The Dem Debate

Here is a debate transcript, and I heartily endorse Dan Drezner's live-blog effort, including this:

9:27 PM: I'm glad that the first thing Hillary Clinton will do to improve America's image abroad is inform Canada and Mexico that we'll withdraw from NAFTA unless we renegotiate the trade deal. That'll do wonders. UPDATE: Oh, goodie, Obama agrees. Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall.

What I find so fascinating is that both Obama and Clinton are saying that NAFTA benefited some parts of the country but not others. This is undoubtedly true, but the policy response to that is not to renegotiate NAFTA -- tougher labor and environmental standards won't affect Ohio's economy. The answer is to expand trade adjustment assistance programs within the United States.

ONGOING REFLECTION:  For about the three hundredth debate we have heard Hillary claim she is more experienced on foreign policy and Obama respond that on the biggest issue of the decade, Iraq, he was right and she was wrong.  Why Hillary beats her head on this wall this way is an ongoing mystery - one might think her "strategists" could have figured out how to respond more effectively to Obama's stock response. 

However!  I am not limited by the constraints felt by a Dem strategist, so let me point out (again) that, although Obama's speech against the Iraq war resolution may be evidence of great good judgment, it may simply be evidence that he is an utterly ordinary and predictable urban black liberal politician:

The two largest minority blocs in the House--the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus--voted overwhelmingly against the resolution. Of 37 African American lawmakers, 32 were opposed, and of 19 Latinos, 15 were opposed.

OK, it's hard for Hillary to deliver that response; it may even be awkward for McCain.  But Obama's view on Iraq was utterly predictable based on his politics and race; that may tell us we need more black urban libs running America (possible!), but it certainly does not indicate that Obama took a bold, risky, and unpopular stand within his political community in order to oppose the war.

So, as a matter of ongoing reflection - would it be worth trying to position the Congressional Black Caucus on Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Desert Storm, and other international experiences, in order to see whether the judgments they made are consistently superior?  And would anyone accept the other link in the chain - that their good (or bad) judgment would be a useful proxy to assess Obama's good or bad judgment?

My guess - his supporters, after decrying the racism of the exercise, will insist that Obama would have backed the CBC any time that, ex post, they were geniuses, and otherwise would have Heroically Defied them.  But don't let my lack of enthusiasm hold you back!

WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING IT UP: On Desert Storm, almost the whole Dem Party was opposed, so I take for granted the CBC was.  Bosnia/Kosovo were led by Clinton so the position of the CBC is not hard to guess; the bombing of Kosovo led to a conservative revolt, so McCain's position there might be worth revisiting (for one side or the other - gulp...).  I shudder to think about Somalia, Rwanda, and Darfur.

Hmm, Earl Ofari Hutchinson tackled Kosovo in 1999 and seems to have street cred.

Comments

[Jane]

I thought the most stunning moment was when they both reserved the right to go back into Iraq when al Qaeda resurges after we surrender.

It's amazing what these two will risk on not offending the left.

[Pofarmer]

I saw a clip of Obama night before last.

"We must renegotiate trade deals so they benefit not only Wall Street, but Main Street. We must enact new regulations so things like lead paint don't end up in our childrens toys."

Helllooooooo, Barack.

There are already regulations for that, and the private companies have standards. The problem isn't the standards and regulations, the problem is the damned communists!!!!!!!

Oh, yeah, and good luck with all this "renegotiating."

[kim]

If returning to Iraq became necessary, they wouldn't do it. Neither one of them. Either would wail for the UN.
=====================================

[Pofarmer]

Hey Kim

When the going gets tought the UN get going----home that is.

[kim]

Hey Pof; quite a blog Steve has there at climateaudit.org, you ex-lurker, you.
===========================

[BumperStickerist]

"Blacks are not willing to feel obliged to support the president's agenda," explains Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama. "They are much more likely to feel that (Bush) is engaging in disruptive policies at home and using the war as a means of shielding himself from criticism on his domestic agenda."

Also, here is Barack's October 2002 Iraq Speech:
Speech

In which Obama says:

...My grandfather [Stanley Dunham] signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

Which is all well and good and patriotic. Except, here's a bit of a potential minor scandal:
Barack's Grandfather's official enlistment record shows that Obama's maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, enlisted on January 18th, 1942 - which happens to be a Sunday, but it happens to be a Sunday almost a month and a half after Pearl Harbor.

There may have been a distinction between "signing up" and "enlisting" in 1942 - I delayed enlisted so I "signed up" a year before I enlisted - but Obama may have a case of the rhetorical Kerries, a need to gild the lily in pursuit of a point.

Or his mom may have said that his granddad said that he signed up "the day after Pearl Harbor" and Obama just believed his mom.

The other notable aspect of Obama's 2002 speech is his use of non-ideological terms like calling Karl Rove a "political hack" and a general display of over-the-top mischaracterizations of the situation.

-

[Pofarmer]

Ha, I just couldn't take it anymore. The scientific types tend to get into the weeds and miss the little nuanced stuff. I don't think it's about if we need to "change this or adjust that", it's about if the data is any damn good at all.

Hockey stick-gone.
GISS measurments-going.
C02 record-being questioned.
sea ice-back
glaciers-growing
Climate-cooling

I mean, how many legs have to get knocked out from under this thing before it falls to the floor?

O.K.

I'll stop with the off topic now.

[BumperStickerist]

btw - checking that factoid out wasn't particularly difficult.

I decided to find out what Barack's actual, real position on Iraq was, found his 2002 speech in about two minutes and read it. His line about 'day after Pearl Harbor' stood out.

I googled barack obama grandfather kansas, which led to an Ancestry.com listing which gave me the name Stanley Dunham

googling the terms WWII enlisted records gave me the National Archives - I typed in Stanley Dunham and came up with the record which showed the date mismatch.

Not particularly difficult or stalkerish or dirty trickerish, imo.

[SteveMG]

I'm pretty sure (and darn it, that's good enough for the internet) McCain supported the Kosovo actions.

"McCain voted in favor of the 1999 Kosovo Resolution authorizing air and missile strikes on Serbia and Montenegro."

Source:CFR Link

[JJ]

"rhetorical Kerries"

Like that. However, it's got a big risk factor for the just-not-right okey-dokey label.

[Jane]

McCain just responded to this from the debate:

SEN. OBAMA:[snip] Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.

By saying: I've got news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. That's why they call it: "al Qaeda in Iraq".

[kim]

PoFarmer, I'm convinced this is the year the paradigm cracks up and drifts off into irrelevance. Encumbering carbon will either grind the world's poor and powerless even more than they already are, or create an unfair and ultimately unsustainable market.

Besides, CO2 has minimal climatic effect, and that will be recognized this year. CO2 levels continue to rise, and the globe has been cooling for the last 2-4 years.

There was a sunspot yesterday. It was still a cycle #23 spot, however.

We are cooling, folks. For how long even I don't know.
========================

[Jane]

Steve,

My recollection is the McCain was instrumental in getting Clinton to go to Kosovo since Clinton was scared to death about using the military since he was clueless about it.

[Pofarmer]

By saying: I've got news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. That's why they call it: "al Qaeda in Iraq".

But, but, but.......nevermind.

[Rick Ballard]

TM,

In order to avoid those charges of racism, why not just look at the Progressive Caucus. Membership overlap is about 50% with the Black Caucus and the progs take the lead on every stupid idea that the Black Caucus spits up later anyway.

They really should combine and call themselves the Copperhead Caucus as a truth in advertising effort.

[RichatUF]

The CBC was all for Clinton going into Haiti-
and they squawked loudly once the Haitian thug and psychopath was finally dispatched and the Delta Force provided him an airlift to South Africa.

The CBC was all for going into Somalia in 1992, didn't hear too much after Team Clinton engaged in some "aggressive diplomacy".

And wasn't the Kosovo mission sort of an after thought not requiring any sort of congressional votes at all and the Bosnia Mission was driven by "lift and strike" and Clinton trying to triangulate his own staff, congressional republicans, and "international opinion".

[clarice]

What about Liberia? Didn't the CBC oppose our ousting of the thug there? And didn't the Liberians just express their undying gratitude to Bush for kicking Taylor out(not that the msm gave it much coverage)?

The CBC has demonstrated a disturbing affinity for Black thugs who abuse their own people while cutting nice deals with CBC members and their families.

[RichatUF]

Jane-

My recollection is the McCain was instrumental in getting Clinton to go to Kosovo since Clinton was scared to death about using the military since he was clueless about it.

I think that is backwards-he was helpful in crafting the Congressional Republican position on Bosnia which forced Clinton to eventually take Vance-Owens Lite, and he provided helpful cover for Kosovo ["lets be in it to win it"? for some reason comes to mind], but Kosovo was waged in such a way that it wouldn't require much congressional oversight-don't think it triggered any hearings or votes.

[anduril]

Powerline (for a change) has an insightful comment on Steve Hayes' article re Obama:

Steve includes our references to Obama as "Chance the Gardener," the character played by Peter Sellers in Being There, in his litany of conservative underestimation of Obama. Steve argues that Obama is more than that:

The assumption behind much of this criticism is that because Mr. Obama gives a good speech he cannot do substance. This is wrong. Mr. Obama has done well in most of the Democratic debates because he has consistently shown himself able to think on his feet. Even on health care, a complicated national issue that should be Mrs. Clinton's strength, Mr. Obama has regularly fought her to a draw by displaying a grasp of the details that rivals hers, and talking about it in ways Americans can understand.

In Iowa, long before the race became the national campaign it is today, Mr. Obama spent much of his time at town halls in which he took questions from the audience. His answers in such settings were often as good or better than the rhetoric in his stump speech, and usually more substantive. He spoke about issues like immigration and national service in a thoughtful manner -- not wonky, not pedantic, but in a way that suggested he'd spent some time thinking about them before.

More important for the race ahead, Mr. Obama has the unique ability to offer doctrinaire liberal positions in a way that avoids the stridency of many recent Democratic candidates. That he managed to do this in the days before the Iowa caucuses -- at a time when he might have been expected to be at his most liberal -- was quite striking.

...

Conservatives complain about Obama's vagueness mostly because they want to expose the dedicated liberal lurking behind Obama's modeerate demeanor. In truth, though, Obama's liberalism is no secret. His voting record, the policy positions laid out on his web site, and his own answers to questions in debates and town hall meetings make it clear that he is an unreconstructed liberal.

Obama's appeal lies, in part, in his ability to make liberalism seem palatable. Unlike Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, he is generally not shrill or hectoring. He comes across as calm and reasonable. In this, he really does resemble Ronald Reagan.

There are obvious differences between Reagan and Obama, of course. Reagan was a life-long student of Communism, while Obama is not yet a life-long student of anything. Most important, Reagan was devoted to conservatism, which is essentially true, while Obama is devoted to liberalism, which is essentially false. This means that Obama's policies, no matter how smoothly he may advocate them, will never be as successful as Reagan's.

Here, though, lies the rub, in my view. Ronald Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Americans did not adopt conservative principles because they sounded good on first hearing. They adopted conservative principles because of bitter experience with the alternative.

Today, the benefit of that experience has largely been lost. A generation of American voters has not experienced the failures of the Great Society, the near-collapse of American cities, double-digit inflation and unemployment, seventy percent tax brackets, or the disaster of Jimmy Carter's foreign policy. In the absence of historical memory, and with a powerful assist from the ever-forgetful press, liberalism is once again emerging as the philosophy that sounds good. The fact that it doesn't work awaits as an unpleasant surprise for a new generation. In the meantime, Barack Obama may well be the plausible candidate who can lead voters, once again, down the blind alley of leftism. He is, as Steve Hayes argues, an opponent who must be taken seriously.

OK, now listen to this fairly short video of Obama speaking substantively--but, of course, not providing the rationale behind his "substance:"

Obama plans to disarm America

The point is, these deeply unreasonable positions--unreasonable because they fly in the face of the human experience of millenia--are delivered in a forthright and reasonable sounding way. This is something to worry about.

Another thing to worry about regarding Obama--he just might be the Messiah:

Obama's Face in a Potato

Mickey Kaus is concerned that Obama is getting away with things, also that he's too much like Deval Patrick for comfort (I pride myself that I'm the first person on this forum to bring up the remarkable similarity between the two):

Obama's wrang-wrang

By babbling on about Jews and Israel--as if only Jews could be offended by Farrakhan--he gave Obama an easy answer that let him ignore Wright and the avoid the tricky business of distancing himself from his pastor. ("Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago ..." etc.).

Obama didn't steal the words of his buddy Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts. He borrowed them. OK. But what are the other similarities between Obama and Patrick? The two pols have a lot in common even aside from shared rhetoric. Has Patrick's term been a success, or has it been a cautionary example of a promising, race-transcendant Democrat squandering his mandate by governing as a hack interest-group liberal?

...

Isn't it incumbent on those prominent NEA-bashing neoliberal Obama supporters to explain just why his term as president won't quickly descend into a Patrick-like interest-group quagmire? Jon Alter, this means you! And Charles Peters as well. ... P.S.: Patrick could function as Obama's wrang-wrang, Vonnegut's term for a pioneer who by his bad example steers others away from a false course. Before neolibs go into a permanent campaign swoon, shouldn't Obama send them at least a subtle signal that he understands this?

And as your bonus for wading through all that, here's an interesting blog (full of links) about math ability:

Math Mania

[MikeS]

It is easy to be generically against war. I'm, against war. If my brain just stopped working right there at that point, I would have been against the use of military force in Iraq. Yet as a thoughtful human being, I am inclined to consider the alternatives to war and weigh them against one another.

In my case, after weighing the alternatives, I (along with 75% of my fellow citizens) came to believe that military action in Iraq was the safest and most acceptable choice in Iraq.

If Barack Obama or anyone else came to a different conclusion based on the facts, I can respect their opinion, though I am curious to know what 'facts' swayed them away from the majority.

If however, someone made a decision about a subject as crucial as war based on PARTISANSHIP, then that person is no patriot!

[RichatUF]

Forgot about putting Liberia on the list-that was all part of the blowback from the Sierra Leon civil war and Taylor's role in supporting the RUF and AFRC. IIRC, he even reached out and was supported by Jesse Jackson. Susan Rice was the handmaiden for a lot of the Clinton policy in this area [and she also made an appearence in the screw ups leading up to the East Africa bombings] and she is now a senior member of BHO's campaign...

[anduril]

Comment re Obama's Face in Potato:

"For the first time in my entire adult life, I am proud of my potato."

Apparently there are more and more Obamiracles being reported:

http://exurbanleague.com/2008/02/25/unconfirmed-obamiracle-225.aspx

I'll keep ya'll posted.

[Jane]

Rich,

I'd pit just about anyone's memory over mine at this point. So I'm happy to defer.

[anduril]

Hemophiliac without health insurance cured by touching Obama's Armani suit

Some people think that enthusiastic Obama supporters are going a bit overboard with manic support. Women fainting at rallies, musicians making Obama-themed videos — even journalists comparing Obama to a messiah. But don't be too tough on the cult of personality surrounding the Illinois senator.

Why, just yesterday at a rally one of the women in the audience had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse.

When she heard about Obama, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his Armani suit, because she thought, "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed." Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.

At once Obama realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, "Whoa, who touched the Armani?"

"You see the people crowding against you," his campaign staff answered, "and yet you can ask, 'Who touched me?'"

But Obama kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, "Voter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering. And please make a donation to barackobama.com."

What a guy.

[anduril]

Soldier/victim of neocon empire-building remotely healed at Walter Reed

Yesterday, we retold an amazing story about Barack Obama on the campaign trail. Since then, we have heard rumors of several more. Although none have been officially confirmed, the Vatican is busy verifying the details.

Apparently, when Obama had entered Baltimore, an Army captain came to him, asking for help. “Senator," he said, "one of my soldiers lies at Walter Reed paralyzed and in terrible suffering. I blame the war-mongering cowboy George W. Bush and myself for voting for him."

Obama said to him, "I will go and heal him."

The captain replied, "Senator, I do not deserve to have you travel with a Republican like me. But just say the word, and my solider will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my soldier, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Obama heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found any Democrat with such great faith. I say to you that many Republican voters will come from the east and west coasts, and will take their places at state dinners with Kennedy, Kerry and Edwards at the White House. But Democrats of little faith will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Then Obama said to the Army captain, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his soldier was healed at that very hour.

I’m wondering… shouldn’t newspapers place all of Obama’s quotes in red text?

[anduril]

Downsized union worker recovers sight, hearing, anger at outsourcing

The Vatican continues to investigate reports of signs and wonders involving Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. From their latest case file:

In Dubuque, Iowa, some people brought to Obama an unemployed union member who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man.

After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Obama put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he poured out some Evian and touched the man's tongue. He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE!" At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly (mostly about hope, change and the need to stop outsourcing American jobs to Asia).

Obama commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. Donations flooded into the campaign Web site.

The Iowans were overwhelmed with amazement. "He’s so handsome and articulate," they said. "He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak. It’s an Obamiracle!"

[Cecil Turner]

But Obama's view on Iraq was utterly predictable based on his politics and race . . .

Yes it was. Neither is that a particularly attractive trait. A recurring meme from Vietnam to today is that of minorities fighting in the front lines whilst white Americans sit on the sidelines. And though that has little support in reality, the fiction is pervasive (for example, I watched the South Park movie last week and got a good chuckle from "Operation get behind the darkies"). To say the least, that colors black commentary on national defense.

The following leapt out from the Hutchinson article:

The black newspapers have carried almost no editorials or articles about the hypocrisy of the United States in relentlessly bombing and demonizing Saddam Hussein while turning a blind eye to Serb atrocities against Muslims and ethnic Albanians, not lifting a finger to stop the genocidal violence in Rwanda or to prevent torture and murder in other Third World countries.

Hate to break it to him, but the US uses armed forces to further its interests, not the interests of various third-world nations. And if the US has no particular interests in Rwanda . . . Moreover, his views seemed predominantly to view all issues as one of persons of color vs. whities. Excuse me if I find that less than uplifting. If Barack and his allies want to use the US military to spread justice throughout the world, I suspect they're going to find it's woefully undermanned. If they just want to use that as an excuse for inaction where US interests are genuinely threatened, then they aren't ready for prime time.

[clarice]

For Kim:

I don't know how much life is left in the global warming/aka climate change hoax, but this should--if widely known--help nail the first part of the coffin lid down on it:

[quote]Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. [/quote]

Baby, it's cold outside

[Ranger]

"And wasn't the Kosovo mission sort of an after thought not requiring any sort of congressional votes at all[?]"

Posted by: RichatUF | February 27, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Actually, no. Kosovo was simply a war that was waged with no regard for the law. By the way, it is the only time since the enaction of the War Powers Act that a president has simply ignored that law. Every president up until Clinton has argued that it was unconstitutional, but they still complied with it. Clinton simply refused to follow it because he knew he didn't have the votes in congress to authorize the war (a non-binding resolution of support failed in the House by 2 votes IIRC).

BTW, McCain opposed military action before Clinton ordered the bombing, but after it started he supported continuing it because he felt the cost of not winning would have been far to high, even if the war was wrong to fight in the first place.

[Jane]

Anduril,

I'm probably gonna steal all of those (until JMH cures me of my cynicism.)

[anduril]

I think my favorite is still the potato face--disseminating these could be a good campaign tactic.

IMO, the Clinton intervention in Serbia/Kosovo--which Republicans provided cover for--was one of the most ill conceived foreign policy adventures in recent years.

[Ranger]

To further elaborate on Clinton's violation of the War Powers Act, it states that the president must get congressional authorization for military operations within 60 days of the begining of hostilities. The president has the option of a 30 day extension, but they must notify congress in writing that they intend to excersize that right. Clinton neither sought congressional authorization for the war nor did he notify congress he wanted the 30 day extension on the requirement, thus making the war clearly illegal on day 61 (the war lasted 78 days).

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

What do you think the back pedaling by the geniuses (including Bush and McCain) who caved to acceptance of spurious correlation as evidence of causation will look like? The question of "who ya gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes" seems rather fraught with political peril - especially if China releases the actual numbers of deaths due to the coldest winter in 100 years.

It will still take a couple of more years of cooling to reveal the profound silliness of this episode but this turn really is a reminder that it's probably time for Dr. Kukla again.

PT Barnum would be green with envy.

[MayBee]

My favorite moment was Hillary Clinton's reason why she couldn't deliver the 200,000 jobs she'd promised to New York when she ran for Senate in 2000.
She thought Al Gore would be President!

[kim]

Right, C. Anthony Watts's WattsUp blog is great. James Lewis boosted James Hansen into orbit very recently at the American Thinker.

There is a big skeptics' conference next week, March 2-4, in New York City. If it gets any mainstream coverage, it may be a tipping point.

Mira La Nina, which is still going strong. I doubt the Arctic ice will melt this summer, and that will give pause to the thoughtful.
===================

[kim]

Rick, I think Bush is stalling on CO2 caused global warming, as he should.
=====================

[clarice]

Rick and Kim,
I think the Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform--(Plagiarize, an upstanding lady like me? Never.) He sent out blimpy Gore to warn us and then proved Gore was full of it. Why, you ask? He really,but really, hates the conceit that man can effect much in the universe at all and takes advantage of every opportunity to humiliate those who think otherwise.

[kim]

God seems to have a wonderful sense of irony, and timing. First the Oscar, then the Nobel, now the icebox.
======================

[kim]

It does discourage me a little that it takes an act of God, or the sun, to set us right about climate. Why couldn't we figure out the hoax without the giant clue of cooling? We are herd animals, and we've been stampeded about climate change and its causes. The madness of crowds.

A bit humbling about how insightful we are as a civilization.
====================

[Patrick Tyson]

I've been missing William F. Buckley, Jr. on television for years. Last thing I recall reading was his story about going to see the great The Lives of Others. RIP.

[RichatUF]

Ranger-

Thanks. I found this write up in the WaPo regarding McCain's [maverick and 'bipartisan'] position regarding Kosovo, I didn't realize he leaned the other way before hand. I don't remember all the ins-and-outs and wasn't trying to trivialize the pose or sanction of the Clinton policy.

Kosovo was of a piece of Clinton's other foreign policy initives, which mostly through luck, didn't end in total disaster and left the heavy lifting to the future. It look Kosovo 9 years to declare independence which has ticked off the Serbs and Russians even further [though there was little anyone could do about it after the bombing campaign], and one could argue, fairly and accurately, that Clinton's Iraq policy of the 1990's boxed Bush and Blair into war in 2003.

anduril-

...the Clinton intervention in Serbia/Kosovo--which Republicans provided cover for--was one of the most ill conceived foreign policy adventures in recent years...

I would disagree in part and say that the most disasterous foreign policy move was Clinton's handling of post-Soviet Russia [of which, the breakup of Yugosalvia was a part]. In the 1990's a war broke out all along the former Soviet Central Asia and Clinton was more worried about the "Palestanians" or whichever woman he could get his grubby paws on. We had an opportunity to get Russia, Turkey, Israel, and Jordan on the same page to weaken and eliminate Iraq and Iran [and begin defusing Islamism at its core], but Clinton instead went groveling to Assad and Arafat and made a weepy near apology to the thugs in Iran. He also fattened up the Hussein regime with the OFF program which turned into terror finance for the Palestanians.

Bosnia and Kosovo was a part of this because it had the unfortunate side affect of bringing together Iranian and Turkish interests as a matter of religious preference, which made crafting policy in all the other areas much more difficult. The Russians are balancing Iranian and Turkish influences to maintain their upper hand in Central Asia and to prevent US influence from spreading. FWIW...

[Soylent Red]

Clarice:

The CBC has demonstrated a disturbing affinity for Black thugs who abuse their own people while cutting nice deals with CBC members and their families.

OK. I'm going to go ahead and say it, at the risk of being dubbed a racist...

Have you looked at how the various race baiting organizations are lead and operated?

You give some of these people aviator sunglasses and a cheetah sash and they would be functionally indistinguishable from your average African dictator (in terms of graft and corruption).

Anduril:

Obamiracles. Perhaps a new recurring FNL theme?

I'll leave that decision to my JOM betters.

Off topic...

Enjoying all the hippie enclaves between Arizona and Nebraska. In my "ARMY" t-shirts. I'm hoping to incite a spitting incident.

[kim]

Yes, SR, it is, after all, Rovian mindrays that are actually causing all these miracles and swoons.
====================

[Foo Bar]

it may simply be evidence that he is an utterly ordinary and predictable urban black liberal politician

I really don't think this argument works. It was absolutely not ordinary and predictable for someone gearing up for a Senate race in a state with a Republican governor and one Republican senator at the time (and with Bush riding high in the polls) to oppose the invasion. In fact, it was rather risky politically.

Obama had already tried for Bobby Rush's House seat and had failed, so advancing his career on the base of a largely black, urban constituency was unlikely at that point.

[MayBee]

Foo Bar-
Durbin had voted Nay. So obviously not so risky in Illinois.

[Rick Ballard]

Patrick,

It's unfortunate that we don't have a place of honor equivalent to Westminister Abbey for his interment. He fought for freedom and against slavery as did William Wilberforce and deserves similiar recognition.

[JM Hanes]

"Baby It's Cold Outside" I blame Al Gore.

Jane:

LOL! My favorite moment in the campaigns to date is Hillary doing her Obama imitation. She was wearing that yellower than yellow suit, and I find myself thinking of it as her Obama Banana bit.

"I've got news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. That's why they call it: "al Qaeda in Iraq".

As the New York Times styles it, that would be:

I've got news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. That's why they call it: "al Qaeda in [Mesopotamia]."

Cecil:

"If Barack and his allies want to use the US military to spread justice throughout the world, I suspect they're going to find it's woefully undermanned."

Actually, I think he wants the U.N. to use the US military to fix the world.

Thought of your comments on an earlier thread reading this piece about a potential Kitty Hawk deal with India, when I got to the bit about widowmakers, in this case "Russia's Cold War-era answer to the Harrier", the Yakovlev Yak-38. I read every one of the bios in the piece you linked to and meant to thank you for posting it. It's hard not to think that Harriers are one of the coolest planes evah, but I had no idea what a terrible price they've exacted. It looked to me like "pilot error" was a euphemism for too damn hot to handle.

The article itself is a great reminder of the incredible job Bush & Co have done in cementing relations with India (ditto for Japan and others) that gets virtually no attention (along with his reception in Africa) from the folks selling "the worst foreign policy in history" line.

[RichatUF]

FB-

Gore won IL by 500k in 2000 and in 2004 Kerry won IL by about 550K when he was for the war before he was against. BHO could safely be counted on to be against the war [like his spiritual advisor was] and not suffer any sort of electoral consequences running statewide against an incompetent IL-GOP.

[cathyf]

Hey, JMH, gotta correct your usage of the NYT style sheet: (with apologies to Taranto)

I've got news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda [that has nothing to do with Iraq] is already in Iraq [that has nothing to do with al Qaeda]. That's why they call it: "al Qaeda in [Mesopotamia]."

[Bill in AZ]

kim, all of that global cooling nonsense is because they're looking at non-hansen'd data. Once Soros lackey Hansen applies his arbitrary corrections to the data, all the snow will melt, and the hockey stick will be back. It's all about "change(s)".