Interesting/depressing new poll about what people think about the state of the union, and what issues are important. Interesting, but not particularly surprising
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/24/83445/9304/338/442051
well, Turkana, maybe some of the candidates who voted in favor of the Bush WMD Invasion, and some candidates who continually vote to give Bush all the money he wants to continue the war find it politically useful not to talk about it too much. Just guessing.
Posted by T2 at January 24, 2008 11:21 AMt2,
you're right- and that includes all three of them. but it's time they started thinking ahead. one of them will be president. one of them will have to start dealing with iraq, just a year from now. it's time they started thinking and speaking about it. i don't care about what they've done in the past. i care about what they'll do in 2009.
Posted by Turkana at January 24, 2008 11:22 AM"i don't care about what they've done in the past. i care about what they'll do in 2009."
Ditto Turkana.
PAZ
Posted by quídam at January 24, 2008 11:58 AMSure, who cares what they've done in the past.
Posted by T2 at January 24, 2008 12:09 PMThe past is prologue, as the saying goes. As T2 says, no Dem wants ot talk about it as each has an achilles heel, although Hillary's position seems the worst to me (voted for the war, late to criticising it, and all over the map on what to do).
With "We're Winning!" as the new MSM propaganda trope, no one is courageous enough to say "that's crap, and here's why". No one is willing to undermine the GOoPer "fightin' the terr'ists" schtick by explaining that Bushco lied us into the war (for oil), never planned on leaving and is now trying to negotiate a fait accompli indefinite occupation before they clear out of DC.
Better to think we're just going to back into the WH and that we're just certain to defeat McOld, no problem. Or they're waiting for Iraq to explode again for cover.
The problem is, if it doesn't re-explode then clearly warmonger McOld was "right": "we're winnin!", and the Dem is gonna be a-losin (again).
Posted by euzoius at January 24, 2008 12:25 PMDon't worry, we will start hearing more about Iraq. After 2/5, assuming the nominees are pretty much done deals, Iraq will be a bigger hammer to beat up republicans with.
Posted by cdo at January 24, 2008 12:27 PMThe candidates are talking about Bill Clinton its all about Bill. What chumps we progressives were rallying around him during his impeachment thanks Bill for splitting our Party
Posted by rm forsyth at January 24, 2008 12:33 PM"i don't care about what they've done in the past. i care about what they'll do in 2009" . Unfortunatley, Clinton and Obama apparently don't share your sentiments Turkana, because arguing about the past records of each is the main theme of their campaigns so far. I'd love it if they would take your advice and quit sniping over which one of them has a better record in the past and has taken less/more Lobby money...but that is not what they are doing. You give me a person who voted for the war, and subsequently voted for every Bush money demand for the war but now gets on stage and says that will all stop when she/he becomes president and I'll give you a reason to look at their past actions and judge whether they really mean it. Remember George W. Bush?? He presided over more executions while govenor of Texas than anyone else in history....and got on the campaign stage and called himself "Compassionate". Good thing we didn't judge him by his past, huh?
Posted by T2 at January 24, 2008 01:03 PMt2,
i mean about iraq. each of the big three has compromised and capitulated, and i don't care about the ways they criticize each other over it. the only thing that matters is what they'll do to get us out of it, and none are offering solutions i respect.
Posted by Turkana at January 24, 2008 02:38 PMAlso: How the hell will they pay for health care if we don't immediately get out of Iraq? Honestly, I don't see how that works, especially during a recession.
Posted by Nathan at January 24, 2008 03:48 PMWould'nt that will be better if the candidates talk about Iraq instead of snipping at each other and showing us how unqualified they are to be our President?
Posted by suresh at January 24, 2008 04:32 PMWould it be such a terrible thing for Leftists if the US and the Allies actually won the war against the Muslim terrorists....
....probably, they [the Leftists] have so much invested in defeat.
Posted by Bagley at January 24, 2008 04:57 PMI noted that in the South Carolina debate (not surprisingly at all) that Hillary refused to pledge to the American people that 'no permanent U.S. military bases will remain in Iraq'.
What I was surprised at was her excuse....that somehow Bush and the Government-Du-Jour of Iraq were going to sign some 'agreement' that would essentially tie the hands of the next President and/or Congress. That is pure horsesh*t, since we all know that the President can...um...walk away or completely disregard whatever international laws or treaties they wish to....
But I CAN believe that we would hear just such a bullspit excuse from Ms. Clinton if she were to become President, "sorry we're continuing to drop depleted-uranium shells all over Iraq, sorry Blackwater is still playing shoot-em up in the streets over there, it's all Bush's fault."
Posted by Tampa Student at January 24, 2008 05:41 PM"i don't care about what they've done in the past. i care about what they'll do in 2009."
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Therefore, I care about what they've done in the past.
I care, for example, that as first lady Hillary Clinton enthusiastically supported her husband's policy of regime change in Iraq, and even more heinous his starvation of Iraqi children in the interest of that policy - a heinous extended crime that took place under the careful eye of her present advisor Madeleine "the price is worth it" Albright. I care that she supported all of her husband's regular military assaults on Iraq, including so-called Operation Desert Fox, which resulted in the deaths of a number of civilians, including one of Iraq's most revered artists, along with the destruction of much of her work. I care that she supported her husband's military assaults on Serbia, which included, under the guidance of her present-day adviser, Wesley Clark, deliberate and calculated bombings of civilian targets.
I care that she has consistently and without question supported Israel's constant depredations against the Palestinian people and their land, which have at times risen to the level of genocidal. I care that she has supported the collective punishment of the Palestinian people for the crime of exercising their democratic right to choose their own leaders, and that at present she supports Israel's horrific medieval imprisonment of Palestinians in Ghaza without access to food, water, electricity, or medicine.
I care that she enthusiastically supported Israel as they put the Lebanese people through 33 days of hell in the summer of 2006, and continue to violate Lebanese territory and airspace on virtually a daily basis.
And I care that she not only bought hook line and sinker into every single one of the Bushite neocons' lies about Iraq, she helped sell them. And that she has, up until about a year ago, been a strong supporter of Bush's policies and actions in Iraq, and only began to back away from that support after polls made it clear that she had no chance of being the nominee if she continued to support it. I care that she has voted at every opportunity in favour of continuing to bring disaster into Iraq.
And her "withdrawal" plan is actually a plan to maintain a presence of 40,000-70,000 troops, including combat troops, in Iraq indefinitely.
I also find her announced intention to significantly enlarge the military and the military budget to be cause for deep concern. The only purpose for which the United States needs a larger military force is to maintain a large presence in Iraq while establishing or enlarging its military presence in other countries.
And Obama's story is virtually the same as Hillary's.
Edwards is marginally better than the other two. I could force myself to vote for him if I had to. Hillary or Obama? No way.
Posted by Shirin at January 24, 2008 05:47 PM"Hillary or Obama? No way."
But, Osama bin Laden: ALL THE WAY, DUDE!
Posted by Bagley at January 24, 2008 05:58 PMRE: Posted by Bagley at January 24, 2008 05:58 PM
Idiot...
Posted by Tampa Student at January 24, 2008 06:13 PM"Tampa Student"
A man of few words. Good: "It is better to let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Come on, it's easy......
Posted by Bagley at January 24, 2008 06:50 PM"Only the truly blinkered will imagine at this late date that Iraq has shown the United States to be the "stronger horse." In fact, the war has revealed the very real limits of U.S. power. And for good measure, it has boosted anti-Americanism to record levels, recruited untold numbers of new jihadists, enhanced the standing of adversaries such as Iran and diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan, a theater of war far more directly relevant to the threat posed by al-Qaeda.
"According to the war's most fervent proponents, Bush's critics have become so "invested in defeat" that they cannot see the progress being made on the ground. Yet something similar might be said of those who remain so passionately invested in a futile war's perpetuation. They are unable to see that, surge or no surge, the Iraq war remains an egregious strategic blunder that persistence will only compound."
Surge to Nowhere by Andrew J. Bacevich, WaPo, Sun Jan 20 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802873.html
...limits of U.S. power...egregious strategic blunder...
"Bacevich believes romanticized images of war in popular culture (especially movies) interact with the lack of actual military service among most of the population to produce in the American people a highly unrealistic, even dangerous notion of what combat and military service is really like."
Andrew Bacevich from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich
...romanticized images...highly unrealistic, even dangerous notion...
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at January 24, 2008 08:46 PM“The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Therefore, I care about what they've done in the past.”
Shirin
As most other souls on earth, I understand that anyone’s past behavior can be a predictor of things to come. Reason why also most other souls out there are fairly well aware of an adage that speaks volumes about this very thing: “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”.
The only consolation here is to hope, in the case of Clinton, and if for no other better reason then forced by what her past is actually doing to her campaign (can you imagine the gargantuan edge that she would possibly now have if she would have dared to vote “no” when if actually mattered most for this country?) that she has learned from her mistakes and, for the good of her country (and I dare say, the entire world?) is now ready to take care of past behavior.
Amazingly, particularly in view that, apparently, most people here are as feed-up with this other asinine war as the rest of the world citizens, those who are against it and have clearly said that their first priority was to stop the inanity are out of the presidential race. Too bad for all concerned…
Yet, one has no other choice but to face reality, however ugly, and if the past speaks volumes by itself (as does in the two particular cases of the frontrunners), even though if I had a chance to do so I wouldn’t go for either of the candidates in question, if I were to be forced to so do I would resort to put my faith on the one that seems to speak more frankly about what to do next. For, fuzzy warm as, “lets all be nice to each other and everything will be AOK” sounds, the other fact is that such fuzzy warm contention is so far removed from what the ugly reality holds that even it’s populous echo isn’t funny any longer.
So, let us hope that the past blunders are not forgotten by the blunder makers, on the contrary, but let us hope even harder that these same blunders have made enough of a dent in their minds to make them think seriously in what is it that needs to be done next—if the aim is to restore sanity in the WH, the least of respect for this country, and peace on earth.
In these aims are not in mind, then all I have to respectfully say is that we (all of we) are screwed up royally, and the only hope for earth will be to ask for divine intervention—and, pretty please, ASAP!
“I care, for example, that as first lady Hillary Clinton enthusiastically supported her husband's policy…”
Dunno about all of this one, Shirin. As amply demonstrated, BC seems to have a mind of his own, and though HC has (much too often?) mentioned that she’d learnt a lot from being in the WH, from there to assert that she had any say in what was being done in the political arena is, I think, a long stretch. But regardless, from now onward what she does herself is what should be put under scrutiny, and I hope that if she ends up “reining?” her stint will return a net worth on that scrutiny that she can be proud off, as well as make proud those who put their faith on her. (Or, for that matter, on any other candidate…OK, but just as long as is not another warmonger!)
PAZ
P. S. As one who’s past has made such imprint that’s hard to forget, I can assure anyone that trying to put some faith on the future is of the outmost importance. Spain has risen from its political ashes, has a new constitution to replace the one that was kidnapped and held hostage for almost 40 years by Franco (“the pious”) and, come hail or terrorism, a vast number of its citizens still have faith on the fact that in order to achieve any end the means must be peaceful.
I sure as hell care about what they've done in the past. What an attitude some of you have.
Posted by JohnT at January 25, 2008 06:56 AM"The only consolation here is to hope, in the case of Clinton, and if for no other better reason then forced by what her past is actually doing to her campaign (can you imagine the gargantuan edge that she would possibly now have if she would have dared to vote “no” when if actually mattered most for this country?) that she has learned from her mistakes and, for the good of her country (and I dare say, the entire world?) is now ready to take care of past behavior."
This sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. Can you present any actual evidence that she has changed her positions on foreign and military policy?
Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence that she has not, as becomes obvious when you look at whom she has chosen as her foreign policy advisors: Madeleine "the price is worth it" Albright, who was the main force behind Bill Clinton's Iraq policy of regime change, and the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under five years old, and who thought the price was worth it (of course it was worth it to her, since it was Iraqis, not Americans who were paying the price with their blood and the blood of their children). Richard Holbrooke, who helped Suharto obtain the weapons with which he invaded East Timor and slaughtered one third of its population. Holbrooke also prevented the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion. And then there is Wesley Clark, who considered it so appropriate to intentionally and systematically bomb civilian targets in Serbia that he actually publicly announced that he was doing so. And she also has people like General Jack Keane, Michael O’Hanlon and other staunch backers of the aggression, and continued occupation of Iraq, and more recently The Surge™.
"if I were to be forced to so do I would resort to put my faith on the one that seems to speak more frankly about what to do next."
Obama and Hillary are very much on the same page as to what to do next in Iraq, and for both of them that means keeping between 40,000-70,000 troops in the country indefinitely. For Hillary that means continuing to pursue the United States' "political and military mission" in Iraq. For both of them it means continued presence of combat troops, despite the fact that they keep making noises about withdrawing combat troops.
Shirin: "I care, for example, that as first lady Hillary Clinton enthusiastically supported her husband's policy…”
Quidam: "Dunno about all of this one, Shirin. As amply demonstrated, BC seems to have a mind of his own, and though HC has (much too often?) mentioned that she’d learnt a lot from being in the WH, from there to assert that she had any say in what was being done in the political arena is, I think, a long stretch."
I did not suggest that she had any say, I stated that she fully supported, and encouraged her husbands deadly - some highly qualified people called them genocidal - policies in Iraq. She also encouraged him to bomb Serbia. And her statement that she learned a lot from being in the White House is reflected in her choice of many of her husband's former staff and cabinet members as her foreign policy advisors gives us some idea of what it is that she learned.
"But regardless, from now onward what she does herself is what should be put under scrutiny, and I hope that if she ends up “reining?” her stint will return a net worth on that scrutiny that she can be proud off, as well as make proud those who put their faith on her. (Or, for that matter, on any other candidate…OK, but just as long as is not another warmonger!)"
Hillary has always been a hawk. Hillary has always believed in military violence as a means to force other countries to comply with U.S. will. Her recent votes and statements on Iran show that she still believes the United States has the right to force its will on other countries. Her stated intention to increase the size and budget of the military does not bode well for her intentions.
And she has made it clear she intends to continue to pursue the United States' "political and military mission" in Iraq.
If you want to see that as an indication that everything will be fine with President Hillary Clinton, then fine.
Posted by Shirin at January 25, 2008 09:17 PM