Powered by TypePad

« McCain Bombs Barack Without Permission | Main | The Times' McCain Scandal - Sex Or Ethics? »

February 20, 2008

Comments

boris

Actually FuBird, 911 had a lot more to do with the "obvious call politically" than the party affiliation of any other elected offoicials. Chicago is hardly a Repub stronghold.

MayBee

Sue-
Yes, between the floods of 1993 and the heatwave of 1995, Bill Clinton and James Lee Witt were going to do a spectacular job the next time. So they just took the credit for their (theoretical) past great jobs during the Katrina mess.
Nobody remembers those things (or Waco), but that's what constant outrage gets you. It's like it shuts off the blood vessels to the memory part of your brain.

GMax

Republican governor and one Republican Senator

The Republican Governor who pardoned all the criminals? One that was hated by Democrat and Republican alike?

And the one term hapless Senator Fitzgerald who only got elected because the incumbent Democrat was so bad that not even MoveOn types could bring themselves to rally to her corrupt side?

Chicago has been a Democrat stronghold since the 50s if not before.

The only place that generally elects Republican is downstate. Or when the Democrat proves themself incompentent or corrupt beyond belief ( and there is a lot of belief in Chicago ) or maybe both.

royf

Lesley spews this little gem, so typical.

"Meanwhile they're still in a lather over a blowjob.

Christ, this level of stupid should be illegal. Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves?"


Well aside from all the other reasons listed by other posters (Waco, terrorist bombings, misguided policy which resulted in the loss of military personnel in Mogadishu, etc)

The hard fact is that the man sworn to defend and obey the laws of the USA committed perjury and compelled others to do the same. There is no greater threat to our system of justice or our freedom than a person who will give and force others to give false testimony. Lenin for one would be proud of Clinton and I'm sure the mythical 65% approval you continue to parrot included many just like Lenin.

watash

Obama is a Mac, McCain is a PC. If only all the people that want to continue the war would only volunteer we could send all the recruiters to Iraq.

I doubt the rumors about John McCain are true. He's too old to get it up!

royf

Jeez is there a single living brain cell among the obama cult? It sure doesn't sound like it.

Hey watash our military is 100% voluntary right now. Surely your not stupid enough to think they volunteered and didn't think they would be assigned to Iraq?

pagar

" If only all the people that want to continue the war would only volunteer we could send all the recruiters to Iraq."

If only the Americans who support the terrorists and are in favor of America surrendering to yet another gang of terrorists would support America instead, IMO this war would end quickly.

GMax

Karl Rove in the WSJ today on Obama:

In campaigns, there are sometimes moments when candidates shift ground, causing the race to change dramatically. Tuesday night was one of those moments.

Hammered for the 10th contest in a row, Hillary Clinton toughened her attacks on Barack Obama, saying he was unready to be commander in chief and unable to back his inspiring words with a record of action and leadership.
[Obama's New Vulnerability]

John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."

Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.

Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.

Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.

Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.

The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.

These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama's credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left.

In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.

The road to the presidency just got steeper for Barack Obama, and all because he pivoted on Tuesday night.

Cecil Turner

Let's note that Clinton was getting pressure at the time (October '93) to "cut and run" even faster than he did . . .

Well, even that'd have been better than giving the Somalia forces an unworkable mission, inadequate support, and then withdrawing the first time they took a few casualties. That's kinda the worst of all worlds. Besides, "pressure" is not an acceptable excuse.

If only all the people that want to continue the war would only volunteer . . .

Yeah, right. What'd it take for you to volunteer? And if being opposed to any current military action didn't excuse you, what would be the reason for your reticence?

Foo Bar

then withdrawing the first time they took a few casualties

I take it that the withdrawal after taking a few casualties compounded the earlier errors.

The quote I excerpted came right after the Black Hawk Down casualties. Can you guess who it's from?

boris

One assumes JM

Black Hawk Down was an administration blunder. If JM didn't consider BJ up to the challenge then recomending pull out might have been rational with nothing at stake beyond BJ's reputation. The consequences of Bin Laden's "tragic" misjudgement of US spinelessness should probably not fall on JM, but rather the feckless and incompetent administration that fostered BL's misstep.

boris

As I recall neither Cecil nor OT nor I have ever asserted McCain was, is, or will be infallible in all things military. If anything the claim has been his bona fides were overstated.

Cecil Turner

I take it that the withdrawal after taking a few casualties compounded the earlier errors.

Of course it did. But at that point it was probably inevitable. The American people were not going to allow costly casualty counts on a humanitarian mission. (Nor am I convinced they should have.) The balls-up was in the crappy force protection and mission stupidity at the outset.

Can you guess who it's from?

McCain. So what? Even if there was a real choice, it wasn't McCain's call. Shouldn't have sent them there in the first place, but if you're gonna go . . . go big. Turning it over to the UN, abrogating our command prerogatives, and playing cutesy diplo games all contributed to the fiasco, and the buck for each of those decisions stopped at Clinton's desk.

Foo Bar

So McCain loses no points whatsoever on defense and foreign policy judgment for calling for a withdrawal even more hasty than what took place? You just said the withdrawal compounded earlier errors.

Sue

So McCain loses no points

McCain has a hard time gaining points around here. But your argument is Obama is as ready as McCain on day one to lead the military during a time of war. The counter-argument is no he isn't. And nothing you point out about McCain changes the fact that Obama has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs, military or otherwise.

Anon

Foo Bar-

Jeebus is that ironic. I bet you are using your name in the computer sense but FUBAR in the military sense could describe Clinton's wrap up of Mogadishu.

Why did Les Aspin resign?

Start with googling "Les Aspin" + tanks and see where that leads you.

boris

Any compounding was insignificant compared to the initial fiasco. With the choice being compound hasty or compound slowly it is unclear why points should be awarded or removed. Unless you can show a better option was available one suspects there is a gaping hole in your logic, as usual.

Cecil Turner

So McCain loses no points whatsoever . . .

Even dumb grunts understand that a withdrawal after getting your a** kicked is bad. But the key to all that in a low-risk mission is not getting your a** kicked in the first place (it really ain't all that technical). Most mission briefs entail a discussion about "acceptable losses." In the case of Somalia, that number was perilously close to zero.

If your point is that we shoulda stuck around to pretend we weren't leaving because we got our a** kicked, and then a few months later act like hey, we were tired of dicking around, and just decided to sail off into the sunset, well, that's not terribly persuasive. In the old days (prior to about 1800), a punitive expedition might've been in order. Considered bad form nowadays. Nope, once you get a bunch of guys killed for nothing, it's hard to fix it.

If your point is that McCain said "run away" after Clinton&Co screwed the pooch, then I guess that's probably right. If there was something intelligent to say at that point, I'm not sure what it'd be. So no, don't think McCain loses any points on that one.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame