OT: 2008 Elections

[TheHiddenTrack]

One question I find myself asking about the Obama's church thing is this, "If I were going to run for the Democratic nomination of the highest office in the land, wouldn't it only make sense to COMPLETELY distance myself from a loud-mouthed pastor who is clearly a race-baiter of the worst sort BEFORE I began my campaign?"

If Obama clearly doesn't see the inherent problem created with his affiliation with Reverend Wright, then he definitely doesn't have enough political and common sense to become the leader of the free world.

I know good point! I didn't even think of that. He's clearly either a racist or stupid! Furthermore, he said his white grandmother used to say racist things, well last time I checked he didn't disown her. This is enough for me, I can't vote for someone who actually associates with someone who has controversial views. I mean, I know that people are more complex than that but I want all my politicians to think of how the media and how ignorant white people would react, before they do anything.

Not to mention, the reason we are in Iraq right now is because the leader of the free world knows people with controversial views.

[fsquid]

You can't choose your grandmother, but you can certainly choose your church, pastor, official of your marriage, person that baptizes your kids, etc.

Here is my question. Would Obama's mother or grandmother be comfortable sitting in his church?

[TheHiddenTrack]

He didn't propose anything. He just made an "everyone is a victim" speech that is common with the left.

Look at his speech. Everyone is a victim. Minorities are victims of ingrained racism or prejudice. Oh really? Care to explain Condoleeza Rice? What about Clarence Thomas? Barack himself? I know many successful minorities. None that I know believe that this nation has tried to incessantly hold them back. Obama goes further and says the white people are victims, too. Whites are victims that they are found guilty for the sins of their forebearers. Great! More victims. And who can save us? Obama and the government?

EXACTLY. I didn't say he proposed anything. He's a racist liberal who thinks that the government can fix EVERYTHING. And GOOD POINT, Condoleeza Rice came from the inner city, both her parents were drug addicts and but because of her choices, hard work and personal responsibility she is successful (EDIT: whoops! her dad was a minister and guidance counselor, and her mother was teacher) . EXPLAIN THAT LIBERALS!

Everyone is a victim in Obama socialist land! I mean, why would spending more money on schools make any difference? It's the child's fault if they were born into bad a environment. Clearly God didn't think they were good enough to be born into a nicer environment. STUPID liberals thinking that God doesn't know best. GODLESS.

[Slumberland]

Sarcasm is so 1997.

[TheHiddenTrack]

Sarcasm is so 1997.

And stupid people are so now and forever.

[fsquid]

I know, but he was actually making me chuckle, so I had to keep him going. My apologies.

[dougb]

Here's McCain confusing Iraq and Iran - you'd think given the sensitivity of the subject, and the fact that he's running on his foreign policy expertise, that they might want to get that one straight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma ... ctions2008

Best wishes,

Doug

[Brando70]

One question I find myself asking about the Obama's church thing is this, "If I were going to run for the Democratic nomination of the highest office in the land, wouldn't it only make sense to COMPLETELY distance myself from a loud-mouthed pastor who is clearly a race-baiter of the worst sort BEFORE I began my campaign?"

If Obama clearly doesn't see the inherent problem created with his affiliation with Reverend Wright, then he definitely doesn't have enough political and common sense to become the leader of the free world.

For one thing, he did start distancing himself from Wright back in early 2007. He was decided to not have Wright introduce him when Obama announced his candidacy in 2007. Wright is also no longer on Obama's African American religious leadership group.

What critics are calling for is for him to sell Wright down the river, which most politicians would probably do. He refuses, instead explaining (pretty clearly) the aspects of Wright's ministry which influenced his thinking, while also clearly stating where he disagrees with Wright. Obama has never dropped a hint of thinking we deserved 9/11, that AIDS was created by the government, or that white people are to blame for the ills of black people. After hearing his explanations about this, I'm not worried that I'm going to be sent back to Europe or forced to pay reparations.

[Brando70]

Here's McCain confusing Iraq and Iran - you'd think given the sensitivity of the subject, and the fact that he's running on his foreign policy expertise, that they might want to get that one straight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma ... ctions2008

Best wishes,

Doug

Come on, Doug, they do all look alike

I love him making a joke about bombing Iran, too. Things have gone so splendidly in Iraq that it's HILARIOUS to think we might widen the war. Although he's going to have to pull out another color of Risk armies because we've used all our pieces up.

[dougb]

Here's McCain confusing Iraq and Iran - you'd think given the sensitivity of the subject, and the fact that he's running on his foreign policy expertise, that they might want to get that one straight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma ... ctions2008

Best wishes,

Doug

Come on, Doug, they do all look alike

I love him making a joke about bombing Iran, too. Things have gone so splendidly in Iraq that it's HILARIOUS to think we might widen the war. Although he's going to have to pull out another color of Risk armies because we've used all our pieces up.

LOL! Wonder if they ever considered the potential problems that were being created when the used the same first 3 letters for neighboring countries. Actually, nope I don't have to wonder - the original colonial boundaries were a true clusterf*ck if there ever was one.

What really amazed me was that the Iranian President was able to jet into Iraq on a pre-announced visit and go about his business with seemingly no fear of assasination. Contrast that with Bush, Cheney, McCain et al. scurying in under the cover of darkness, surounded by legions of troops because their life expectancy would be about 5 seconds should they mingle with the local populace.

Which brings about the refrain "I was happy to hear that Bush/Cheney were going to Iraq until I heard they were mounting a massive security operation to protect them"

Iraq and Iran allies - well, that's one way of bringing peace to the Middle East though I don't think its quite what the hawks had in mind.

Best wishes,

Doug

[JRod]

He didn't propose anything. He just made an "everyone is a victim" speech that is common with the left.

Look at his speech. Everyone is a victim. Minorities are victims of ingrained racism or prejudice. Oh really? Care to explain Condoleeza Rice? What about Clarence Thomas? Barack himself? I know many successful minorities. None that I know believe that this nation has tried to incessantly hold them back. Obama goes further and says the white people are victims, too. Whites are victims that they are found guilty for the sins of their forebearers. Great! More victims. And who can save us? Obama and the government?

You fail to understand and grasp what this speech was about. Tell me how you are going to fix racism with legislation. We have very few instances in this country our institutionalized racism. Those are so minor that they play a small part in American life.

Social issues are fought with social rhetoric to move the country forward in a progressive manner. In the 60s we could pass legislation to allow blacks to vote, or desegregate schools. Today the problems of race are socio-economic factors and not clear cut laws that are designed to keep a sector of the population as second-class citizens.

Here's why this speech was important.

- He silences the black anger crowd that just want to "get back" at white for centuries of discrimination. This is the answer to many blacks that felt, he wasn't black enough, or that felt is was apologetic to whites. He says this isn't productive and doesn't get african americans anywhere.

- He addresses misplaced white (subsequent immigrant groups) anger at minorities. Why is there such an outcry towards immigration and in the 60s towards blacks. Some it was white America losing jobs or feeling threatened and instead of looking at the corporations, they blame (continue to blame) those that will work for less.

- He explained what was wright's influence on him. He also answers in a way that distances himself from hateful racist remarks but illuminates why there so many blacks are disenfranchised. I think he does so in a manner that shows white america what black america feels, without blaming white america.

- He also tells african americans to take responsibility and that being the victim isn't going to help other blacks. He address the problems in black america, of fatherless children.

- In the final part of his speech, he address the socio-economic problems and challenges white america to look at why some african-americans are stuck in a cycle of despair.

- He tries to turn into MLK at the end of the speech but doesn't pull that off. Probably the worst part of the speech.


Look this speech wasn't a policy speech but a response speech. He know failure to do sure would turn the tide towards Clinton. These are the types of speech that shape policy. These are the types of speeches that raise to a national level, the importance of education and black responsibility. He does it a manner that doesn't blame or play victim, in essence, he's saying look there are problems of race and either we can fix them or play the blame game.

The more I read the speech the more important it appears to be. He doesn't just look like a candidate, he looks like a leader.

[Brando70]

Bringing Iran and Iraq together is definitely the biggest diplomatic blunder in Iraq. We've managed to unite two countries that tried to annihilate and dominate each other for years. It's reminiscent of the way we pushed Vietnam toward China.

That's not to say that I wish Hussein should be back in power. But any time you drop a foreign army into an area, you create a common enemy that can bring together factions that would otherwise fight each other. The clock was ticking the minute we invaded, and the administration's head-slapping blunders set our efforts back to the point where I don't think we can achieve the goals we originally set. I think you have to be realistic and start thinking how you can eventually get out in a semi-orderly fashion. McCain saying he'll stay for a century sounds great in a movie script, but it's completely unrealistic.

[dougb]

Bringing Iran and Iraq together is definitely the biggest diplomatic blunder in Iraq. We've managed to unite two countries that tried to annihilate and dominate each other for years. It's reminiscent of the way we pushed Vietnam toward China.

That's not to say that I wish Hussein should be back in power. But any time you drop a foreign army into an area, you create a common enemy that can bring together factions that would otherwise fight each other. The clock was ticking the minute we invaded, and the administration's head-slapping blunders set our efforts back to the point where I don't think we can achieve the goals we originally set. I think you have to be realistic and start thinking how you can eventually get out in a semi-orderly fashion. McCain saying he'll stay for a century sounds great in a movie script, but it's completely unrealistic.

I think you could probably get a good phd thesis trying to unravel what the actual purposes of the invasion were. I'm convinced Bush is so unbelievably simple minded that he actually believed that 'bringing democracy to Iraq' and 'WMD' were the reasons the invasion was launched. I think others (Cheney) may well have been focused on the strategic goal of dominating Middle East Oil reserves - or at least of being in a potential position to do so. But dropping an occupation army into a country which has a very clear collective memory of colonialism is asking for trouble.

The head slapping blunders pretty much ensured that the outcome would be disastrous, but I think the problem was that the invasion was a strategic blunder from the start. It's pretty much completely destroyed the good image of the United States in the rest of world, gutted the U.S. treasury, and wrecked a good part of the military. At this point the damage is well and truly done and it's hard to imagine things being any worse there after a withdrawal. There are an astounding 4 million Iraqi refugees, a large portion whom have fled to Syria and Jordan. You know that things are beyond hideous already when a refugee camp in Syria looks like the best bet.

I really don't understand McCain's quip about staying there a hundred years. I hope the lesson he took from Vietnam wasn't that it could have been won if the United States had simply been willing to stay the course. A quick review of the 'Pentagon Papers' should be enough to disabuse anyone of that notion.

Best wishes,

Doug

[RobVarak]

I really don't understand McCain's quip about staying there a hundred years. I hope the lesson he took from Vietnam wasn't that it could have been won if the United States had simply been willing to stay the course. A quick review of the 'Pentagon Papers' should be enough to disabuse anyone of that notion.

Best wishes,

Doug

I've done more than a quick read of the Pentagon Papers, and totally disagree with your conclusion. First of all they convey virtually no information which illuminates whether there was a "winnable" solution to our involvement in Vietnam. They demonstrate terrible mistakes in planning, dishonesty of epic proportions and political mistakes by the dozen, but none of those bears directly on the question of whether an ongoing US presence could have ended up "victorious" in Vietnam. Obviously, the terms of what would have constituted victory are themselves debateable. What is beyond debate is that leaving the field to the NVA/VC was a death sentence for the nation of South Vietnam.

I hope the foreign policy lesson that McCain takes from Vietnam is that one cannot undermine America's foreign policy committments by intentionally deceiving the American public. Doing so only weakens the resolve of the people and military while emboldening those people (both enemy and "friend") who would see the US humbled.

[Feanor]

Invading another country is almost always doomed to failure because the invadees are going to fight harder and longer than the invaders. Unless they're greeted as liberators like the Americans have been in Iraq.

[dougb]

Rob,

They actually do address the question of whether there was a 'winnable' (from the U.S. standpoint) solution. The following excerpts of a memo from McNaughton to the Assistant to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and the attached commentary of the study indicate that the definition of 'winning' was to convince the VC (and of course North Vietnamese) that they could not win. That's a rather problematic goal (to put it mildly) when the anti-colonial nature of the war is taken into account, as well as the fact that there was an extremely long Vietnamese history of resistance to occupiers. It's even more problematic when your fighting an attrition war and the other side controls the onset and pace of battles.


"8. One key question, of course, is what we mean by the words "assurance" and "win." My view is that the degree of "assurance" should be fairly high- better than 75% (whatever that means). With respect to the word "win," this I think means that we succeed in demonstrating to the VC that they cannot win; this, of course, is victory for us only if it is, with a high degree of probability, a way station toward a favorable settlement in South Vietnam. I see such a favorable settlement as one in which the VC terrorism is substantially eliminated and, obviously, there are no longer large-scale VC attacks; the central South Vietnamese government (without having taken in the Communists) should be exercising fairly complete sovereignty over most of South Vietnam. I presume that we would rule out the ceding to the VC (either tacitly or explicitly) of large areas of the country. More specifically, the Brigadier Thompson suggestion that we withdraw to enclaves and sit it out for a couple of years is not what we have in mind for purposes of this study.

9. At the moment, I do not see how the study can avoid addressing the question as to how long our forces will have to remain in order to achieve a "win" and the extent to which the presence of those forces over a long period of time might, by itself, nullify the "win." If it turns out that the study cannot go into this matter without first getting heavily into the political side of the question, I think the study at least should note the problem in some meaningful way.

10. I believe that the study should go into specifics--e.g., the numbers and effectiveness and uses of the South Vietnamese forces, exactly where we would deploy ours and exactly what we would expect their mission to be, how we would go about opening up the roads and providing security for the towns as well as protecting our own assets there, the time frames in which things would be done, command relationships, etc. Also, I think we should find a way to indicate how badly the conclusions might be thrown off if we are wrong with respect to key assumptions or judgments.

The McNaughton memorandum is of interest because it demonstrates several important items. First, the fact that the question about assurance of winning was asked indicates that at the Secretary of Defense level there was real iwareness that the decisions to be made in the next few weeks would commit the U.S. to the possibility of an expanded conflict. The key question then was whether or not we would become involved more deeply in a war which could not be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Secondly, the definition of "win," i.e., "succeed in demonstrating to the VC that they cannot win," indicates the assumption upon which the conduct of the war was to rest--that the VC could be convinced in some meaningful sense that they were not going to win and that they would then rationally choose less violent methods of seeking their goals. But the extent to which this definition would set limits of involvement or affect strategy was not clear."

Best wishes,

Doug

[matthewk]

Did everyone forget that not 7 days ago he flatly denied ever hearing Mr. Wright say any of these things? Now he's admitting to hearing them. While he stated he does not agree with these views, he still thinks Mr. Wright is a swell guy.

What I learned from this past week is that Obama is a flat-out liar who is able to woo people with his magic words. How can you believe what he said today when what he said 1 week ago was just proven to be completely false?

Tonight I heard some more footage of Mr. Wright's sermons. This was all new stuff I had not heard during the past week's soundbyte assault. He is a very hate-filled, racist man. He calls our country the US-KKK-A and more. What kind of person are you to stand by a man like that?

Anyone recall the line that Michelle Obama made while here in Wisconsin? She stated that this campaign was the fuirst time in her adult life that she was proud to be an American. Sounds like she may be on the same path as Mr. Wright. Are these people we want leading our country? How can you continually preach unity while you've been willingly listening to racist and anti-American rants for 20 years?

Bottom line: I don't trust Obama at all any more.

[Jared]

This is what Obama said at first:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.

What he said in today's speech:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Obama said that he never heard Wright personally say the things that were the "cause of this controversy". He said that he heard Wright say remarks that "could be considered controversial". Those remarks don't need to be the remarks that were the cause of the controversy...so I don't see where he was proven to be completely false.

[Dave]

Here's what I don't understand--Obama is getting blasted for not shoving this guy under the first available bus.

But on the other side of the coin, we have a guy who says things like this:

All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that

all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews

And who Catholic church "the great whore," a "false cult system," and links it to Nazi Germany.

So what happens when he endorses a candidate? The candidate shows up for a presser and talks about how pleased and honored they are to have that endorsement.

[TheHiddenTrack]

I'm sick of religious lunacy. I'm sick of religion being mixed with politics. I'm sick of people who think this is an issue. I'm glad Obama made this speech because if people don't get it after this it shows where we are.

[fsquid]

I'm sick of religious lunacy. I'm sick of religion being mixed with politics. I'm sick of people who think this is an issue. I'm glad Obama made this speech because if people don't get it after this it shows where we are.

It shows that we don't want a country that favors more government intervention (federalized healthcare, childcare, nursing home care, additional regulation, higher taxes, etc.) in our lives?

[Naples39]

I'm sick of religious lunacy. I'm sick of religion being mixed with politics. I'm sick of people who think this is an issue. I'm glad Obama made this speech because if people don't get it after this it shows where we are.

I agree with PK that this was a great speech that showed why Obama is a better candidate than Clinton, but this uproar was NOT about religion. It was about the political views expressed in a church. Criticizing Israel or calling this country US-KKK-A has nothing to do with God or faith.

[RobVarak]

Rob,

They actually do address the question of whether there was a 'winnable' (from the U.S. standpoint) solution. The following excerpts of a memo from McNaughton to the Assistant to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and the attached commentary of the study indicate that the definition of 'winning' was to convince the VC (and of course North Vietnamese) that they could not win....

Doug

Interesting, but I don't see a conclustion there of any note. It seems a fine methodology actually, but certatinly nothing that the administration adopted as a bright line definition.

Moreover, I actually had a whole section on Tet and the twisting around of what happened during the offensive, but felt I was getting off track...even for me. I wish that I had left it in, because it ties into my point about pulling out by choice as well as that excerpt.

Secondly, the definition of "win," i.e., "succeed in demonstrating to the VC that they cannot win," indicates the assumption upon which the conduct of the war was to rest--that the VC could be convinced in some meaningful sense that they were not going to win and that they would then rationally choose less violent methods of seeking their goals.

Tet did just that and more. It decimated the VC as a fighting force, forced Hanoi to acknowledge that they would be unable to undermine the Saigon gov't without the direct committment of NVA regulars and demonstrated to the world that the civilian population of the South was not sympathetic to Ho's cause.

Getting back to your original point, though...The upshot is that nothing in the Pentagon Papers or any other portion of the historical record can definitively show that maintaining our presence in Vietnam would have resulted in failure by any measure. For years people rotely bought into the NY Times version of the war, that the South Vietnamese people and government were not committed to the war, that the Americans were imposing themselves on the South and that the North and their sympathizers were gaining momentum and battlefield success. All that proves is that journalism as the first draft of history is often wrong by 180 degrees.

If I understand your point about Iraq correctly you feel it is inappropriate to continue to pacify Iraq because of something in the PP. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I am definitely willing to listen if you want to elaborate.

[matthewk]

This is what Obama said at first:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.

I'm not sure where you got this quote from, but I'm sure the one I heard on the radio tonight was a bit different.

There have also been people who have come forward and stated that they were there during similar speeches, and that Obama was in attendance.

[TheHiddenTrack]

I'm sick of religious lunacy. I'm sick of religion being mixed with politics. I'm sick of people who think this is an issue. I'm glad Obama made this speech because if people don't get it after this it shows where we are.

I agree with PK that this was a great speech that showed why Obama is a better candidate than Clinton, but this uproar was NOT about religion. It was about the political views expressed in a church. Criticizing Israel or calling this country US-KKK-A has nothing to do with God or faith.

Oh, I didn't realize that Obama said those things, I thought it was his pastor. Thanks for the correction, I now understand the uproar. I can't believe Obama made it so far spewing hate speech left and right.