Frequent commenter tc made a point earlier today that needs to be dissected, from comment #19 at this post on some of Obama's weakness.
McCain needs to run a tighter ship for his campaign. The recent resignations of two of his staff with ties to the current Myanmar totalitarian regime does not look good. The US can no longer support these types of regimes. Bush claims to invaded Iraq to get rid of Sadaam, yet how much pressure have they put on the Myanmar (Burma) government. This is an on-going human rights autrocity, along with Dafar, and our government sits idlely by. Yet, it has the gall to claim Iraq was to save the world from a Dictator.Eric you may wonder why some of us Obamicons support Obama. It is because of thinking like above (e.g., sitting quietly by while Dafar and Burma autrocities continue). We have had enough of this saber-rattling and instead need more to promote the goodness and kindness of America throughout the world. The US Navy's efforts after the Indonesian Tsunamia were a very good foriegn policy. Humanitarian acts like these does more to offset the terrorist groups than any sort of military campaigns, especially in areas where terrorists didn't exist before we invaded (i.e., Sadaam would not allow dissent). To win over Obamicons, what McCain has to do is speak forcefully about what he would do about the Burma's and Dafar's. What is his policy? The silence is basically consent of continuing the same laissez faire attitude to humanitarian causes.
Now, the McCain's teams reliance on former lobbyists to fill out its campaign staff has and will cause it PR problems, justified or not. You'll get no quibble from many Republicans on that point.
Yet, this notion that President Bush isn't doing enough about the disaster in Mynmar is pure poppycock. Even cursory consumption of news on the matter shows extensive inclusion of world-wide outrage toward the military junta running that country. Their excessive caution, delay, and corruption in accepting much-needed foreign aid has brought condemnation and concern from all sides, even the never-too-quick-to-offend United Nations. President Bush has explicitly condemned the ruling government for the slow pace of allowing available and offered aid into the country.
tc seems like a decent person, a well-meaning moderate who appears to tilt left-of-center. But, such reactionary attempts to reach conclusions, assuming it is correct because it fits a perceived narrative in the eyes of some (Bush and his minions are incompetent, uncaring bastards) doesn't make for sound policy discussions.
Discussing ways in which the United States can better conduct itself in the world and bring to bear its unique resources to aid the less fortunate - particularly in times of disaster - is one thing. Uninformed criticism and agenda-creation built on feelings rather than facts is another.
UPDATE: Commenter Ida/JK has been deleted. He/she is the previously banned Steve/Conservative not Republican/Sue.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 12, 2008 07:37 PM | Email ThisSorry, but McCain just can't beat Obama: young folks and the media are definitely behind Obama, and they're going to prevail in November.
You see, voting for Ron Paul is no more a waste of a vote than voting for McCain is. Let's just get used to the idea of a moonbean Dem in the White House for at leat 4 years. McCain is wasting his time.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on May 12, 2008 07:58 PMYou can also download today's program by clicking my name as I put the link to it there.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 08:19 PMI understand that sometimes we do have to support terrible governments. That's less of a case now that the Cold War is over, but if it really is in America's interests to support the Burma military government, then okay, I will accept it.
But I don't see it. I am not saying we should go attack them or anything like that as our national interests aren't at stake there. But nor is supporting the government of Burma and the fact that McCain had two aides with such close ties to that government makes me concerned about who he will have inside his administration.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 08:28 PM"John McCain unfortunately is burdened by a not very good economy, by an ongoing war in Iraq and by Bush's poll numbers in the high 20s," Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's former chief of staff, who is very well-connected in Republican circles, told me Monday. "McCain can't be in a position of defending the last eight years."
How serious is the problem for McCain? A USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday states: "George W. Bush may do as much damage to John McCain's chances of being elected as Jeremiah Wright does to Barack Obama's."
The poll found "38 percent of likely voters saying McCain's association with Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain, while 33 percent say Obama's association with Wright diminishes their likelihood of voting for Obama."
Breaking: New ABC/Post Poll--It's All Good
Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:56:34 PM PDT
Just out this evening at 6:30 PM Eastern Time is a new ABC News/Washington Post Poll. The numbers look good for Senator Obama both against Clinton and more importantly against McCain. This is the first-post presumptive nominee poll. Enjoy it!
GENERAL ELECTION MATCHUPS
OBAMA 51%
McCain 44%
"Strategizing with his top aides, Rumsfeld was not satisfied with the idea of pounding the Taliban. Striking back at the Afghan regime was a given, but it was not necessary that the operation be the nation's only mission or even its top priority. The Bush administration needed to demonstrate that the United States had the will to take the fight beyond Afghanistan as well as the guile to hit enemies when and where they did not expect it.... We were not going to solve this problem by focusing narrowly on the perpetrators of 9/11. Rumsfeld wanted some way to organize the military action so that it signaled that the global conflict would not be over if we struck one good blow in Afghanistan...Before 9/11 Rumsfeld had not been obsessed with Iraq." (from 'Cobra II' by NYT reporter Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor, p. 11)
This book is not at all favorable towards Rumsfeld, but at least it is honest. I don't mind when people argue the merits of invading Iraq, or especially the failures in execution. What I do mind is when people ignore and/or distort the administration's motives for going to war.
I think if there was one big mistake that Bush made, it was that he underestimated the willingness of the left to divide and distort in time of war. I wonder whether he would have invaded had he anticipated that.
Posted by: russell garrard on May 12, 2008 08:36 PM"the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"
~ Edmund Burke
Semper Fi
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 08:51 PMIf he has these type of people in his campaign, who will he have in his administration?
McCain will turn America into something that looks like the Soviet Union. Think writing that is too extreme, well they are not my words but instead are the words of Mark Levin which can be listened to by downloading a mp3 file at the link that I have provided on my name.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 08:58 PMSomewhere, Dan Quayle feels vindicated that his position as doing the "stupidest gaffe" as a politician doesn't belong to him anymore, but to the "empty suit" messiah Barack Obama.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 09:08 PM''McCain will turn America into something that looks like the Soviet Union.''
I don't care who the above words belong to:
Whoever said them is so far out in deep space they are never coming down out of orbit.
I dare you. Go to Mark Levin's web page. Go to his audio section and click on the May 12th program. I bet after hearing the facts, you won't even be able to vote for McCain.
I have proved a direct link to the Mp3 file of today's program on my name. Can't make it more simple than that. But then again to listen to the facts that Levin puts out takes some thinking and it is much easier to just support whomever the Republicans put out regardless of how socialist they are.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 09:49 PMBut I guess for people like you ignorance is bliss. If you actually listen to what Levin had to say you might actually have to think about your support for McCain and that would make you uncomfortable and you don't like that.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 09:54 PMHe didn't come right out and call McCain a socialist. He spent an whole hour going through in detail McCain's plan for America.
Like I said, listen to his program and then call him intellectually dishonest. But I don't expect you to do that as I don't think you have the intellect and the honesty to do so.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 10:03 PMEric states:
Yet, this notion that President Bush isn't doing enough about the disaster in Mynmar is pure poppycock. Even cursory consumption of news on the matter shows extensive inclusion of world-wide outrage toward the military junta running that country.
The fact that only now Burma even registers on Bush's radar is very regrettable. Where is the compassionate conservative that Bush campaigned on. Burma has been in civil war for 51 years. The web site www.prayforburma.org has been up and going for years. My own church's involvement with Burman and support of missionaries that are helping the Free Rangers has existed for at least that long.
Here is a 2000 article from the PrayForBurma website that outlines the history. Even in 2000, when Bush was running as a compassionate conservative, the totalitarian regime in Burma was many years into their rule. Per the article, Burma the world's second largest producer of opium and heroin. So, not only should the country be of concern for humanitarian reasons, but also in the war on drugs.
This article talks of the student uprising on 8/8/88 and the deaths that followed (estimated at least 8000). Something that makes Tiananmen Square look meak.
Here is a link from the website that discusses the government's license to rape.
Here is a update on the devastation of the Cyclone from the FreeRangers website.
For all these years of struggle, the response we get from Bush is the government "should" condemn the leaders and the world "ought" to be angry. What about you President Bush? Why don't you condemn the regime? Why aren't you angry? Do you not know what has went on all these years? At least the UN had the right response.
OBTW, I am by the way equally disappointed by Obama's timid response on the subject.
When do we as a nation wake up? I grew up in the Midwest with neighbor helping neighbor. We did rally as a nation after 9/11 and Katrina, but have seem to soon forgotten that tragedy can strike anywhere. The tornado's throughout the South and Mid-East this year, which has been high even for the normally high month of May is proof of this. Yet, we have lobbyists (DCI Group) that exist to support regimes like Burma's. We are better than this. We are our brother's keeper. We need to start acting like it.
Links for more information regarding Burma:
Pray for Burma: www.prayforburma.org
Free Burma Rangers: www.freeburmarangers.org
Links regarding relief efforts:
World Vision: www.worldvision.org
Red Cross: www.redcross.org
Talk about a misread of someone. Wow.
Posted by: pbj on May 12, 2008 11:09 PMYou know tc, when Republicans argue for cutting spending, you lefties always come back asking "WHERE?".
So now permit me to turn the tables. In Burma what do you want us to do that we are not doing? Invade? Nuke them? What????
If they refuse our aid then what ware we to do?
And if we involve ourself in every country on the planet for humanitarian reasons using force to "be kind to them", then how is that any different than the Roman Empire cliche you liberals always attach to Bush's administration? What, you are the "Roman Empire...with a heart?"
1. Prayer.
2. Economic pressures.
3. If the junta doesn't open up for humanitarian aid, then airdrop of humanitarian supplies. Something of which the British Prime Minister Gordan Brown stated may need to be considered.
4. We give to the humanitarian organizations.
My only quote on invasion was not to invade Burma, but the fact that one of the reasons (check the original joint resolution) to invade Iraq was "...Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population ...."
Just as with Darfar, and earlier with Sadaam, when does mass murder go on neglected (re: the article in my previous post on the 8/8/88 Student uprising and the estimated 8000 Burmese killed in the aftermath). When all is said and done, this is the only valid reason left for the Iraqi war. I question whether it meets the Just War doctrine, but if this Administration justifies Iraq on this principle and yet continues to be indifferent on Darfar and Burma, then they need to be held accountable. I do not believe we have exhausted anywhere close to other options with Burma, but with regards to the humanitarian crisis we do not have time on our side. I did see, last night, that appears the regime has relented some and airdrops are starting to occur. We need to keep on the pressure because this is a ticking time bomb with regards to mass secondary casaulties (from disease -- re: pictures in aftermath update article I linked in above post of the dead lying around). The regime doesn't want these images, nor did they want the monk's protest a few months ago released. Thank God for brave souls that smuggle these images out for the rest of the world to really see what is going on.
Posted by: tc on May 13, 2008 05:32 AMFalse- you gave one reason while the resolution lists 23 (nice cherry picking, but doesn't pass the smell test).
"I question whether it meets the Just War doctrine..."
A simple look at what criteria makes up the "just war theory" more than clears up your angst then.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2008 06:20 AMSomalia is still there and nothing has changed.
The only reason the dems are making noise is simple. Election time again.
If Obama or Hillary made it to the WH, the news about Burma would vanish the next day.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 13, 2008 06:21 AMSeems like a dichotomy that neither party supports. tc seems to be on the edge of the proverbial limb making statements like he has. Doesn't sound like a middle of the road with a slight tilt left, does it?
Posted by: swatter on May 13, 2008 07:26 AMYet we see people like TC jump at the Burma mess.
They just can't make up their minds can they.
I do believe the First Gulf War did meet the Just Cause criteria. I believe that Afgahnistan meets the criteria. I don't believe Myanmar meets the criteria (Last Resort and Proportionality). I do believe that Air Drop, if the government hadn't relented and allowed Air Drops to happen, would have been justified given the immediate nature of the crisis.
Posted by: tc on May 13, 2008 07:34 AMThis current Iraq war is just a continuation of the cease fire from PG 1. Therefore, by extension, this war is also legal and justified.
You must not have read all of the criteria for "Just war theory", just the ones that fit your preconceptions.
So tc, do you want to be the "world's policeman"? isn that the designation we already have attained by the international community? Isn't it more prudent that the U.S. only engage when it's in our "national interest" rather than be the imperialist power that leftists like yourself have already deemed us? It's like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't in your eyes......once again, the U.S. is the bad guy at the end of the equation when looking through the prism of "Progressive" thought.
Give it a few years. Your world view will mature as you get to see the reality and not the "idealistic" nature of Geopolitics at play.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2008 07:52 AMIf you're going to post this drivel, at least condense it in one post and under one "name".
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2008 08:48 AM2. I don't believe the US should be the world's policeman, but I do believe the combination of leading nations (GB, France, Germany, US etc.) do need to lead the world. Right now the best vehicle for this is the UN Security Council and UN in general. We must not sit ideally by in our own isolation while humanitarian injustices occur. Our collective response should be measured, but forceful. These injustices spill over. We live in a connected community. We are our brothers keeper.
Posted by: tc on May 13, 2008 09:10 AMWhen Clinton. Gore and SO many dem's were talking about action in Iraq. I wonder how you felt back then.
I just bet you felt it met the CRITERIA then.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 13, 2008 09:14 AMI don't believe the US should be the world's policeman, but I do believe the combination of leading nations (GB, France, Germany, US etc.) do need to lead the world. Right now the best vehicle for this is the UN Security Council and UN in general.
____________________________________________
LOL
Really TC.. Can you say "Food for OIL". Yeah France, Germany and the UN were not going to do zip about Iraq because they were getting rich as the people over there were dying.
Funny how you say we should not the the worlds police dept, yet you dems can't wait to send us everywhere when something goes wrong.
Should we go to war in N. Korea? Let's face it, people have been dying there for so many years. I bet you care about that right!
Do you have any idea what it would take to airdrop?
First it must be done from a low height at a slow speed. Which if the Junta wanted to they could shoot down a C-130 or C-17.
If we went higher up we run the chance of dropping suppiles on people.
Yeah I can see that news nightmare. Which the MSN/ Dems would just love to smear Bush and the Air Force with.
False- Re-read your own post @ 22 and see the 23 reasons given in the joint resolution to continue hostile actions against Iraq. The cease-fire agreements were signed by the Iraqi government in 1991 were violated repeatedly and directly since then that led to further action against Saddam's Iraqi regime in 2003. Bill Clinton called for Regime change in Iraq in 1996.
Check out resolution 1441 passed by the U.N.
"I don't believe the US should be the world's policeman, but I do believe the combination of leading nations (GB, France, Germany, US etc.) do need to lead the world."
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to who is currently "leading the world" if it isn't the countries you listed? Morroco? Curacao?
We must not sit ideally by in our own isolation while humanitarian injustices occur.
Ideally by? must have been a freudian slip......We're already doing the heavy lifting in the world tc, unfortunately, you don't even recognize it. As I said above, Geopolitics is much more complicated than simply saying "we must make sure nothing bad happens anywhere in the world".
As basic as it sounds its simplicity.... its equally naive in its implementation.
Current conflicts:
North Korea - Not currently, we have not exhausted all options, plus what are the benefits?
Iran - Not currently. There are plenty of other options to pursue first.
Sudan/Darfar - Quite possibly yes, as long as it is a joint coalition backed by UN Security council.
Myanmar/Burma - No to invasion, but if the government hadn't opened up to air drops, then yes to air drops.
Army Medic/Vet @34:
The government would be warned/given notice. The campaign is one of mercy and thus falls under providing mercy relief. If they attacked, they would need to realize that the attacking forces would be taken out. They know what we can do with regards to taking out these systems. My guess is they would do what they have done, i.e., back down and allow the air drops.
Rick D @35
Yes, I would agree that Iraq did not abide by the cease fire agreement. Where I disagree is that the actions had reached a point where there wasn't any other options and that we went in with a plan to accomplish the job (parts of Just War Theory). We went ahead and jumped the gun into war, why? What was the urgency? It was urgency built out of shaky/unreliable/unverifiable intelligence.
OBTW, while Clinton called for regime change, it wasn't through US force. His call was through internal revolt from being fed up with the restrictions placed on the country based on the dictator. We waited out the Soviets, we could have waited out Sadaam.
I meant idly.
I also didn't mean US in reference to "we", but the world's leading nations. The US is not complacent alone in allowing Burma and Darfar to go on as long as they have.
tc:a good article for you to read.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp
who said the following:
Re: (If Saddam)"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Pop quiz tc, who said that? President Bush Right?
** Wrong **
That was William Jefferson Clinton on February 18,1998
Clinton (both of them) were wrong in their war stance. Obama opposed the current war from the start.
Look, it may seem I am talk up Democrats, but this isn't the case. I talk of specific politicians, like Obama, who I think are different than the do anything politician. I look at the indivdual, not the party. I talked up both McCain and Huckabee early in the primary season here. The only negative thing I stated about Huckabee was I didn't think he could win the nomination, which was a political analysis. Where I have spoken against McCain recently is where he has changed from the McCain of 2000, or sided with the current administration. I still like him as a candidate. My dream contest from the beginning was McCain versus Obama because I felt it gave me a good opportunity to judge two quality candidates. If McCain adds Huckabee as VP, then Obama may have to match him in my book with a quality VP, like Webb. If Obama chooses Hillary, I would have hesitation. I did not like her as a candidate and I do not like her as a VP choice, even if it is for party unity sake.
Posted by: tc on May 13, 2008 11:59 AMDid not Obama said he would bomb Pakistan. (a country with nukes)
We all know he did.
Yet he says that Iraq was wrong?
PS. Your wrong about Nam. I was there and we were helping them. It's just to bad that our elected ones let us and them down.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 13, 2008 12:20 PMU.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. Full story at link below.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."
How is what Obama saying any different than our decision to pursue this current military engagement in Iraq?
Answer: None.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2008 12:52 PMPakistan & Nukes.
To late, Rick. They already have them. Quick tell Obama.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 13, 2008 01:13 PMCato
Mark Levin? An ego driven loud mouth radio host has an opinion?
Ahhh your talking about Randi Rodes 'right'
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 13, 2008 02:05 PMSeems that every loud mouth radio host has an opinion about something, that's what they're paid for. I really don't give a damn what Randi Rhodes or Mark Levin has to say and I fail to see the need to reference either of them in every post.
What he stated was:
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
OBTW, this is exactly what the administration carried out on Jan 29:
"In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.
Swatter @40 stated, "Did Obama even vote for the war?..."
No he didn't. I did not state that he did. My statement was that he opposed the war from the start. From here, you will find a timeline of Barack's opposition to the war.
OBTW, at this point of time Barack was in the Illinois legislature, not a community organizor.
Rick D @ 41
Obama's stance towards Iran is different than the current administrations because it emphasizes diplomacy first. The current administration's stance (especially Cheney) is that they will not talk to Iran. Iran needs to abandon their program or else they will be invaded. It is Iraq all over. OBTW, if you read his speech from 2002, you will see the same tone (i.e., that we have not exhausted our diplomatic options).
The facts simply don't back up your version of events. I've rebutted every argument so far in this thread and you just change the semantics in some kind of circular logic and quite frankly, they just aren't worth answering back at this point.
Cheers!
Posted by: Rick D on May 14, 2008 08:04 AMGHWB - I though he had the experience and character for President. I liked him better than Reagan in 1980. His Voodoo Economics statement was right on the mark. Too bad his son didn't inherit his Dad's ethics and knowledge.
Dole - Good guy, solid morals, plus I didn't care for Clinton.
Obama - Not a neo-Marxist, no matter how much you repeat it, it doesn't make it true.
- Represents new way of thinking.
- Right Judgement on Iraq war from start.
- Moral character, even to a fault of sticking with Wright longer than should.
- For openness and transparency in government
- Same age as me (Late/Post Baby-boomer generation, not of 60's Radical generation)
- Most meets broad evangelical agenda (not Right-Wing, Fundamentalist narrow two-topic agenda), including fighting poverty and being good stewards for the environment
- Fiscally, supports pay-go and not starting new programs w/o plan to pay for program
- Works across the aisle and listens to those who may disagree (re: Obama's work on Death Penalty Reform in Illinois)
- Wants to broaden invovlement (voting and community involvement)
- Puts responsibility on us (We the people, We are our Brother's keeper, We Can do it), but will work along side us. Strong on demanding fathers not abandoning families.
- Not for government handouts, but for government setting up the regulations and monitoring the regulations so the game is fair (see his proposal with regards to Health Care)
Don't get me wrong, I like McCain, in general. I fully supported McCain in 2000. If McCain wasn't running against Obama, I would most likely be supporting him. I don't like, however, where McCain feels he has to adopt Bush policies and positions just to not tick off the dwindling Bush base in the party. The neocons and Rushites of the party have ruined the Republican party with their ill-founded foreign policy and their glee in putting down others.
Posted by: tc on May 15, 2008 10:34 AM