Showing posts with label cnn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cnn. Show all posts

2008/02/22

The Iraq Question


From the transcript of Thursday night's debate between Senators Clinton & Obama.

Analyze closely the difference between the two candidates' answers. I'll let you read first, then share my thoughts.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: All right. We're going to stay with this and stay on Iraq.

John King?

KING: I want to continue in this vein, and hone in on the very point you just made. Because one of you, unless this remarkable campaign here takes another wacky, unpredictable turn, is going to be running against a decorated war hero, who is going to say that you don't have the experience to be commander in chief.

And you have both said, it's not about that type of experience; it's about judgment.

You both had to make a judgment, a short time ago, in your job in the United States Senate, about whether to support the surge. And as that was going on, Senator Clinton, you had the commanding general in Iraq before you. And you said, "I think that the reports provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief" -- your words to General Petraeus.

KING: I want you to look at Iraq now and listen to those who say the security situation is better. Ideal, no, but better -- some say significantly, in recent days, even some steps toward a political reconciliation.

Is Iraq today better off than it was six months or a year ago because of the surge?

CLINTON: Well, John, I think you forget a very important premise of the surge. The rationale of the surge was to create the space and time for the Iraqi government to make the decisions that only it can make.

Now, there is no doubt, given the skill and the commitment of our young men and women in uniform that putting more of them in will give us a tactical advantage and will provide security in some places, and that has occurred.

CLINTON: But the fact is that the purpose of it has not been fulfilled. The Iraqi government has slowly inched toward making a few of the decisions in a less than complete way, but it hasn't taken advantage of the sacrifice and the losses of life and billions of dollars that have occurred since the surge began.

That is why I have said, upon taking office I would ask the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my security advisers to give me a plan so that I could begin withdrawing our troops within 60 days.

And I would begin that with...

(APPLAUSE)

... with a very clear message to the Iraqis that they no longer had a blank check, as they had been given by President Bush, that as we withdraw our troops, probably one to two brigades a month, they would have to step up and make these decisions.

CLINTON: I believe that is in the best interest of our military, which has been stretched thin.

Last night in Brownsville, you know, a woman grabbed my hand and said, "Please, my husband's there for the third time. Bring him home."

And I told her privately what I have said publicly many times -- I will bring him home because I do not think it is in the interest of America or of the Iraqis that we continue to be there. It is up to the Iraqis to decide the kind of future they will have.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Senator Obama, in the same vein, you were also opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?

OBAMA: Well, I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform.

In fact, you know, the 1st Cavalry, out of Fort Hood, played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: And, you know, we honor their service.

But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder.

(LAUGHTER)

And I think that, when we're having a debate with John McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision...

(APPLAUSE)

... than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision.

(LAUGHTER)

Because, ultimately, that's what's at stake. Understand, not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan. We've been diverted from focusing on Latin America.

We contribute -- our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week.

OBAMA: And it is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.

Iran is the single biggest strategic beneficiary of us having invaded Iraq, and that is something that I think John McCain has to come to terms with.

So that is a debate that I'm happy to have.

One last point I want to make on this, and that is, the incredible burden that has been placed on the American people, starting with military families, and the fact that we still are not doing right by our veterans, that we still don't honor their service, that there are still homeless veterans, that we still don't screen properly for post-traumatic stress disorder and make sure that they're getting mental services that they need, that we are still...

(APPLAUSE)

... having veterans in south Texas have to drive 250 miles to access a veterans hospital.

OBAMA: That's unacceptable. But we talked about the economy earlier, the fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive. It means that we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that both Senator Clinton and I are looking for.

And that is also an argument that we have to have with John McCain because he has said that he is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink. As John McCain says, he doesn't really understand the economy that well. It is clear from his embrace of George Bush's policies that he doesn't, and that's what I intend to change when I am president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: All right. We've got to take another quick break. We've got a lot more ahead. Stay with us. We'll be right back.


Jesus H. Christ, that's the sort of answer I woulda given ostie. Where were these types of strong, incredibly intelligent, thoughtful answers back in March 2003, or February 2006? When the United States and the world needed someone to speak truthfully and forcefully against this war and with the sort of knowledge and reason required on the matter, there was no one.

Lemme break the two candidates answers' down, and no, I'm not going to try and hide my leanings. Mrs. Clinton responded to the question and turned it around to say that yes, the surge may have worked, but the war must still end. Admirable, succinct, correct. I agree ma'am.

Mr. Obama on the other hand, waves the entire idea of the surge and the war away with a swipe of the hand, and the line "a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder." Amen, brother. To translate, he's saying "Fuck the surge, even if Iraq was miraculously fixed right here and now, look at what we lost. He mentions, importantly, that he's against the very concept of invading Iraq. There's no way on Earth this could ever be seen as a victory.

That is especially crucial, because, lemme assure you, rolling back W's preemptive strike doctrine has got to be the first step towards both curbing the now half-trillion dollar Pentagon war machine as well as ensuring a safer, less war-infected planet.

Obama goes on to strike important notes with Latinos about the pitiful aid budget to Latin America, to the distraction from other, much more strategically important conflicts like Afghanistan and the rise of China and of course, multilateralism as a whole.

And finally, yes, the burden on America itself. When you have a guy talking about post-traumatic stress disorder for troops returning home, homeless vets and military hospitals, you have before you someone who understands that war is fundamentally a human action. He shows his empathy and his understanding of the sort of costs and toll that war has on human beings, and if someone has that, he will consider military options much more carefully. This sort of empathy is a rare damned thing I tell you. Watch this movie called Thirteen Days if you want to see what I mean.

I don't see that kind of empathy from Clinton, who seems to still be in campaign-mode trying to get everyone to like her.

And finally, he brings it back home in a way that all Americans can understand. The war is another reason for this shitty economy. The more you spend on the war, the less on roads, hospitals, social programs, bread and butter. He understands the big picture of how a country is supposed to work, and how a massive blunder, to use his words, like Iraq can bring the United States consequences it never even imagined.

He's got my endorsement.

Let's see what the voters will say, come November 4th.

=//Turnquest

2008/02/19

Greater of Two Goods

This post might be an anachronism before anybody gets to read it, seeing as how Mr. Obama just won Wisconsin about a couple hours ago. Regardless...

Elections in the U.S. over the past few Presidential cycles have tended to boil down to picking the lesser of two evils. Which one of the old white guys is slightly less evil than the other? Which one is slightly less incompetent, or slightly less likely to be a total dud, or with whom do you disagree with less?

This cycle is different, obviously, and it's one of the reasons why media coverage and popular interest is hitting the sort of intensity that it has been. For the first time since anyone of my age can remember, we have a real choice in this election. And not only that, but we have several candidates who seem to have that magic combination of vision, policy, personality and electability which can bring the most cynical and alienated non-voter out to rallies and keep them glued to CNN for hours watching speeches while getting into arguments about Texan Latinos or superdelegate responsibilities. What follies God likes to play on us. 'Be careful of what you pray for', as the old saying goes: 'it might come true'.


Hillary Clinton has, since her election to the Senate in 2000, been trying to sow the seeds of inevitablitity and entitlement to the crown of President. Her political operation, financed by the DNC establishment, wealthy New York supporters and masterminded by many of the same people who engineered her husband's victories in 1992 and 1996, was mostly successful. A lot of mainstream media sources, political junkies and regular folk were sort of convinced, without really any hard evidence, that she was the right man, er, woman for the job. It was all set up, Clinton in '08. Even though she herself was either in full denial or "won't deny or confirm" mode until her official announcement, somehow, the vast centre-left-wing conspiracy had worked its spell on Americans.

Or at least, it did, until Iowa.

Upstart, inspirational, charismatic, cult-leader, whatever you wish to call him, Barack Obama, the freakin' media magnet of our time came out and clobbered Hillary's dreams and plans like Godzilla stomped Tokyo. The surefire predetermined landslide nomination was anything but and at this moment, we are in the midst of what the old-fashioned pundits like to call "a horse race."

However, it's important to understand that despite what some right-wing diehards and indeed, some MSM reporters like to believe, this is not a war. The Obama-Clinton race is merely that, a race. It doesn't mean that Clinton supporters hate Obama, or vice versa, or that one side would not vote for the other should their candidate lose. Surveys conducted by CNN/Opinion Research last week show that "Seventy-nine percent [of Texan Democrats] say they would be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee; an equal number feel the same way about Obama." Meaning, that, the whole thing doesn't matter and that 8 out of 10 Democrats won't be burning effigies and declaring "Hail to the Thief" if the other person wins the nomination.

This race really is a choice between the greater of two goods. It's a fantastic decision to make. Sort of like "Do I want ice cream or brownies for dessert?" (Ok maybe that's got some racial subtext...) How about "Should I choose the Ferrari or the Lambo? The Benz or the Beamer? The 50 inch Plasma or the 50 inch LCD?" You catch my drift. It's the greater of two goods, and the important thing to note is that either way, America and consequently the world will better off from 2009-2013.

Keep this paradigm in mind while being absorbed into the media maelstrom over the ten months until November 7, 2008. Whether your man (or woman) gets the nod or not, be thankful for the wonder of democracy that Americans have and so many millions don't.. And also for the options we all wanted in '04, 2000, '96...

=//Turnquest