Centerfield

Thomas Ricks supports you as well as other Democrat-sited best sellers. It is my thinking as well. You could even include the timing and preparedness of our invasion as well, being the source of failings, -not the prevention itself. I would like to hear Obama call prevention illegal, as do many Democrats. Imagine Saddam around now with Putin at his side downplaying reports of Saddam’s WMD programs. LOL

I see Dodd this morning says he is skeptical about military claims Iran is sending bomb parts to Iraq. Just like I suspected Levin was setting up in his comments on pre-war effort by military to manipulate Iraq data. Yes, the people Congress just approved are lying to Congress. And as far as talking with our adversaries, Obama doesn't spend much time reviewing how negotiations with Saddam failed, or with old and new blather coming out Russia, Syria and Iran, let alone AQ in Iraq..

Obama did not get it right in 2002 and that does not bode well for his future decisions if he wins in 2008. How long will we excuse people because they are trying “to get elected”? Was Obama running in 2002? I wonder if Barak would have supported the Zinni plan? I wonder how long Obama would like to "talk" to Iran? As long as it takes them for de facto nuke status? How about Obama start talking now to our allies and getring them to send money and resources to Afghanistan and Iraq? It is both a misreading of what Ricks says happened in Iraq (history) and the questionable soundness of what Obama has said, that makes Obama's position at the moment quite suspect. Now he is running on the perception that all of Bush’s moves were unsound as well as the NSS from which they sprung. Chicken littles are not very good long-term substitutes to chicken hawks. Iran, Russia, China, North Korea and others will cut their resolve like butter at the negotiating table. Sooner or later, Obama will have to comment on the daily news outside the bubble of electability. Our adversaries are preparing for conflict as one reads this thread. Obama will need more than vague words and dreaming to deal with global reality. There is time for him to adjust his position and get real. If not, others will cut him to shreds.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 11, 2007 11:13 AM

and so it will come

I do not say AQ'a reasoning is sound. Obama will have to send a far different signal BEFORE he wins any nomination. So far AQ in Iraq is pulling for him too. Barak could change this, but fears losing his base. I thought that was center, but perhaps I was wrong. Now back to Simon's thread.....sorry

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 11, 2007 11:35 AM

Mr. Obama, Mr. Dodd is suspect of reports concerning Iran's involvement in Iraq. Do you agree?

Mr. Obama, Putin publicly chastised our Secretary of Defense for being mistaken about Iran not having a missile that could reach Eastern Europe. Do you agree with Mr. Putin? Do you support the Bush administration's effort to provide Eastern Europe with missile defense.

Mr. Obama, do you support giving money to the new Palestinian government if they refuse to renounce violence and recognize Israel as Europe and the Bush administration demand?

These should give Obama (and other Democrats) pause.......

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 11, 2007 11:53 AM

"our Secretary of Defense for being mistaken about Iran having a" ....coffee first, internet second....my bad

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 11, 2007 11:55 AM

For clarification, Mathew is Starbucks Republican, Starbucks Republican is Mathew... Others who linked to this site kept using my full name so I chose a tag. I am public servant who works for an elected official and her views come before mine, so the tag is an attempt to not have my political opinions splattered all over the internet.

The significance of the tag? Starbucks Republican is a term given to those of us in 2004 who wear our heart on the left and our pocket book on the right and have become disenchanted with the Republican Party under the political leadership of Karl Rove. Some of us voted for Kerry, and others like myself held our nose and voted for Bush. I will not say I regret that decision, but I will say that it may be time for a change of party in the White House, and Barack Obama may be that needed change. I am simply no longer willing to choose the best Republican, but rather the best candidate. Does that mean I am now an independent? I'll leave that up to you. Labels don't seem to work for my political opinions anymore.

As for Simon's post, I will respond in due time.

Posted by: Starbucks Republican at February 11, 2007 11:59 AM

I am simply no longer willing to choose the best Republican, but rather the best candidate. Does that mean I am now an independent?

Sounds more like "responsible citizen" to me.

Labels don't seem to work for my political opinions anymore.

I know that feeling. But don't worry, folks will still try to slap them on you anyway!

Posted by: Tully at February 11, 2007 12:54 PM

I must admit when faced with a possibly more-worthy Republican, I have elected not to vote. Perhaps this will change. I applaud the open-mindedness of this group.

When I post my ravings at a more Liberal site, I am denounced as a neocon. Here, I suspect, I am simply called an idiot by those who disagree and whatever by those concur.....

An improvement in my book.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 11, 2007 01:37 PM

Obama was right. The invasion of Iraq was an inevitable mess because we had no clear and articulated measure for victory. There can be no "victory" when nobody knows what victory looks like.

To invade on such a premise is in fact a recipe for chaos. We were headed for disaster because of it the moment we stepped back onto Iraqi soil.

I reject the notion that politics is ugly because there are real divisions in this country right now that force this ugliness. There are a lot of issues where Americans have common ground. A hell of a lot more than those which divide us. The problem is that money and marketing have been used to highlight that which divides us--in an effort to put one party or the other over the top. That's Karl Rove's speciality, and Starbucks Republican is entirely correct in his understanding of what's gone on.

We've spent the last 10 years bitterly divided because of this sort of political gamesmanship. People are tired of it. If the Newt Gingriches of the world want to continue to pull those stunts then Obama will indeed be President. The nation is weary of war and infighting.

Whether or not Obama can put a stop to it remains to be seen. But to castigate the guy because he's actually trying to find common ground is ludicrous.

Posted by: carla at February 11, 2007 02:32 PM

"Obama was right. The invasion of Iraq was an inevitable mess because we had no clear and articulated measure for victory."

You do not support your view. Please tell us how Bush and Clinton (who supported regime change) had NO articulated measure of "success". We did in fact, remove the possibility that Saddam could continue his plan and with Russian and French help, secure more WMD. In fact, the Democrats asked the military to prepare a plan for Saddam's removal long before Bush was President. Thomas Ricks and others point to a poor Post-war strategy and not measures of success. A more balanced view might conclude that removing Saddam in itself was not inevitably flawed thinking, but rather poor execution mangled the road to success. Laying the blame at Republican's decision to remove Saddam ( and I did not vote for Bush) is factually incorrect.

"There can be no "victory" when nobody knows what victory looks like."

Another false claim. Even I know what "victory" would look like. Don't you?

"To invade on such a premise (And what was the premise?) is in fact a recipe for chaos. We were headed for disaster because of it the moment we stepped back onto Iraqi soil."

More of the same.

"I reject the notion that politics is ugly because there are real divisions in this country right now that force this ugliness."

Are you actually saying the ballot split doesn't reflect a real division? This is quite false. Please show us how there are not real divisions. You have one Party that believes military force is an essential part of negotiations and a last resort for failed negations. You have another Party that has managed to eject most Hawks and pro-action thinkers, call on negotiations in retreat and actually accuse our government for causing most of the world’s problems. Would Obama intervene in Darfur given the measure of failed negotiations?.

"There are a lot of issues where Americans have common ground."

Sure there are, but that doesn't mean there are not real issues that divide America like a socialized healthcare system to name just one. National Security does represent a real division regardless of common ground. All American’s believe criminals should go to jail. Yes?

"A hell of a lot more than those which divide us."

Again, not really when the popular vote is strangely split for more than a decade.

"The problem is that money and marketing have been used to highlight that which divides us--in an effort to put one party or the other over the top. That's Karl Rove's speciality, and Starbucks Republican is entirely correct in his understanding of what's gone on."

I am not sure that is what SBR said. You start by saying money and marketing divide us on both ends of the political spectrum (implied) and then you select Rove as the culprit. If you had money and marketing, America might be more bombarded by your earlier “facts” that remain unproven. Not a better situation, but worse.

"We've spent the last 10 years bitterly divided because of this sort of political gamesmanship."

Not true. Democrats had the ability to co-opt Bush's war on terror and influence our application of the NSS. They chose early on to run against whatever Bush said. Republicans might have also moderated policy by offering enough votes to the opposition to force better planning. The blame goes to many. Focusing on false and simplistic theories will hardly solve a complicated and difficult battle of policy positions.

"People are tired of it."

Tired of what, your interpretation of what they are tired of, or something else?

"If the Newt Gingriches of the world want to continue to pull those stunts then Obama will indeed be President."

This is silly. I see. What we are tired of are Newts. You again, focus the blame on select Republicans and then state a silly threat about Obama winning.. Do you mean that if there were no Newts, then Obama is less your candidate and could not win? Because of Newts he will become President anyway?

"The nation is weary of war and infighting. Whether or not Obama can put a stop to it remains to be seen. But to castigate the guy because he's actually trying to find common ground is ludicrous."

No, your last remark is ludicrous. I hardly have it in for some one really seeking common ground. It is just that your gun is loaded. The nation is weary of war and infighting (as though these were both the same thing)? Whether Obama can end a situation driven by starkly different notions of America's self-interest does remain to be seen. I suspect it would require a plan to bring both sides on board. When two doctors differ over the best surgical approach, they do not compromise by combining operative procedures. The patient has every right to castigate the "common ground" approach if it does not deal with what the patient perceives their problem is. Some patients regard foreign threats and international apathy towards them a cancer that needs to be treated aggressively. Other patients see our use of force, rejectionist policies, even who our friends are, to be a cancerous condition starting at the top of our bi-partisan NSS hierarchy. I don’t recommend combining these surgeries. Two different views can be reconciled if the bridge between satisfies the fears of both patients, not pretending their fears are unfounded. And believe me, Iran will be a harder negotiation, especially when performed during retreat. As a Liberal, I think that the new anti-Zionist views, the new equivalency that sees little difference between our adversaries and us and the belief that benign Western hegemony is not vital to hold the free world together did were not the past mantras of the Democrat Party. Perhaps the Obama bridge you seek means looking at former Democrat leaders and Presidents and admitting the recent flip flopping that resulted from the anti-war base blowing through a desperately open back door, requires now rejecting what Clinton rejected in the nineties. It is simple for you to blame the Republicans, pretend there are no real divisions or issues that divide us and offer little new strategy that will be needed to convince your patients that your operative approach will close our wounds AND repel America's enemies.

Obama is not a Messiah. I have read his voting record and a 82.5 Liberal rating in 2005 was only two points higher than Lieberman. The Democrat Party advocating unity and compromise now booted him then.

If Hillary had lied about her cocaine abuse, her Muslim lineage, some of her voting history (Obama is centrist?) she would be under fire from those now touting Obama. I wonder if you defended Hillary when Sheehan said it was her new mission to keep Clinton from ever winning the primary? It is easy to sound tired, contrite and benignly compromising. I would argue that 1. there is a long policy struggle ahead and 2. you don't really mean what you seem to be saying. This part of the game, I doubt Obama will settle but rather employ. If he is to bridge deep differences his arguments, his foreign policy views and views on American leadership need to be neither silent nor "defeatist". Just simply look at his passion regarding the genocide of black Africans at the hands of the same soiled ideology of those who eye American retreat as their signal for renewed escalation. That was the point I was making in a sincere effort to see Obama succeed and not simply lead us into more chaos and retreat. As Clay once said. “I would rather be right than be President”. I am hoping he might come to this on his way forward. He still must convince me (and so does Hillary, McCain and Giuliani) that his vision and views regarding Liberal Democracy including its defense is our best option come 2008. I await eagerly for Obama to find his centrist voice and answer the questions I proposed above.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 11, 2007 04:05 PM

I do enjoy the assertion that politics is somehow worse now than it's been in the past, Carla. Especially as I know it's not. American politics has always been ugly. I can cite chapter and verse going back to the founding of the nation.

Politics ain't beanbag, and never has been.

Posted by: Tully at February 11, 2007 05:04 PM

You do not support your view. Please tell us how Bush and Clinton (who supported regime change) had NO articulated measure of "success". We did in fact, remove the possibility that Saddam could continue his plan and with Russian and French help, secure more WMD. In fact, the Democrats asked the military to prepare a plan for Saddam's removal long before Bush was President. Thomas Ricks and others point to a poor Post-war strategy and not measures of success. A more balanced view might conclude that removing Saddam in itself was not inevitably flawed thinking, but rather poor execution mangled the road to success. Laying the blame at Republican's decision to remove Saddam ( and I did not vote for Bush) is factually incorrect.

Please demonstrate (with links please) exactly which speech, paper or any sort of statement thereof from the President either before invasion or since laid out the specific threshold for victory in Iraq.

Another false claim. Even I know what "victory" would look like. Don't you?

For Iraq? No, I don't. Please tell me exactly what "victory in Iraq" looks like. Then please show me exactly where anyone in the Bush Adminstration has articulated that same vision of victory and labeled it as such.

"To invade on such a premise (And what was the premise?) is in fact a recipe for chaos. We were headed for disaster because of it the moment we stepped back onto Iraqi soil."

You honestly don't remember the premise for the Iraq invasion? Odd for someone who claims to know exactly what victory looks like there. How can one know the end when one doesn't know the beginning?

Are you actually saying the ballot split doesn't reflect a real division?

I'm actually saying that ballot splits right now are the manifestation of years of marketing divisive issues rather than finding those with which we have common ground. I'm unsure exactly how I was unclear there previously. Perhaps now you've got the picture? I've never said that there weren't issues on which we're divided. I'm saying that those divisions have been highlighted and exploited consistently, rather than the opposite.

I am not sure that is what SBR said. You start by saying money and marketing divide us on both ends of the political spectrum (implied) and then you select Rove as the culprit. If you had money and marketing, America might be more bombarded by your earlier “facts” that remain unproven. Not a better situation, but worse.

I didn't "select Rove as the culprit". Are you deliberately twisting what I'm saying or are you incapable of basic reading comprehension? I'm saying that Rove is very good at using money and marketing to divide politically. Rove was the person originally cited by SR--I simply agreed with him. There are others in politics just as qualified and successful at it as Rove.

Not true. Democrats had the ability to co-opt Bush's war on terror and influence our application of the NSS. They chose early on to run against whatever Bush said. Republicans might have also moderated policy by offering enough votes to the opposition to force better planning. The blame goes to many. Focusing on false and simplistic theories will hardly solve a complicated and difficult battle of policy positions.

Why would the Democrats (or anyone for that matter) want to co-opt what Bush is doing when it so obviously BAD? Speaking of false and simplistic theories..... Obama warned early on of such impending failures and should receive due credit for those warnings. It IS a mess in Iraq and is so because of our invasion. The longer people handwring otherwise, the longer it will take for us to get out of there and let the Iraqis solve their issues.

This is silly. I see. What we are tired of are Newts. You again, focus the blame on select Republicans and then state a silly threat about Obama winning.. Do you mean that if there were no Newts, then Obama is less your candidate and could not win? Because of Newts he will become President anyway?

Had you bothered to click on the link to my comment on SR's original post, you'd have known that I haven't chosen a Presidential candidate to support. I'm saying that the type of political gamesmanship that Gingrich likes to play (that of the divisive focus) will, in my view, lead to someone like Obama winning. I believe that most Americans are sick and tired of being divided. There are some (perhaps those such as yourself) who get a kick out of watching Americans piss at one another. But from my experience those people are becoming much more few and far between.

No, your last remark is ludicrous. I hardly have it in for some one really seeking common ground. It is just that your gun is loaded. The nation is weary of war and infighting (as though these were both the same thing)?

I didn't accuse you of "having it in" for common ground. In fact none of my previous comments until now have had anything to do with anything you said. I was responding to the original blog post by Simon..so set your ego down and stop playing with it long enough to get some perspective, please. And do you honestly think that Americans can't be tired of infighting AND war, even though they're not the same thing and I didn't say they were?

Childish and churlish are on sale cheap today, it seems.

It is simple for you to blame the Republicans, pretend there are no real divisions or issues that divide us and offer little new strategy that will be needed to convince your patients that your operative approach will close our wounds AND repel America's enemies.

I give the blame to the Republicans that I believe they deserve and the same to the Democrats. If that proportion doesn't sit right to you I'm not especially concerned. So far your entire response seems off the rails to me.

Explain to me this bit about "America's enemies" that you seek to repel. Who are these people, exactly? How do you think they should be repelled? How did we go about obtaining these enemies? How do you know that they're are in fact enemies of America and not just enemies of lousy crap we've done in the past that we haven't fixed? Or are we not allowed to take an unvarnished look at our past transgressions because we're too busy waving the flag?

You'll forgive me for asking so many questions, I'm sure. I'm playing catch-up with the "war on terror" saber rattling crowd and I'm afraid I'm a bit behind the curve.

Obama is not a Messiah. I have read his voting record and a 82.5 Liberal rating in 2005 was only two points higher than Lieberman. The Democrat Party advocating unity and compromise now booted him then.

I'm not much of a Messiah girl so that doesn't bite for me either way. Lieberman isn't exactly a conservative--he just happens to be desperately wrong on the Iraq situation. Socially he's actually fairly liberal. And economically he tends to be as well. Had Lieberman denounced his affection for all things war supporting..he'd never even drawn Lamont, IMO. Given that Iraq is the single greatest issue America is currently dealing with, it killed Lieberman with the Dems in Ct. And rightfully so. You can't expect unity when he's on the wrong side of the weightiest issue we have to face.

If Hillary had lied about her cocaine abuse, her Muslim lineage, some of her voting history (Obama is centrist?) she would be under fire from those now touting Obama. I wonder if you defended Hillary when Sheehan said it was her new mission to keep Clinton from ever winning the primary?

If you're looking for a defense of Hillary Clinton from me, you're barking up the wrong liberal. I have plenty of problems with the former first lady which I've written about at Preemptive Karma. I know nothing of Sheehan saying anything about Hillary one way or the other--but I have no plan to vote for Hillary for dog catcher, let alone President. I don't require Sheehan or anyone else to undermine her. She did that herself for me long ago.

I would argue that 1. there is a long policy struggle ahead and 2. you don't really mean what you seem to be saying.

I don't really mean that I would prefer to vote for someone who wants to bring us together as Americans rather than find ways to pit us off one another? Really? I don't?

And to respond to Tully--I think its cyclical, actually. There are points in our history where we have been bitterly divided. And there are points in history where we've come together. I'd like us to start moving again toward the latter.

I don't know if Obama or anyone else is capable of making that happen. But I'd like to see if he can take a shot at it.

Posted by: carla at February 11, 2007 06:00 PM

And to respond to Tully--I think its cyclical, actually. There are points in our history where we have been bitterly divided. And there are points in history where we've come together. I'd like us to start moving again toward the latter.

I agree with your last sentence. I wish the rest were so. Even during WW2 the partisans were at each other tooth and nail. I think the real change lies in the nature of communications technology--we get immediate total public dispersal nowadays.

(In a totally tangential aside, Carla, is it time to start seedlings in your neck of the woods yet? I've got several sets of tomatoes and squashes and peppers I'll start next week, but that's "gamble garden" stuff. If I didn't have a goodly number of larger pots I'd wait another four weeks at least.)

Posted by: Tully at February 11, 2007 08:58 PM

Carla,
I'm not going to debate your entire spin. If you want to examine Bush criteria for "victory" you can read this I, like most Americans know that Bush suggested multiple reasons for going into Iraq. ON other posts here I have stated what I thought were the underlying reason Clinton and Bush supported regime change. Clinton signed it into law based on far less emphasis concerning WMD. Americans also know what victory would look like. A relatively stable country that no longer threatens its neighbors or seeks WMD. I could go on, but you know what success in Iraq is. When Petraeous claims success is possible do you really mean Americans have no clue what he means as opposed to questioning whether it is possible? You take the Iraq is lost view, or perhaps Iran and Syria might save it

You claim real divisions are not what is really splitting the vote. I disagree. Kerry lost because the perception was that he would have been weaker than Bush on terror. Whether that is true or not, it reflects a deep suspicion that Democrats are not up to the kind of role and action America must take in terms of national security. This isn't because of Rove spin. Just look at the many speeches and votes. There ARE some Deomcrats I would trust, but their numbers have decreased as the anti-war wing grows. Just saying Bush is bad does not work for me and obviously significantly large numbers of other Americans still cap Democrat poll ratings DESPITE HOW BAD BUSH HAS BEEN.

I can see that debating is rather pointless. You failed to understand my comments or ignored them while claiming I did not understand yours. MoveOn and other groups started right in on Bush. Democrats were calling him a Nazis as our troops hit the shore. I marched in New York, but was sadden to see Democrats condone pictures of Sharon and Bush as Hitlers. So much for your Rove theory. You claim that the invasion itself made Iraq a mess. You have not supported that, Period. I believe the facts do not say that. It is absurd to think Saddam could be permitted to break free of sanctions with the help of the French and Russians and not make the world in even greater danger. You believe what you want. You know you single out Rove and zero Democrats because your whole twist you have exposed me to is how bad and stupid Republicans are. Who would have co-opted their thinking when it was SO flawed? How could we have removed the Taliban? What moron would have proposed the Patriot Act? What fool would attack AQ?

I love to watch Americans pissing on themselves? Gees. Politics have been brutal for a long long time. I don't like to see people pissing on the President nor our NSS. I don't like seeing Americans pissing on our allies or pissing on our intelligence. The attacks by the Left are legendary. Just go and take a good look at the comment thread behind Arkin’s trash over at Washington Post.com. In no way did I ever sit by and agree with this administration's mistakes. As I have said before, I am Left of center and have never voted for a Republican. Bush did not invent the logic that took us to Iraq. He did not invent our support of Democracy or the idea that the status quo in the Middle East was heading directly to proliferation and conflict on a larger scale that even the Left thinks Bush may still trigger.. Bush didn't invent Putin or Hu. Bush didn’t invent Somalia or Sudan. The over the top crap from the Left started long ago and has driven the Democrats into a corner despite the crap job Bush is doing. The Democrat tent can’t hold Lieberman. It seems it is the Party of litmus tests. This split in America is hardly something to blame on Republican spinners and I haven't seen a single Democrat you fault for the discourse.

Again you just give lip service to possible Democrats being blamed for anything. Despite your comments, Obama will have to answer the questions I asked. You even ask me who America's enemies are. You aren't being sincere. You could easily think of AQ, HIzb"Allah, religious extremists whose ideology makes us a target by definition. Others actually assist those who declare to destroy us. You see Iraq as the biggest single issue facing America? You think "bringing us together" is the deep mantra of success? Just look at what you’ve posted here. You suggest I like watching Americans pissing on Americans. You dislike Hillary and wouldn't hire her for dog catcher. Fine. I asked you to support your claims and you just brushed them back at me. You can't think of what success in Iraq would look like? You can't think of any reason after 9/11 why Democrats should have co-opted the war on terror? You point to Republicans for polarizing the debate. You call Iraq the gravest situation facing us and offer what plan? I have left numerous links here in other posts to show what our enemies are up to. I refuse to blame Republicans for the childish Democrat response to losing. Yes, Obama will bring us together and America can face the dangers united. Together we will face Iran, or Russia, bring peace to the Middle East and end torture in China. We will show by example how Israelis and Palestinians can live together. We will save the people in Sudan and bring prosperity and justice to the world. Yes, that’s the ticket. Nope, I would rather watch America piss on each other and the world. It must be because I am a Republican at heart.

Not.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 11, 2007 10:04 PM

I'm actually saying that ballot splits right now are the manifestation of years of marketing divisive issues rather than finding those with which we have common ground.

...And some examples of those issues on which we have common ground are...? Posted by: Simon at February 12, 2007 08:25 AM

Here's one example: a significant majority of Americans back restrictions on abortion that would leave it legal in most circumstances, but which would restrict it in ways that require overturning the Roe-Casey framework (although most don't realize that it would require doing so). So presumably Obama is going to come out for the broad consensus, right? He'll work to have Roe-Casey overturned and let the consensus prevail? What d'you think the chances of that are?

Another one: most Americans agree that the budget should be balanced. So we all agree on that, right? Okay, so how do we do it - raise taxes or cut spending? Aha! So even when you have a question on which there is some superficial unaminity, the moment you dig deep enough to think about remedies, that agreement evaporates. Politics is divisive because the American people are divided. Not on every issue, you're right; most people agree that Tumbleweeds does better steak than Applebees. So sure, you're right that we agree on many issues - but those issues aren't the ones that are within the political domain.

Posted by: Simon at February 12, 2007 08:34 AM

Simon, nice to see you take the special extra effort to post here on CF for the first time in quite awhile on an issue that's near and dear to your heart...relentlessly disparaging Barack Obama.

I don't think I can blame only you for causing the umpteenth re-hash of each side's hardened views on the initiation of the Iraq war, but you did send the invitation here. Thanks. :-)

FWIW, I tend to agree with anyone who suggests that the invasion of Iraq was a questionable enterprise from the get-go largely because of the likelihood that the resulting power vacuum would result in intense sectarian hostilities between sunnis and shi'ites. Leaving aside all other goals and concerns in the larger debate(many of which have merit), I think the few remaining sane folks are OK with conceding that sectarian violence was easy to anticipate. Whatever our plan was to confront and overcome this quite expectable facet of our Iraq reformation effort, it has not succeeded so far.

So what would victory look like? In large part, it would have to look like sunnis and shi'ites tolerating each other at least well enough to establish a sustainable civil order and nominally effective governing group. Is our effort in this respect simply struggling as we should have expected, is it teetering on the brink of total collapse, or has Elvis left the building? Each American's mileage, I think.

Here's one example: a significant majority of Americans back restrictions on abortion that would leave it legal in most circumstances, but which would restrict it in ways that require overturning the Roe-Casey framework ...

Well, YOU believe that such changes would require overturning RvW. But if we're talking about the majority's views, they'd back slight restrictions that left abortion legal in most circumstances regardless of how they came about and how the legal issues were navigated. Bebopping and skatting...some folks hate it, some dig it, most tolerate the vast majority of it for the sake of expedience.

Posted by: bk at February 12, 2007 09:23 AM

Brian, I'm not going to engage on the issue of Iraq in this thread, because I've said everything I'm going to say on the topic in comments elsewhere. It simply isn't credible to say that the invasion inevitably led to the insurgency, and the only way you can actually get to that argument is to say that if we hadn't invaded, the decisions that actually caused the problems would never have been taken, thus they wouldn't have been goofed, thus the insurgency wouldn't have taken hold. That is a ridiculously attenuated standard of causation; by the same logic, the construction of the world trade center inevitably led to its collapse, because if it hadn't been built, it wouldn't have been there for planes to be flown into.

In any event, I will respond to the point about Roe-Casey, because I think you may misunderstand the point I'm making. Most Americans support keeping abortion legal in many (of not most) circumstances. However, most Americans also support a ban on partial birth abortion, and most Americans support certain procedural regulations such as parental notification and so forth. But under the Casey test, many of the regulations that would pass in the states by significant majorities are forbidden, because they impose an undue burden on access to abortion. Ergo, for a state to impose certain consensus positions on abortion, Casey at least would have to go, even if Roe continued to skulk in the background. The problem is that the legal framework imposed by the Supreme Court is an extreme position that essentially requires that states permit abortion on demand, regardless of the views of the majority. Not that it matters, of course, because Barack Obama isn't in the slightest bit interested in actual compromise, he's interested in winning and then imposing liberal dogma on America at large. I would have thought that after the Democratic Party embraced George Lakoff that they would have started to understand that the idea of "common sense" is not value-neutral, and that politicians who tout "common sense" solutions are in fact touting no such thing. In Obama's case, it's the duplicity that honks me off.

Posted by: Simon at February 12, 2007 09:49 AM

Ergo, for a state to impose certain consensus positions on abortion, Casey at least would have to go, even if Roe continued to skulk in the background.

There's the path then. My point is simply that while you may wish RvW overturned, and feel it must be overturned in ordereto accomodate majority views, it's possibly or even likely that the water will just flow around the rock, finding a way that you don't like, but achieving what the people want. Might that be a bad way that they find? Sure. I'm just suggesting that there's an alternative way that it could unfold.

RE : Iraq
Nice of you to "not engage" my argument while providing an attenuation of your own, in the form of a vague dismissal based on general logic. I never said an insurgency was inevitable, only that many folks, myself included, felt it was easy to anticipate, and that the high possibility of sectarian strife was a pretty fricken good reason not to get deeply involved. [Notice also that my "attenuated" logic did take the time to say it was leaving aside other pros and cons and that some of those had merit. I covered my bases pretty well.]

I'm happy to acknowledge that insurgency was not inevitable. I'll go even further to clarify by saying that while it was not inevitable, there did not seem to be very many decent reasons at all to think that it would be very "evitable" either. Outside of the happy hope that we'd be greated as liberators widely enough to parlay that momentum. My description was attenuated for the same reason as your "non-engagement" dismissal was, because I'm not that interested in stoking those fires.

Obama is totally wrong that "an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east." What fanned the flames was the failure of the administration to pick and provide for an appropriate post-Saddam Iraq. What fanned the flames were the mistakes after the liberation that ushered in phase 2.

Totally? ROTFL. If he says inevitable where it was merely very foreseeable and quite likely, I call you for hairsplitting. It's fair to say that the admin misjudgements you mention "fanned" the flames? But where'd the flames come from in the first place? Who seriously thinks that the invasion was not a pack of matches?

Your thesis seems to be that the invasion and hoped-for reform was not a questionable idea, but rather a good idea that was poorly executed. C'mon, it was a risky gamble that was poorly executed. Part of our rationale for the risky gamble turned out to be mistaken, and we set sail on the HMS Risky Gamble without all the crew that we wanted on board and crappy maps.

Posted by: bk at February 12, 2007 10:53 AM

Re water flowing around a rock, do you concede that any abortion regulation of any kind will be litigated by Planned Parenthood et al? If so, I don't know how you can expect water to flow around the rock. Any law will be challenged under Casey, and any law of any kind of substance at all will be found violative of the Casey test, and will therefore be enjoined. Thus, for any significant regulation on abortion to go into effect -- even one that passed unanimously -- Casey has to go, not because I want it to, but because while it is the test, no regulation can go into effect.

Re Iraq, I agree that it was foreseeable and likely that there would be problems post-liberation, and indeed, the State Department produced a massive manual saying "here's what to do and what not to do after Saddam goes." But what does not follow is that it was the decision to liberate Iraq that caused and fed the insurgency. Obama's logic is only right if it is true that no matter what we did after the decision to liberate Iraq, we would still have ended up in the same place. And that is totally, utterly wrong. It finds no support in reason or experience. I'm not trying to get the Bush Administration off the hook, it was their mistakes that fed the present situation, but it is intellectually dishonest (and gives Bush far too much credit) to suggest that this is all an inevitable consequence of one bad decision.

Posted by: Simon at February 12, 2007 11:28 AM

Right, it could flow around the Roe rock via the Casey riverbed. or something else neither of us anticipates. All I'm saying is that where there's a will, there may be a way, and it might not be the way you insist ought to be. Someone might find a way to unstitch a little bit of the sweater without unraveling the whole thing.

But what does not follow is that it was the decision to liberate Iraq that caused and fed the insurgency.

Didn't I already give you your 1% evitable? :-) The decision surely set things in motion, and our presence sure seems to be a motivating factor. I mean, once again being careful to set aside the merits and demerits of other choices, we can assume that Hussein would probably stiil be in charge had we not deposed him. To me, that makes Obama's claim true all by itself, although somewhat trivial, for obvious reasons.

I mean, all I'm saying is that i think the claim your are trying to shoot down is largely true. If it ought to be shot down, it ought to be shot down for failing to address that we may well not have liked how things would have turned out had we taken the other side of the fork.

Posted by: bk at February 12, 2007 11:59 AM

First, I am sorry if I seemed to be bashing Obama. I was merely pointing out what I think are holes in his game plan and they are certainly holes I think other Democrats have suffered from as well. I side with Simon regarding Iraq because numerous military experts I studied before our invasion considered Saddam a threat that would not go away. His reasonably projected power after sanctions crumbled were too much on the Middle East equation and with Russians, Chinese, French and others on the ground in Iran and Iraq, force would have been forever pulled off the table. No force, no stick. Can you imagine removing Saddam after he had better missiles and WMD? We might easily lose more than the present dead in the first hours.

I know Iraq has been dealt with here before. Brian is right in stating most experts warned of the likely sectarian violence. It was risky given the small coalition and game plan, but hardly doomed from inception. That is why I advocated more troops from the start and more importantly, a declaration by the US that we wanted to exist quickly, we wanted international supervision of the oil, we wanted better relations with Iran now that we had removed their worst nightmare, etc. etc.. We launched zero perception planning. Simon is right however, that removing Saddam did not lead inevitably to the chaos we see. That is just my opinion. International influence properly motivated has not let the same thing happen in Kosovo or Bosnia. Afghanistan is faltering from international apathy. Brian could list ten major mistakes that might have kept a lid on Iraqi violence. Where was a robust police force? These mistakes as well as poor timing makes the violence now seem inevitable.

While I applaud ANY effort to bring political warfare here in America to a more conciliatory level, the electorate IS very divided and national security remains the biggest issue. In addition, Obama supports socialized medicine. Obama supports gun control and same sex marriage. Obama supports numerous issues where the country is not in agreement, but on national security he is essentially claiming Iraq is Lost. He remains silent over Iran, Hamas, Syria, AQ, Hizb'Allah, Putin, Hu, Chavez, North Korea etc. Given his inexperience, these topics will come up before he wins any nomination.

I enjoy his stump speeches. I do hope he will evolve as a candidate. He may very well be the candidate I vote for. I would be lying however, if I didn't take issue with him now, over the same strategy mistakes that lost the election in 2004. Fear of terror and our slipping leadership in the world is not just a Rovian instigation. Kos rejects Clinton's NSS, which is a far more selfish document than Bush's NSS. My defense of Bush on this thread is for the stated aims of our NSS and not his mangled effort. Carla is dreaming if she thinks the battle is simply Rove inspired. In light of zero Democrats she indicts, what other view should I have of her thinking? Many Democrats now think we have no role in the Middle East. Many think we invaded Saddam to steal oil and make American corporations rich. In fact, many of our troubles resulted from NOT putting up a puppet government and NOT taking more control of Iraqi oil (not that I advocate such a view). The Democrats favored harsh penalties for former Bathists and reject Biden's plan to divide Iraq. How could Democrats claim now that more troops were needed back when they called our invasion illegal?

Then there is this talk of coming together. Well, if I defend removing Saddam (not the wrong way) I am attacked. If I question Obama's security plans, I am urinating on Americans. If I favor standing up to our adversaries (Carla asks me who they are), I am called a neocon or warmonger. How does this reaction show “coming together”? How do you compromise with people who want us to fail further in Iraq, just to prove (incorrectly) that such failure was pre-ordained?

On the issue of Roe v Wade (I am hardly an expert LOL), my reading of the Constitutional experts suggests it is not a Constitutional right. I strongly support a woman’s right to an abortion in the first two trimesters and when the mother's life is in danger, but for reasons other than Roe v Wade. Frankly, I think it is a State's Rights issue, like gun control and gay marriage. Carla could say that most Americans support embryonic stem cell research, but that does not mean the opposition does not have valid points regarding "unregulated and unrestricted" research. Same applies to cloning. Carla could say that most Americans want some universal coverage for those without medical insurance because treating them is the largest cost of our health insurance system. Again, there is a wide split between socialized medicine and other thinking despite unanimity regarding the need for reform. Just look at the DoD budget’s healthcare costs. Most Americans support Israel yet many Democrat Middle East plans calls for negotiating with Hamas without their recognizing Israel and renouncing violence. To hell with sixty years of Democrat rejectionism? Shall we blame this flip flop on Rove too? Most Americans do not favor Iran getting the bomb, yet Democrats suggest more negotiations and threaten to impeach Bush if he uses force. Kennedy would have laughed and despite a Republican Congress Clinton dropped many bombs including one right on a Chinese embassy. Democrats say they support the military while publicly questioning Fallon and Gates when they declare there is evidence Iran has killed more than 170 American soldiers and many more Iraqis in Iraq. Democrats say they would get Bin Laden. How, by invading Pakistan? Their President can't even order his own Air Force to attack Taliban bases inside Pakistan. One wrong move and extremists might grab nukes which China helped to create. Democrats say North Korea is a threat, yet say little in the way of support for our present negotiations, nor a word on how close Clinton came to bombing North Korea..

If Democrats actually supported their talking points and ran on something other than "bad Republicans", if Republicans would refrain from divisive politics to misdirect away from failed policies (energy, medical reform, immigration etc.), we could begin to come together. As long as civil gestures and nice speeches mask more extreme views, this will not happen yet.

In Carla's case, to ask who our enemies are, what has Bush ever said would be conditions of an Iraqi success, that Rove manipulated polarization all by his genius self, refutes her claim to seek "coming together". And I think Hillary has plenty of experience as a dog catcher. I sense some bitterness in Carla's words. On a karmic level, that isn't great. I think the discourse here is civil and an attempt to come together. Until Tully had pointed it out, I did not know that cutting lower income taxes, lost more revenue to the government than cutting the tax on the rich. That does not mean I am against increasing some taxes on the rich, but it makes me stop and realize that slogans and mantras mean crap. It is about facts and clear thinking, -not that I have them yet in my grasp.

Coming together means we, as Americans, do not want our leadership in the world to fail. It should mean we want to protect and evolve our way of life and support our core values around the world. It means making our economy healthier and extending opportunity for all. Western hegemony is not a dirty concept. Human Rights is not something we apply only to ourselves. We, the Western world, are an “empire” only in as far as we are invited into the world. Our invitation is based on the prosperity we encourage and the security we provide for liberty and freedom. There is little of that when third-party verifications fails, or when terror and tyranny spread and oppress. If we cannot agree as a people that our history and sacrifice is far more benign than deleterious on the human spirit, I doubt there will be much coming together.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 12, 2007 02:03 PM

For Carla

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 12, 2007 02:55 PM

Wow, I think you might like this piece on him:

http://www.politicsplease.com/2007/02/in-his-continued-quest-to-mold-himself.html

Posted by: JC at February 12, 2007 03:54 PM

Funny blog JC

The following is the speech I mentioned that Obama has had no comment on. Not an enemy and not a Friend Putin side stepped the usual questions like, "why supply Iran with weapons" and EU heads did not seem impressed. Gates said today that Putin had made him long for the simplicity of the past, then joked and said, not really. Today the US asked Georgia if it wanted to join NATO. Ouch....Tough times for tough leaders, no doubt.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 12, 2007 05:58 PM

And what was Obama's view on American diplomatic strategy towards North Korea? One on one and pay NK's price? Does he feel Russia, China and Japan should end NK nuke program and help pay for the energy NK is asking? We are. Surely, Americans should be united in successful Bush diplomacy? Yes? There should be common ground here and mutual hope this deal goes through.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 12, 2007 06:15 PM

Score card for the day: Hillary responded to a belligerent war question and said her vote was not a mistake. She authorized the inspectors back in ( see the "Clinton Plan" of trying one more worthless round of inspections to win Russian and French no-veto pledge for eventual UN-mandated use of force -a questionable theory). The crowd applauded her response.

Obama instead, responded to a Iraq War question and said essentially our soldiers have died in vain. He later said he regretted his statement.

It is certainly more interesting than the McCain v Bush fight. McCain’s illegitimate black baby v national guard service. But then 9/11 hadn’t trumped oral sex yet. No, during that primary, our primary threats were busy developing their strategy while Russia and the world was either kick-backing to Saddam, helping the Iranians or ignoring the Taliban.

And at least I don’t have to listen to Hillary or Obama talk about the apocalyptic dangers of gay marriage, the sanctity of brain dead life or drilling in Al Saka (a Cheney joke).

Of course, the security stump speech of the day goes to Maliki. The dude didn’t skip a beat when Monday’s largest blast exploded a few blocks away. And he was touting his new security unrollout.

By 12 midnight I doubt either candidates would have missed Iran’s President refusing to directly answer a shrouded Sawyer’s question regarding the credible evidence of Iranian manufactured IEDs and RPGs found in Iraq. Have you killed 170 soldiers? The charm of a serial killer. He said a court was needed (and OJ’s defense team) and that we can’t close our borders, so how can he? Wouldn’t you love The View next with Rosie in a Burka or Colbert in nothing but?

World events like an arms agreement with NK or a coup in Lebanon will thump the stump with unavoidable questions. Tonight, Obama is considering what an “Arkin” means in answering expected questions and Hillary is back up on her edge of certitude, -having it both ways. LOL

McCain must have felt safer in Munich with Merkel and the sweet sounds of Putin to listen to denouncing the US and its underlings in the EU..

And away we go…..

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 12, 2007 08:07 PM