Plus, is he going to take responsibility for leaving Iraq with a government that prevents sectarian conflict? Biting off way too much.

Posted at July 15, 2008 1:27 PM in response to Obama: "I Strongly Stand By My Plan To End This War"

There’s way too much adulation in this thread and not enough critical thinking. Obama has the correct vision for Iraq with respect to the fact that we need to get out. But he is ceding way too much McCain, Bush and the Republicans who are responsible for the Iraq fiasco. Note the following from Obama’s speech:

True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

What is he thinking? There has never been any credible evidence that al Qaeda has any significant presence in Iraq. The true al Qaeda is not tolerated by the Iraqis. Now, you are going to give the Bush administration credit for having beaten them back ?? I think our man and many of the readers here need to go read Andrew Tilghman’s article written for the Washington Monthly: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html

The Bush administration created the al Qaeda in Iraq myth via a very intense propaganda effort. If you buy into it, you are foolish and giving them the opportunity to claim victory. Iraq was never about al Qaeda.

Posted at July 15, 2008 1:24 PM in response to Obama: "I Strongly Stand By My Plan To End This War"

It does not surprise me that Obama has done well in the Democratic party. With McCain being such a poor candidate and the Republicans being so unpopular at present, this is an ideal time for Obama to win the Presidency. Hopefully, he will do so and have success. I’ll take any racial advances we can get.

Of course, growing up in Mississippi, I've seen plenty of racism and plenty of rising above it. What I notice about the non-deep South United States is that many people are not fully aware of their continued racial naivety, despite their lack of racial prejudice. That minority politicians are as capable as anybody, they comprehend. But they actually do not fully realize that minority politicians are just as prone to cynicism and political shenanigans as non-minority politicians. They haven’t quite completed the circle that leads to unbiased observation. They are so used to seeing minorities mistreated that they can’t help but see them as victims, even when they are not.

Posted at May 21, 2008 5:01 PM in response to Obama Does It!

Yeah, probably nuff said, and I don't disagree about the opening created for Obama.

But I will always object to the characterization of that vote as a "vote for war". The war belongs to Bush and the Republicans.

Posted at May 21, 2008 10:05 AM in response to Why Hillary Lost

You really need to lighten up and quit throwing the "lie" word around so loosely.

The Gore example is just that, an example of how a great number of people can be "certain" of something that is untrue.

If you claim that knowing the AUMF vote would lead to war is a matter of insight, I consider that to be a legitimate and arguable point.

And that reinforces the point I have been making. The AUMF vote can be criticized as a matter of questionable judgment given the fact that we had a rogue President. But at the time of the vote it was absolutely not considered to be a vote in favor of invading Iraq. The question was how to control Bush. How to slow him down, how to make him prove his contention that Iraq was an imminent threat. Kerry and Clinton explicitly said (along with many others) that Bush had not made this case.

Posted at May 21, 2008 9:30 AM in response to Why Hillary Lost

cnic: yes, two speeches, one on October 2, 2002 just days prior to the AUMF vote which was being hotly debated at the time, and another speech October 22, 2002, eleven days the AUMF vote. So, what is your point?

In neither speech did Obama address the AUMF vote. What gives? A war opponent, on October 2nd, the date of the first speech, does not even address the pending AUMF vote? Why? I can only conclude that he did not consider the AUMF “a vote for war”. People certainly were not casting the vote in those terms at the time. Everybody knew the Democrats were trying to stop Bush and make him prove his case for war. His speech makes many of the same points contained in the contemporaneous speeches of Kerry and Clinton.

So, history has been rewritten, first by Karl Rove and the republicans, then the MSM, then by many war opponents hostile to Hillary Clinton. A vote in favor of the AUMF, ex post facto, has morphed into “a vote to militarily invade Iraq”.

I don’t subscribe to what “everybody knows”. Everybody knows that Al Gore claims to have invented the internet, right? Sorry, I don’t know that.

Posted at May 21, 2008 8:04 AM in response to Why Hillary Lost

Lovelynina: you love this video for all the right reasons.

My only quibble is that, like Bush, it's impossible to know for sure if McCain is really that ignorant or that dishonest. But, as with Bush, it does not really matter. Each possibility is awful.

Posted at May 20, 2008 5:16 PM in response to McCain: I Can Demagogue About Iran Because Public Is Ignorant

Using your logic, these senators who voted "no" are as much to blame for the war as the 77 who voted yes.

This is what I mean by missing my point. I am not blaming any of the Democrats. They were not in favor of war. They were claiming that the case had not been made.

I am blaming Bush and the Republicans. That's where the blame belongs.

Posted at May 20, 2008 2:13 PM in response to Why Hillary Lost

And another thing. Why would you give a speech against war with Iraq a few days prior to the AUMF vote, and never even mention the pending AUMF vote? This is what Obama did.

Could it be he opposed war with Iraq (I'm sure he did), but did not equate the AUMF with a vote in favor of war (I'm sure he did not).

Like everybody outside of Bush's circle, Obama no doubt questioned Bush's honesty and questioned the need to use force. But the best strategy to contain Bush was not cut and dried at all. Thus, in his speech, he was silent with regard to the AUMF.

Posted at May 20, 2008 2:01 PM in response to Why Hillary Lost

MJ: I can't believe you could miss my point by such a wide margin. You are ignoring the language of the AUMF, you are ignoring what AUMFs have always been (authorization of force if certain conditions are met or prove to be true), and you are calling Kerry and Clinton liars in their contemporaneous speeches when they stated this was not a vote for war.

You are actually saying that the folks who voted for the AUMF were actively voting to invade Iraq? This is what they wanted?

I think it's fair to question their judgement given our rogue President. But they did not favor war.

Posted at May 20, 2008 1:55 PM in response to Why Hillary Lost