protect yourself from them.
"You seem to miss my point, and repeatedly. I don't oppose the enforcement of international law by Obama, Bush, McCain, or Jesus. What I insist upon is that it be enforced legally and constitutionally. Don't tell me this can't be done. That doesn't make sense in La La Land, and I'll bet many bright denizens of The Real World could find a way to do it legally."
I'm willing to accept that point as long as you can accept that reasonable and intelligent people can disagree considerably on what should be considered 'legally' and 'constitutionally'. it's not so simple to say it is or isn't legal or constitutional, it's a matter of interpretation! Anyone who has ever dealt with the legal field in any capacity will tell you that one very good lawyer can look at something and say 'it's black' while another very good lawyer can look at the exact same thing and say 'it's white'. both can be utterly convinced they are correct and both will have legally compelling and very well stated arguments underpinning their positions. who's right? it'll depend on the interpretation of whoever is the arbiter whether it be a judge, jury, tribunal, etc... my point is that the law can only go but so far, it's the interpretation and enforcement of that law that really matters. this is the same whether it's criminal law, real estate law, maritime law, international law or any other kind of law.
"We have to breach the Constitution to protect the Constitution? The late, very great George Carlin would equate that to "screwing for chastity.""
again it's a matter of interpreting the constitution. that's why there's an entire subset of legal study called Constitutional Law. why? because like every other aspect of law there is no unanimous agreement on it and interpretations are constantly evolving.
I will also miss the very talented Mr. Carlin. Thanks for all the joy and laughter over the years!
June 25, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
More here.
June 25, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tank,
I actually get your point and think it has value. I don't believe Obama is so weak a candidate that he can't take a little criticism from his own crowd. And I happen to agree with your observations, geopolitical boundaries notwithstanding.
June 23, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I would hate not to vote for Obama in the fall, particularly inasmuch as I live in PA. But I'm willing to do it if he doesn't reverse some IMPORTANT Republican positions.
June 23, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard, I can't condone opting out or for another candidate when Obama is clearly our ONLY choice this fall. I merely agree that lockstep adherence to the mantra won't persuade Obama to take the gutsy positions necessary to effect real change. There needs to be some pressure that demonstrates disapproval, but this election is no time to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
June 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Ripper. You be sure to let me know which election is OK to throw to the Republicans.
Wait! Never mind. I know. We'll just keep moving the Democrats to Republican positions until they ARE the Republicans. We're so close now, it's no time to stop!
June 23, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He says he would drug his opponent if he thought he could get away with it, and videotape him naked with a blood-spattered call girl, à la Godfather II."
I do not know what you are talking about sir. I have never heard of such behavior.
June 23, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leave the gum. Take the cahones.
June 23, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument is as appealing as your teeth.
June 23, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent rebuttal. You've made me reconsider with your incisive analysis and rapier wit.
June 23, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must admit to a little bit of schadenfraude on that front, seeing your past methods on this forum coming back atcha.
June 23, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another devastating reposte to my arguments! You guys sure have a shitload of good answers to my questions. That does it. I'm changing my mind right now!
June 23, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well ok, I'll play, but just a little bit. On this:
I agree he is an honest man. I also think he honestly wants to govern according to majority preferences. He will, therefore, often vacillate, depending on the issue, especially if it is a complicated issue, when he isn't sure what the majority preference would be. I think he really believes that there is a purple majority out there, one that has been falsely divided into red v. blue, and he's going to try to get what he thinks is a purple majority behind him to change whatever they want changed and to keep whatever they want kept. And I don't think he is what you would define as a liberal, judging by your posting history. And that much of what is disturbing you is the real him.
June 23, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also think he honestly wants to govern according to majority preferences...He will, therefore, often vacillate
I disagree both that his intentions are as you state them, and that attempting to do so could lead us anywhere except disaster.
The ability to change one's mind is crucial in a chief of state, despite Republican talking points to the contrary. However, willingness to govern based on the shifting outcome of polls or one's imperfect perception of the will of the people -- that would be a fatal flaw -- one that I don't think is one of Obama's. If I did think so, I never would have worked for him in the first place.
I don't think he is what you would define as a liberal, judging by your posting history.
Oh goodness, no. There was never any doubt in my mind about his being a liberal. He is, at best, slightly to the left of the triangulatin' DLC contingent. The question was whether the package he is selling us is acceptable to a liberal. At this point, I'm leaning toward "no."
June 24, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Life in the blog lane. Just a couple of tips if you're going to share more thoughts. Don't argue with your audience. Either remain above the fray, or just insult them. And don't comment when you're drunk.
June 23, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Billy. I don't know where I would be without your advice.
June 23, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, your advice completely explains why you generally come across as a totally spineless cunt.
June 23, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you mind taking your vendetta elsewhere? I'm trying to stir up some political (as opposed to psycho-sexual) trouble here.
June 23, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I would mind. Billy needs to get his bare butt spanked by a chorus of strapping male models. And he's begging for it. I can't take this anywhere else. Sorry.
June 23, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I believe it was Billy who went totally OT. FYI.
June 23, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, by the way, you're a complete Republican idiot.
June 23, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incredible. I am in awe. The more one plumbs the depth of your analysis, the more depth one finds to plumb. Please never stop gracing us with your searing insight.
June 24, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I knew it was just a matter of time until the pussy-hare became an embarrassment to you guys. Notice how he times his crap to disrupt your attempt to communicate with people about an issue that's serious to you. I'm serious about not arguing with people. Takes practice. Des does it well. The rest of us need to let other people carry the dialogue.
June 23, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you're a weak fuck.
June 23, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, in my experience, arguing, debating (it's something I don't have much use for, but that's neither here nor there, since lots of people like it, it helps them think) doesn't cause this problem, hardly ever. It's indulging in the personal insult game (even if "they" started it), playing with people's heads, trying to get personal, that's how this kind of thing happens.
I'm not so sure about that, in my experience, Tankard's posts are not often 100% serious. :-)
June 24, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so sure about that, in my experience, Tankard's posts are not often 100% serious.
I ask that you pretend that they are, because I do.
June 24, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you're paraphrasing THE FUCKING EAGLES. Could you be any more lame?
June 23, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: You completely old asshole.
June 23, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice hat, Billy. You look like my totally homo English teacher in junior high school.
June 24, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you really are clueless about what a fool you are making of yourself, aren't you? I hope for your own good that that's not a variation of your meatspace name you're using, as it can be googled.
June 24, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know! It's unbelievable, isn't it? I can't believe what a fucking jackass I am. Oh well...
*:o)
You really think I give a shit, don't you? Of course you're totally right...
June 24, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for adding so much substance, not just to this thread, but every thread where you employ your Midas touch.
It seems to me that we in the blogging community should invent a word to describe a person who can swoop into a thread and do what you have done here to raise the level of discourse; that is, open up entire new directions for the dialog that lead to dramatic, mind-boggling insight. Whatever that word is, we really appreciate you for being one.
June 24, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um..... troll?
July 4, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You look like my totally homo English teacher
Not that there's anything wrong with that, right?
June 24, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moved out to the margin from here.
I am going to concede the point about whether or not Pakistan is an ally, not because I agree with you, but because it's very subsidiary to the main point, which is the invasion of another country in defiance of international law and the US Constitution.
I answered your challenge about Obama's threat to go to war without a declaration from Congress here, and it seems to me that you acknowledged that in your reply.
I'm afraid that I have to reinterate the point I made earlier: Of the two of us, one has closed his mind in this argument, and it is not I.
June 24, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The quote you're basing this on is this: If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
You are so determined to get to the conclusion you want to reach that you twist this into saying something it doesn't. And (as I pointed out above) you throw in the assumption that nothing could be done without "days" of deliberation in Congress. But that's your assertion, just something you just pulled out of your ass. If there is credible evidence of an imminent threat, it doesn't follow that Congress would deliberate for days. And if you think Obama is talking about launching an attack without credible evidence, or against a target that is not an imminent threat to us, then you're assuming Obama will behave like Bush, and that would be another assumption you pulled out of your ass to justify the conclusion you need so desperately to reach.
At least you finally gave up on the claim that Pakistan is an ally. But you pretend that this claim (which you took directly from Bush) isn't an important point, even though you originally wrote "he has advocated the invasion of a Middle-Eastern ally". Obviously the question of whether they are an ally or not is rather important when you're claiming that Obama is advocating the invasion of an ally. But you can't admit the obvious there, or even admit that you're wrong about it (even though your source for this counter-factual claim is none other than George Bush) currently, and even more wrong about it in the context that Obama was talking about in the sort of scenario in which he said he would be prepared to attack.
This is what you think an "open mind" looks like?
June 24, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are so determined to get to the conclusion you want to reach that you twist this into saying something it doesn't.
Let's start with this: Knowing my personal and political wants, needs, desires, and character will not be particularly useful to you, so I'll suggest that we leave them out of this conversation lest we start sounding like Billy Glad and hrebendorf. But I'll be happy to tell you that I'm quite distraught about the conclusion to which the evidence has driven me. I did volunteer work for Obama. And I've been an activist Democrat probably longer than you've been alive.
And if you think Obama is talking about launching an attack...against a target that is not an imminent threat to us...
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Sen. Obama would agree with me about this. Unless I'm mistaken, the question that he was answering concerned what he'd do if he knew the location of OBL and had nothing to do with an imminent threat.
As I said elsewhere, I made the point about Pakistan being an ally to emphasize that we are not at war with them. If I had been talking about Iran, for example, I wouldn't have used that word, but the point is exactly the same. Attacking a country with whom we are not at war is a breach of both international law and the US Constitution.
This is what you think an "open mind" looks like?
I have no idea what any kind of mind looks like. I do know, however, that mine is quite open.
June 24, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, Obama is not a dogmatic adherent of some core set of shared principles that you have labeled "progressive." In particular, he made no promises about telecom immunity, he spoke of strongly supporting Israel and invading Pakistan if necessary since early in the primary, and national unity (of which progressives are only one part) has been a core component of his campaign all along. I'm not sure why you expected anything different from him.
Second, while I also believe that Obama is generally honest, it's normal and expected (and desired, if we want a winner) to veer left in the primary and veer right in the general. This doesn't mean abandoning core principles, but it does mean emphasizing positions with widespread appeal and hedging or compromising on issues on issues with narrow appeal.
Third, it seems to me narrow-minded to reject a candidate for taking some positions that you deem "not acceptable behavior from nor for anyone with a progressive attitude." People who have an attitude that you consider progressive make up a small proportion of the country. A candidate who was progressive by these strict standards would be highly unlikely to win a democratic election because there are far too many people in the country who don't share your point of view.
PS You're an evil, demonic, racist, neoconservative Republican concern troll who would reject his own avatar for political gain.
June 24, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an evil, demonic, racist, neoconservative Republican concern troll who would reject his own avatar for political gain.
I'm willing to forego the rest, but I MUST insist that you include "sick." It just doesn't have the same pizzazz without it.
Obama is not a dogmatic adherent of some core set of shared principles that you have labeled "progressive."
Agreed. That is part of the problem. As to the rest of your first graph, you are correct. If you recall, I objected to the Pakistan statement when he made it, and even raised the spectre (horrors!) that he might have to try to win without me, as impossible as that might sound. Still, I went ahead and endorsed him and worked for him in the hope (if I may use the word) that he would recant. Not only did he not, he has exascerbated the problem.
Re: Your second graph. As I have said elsewhere: changing one's mind based on new evidence or convincing argument? Good. Veering: Bad. Unbecoming the candidate of change and hope.
Re: Your third: It seems to me insane to accept a candidate for taking some positions that you deem "not acceptable behavior from nor for anyone with a progressive attitude." I will never again vote for an candidate whose positions are unacceptable to me. I might work like a dog to elect a candidate who took positions that are disagreeable to me -- Pres. Clinton is a good example of that. But to support one whose positions are anathema? Sorry, no can do.
A candidate who was progressive by these strict standards would be highly unlikely to win a democratic election
No, you're not clear about my "standards." I don't consider myself a bit of a socialist nor a radical. But I do insist on utmost respect for the Constitution (and I hope that you do as well). I think his Jerusalem statement is a sellout and I think that for Obama to sell out is even worse than, say, Sen. Clinton doing so, because it is unbecoming the candidate of change and hope. (Is there an echo in here?)
On its own, however, any single issue of these three would cause me grave concern without causing me to lose faith in the good Senator. Combined? It looks like a pattern that we've seen far too often.
June 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you go into a job interview, you emphasize those aspects of yourself that you think the interviewer want to hear and de-emphasize the other bits. That's normal and smart interview strategy. If on the other hand you misrepresent yourself, you lack integrity. By "veer," I meant something closer to the former. That said, I think that it's difficult for any politician to achieve high office with integrity intact. I regard Obama as more honest than most successful politicians but less honest than your average job applicant.
I don't regard telecom immunity as a significant challenge to the Constitution. Furthermore, it's not as if he proposed it; he's just not choosing to fight it. Obama has always been very pragmatic, and I think that we can expect more of such pragmatism from an Obama administration. That means that progressives will continue to feel betrayed when he compromises issues that our dear to them. I'm confident that he can do a better job than his critics here of navigating political shoals to best achieved shared goals, but maybe that's because telecom immunity is not an issue that is dear to me.
As for the Jerusalem comment, I think it was one of the dumber things Obama has said. I don't know whether it represents a sellout because I don't know what his position was on Jerusalem before he made the comment. I will say that preserving the Palestinians' negotiating position is not an issue that is dear to me either (which is not to say that I agree with Obama).
I realize that these issues are more important to you than to me. If you think that McCain is more prepared to punish the telecoms and will be fairer to the Palestinians, then don't vote for Obama, but there are only two candidates who can win, and McCain is the other one.
I refused to bow to your pathetic demands. You are evil, demonic, spineless, etc, etc, but I declare you not in the least sick.
June 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are evil, demonic, spineless, etc, etc, but I declare you not in the least sick.
Fiend.
June 24, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tank-dude. I see Genghis is kinda lettin' you down here.
So, on behalf of right-thinking (& right-brained) people everywhere.... you're sick. (Feels good, doesn't it?)
Now. Back to your post. Which - if I read correctly - focussed on that totally homo English teacher you had in Junior High. Sounds like you gotta bit of a problem here. Why so divisive? Why're you so intent on dividing the totally homo English teachers in JR High from the ones in HIGH school? And whaddabout the sorta homo ones - you know, the 2% brigade? Or that Physics teacher I had?
Party unity? Pish. (And posh.) I'm outta here. McCain calls.
Grateful for your post, ever happy to contribute. Happy to clarify.
(Ok. Now my head really hurts.)
June 24, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
on behalf of right-thinking (& right-brained) people everywhere.... you're sick. (Feels good, doesn't it?)
Ahhhhhhhhhhh!
June 25, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that it's difficult for any politician to achieve high office with integrity intact. I regard Obama as more honest than most successful politicians but less honest than your average job applicant.
Cleverly put, but I fear you put too much faith in "your average job applicant." But, uh, are you hiring? I have my resume right here. Seriously, I hope (there's that word again) and suspect than he is more honest than most of either.
I don't regard telecom immunity as a significant challenge to the Constitution.
Oh, I do. The way it's written is probably unconstitutional to any but the Reagan/Bush/Bush court. But probably even more importantly, its function is to shield both the telecoms and the current kleptocracy from any possibility that prior unconstitutional action might be investigated.
Furthermore, it's not as if he proposed it; he's just not choosing to fight it.
No, that's not the case. That is, it's true that he didn't propose it, but he supports it, calling it "an important tool in the fight against terrorism."
If you think that McCain is more prepared to punish the telecoms and will be fairer to the Palestinians, then don't vote for Obama, but there are only two candidates who can win, and McCain is the other one.
I have a problem with this attitude. I find it short-sighted and dangerous. Obviously McCain is far less acceptable. But if we continue to accept, support, and vote for unacceptable candidates, we can expect that we will continue to get them. I'm not willing to sell out my daughter.
June 24, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to everyone for a stimulating debate.
If you're like me and wish we had more of these and fewer pissing contests here at TPM, please consider sliding the zipper closed on Mr. Happy Little Guy more often and opening up Mr. Grey Matter more often.
This was fun.
June 25, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies to those of us who boast equipment that cannot be described as Mr. Happy Little Guy and who are most likely to employ Ms. Grey Matter.
June 25, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to accept that point as long as you can accept that reasonable and intelligent people can disagree considerably on what should be considered 'legally' and 'constitutionally'.
No strict constructionist I, but "Congress shall have the power to...declare war" doesn't really leave that much room for interpretation.
June 25, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
again, if we're talking about an iraq style mobilization and invasion then you're right but if we're talking about targeted operations against specific terrorists and/or camps then yes there is room for interpretation as to whether that constitutes 'war' or not. does every single use of military capability constitute war within that definition? these are things are certainly open to argument and interpretation.
June 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
does every single use of military capability constitute war within that definition?
Yeah. Obviously. What's the question?
Look. Can we agree that any invasion is an act of war? Then let's see you give me a definition of "invasion" that does not encompass unauthorized "targeted operations" in a country with whom we were not previously at war. I think your definition is going to have to be fairly tortured.
And we all oppose torture, right?
June 25, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree here because I see a vast difference between a war and a targeted operation. War is a much broader scope engagement with much higher stakes than a targeted operation focused on a particular individual or specific area. I will concede the point that a targeted operation can certainly grow into or be a part of a larger conflict i.e. war but that it is not necessarily one by definition. examples being the iraq or afghanistan wars seeking to change the governments of the countries involved or the same for the vietnam war. whereas the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a targeted operation not an invasion or war.
I think your reasoning on this is fairly tortured since I don't think it agrees with the accepted (i.e. websters) definition of what war is "(1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict" which would seem to be a larger event and not just ANYTHING involving weapons. But like i said before, reasonable people can certainly disagree and it seems we do.
June 25, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment