I can guarantee you that Obama will not find Iraq to have been adequately pacified by the surge to acquiesce in a US presence for the next 100 years without any US casualties. McCain has stated that as his goal. So he needs to say how he will achieve that goal and where the resources will come from. This means he needs to be knowledgeable about things like troop levels and about the ways that military resources are stretched in multiple parts of the world.

What is achievable in Iraq? What will it cost us to achieve it? Those are the questions Obama can gain information about in Iraq. The answers to those questions will guide how Obama follows through on his consistent commitment to "get out less recklessly than we went in", but what he should not do is declare as McCain has done that pacification is the only honorable outcome for the US. When Obama questioned Petraeus before Congress his question was how we can get to "messy but stable" as we begin to give our overstretched military some relief and refocus our military resources on capturing or killing bin Laden and strengthening the government in Afghanistan against the increasingly powerful Taliban. That seems like a much better, more pragmatic, more realist approach than McCain's commitment to the Bush/neocon vision of Iraq becoming an ME version of South Korea.

It's weird that McCain himself pretty much said that the Bush/neocon vision was a pipe dream when he appeared on the Charlie Rose show in Nov 2007. Maybe he'll start trying to back off the "100 years" stuff and try to move away from Bush and towards Obama on Iraq, but that will be difficult to do while calling Obama "naive" on foreign policy. People will ask: If Obama is so naive then why is McCain trying to reposition himself closer to Obama and further from Bush? McCain's way out of this quandry is to introduce the issue of execution. He's like Bush in policy, but not incompetent at carrying it out. But that doesn't get him out of the "100 years" problem because that's a policy issue, and it's a policy he told Charlie Rose it would be difficult to achieve no matter how competently attempted.

Posted at July 2, 2008 4:09 PM in response to McCain Campaign: Obama's Trip To Iraq Is "Cynical Politics"

Americans need to be told that Usamah Bin Laden does not own the name Usamah, and there are lots of wonderful people named Usamah. It is just a classical Arabic word for "lion." It is given by Christian as well as Muslim families, and some of the physicians who heal us of serious maladies are named Usamah. Moreover, there is no "o" in Arabic. It is not Osama but Usamah. It does not rhyme with Obama and is not related in any way to it. Obama is an African (presumably Dholua or other West Nilotic) word, not a Semitic one.

LINK

Posted at June 24, 2008 7:15 PM in response to Chris Matthews: Terrorist Tape Came From Obama -- Er, Osama -- Headquarters

One of the central points I was making is that there's room to question strategic decisions on issues like that without calling into question Obama's motivations or values, as the poster did in suggesting that Obama is as willing as Bush to invest "dictatorial powers" in the executive. Of course, the poster was prepared for that with a little pre-emptive name-calling: e.g., "Obamabot", etc. The old "anyone that doesn't agree with me is a brainwashed zombie" approach. . . So he/she didn't feel compelled to respond to any of my points really, besides offering a flippant, dismissive, cliche.

Posted at June 24, 2008 5:53 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

I've never had any idea what else was supposed to justify the means.

Posted at June 24, 2008 5:40 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

Nobody cares. And that's what bothers Bill the most.

Posted at June 24, 2008 12:43 PM in response to Bill Clinton Endorses Obama

One thing is clear, John McCain like George Bush is willing to invest dictatorial powers in the executive branch. He pretty much indicated that he is the same as Bush on these matters when he called the recent 5-4 decision regarding Guantanamo "one of the worst in the history of the court". Obama criticized that decision, opening himself up to the usual rightwing attacks, just as he did in opposing amnesty.

Now, you say that opposing amnesty is not enough. He needs to lead a foot-stomping, fist-pounding revolt against the passage of this bill. Where is the filibuster? Where is the press conference calling on the American people to join him with the ghosts of our Founding Fathers at the front in the war for the 4th Amendment? Even if he doesn't have the votes to win that revolt, he must do it anyway as a matter of morality. Perhaps you believe this battle must be won or the American experiment is over. (Or, perhaps you need reminding that the struggle to achieve those principles stated by our founding hypocrite, dreamer, revolutionaries has been going on for a long time in this country and is bigger than this one battle).

When you say that Obama has chosen political expediency over morality, I think that you are taking a very narrow view of morality. When I think about what is moral, I tend to think about all of the consequences. You seem to be thinking that the moral thing to do is always to rage, no matter how impotently, against any and all injustice. I think that is not true. For example, I do not berate my meat eating friends. I persuade by example and by answering questions. If I took the impotent rage approach, I'd be constantly expressing indignation at their choice to eat meat produced in abominably cruel factory farm conditions. Would you say that my abstinence from lecturing at Thanksgiving dinner is "clearly not based on principle"?

The point I'm trying to make is that politically expedient is not necessarily immoral, especially when the political opponent has just called a decision upholding the ancient right of habeas corpus one of the worst in history. IF the political costs are high enough and IF the chances of blocking ultimate passage are low enough and IF the prospects for rolling back the Bush assault in the constitution do not rest on this particular battle THEN Obama has done the moral thing.

Those are of course big IFs and they are open to debate. However, the conclusion that Obama has reached the wrong conclusions about those IFs does not call into question his motivations. We have his entire career to look to in determining whether he shares our values, including our constitutional values. To suggest that those who look to the entirety of the evidence and conclude that Obama is far different from those like McCain and Bush who really are "all too willing to invest near dictatorial powers in the executive branch of federal government" are wholly uncritical and worshipful in their attitude is a bit much.

Now, I know what some are thinking. All of a sudden political calculation can be moral, but weren't Obama supporters the one's that hammered Hillary and Edwards for their calculating votes on the AUMF? That's a good point and there's no doubt that in the to and fro of politics Obama supporters have been more puritan on some issues and more pragmatic on others, just like every other candidate's supporters.

However, even granting that point there is a difference between Obama now on amnesty and the others then on the AUMF. Obama opposed amnesty and voted against it. The others supported the AUMF and voted for it. Obama has criticized Bush, clearly stating that the program was illegal. The others echoed Bush rhetoric on Iraq. Obama's failure on amnesty according to his critics is in not vocally enough opposing it and in not using every last legislative appeal to block it.

I will say that I approve of your broad theme that Obama should not be held above criticism. I disagree that his supporters are any more uncritical than the base supporters of any other candidate. I think that the IFs mentioned above are debatable points and that that kind of criticism is welcome. I disagree that, given the entirety of the evidence and not just this single data point, there is any case to be made whatsoever that Obama's constitutional values, moral principles, or core motivations are anything at all like Bush and McCain's.

Posted at June 24, 2008 12:28 PM in response to Glenn Greenwald: Let’s question Barack Obama’s motives

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," said the Pope of Martin Luther. Protestantism is a movement whose very name suggests protest against Jesus's Church founded on Peter the rock and first Pope of the Holy Catholic faith. The traditional understanding of the Bible makes it very clear that the Catholic Church is Jesus's Church. However, the protesters insisted on their right to interpret the Word of God directly rather than through the proper lines of authority established by Christ Himself. From the Reformation it has been a long slow slide into postmodernism, decadence, and moral decline.

Wait. . . Isn't Dobson a Protestant?

Posted at June 24, 2008 11:36 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup

M(cC)ain Stream Media

Posted at June 23, 2008 8:36 PM in response to Loving John McCain - the sad tale of extraordinary media bias

Obama benefited greatly from Hillary's attachment to poison Penn. Why would he encourage McCain not to make the same mistake with Charlie Black?

Posted at June 23, 2008 7:20 PM in response to Obama Camp: McCain Adviser's Claim That Terror Attack Would Help Campaign Is "Complete Disgrace"

I'm not interested in apologies from people I don't know. People like Charlie Black need to be held accountable for what they do and say. Ideally, McCain would hold him accountable, but at the very least the media should do so. However, Black has gotten away with lobbying for dictators, thugs, and even a suspected Iranian double-agent. The way to hold someone accountable for pimping himself out as PR man to thugs and spies is to publicly expose them and destroy their credibility. A person with no public credibility would not be able to function in the capacity that Black functions in for McCain. That should be the consequence of the choices Black has made.

Apologies resolve personal matters. They repair relationships between friends and family. I'm not personally hurt or offended by this or anything in Black's history and I have no personal relationship with him. I don't care if he regrets what he said. I want these kind of scumbags to be held accountable.

Posted at June 23, 2008 4:50 PM in response to Top McCain Adviser Charlie Black Regrets Saying Terror Attack Would Help Campaign