"Oh, But I Like Him Personally"
You probably heard, if not the report itself, of its finding, a couple of months ago:
A new national poll suggests that President Obama is personally more popular than his policies.
Three in four Americans say President Obama has the personal qualities a president should have, the poll shows.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, released Monday, also indicates that 63 percent of Americans approve of how Obama is handling his duties as president. One in three questioned in the poll disapprove.
Democrats overwhelmingly approve of how Obama is handling his job as president; 61 percent of independents agree. Only 28 percent of Republicans say the president is doing a good job in office.
The survey, released two days before Obama marks 100 days in the White House, indicates that three in four Americans feel Obama has the personal qualities a president should have. But when asked whether Obama agrees with the respondent on the issues, that number drops to 57 percent.
"Americans have two different assessments of President Obama. One, personal. The other, policy," CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider said.
There are four possible interpretations of this conclusion:
1) It is both accurate and significant. This is about as likely as snow this weekend in south Florida because if accurate it is only because of #2.
2) This is the way it typically runs with a U.S. President. Unless given good reason to think otherwise, we like our presidents; they represent us to the world. They symbolize America, not unlike the U.S. soccer team competing in the World Cup.
3) Hey, the guy's black. Do you think I (a poll respondent) am going to tell you I don't like him? (Note: Please don't confuse this with racism.)
4) It's a mistaken impression. It's difficult, particulary in this super-charged, partisan, and hostile atmosphere, to disagree with a president's policies but actually to like him. Probably, we (think Rush Limbaugh) will believe him stupid, deceptive, or racist. Or maybe a Muslim or a foreigner.
The meme that Obama- but not his policies- is popular serves the purpose of a mainstream media which, generally, always has liked Obama, was excited about being a part of history being made, and would like him to govern from the center. But it's simply not accurate.
On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow interviewed Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Rieckhoff has evinced no evidence of being a partisan Republican, but, discussing General General McChrystal and Afghanistan, he made a few critical remarks (italicized) about Barack Obama:
MADDOW: So, President Obama made clear today that this is a change in personnel, not policy. Would this have been the right time to reassess the overall counterinsurgency policy in Afghanistan?
RIECKHOFF: I think we should be constantly reassessing our policy in Afghanistan. I think folks on the ground are constantly reassessing it. But I think, you know, there‘s also a larger message here. I don‘t know if the American public is really engaged here and I don‘t know if the White House has been fully engaged.
Now, look, McChrystal was out of lines and what he said definitely was out of bounds and he sends a poor message to the troops. But I think there‘s something to be drilled down in here. For the counterinsurgency doctrine to succeed, you need that full support of everybody in the civilian authority. You need that full support of every political resource. And there are a lot of folks who believe, who follow parts of what McChrystal said and feel like they‘re not getting those resources.
If you‘re a soldier on the ground in Afghanistan right now, you know you have the bullets, you know you have the bombs, but you don‘t always feel like you have all those bits and pieces alongside you to commit to that fight.
MADDOW: In terms of the relationship between the political debate here, Paul, and what‘s happening on the ground, I thought one of the things that Michael Hastings highlighted effectively in this “Rolling Stone” piece was soldiers complaining to General McChrystal about counterinsurgency.
Is there a lack of buy-in on this doctrine from frontline soldiers and from frontline soldiers who are coming home as new vets?
RIECKHOFF: I think there‘s a lack of buy-in nationwide. I don‘t think everybody is absolutely clear on what we‘re doing in Afghanistan. And I think that‘s in part because the president hasn‘t been focused on it. And I think we‘ve really got to drill down deep and hear part of what‘s coming out of the military.
McChrystal was a rock star. A lot of people in the field really support him 100 percent, feel like he has a sophisticated understanding of what‘s happening on the ground. He comes from the Special Operations community. All those pieces are critical.
But there are a lot of folks who feel like he wasn‘t getting the support he needed. And that maybe comes out in the wash over the next couple of weeks. Petraeus, everybody loves Petraeus. That‘s going over very well.
But the question is: what happens to the guys on the ground in the next couple of months when the casualties do increase and the fighting does get more complex?
MADDOW: What kind of support would McChrystal need in order to alleviate some of these doubts? What kind of focus would need to be demonstrated on this issue that would make a difference both to soldiers in the field and to the military brass that need to make decisions about how connected they are to political leadership?
RIECKHOFF: Well, I‘d ask you and I ask everybody watching right now:
how much are we talking about Afghanistan last week? How much were we talking about Afghanistan over the last month? I mean, folks have focused on BP, with good reason. People are focused on the economy.
But for the most part, I think a lot of folks on the ground feel like the country is not always paying attention. And if there is an upside that comes outs of all of this in the next couple of weeks and all the controversy that follows, I think we‘re going to be focused on Afghanistan, and that‘s something that‘s good for the folks on the ground, that‘s good for the country.
If we have a re-evaluation of the policy debate, that‘s a good thing. If it gets more attention, if only from the bully pulpit, and if only from the president, to commit to those folks on the ground when we really needed it, then that‘s going to be a positive outcome of all this controversy.
MADDOW: Let me ask you, though, Paul, in all honesty. And you and I have known each other a long time. Is it always a net benefit to have jerks like me and talking heads on television, partisan or not, talking about the war effort and talking about strategy, talking about tactics when we‘re this removed from it? I mean, I don‘t buy you have to listen to the generals on the ground and civilian leadership doesn‘t have a role. I‘m certainly not part of civilian leadership, but recognizing that I‘m part of the echo chamber and part of the political—I guess, political sphere in this country, sometimes, I worry about that we‘re just spinning our wheels and we‘re not actually helping when we do talk about it.
RIECKHOFF: There‘s a divide. There‘s clearly a divide. In the last couple of days, I‘ve been frustrated because a lot of people on television talking about counterinsurgency, talking about the Uniform Code of Military Justice, who have no idea what the heck they‘re talking about. And that is frustrating for somebody who comes from the military.
But there‘s also a frustration with the White House. They‘ve been missing some of the easy things, things like going to Arlington on Memorial Day. Things like—there‘s a director of Wounded Warrior Foreign Policy named Matt Flavin focused on the veteran groups and military groups, he‘s left and going over to the Department of Defense. Nobody has replaced him.
Michelle Obama has talked a lot about military families. But we don‘t see any points on the board. He‘s an anti-war Democrat who doesn‘t have a history of serving in the military. He‘s got to work harder to bridge that gap and he‘s got to work on it harder on all the time.
MADDOW: How do you get—how do you shed the label anti-war by doing
when you tripled the number of troops and leaders since you‘ve been president?
RIECKHOFF: Look, I‘m telling you about—there‘s always going to a rub with the military. When he comes in as someone who hasn‘t served on the ground, who is anti-war in his campaign stuff.
Now, he‘s changed that. I‘m not saying that you go can‘t support the troops and be anti-war. But he‘s got to work harder at it. This is an area of vulnerability for him. Command and control, understanding the military has always been an area of vulnerability for him and he has to work that much harder to get support of folks in the field.
MADDOW: Paul Rieckhoff, executive director and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, somebody who I have always enjoyed fighting with these things about—thanks a lot for your time. Good to see you.
RIECKHOFF: My pleasure, Rachel. Thank you.
Paul Rieckhoff is only one person, but a representative of an important organization. And what is the common thread in his criticism?
He is criticizing Barack Obama. Not President Obama's policies, but Barack Obama. The White House has not been "fully engaged;" the President "hasn't been focused;" Obama has not yet "commit(ted) to those folks on the ground;" there is a "frustration with the White House" (which should have) "gone to Arlington on Memorial Day;" Obama lacks an "understanding (of) the military" and thus has failed "to get support of folks in the field."
But most telling was the remark
He‘s an anti-war Democrat who doesn‘t have a history of serving in the military. He‘s got to work harder to bridge that gap and he‘s got to work on it harder on all the time.
Rieckhoff and Maddow were talking about Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the country the last President virtually ignored, shortchanging the American soldiers there while concentrating on a war (in Iraq) of far less strategic significance in a nation of far less strategic importance. Afghanistan, a war whose importance Senator Obama emphasized and to which President Obama has committed 30,000 additional soldiers. Afghanistan, a war in whose command he has now placed the most respected and revered general alive in America.
Yet Paul Rieckhoff, discussing the war in Afghanistan, calls President Obama "an anti-war Democrat." The war is going poorly but President Obama, with an opportunity to begin withdrawal of the soldiers or de-emphasize the mission, now has pledged "unity of effort across our alliance and across my national security team" in the effort to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda" (love that alliteration).
But Rieckhoff calls Obama "an anti-war Democrat." Maybe he is "anti-war" at heart and/or by instinct; not, however, by policy, at least so far. Rieckhoff is couching an animus toward Barack Obama the man (a legitimate point of view) in policy terms. Barack Obama seems anti-war; his background is anti-war; he is a black man from Harvard Law; gosh, he must be anti-war. That is what Rieckhoff is reacting to. His problem (and perhaps that of the soldiers he believes he is representing) is not with the President's policy but with Obama. However, he won't quite say so..... not unlike all those people, whom CNN believes, like the guy, but not those darned liberal policies.
Showing posts with label General Petraeus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Petraeus. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Decisive, With An Exclamation Point
Just as I suspected, I would have told myself if this article had been written, and I had read it, a week ago. President Obama seemed intimidated by the Pentagon. Michael Hastings noted in Rolling Stone
The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.
Gee, I guess, not anymore:
President Barack Obama fired his top Afghanistan commander on Wednesday over inflammatory comments that enraged the White House, and vowed not to let the military shakeup undermine the U.S. war effort.
In an extraordinary turn of events, Obama called General Stanley McChrystal on the carpet at the White House, relieved him of command and replaced him with his boss, General David Petraeus, architect of the Iraq war turnaround.
Obama had summoned McChrystal from Afghanistan to answer for remarks he and his aides made in an explosive Rolling Stone magazine article that disparaged the president and other civilian leaders.
"The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden as he announced McChrystal's dismissal.
Periodically, politicians and media figures blithely identify the President of the United States as "commander in chief." Ironically, rarely (from what I could tell) was that term used today, although this was a situation to which Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution applies:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States....
General McChrystal deserved to be fired; or, as in this case, to have his resignation accepted. And President Obama needed to reassert the principle of civilian control over the military.
Replacing McChrystal with General David Petraeus, although an obviously wise option strategically and politically, was a stroke of genius. Unexpected by the media, it nearly removes the threat Petraeus posed as a possible candidate for the Republican nomination to oppose Obama in 2012. If the war in Afghanistan continues to go badly, it will be tough for Petraeus to mount a serious campaign, especially with the blemish on what is now his extraordinary public image; if the war effort turns around and Petraeus is nominated by the GOP, he will be running against the President who presided over the war. Besides, Petraeus is the individual given greatest credit for what is perceived as renewed success in Iraq- and Afghanistan now is the most important theatre in American foreign policy.
President Obama does not always convey an image of strength. Today, June 23, 2010, however, he became President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, enjoying one of his best days since January 23, 2009.
Just as I suspected, I would have told myself if this article had been written, and I had read it, a week ago. President Obama seemed intimidated by the Pentagon. Michael Hastings noted in Rolling Stone
The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.
Gee, I guess, not anymore:
President Barack Obama fired his top Afghanistan commander on Wednesday over inflammatory comments that enraged the White House, and vowed not to let the military shakeup undermine the U.S. war effort.
In an extraordinary turn of events, Obama called General Stanley McChrystal on the carpet at the White House, relieved him of command and replaced him with his boss, General David Petraeus, architect of the Iraq war turnaround.
Obama had summoned McChrystal from Afghanistan to answer for remarks he and his aides made in an explosive Rolling Stone magazine article that disparaged the president and other civilian leaders.
"The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden as he announced McChrystal's dismissal.
Periodically, politicians and media figures blithely identify the President of the United States as "commander in chief." Ironically, rarely (from what I could tell) was that term used today, although this was a situation to which Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution applies:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States....
General McChrystal deserved to be fired; or, as in this case, to have his resignation accepted. And President Obama needed to reassert the principle of civilian control over the military.
Replacing McChrystal with General David Petraeus, although an obviously wise option strategically and politically, was a stroke of genius. Unexpected by the media, it nearly removes the threat Petraeus posed as a possible candidate for the Republican nomination to oppose Obama in 2012. If the war in Afghanistan continues to go badly, it will be tough for Petraeus to mount a serious campaign, especially with the blemish on what is now his extraordinary public image; if the war effort turns around and Petraeus is nominated by the GOP, he will be running against the President who presided over the war. Besides, Petraeus is the individual given greatest credit for what is perceived as renewed success in Iraq- and Afghanistan now is the most important theatre in American foreign policy.
President Obama does not always convey an image of strength. Today, June 23, 2010, however, he became President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, enjoying one of his best days since January 23, 2009.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Of Obama And "Disrespect"
It shouldn't be necessary to refute this. It is patently ridiculous and a little reprehensible. But it's a common theme of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in their continuing struggle to convince Americans that Barack Obama is unpatriotic.
Before the President's speech last week announcing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, we heard repeatedly that Mr. Obama was a scoundrel for not listening to the "generals on the ground," the Real Americans. But on Thursday for Rush, at the tail end of a monologue about the party-crashing Sahadis, it was
The military's being disrespected, the Secret Service is being disrespected, and these are the people that put their lives on the line for this guy.
The head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus, spoke on Fox News Sunday (video below) about consideration of the applicability of the Iraqi surge to an increase of soldiers in Afghanistan. Does this sound like a man describing a President "disrespecting" the military?
Again, these were good discussions, and everyone tested each others' thoughts and principles and ideas on this, and these were also very lengthy sessions. You know, for the president to have -- I think it was 10 or even 11, if you count the Oval Office session this last Sunday night, and several of these two and a half to three hours long, that's a lot of really weighty debate that took place right there.
Maybe they came to the right conclusion. Or the wrong conclusion. But no one would have 25 to 33 hours of discussion with people he "disrespects." Rather, you do "disrespect" people, your audience, when you continually repeat something for which you have little evidence and present no evidence, but expect your listeners to believe.
It is therefore, not only a demonstration of Rush Limbaugh's contempt for President Obama. When at another point in his show, Rush compared the results of a health care poll whose results he liked (from Rasmussen) and one whose results he didn't like (Reuters), he exclaimed
All this poll shows, the Reuters poll, all it shows is that most stupid people want the government to take care of them. And they probably realize that as bad as the government does that, the government does a better job of taking care of them than stupid people do taking care of themselves. That's the only way to explain this.
Saying without explanation that our President "disrespects" the military, and (twice) calling people "stupid" because they disagree with you are fairly similar. It is a man with little respect for the American people, or at least the majority of us who aren't wealthy.
It shouldn't be necessary to refute this. It is patently ridiculous and a little reprehensible. But it's a common theme of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in their continuing struggle to convince Americans that Barack Obama is unpatriotic.
Before the President's speech last week announcing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, we heard repeatedly that Mr. Obama was a scoundrel for not listening to the "generals on the ground," the Real Americans. But on Thursday for Rush, at the tail end of a monologue about the party-crashing Sahadis, it was
The military's being disrespected, the Secret Service is being disrespected, and these are the people that put their lives on the line for this guy.
The head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus, spoke on Fox News Sunday (video below) about consideration of the applicability of the Iraqi surge to an increase of soldiers in Afghanistan. Does this sound like a man describing a President "disrespecting" the military?
Again, these were good discussions, and everyone tested each others' thoughts and principles and ideas on this, and these were also very lengthy sessions. You know, for the president to have -- I think it was 10 or even 11, if you count the Oval Office session this last Sunday night, and several of these two and a half to three hours long, that's a lot of really weighty debate that took place right there.
Maybe they came to the right conclusion. Or the wrong conclusion. But no one would have 25 to 33 hours of discussion with people he "disrespects." Rather, you do "disrespect" people, your audience, when you continually repeat something for which you have little evidence and present no evidence, but expect your listeners to believe.
It is therefore, not only a demonstration of Rush Limbaugh's contempt for President Obama. When at another point in his show, Rush compared the results of a health care poll whose results he liked (from Rasmussen) and one whose results he didn't like (Reuters), he exclaimed
All this poll shows, the Reuters poll, all it shows is that most stupid people want the government to take care of them. And they probably realize that as bad as the government does that, the government does a better job of taking care of them than stupid people do taking care of themselves. That's the only way to explain this.
Saying without explanation that our President "disrespects" the military, and (twice) calling people "stupid" because they disagree with you are fairly similar. It is a man with little respect for the American people, or at least the majority of us who aren't wealthy.
Monday, November 02, 2009
"Victory?"
In an interview telecast (transcript from Think Progress) on Sunday's Fox News Sunday, Rush Limbaugh responded to a question about President Obama's Afghanistan policy from Chris Wallace by claiming
if he cared about victory — remember, he said about Afghanistan victory is not something he’s comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very uncomfortable.
He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says these things. I don’t know if people actually listen and have them register when he does.
Almost true- or almost almost true. On July 23, the President told ABC News "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." But then he went on to clarify the aims of the U.S.A. in Afghanistan:
We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies. So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States....
We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development ... those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical.
No, President Obama is not interested in calling something a "victory" while not achieving victory. Now, in determining the proper course of U.S. policy in central Asia, he remains far more concerned with "contract(ing) the ability of Al Qaeda to operate," largely "to make sure they can't attack the United States."
What would "victory" look like in Afghanistan(or in Pakistan, a nation Rush seldom acknowledges)? Wallace didn't ask him and wisely, Limbaugh never said. Obama's concept of success in the region, ironically but not surprisingly, looks a lot closer than Limbaugh's to that of General Petraeus, whom Rush claims to hold in high regard. Asked by the BBC in September, 2008 "Do you think you will ever use the word 'victory,' the General responded
I don't know that I will. I think that all of us at different times have recognized the need for real restraint in our assessments, in our pronouncements, if you will. And we have tried to be very brutally honest and forthright in what we have provided to Congress, to the press, and to ourselves.
Later elaborating, he explained
This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade...it's not war with a simple slogan.
It's not only on GOP TV, unfortunately. Limbaugh and politicians in his party routinely use the word "victory" without defining anything. The term is invoked to stop discussion, to imply their view is the only patriotic one. Rarely are they asked to clarify their statement or define their term, and all discussion stops. Mission Accomplished.
In an interview telecast (transcript from Think Progress) on Sunday's Fox News Sunday, Rush Limbaugh responded to a question about President Obama's Afghanistan policy from Chris Wallace by claiming
if he cared about victory — remember, he said about Afghanistan victory is not something he’s comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very uncomfortable.
He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says these things. I don’t know if people actually listen and have them register when he does.
Almost true- or almost almost true. On July 23, the President told ABC News "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." But then he went on to clarify the aims of the U.S.A. in Afghanistan:
We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies. So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States....
We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development ... those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical.
No, President Obama is not interested in calling something a "victory" while not achieving victory. Now, in determining the proper course of U.S. policy in central Asia, he remains far more concerned with "contract(ing) the ability of Al Qaeda to operate," largely "to make sure they can't attack the United States."
What would "victory" look like in Afghanistan(or in Pakistan, a nation Rush seldom acknowledges)? Wallace didn't ask him and wisely, Limbaugh never said. Obama's concept of success in the region, ironically but not surprisingly, looks a lot closer than Limbaugh's to that of General Petraeus, whom Rush claims to hold in high regard. Asked by the BBC in September, 2008 "Do you think you will ever use the word 'victory,' the General responded
I don't know that I will. I think that all of us at different times have recognized the need for real restraint in our assessments, in our pronouncements, if you will. And we have tried to be very brutally honest and forthright in what we have provided to Congress, to the press, and to ourselves.
Later elaborating, he explained
This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade...it's not war with a simple slogan.
It's not only on GOP TV, unfortunately. Limbaugh and politicians in his party routinely use the word "victory" without defining anything. The term is invoked to stop discussion, to imply their view is the only patriotic one. Rarely are they asked to clarify their statement or define their term, and all discussion stops. Mission Accomplished.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Memory Lapses
Writing on the democrats.com blog, a fellow named Bob Fertik argues that John McCain may be in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. He cites the following:
- McCain recent statement "But in the twenty-first century, nations don't invade other nations," an indication he might have forgotten the year 2003:
1)failure to remember key facts, such as: when elections are held, as when he stated "If we do everything right — and we can and we will — I will win in January” and the bifurcation of a nation, as when he stated on 7/14/08 (and similarly the following day) “I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia."
2)forgetting statement(s) he has made, such as:
-on 3/27/08, telling CNN "you and I could walk through those neighborhoods (of Baghdad) today; when told by the network's John Roberts that the latter later was told otherwise by General Petraeus and retired general Barry McCaffrey, McCain replied "“Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that";
-stating on 4/21/08 about the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans: "That’s why we need to go back,” he said, “to have a conversation about what to do about it. Rebuild it? Tear it down? Ya know, whatever it is" and three days later claiming “I don’t remember ever saying it;”
-referring to "President Putin of Germany," apparently forgetting that he was referring to Russia;
- after stating "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated," telling (before being confronted with the video of this statement) the late Tim Russert on Meet The Press "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics."
- asked whether Saddam Hussein is a threat, stating on CNN on 3/3/02"I believe that Saddam Hussein presents clear and present danger to the United States of America with his continued pursuit of...to acquire weapons of mass destruction" and on MSNBC on 9/17/03 "I never said that it was a, quote, clear and present danger because of weapons of mass destruction."
-according to syndicated columnist, Robert Novak, complained to the Wall Street Journal's John Fund that Justice Samuel Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve," then later that day claiming "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that."
Oops! Fertik posted on August 13, 2008. Now, on August 15, 2008, thanks to thinkprogress.org, we learn that John McCain is still (presumably) forgetful. The previous day, McCain had told Walter Isaacson at the Aspen Institute
I have a long record of that support of alternate energy. … I’ve always been for all of those and I have not missed any crucial vote. But my citizens in Arizona know that when I’m running for the President of the United States I have to be out campaigning.
Except that the Arizona Senator missed : in July, a vote which would have extended wind and solar credits to December and according to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, "has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year;" in June, a vote on the Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation (co-sponsored, obviously, by arguably McCain's most ardent supporter); in February, a vote (which failed by one) on extending tax credits to renewable sources of energy; in December, a vote (which failed by one) ending tax subsidies for the oil energy and investing in cleaner sources of energy.
Is presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain unusually, and dangerously, forgetful? Or is his dishonesty extraordinarily impressive? You make the call.
Writing on the democrats.com blog, a fellow named Bob Fertik argues that John McCain may be in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. He cites the following:
- McCain recent statement "But in the twenty-first century, nations don't invade other nations," an indication he might have forgotten the year 2003:
1)failure to remember key facts, such as: when elections are held, as when he stated "If we do everything right — and we can and we will — I will win in January” and the bifurcation of a nation, as when he stated on 7/14/08 (and similarly the following day) “I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia."
2)forgetting statement(s) he has made, such as:
-on 3/27/08, telling CNN "you and I could walk through those neighborhoods (of Baghdad) today; when told by the network's John Roberts that the latter later was told otherwise by General Petraeus and retired general Barry McCaffrey, McCain replied "“Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that";
-stating on 4/21/08 about the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans: "That’s why we need to go back,” he said, “to have a conversation about what to do about it. Rebuild it? Tear it down? Ya know, whatever it is" and three days later claiming “I don’t remember ever saying it;”
-referring to "President Putin of Germany," apparently forgetting that he was referring to Russia;
- after stating "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated," telling (before being confronted with the video of this statement) the late Tim Russert on Meet The Press "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics."
- asked whether Saddam Hussein is a threat, stating on CNN on 3/3/02"I believe that Saddam Hussein presents clear and present danger to the United States of America with his continued pursuit of...to acquire weapons of mass destruction" and on MSNBC on 9/17/03 "I never said that it was a, quote, clear and present danger because of weapons of mass destruction."
-according to syndicated columnist, Robert Novak, complained to the Wall Street Journal's John Fund that Justice Samuel Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve," then later that day claiming "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that."
Oops! Fertik posted on August 13, 2008. Now, on August 15, 2008, thanks to thinkprogress.org, we learn that John McCain is still (presumably) forgetful. The previous day, McCain had told Walter Isaacson at the Aspen Institute
I have a long record of that support of alternate energy. … I’ve always been for all of those and I have not missed any crucial vote. But my citizens in Arizona know that when I’m running for the President of the United States I have to be out campaigning.
Except that the Arizona Senator missed : in July, a vote which would have extended wind and solar credits to December and according to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, "has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year;" in June, a vote on the Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation (co-sponsored, obviously, by arguably McCain's most ardent supporter); in February, a vote (which failed by one) on extending tax credits to renewable sources of energy; in December, a vote (which failed by one) ending tax subsidies for the oil energy and investing in cleaner sources of energy.
Is presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain unusually, and dangerously, forgetful? Or is his dishonesty extraordinarily impressive? You make the call.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Not A Profile In Courage
The hills, or at least the liberal blogs, are alive with criticism of Senator Barack Obama for his position on the "compromise" bill updating the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, which would extend the government's power to eavesdrop without a warrant and pave the way for retroactive immunity for telecom giants. Obama's statement read (courtesy of tpmelectioncentral) in full:
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people.
So Senator Obama, after going through the motions of trying to remove retroactive immunity, will be voting for the bill. Perhaps, expecting to be the next President of the United States, he wants to accrue as much power to himself as possible. Perhaps he wants to curry favor with the telecommunication industry. More likely, however, it's a calculated, cynical, characteristic move on the part of a politician who has found in avoidance of casting a vote his own immunity against attack. Whether as an Illinois State Senator voting "present" on 136 bills, or ducking a vote in the U.S. Senate to condemn MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad, or dodging the vote in the upper chamber on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, it's all pretty much the same.
Change? Probably. Leadership? Hardly.
The hills, or at least the liberal blogs, are alive with criticism of Senator Barack Obama for his position on the "compromise" bill updating the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, which would extend the government's power to eavesdrop without a warrant and pave the way for retroactive immunity for telecom giants. Obama's statement read (courtesy of tpmelectioncentral) in full:
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people.
So Senator Obama, after going through the motions of trying to remove retroactive immunity, will be voting for the bill. Perhaps, expecting to be the next President of the United States, he wants to accrue as much power to himself as possible. Perhaps he wants to curry favor with the telecommunication industry. More likely, however, it's a calculated, cynical, characteristic move on the part of a politician who has found in avoidance of casting a vote his own immunity against attack. Whether as an Illinois State Senator voting "present" on 136 bills, or ducking a vote in the U.S. Senate to condemn MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad, or dodging the vote in the upper chamber on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, it's all pretty much the same.
Change? Probably. Leadership? Hardly.
Friday, April 18, 2008
On Being "Commander In Chief"
Writing in slate.com, Fred Kaplan on 4/16/08 explains "when it comes to national-security affairs—the heart of his campaign, the center of his career—does Sen. John McCain know what he's talking about?"
Kaplan refers to McCain's (unintentional or intentional) recent mix-up among Sunnis, Shiites, and Iranians, fascinating in a candidate whose claim to the presidency is staked on a supposed knowledge of foreign policy. Still, the more revealing remark by the Arizona senator, as Kaplan recounts, was a response to whether he would divert U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in order to quash the resurgent Taliban and capture Osama Bin Laden. McCain responded: "I would not do that unless Gen. Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that."
But as Kaplan points out, General David Petraeus is commander of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq and therefore not in a position to make that decision. The commander of United States Central Command, who is responsible for the entire Middle East and south Asia, was until recently Admiral William "Fox" Fallon. Admiral Fallon (no fan of General Petraeus) believes that U.S. resources should be diverted from Iraq to other crises in the region and was fired recently after stating there would be a shift in strategy in the Iraq war. Nevertheless, candidate McCain neglected to mention that he would have asked the commander of U.S. Central Command his opinion on policy.
This suggests the most serious issue. Diversion of American troops to Afghanistan, Kaplan notes, is a matter not of strategy and tactics, but of policy and priorities. It is not a decision to made by any military commander but by the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Apparently, for all the tough talk, the vaunted "straight talk" of the McCain campaign, the senator wants to take a pass on this role of the leader of the free world.
Not so, apparently, Barack Obama. In a rare moment raising an actual issue of policy, Charlie Gibson at the Democratic presidential debate on April 16, 2008 asked Obama "so you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?" The Illinois senator responded:
Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie.
That's not the role of the generals.
And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus."
Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops
carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.
Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with
respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are
going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there.
Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to
adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the
commander-in-chief.
Barack Obama, whose weak point is purported to be foreign policy, understands the role he would assume upon taking the presidency. John McCain, whose strong point is purported to be foreign policy, apparently does not understand. That will tell you something about the man the Repub Party believes should be the next President of the United States.
Writing in slate.com, Fred Kaplan on 4/16/08 explains "when it comes to national-security affairs—the heart of his campaign, the center of his career—does Sen. John McCain know what he's talking about?"
Kaplan refers to McCain's (unintentional or intentional) recent mix-up among Sunnis, Shiites, and Iranians, fascinating in a candidate whose claim to the presidency is staked on a supposed knowledge of foreign policy. Still, the more revealing remark by the Arizona senator, as Kaplan recounts, was a response to whether he would divert U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in order to quash the resurgent Taliban and capture Osama Bin Laden. McCain responded: "I would not do that unless Gen. Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that."
But as Kaplan points out, General David Petraeus is commander of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq and therefore not in a position to make that decision. The commander of United States Central Command, who is responsible for the entire Middle East and south Asia, was until recently Admiral William "Fox" Fallon. Admiral Fallon (no fan of General Petraeus) believes that U.S. resources should be diverted from Iraq to other crises in the region and was fired recently after stating there would be a shift in strategy in the Iraq war. Nevertheless, candidate McCain neglected to mention that he would have asked the commander of U.S. Central Command his opinion on policy.
This suggests the most serious issue. Diversion of American troops to Afghanistan, Kaplan notes, is a matter not of strategy and tactics, but of policy and priorities. It is not a decision to made by any military commander but by the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Apparently, for all the tough talk, the vaunted "straight talk" of the McCain campaign, the senator wants to take a pass on this role of the leader of the free world.
Not so, apparently, Barack Obama. In a rare moment raising an actual issue of policy, Charlie Gibson at the Democratic presidential debate on April 16, 2008 asked Obama "so you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?" The Illinois senator responded:
Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie.
That's not the role of the generals.
And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus."
Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops
carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.
Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with
respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are
going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there.
Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to
adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the
commander-in-chief.
Barack Obama, whose weak point is purported to be foreign policy, understands the role he would assume upon taking the presidency. John McCain, whose strong point is purported to be foreign policy, apparently does not understand. That will tell you something about the man the Repub Party believes should be the next President of the United States.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Two Resolutions
Two resolutions condemning the ad from MoveOn.org criticizing General Petraeus were approved by Congress' upper chamber on Thursday. The first, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Cal.) sought, as the Senate's website described it, "to reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." It passed 51 to 47 with support from every Democrat/Independent present (except Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Biden of Delaware and Cantwell of Washington being absent) and the opposition of every Republican except Specter of Pennsylvania, Stevens of Alaska, and Hagel of Nebraska (Allard of Oregon being absent). The legislation cited a "reprehensible" attack in 2002 upon a "Senator from Georgia" (i.e., Max Cleland) and a 2004 "dishonest and dishonorable" attack upon a "Senator from Massachusetts" (i.e., John Kerry). (Note: Given that this legislation was all for show, Hagel's vote was consistent with that of a dove who otherwise is a right-winger; Specter's because he loves questioning the Bush Administration when it doesn't count and falling in line when it does; and Stevens probably needs all the friends he can get.)
Later that day, a resolution introduced by right-wing Republican John Cornyn of Texas sought "to express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." This gutless resolution passed 72-25 with every member of the Stepford Party and twenty-three (23) Democrats without intestinal fortitude voting in favor of it. (Most in the latter group are from Repub-leaning states- which does not account for Senators Mikulski and Cardin of Maryland; Feinstein of California; Klobuchar of Minnesota; Kohl of Wisconsin; Leahy of Vermont; and, arguably, Carper of Delaware. Lieberman was, well, Lieberman.)
One may wonder whether Democrats- especially a liberal (this is not an expletive or slur) like Barbara Boxer- should vote for a resolution which, if enforceable, would prohibit unkind criticism of (if this came about) Presidential nominee John McCain, he of the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Distinguished Flying Cross. Not to mention constitutional issues. However, given the circumstances, the move probably was intended to put Repubs on the spot and expose their hypocrisy. (Haven't we seen enough of that lately?) The twenty-five Democrats who voted "nay" included Hillary Rodham Clinton. Absent were three Democrats- Senator Biden, Senator Cantwell, and.... Senator Obama. Senator Obama? Wasn't he there earlier in the day for the less-controversial vote? Why, yes he was.
I was tempted, initially, to credit Clinton's vote, in contrast to Obama's abstention, as an act of courage. But then I came to my senses. Clinton's vote- though not without its risk and, thus somewhat courageous, was due largely to something else, which she has consistently demonstrated this campaign season- savviness. For the the slashing, partisan style- and her words themselves- of the New York Senator have exhibited that she understands what Obama doesn't. The Democratic nominee will be attacked, personally and repeatedly, by the Repub Party, its candidate, and its toadys. The nominee must be prepared to counterattack- promptly and repeatedly. So, if Clinton is nominated, she will be attacked for allegedly being unpatriotic because of this vote- and, if she had voted otherwise, attacked for allegedly being unpatriotic (see Captain Cleland, Lieutenant Kerry). Better to secure one's base and demonstrate at least a little integrity in the meantime.
Two resolutions condemning the ad from MoveOn.org criticizing General Petraeus were approved by Congress' upper chamber on Thursday. The first, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Cal.) sought, as the Senate's website described it, "to reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." It passed 51 to 47 with support from every Democrat/Independent present (except Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Biden of Delaware and Cantwell of Washington being absent) and the opposition of every Republican except Specter of Pennsylvania, Stevens of Alaska, and Hagel of Nebraska (Allard of Oregon being absent). The legislation cited a "reprehensible" attack in 2002 upon a "Senator from Georgia" (i.e., Max Cleland) and a 2004 "dishonest and dishonorable" attack upon a "Senator from Massachusetts" (i.e., John Kerry). (Note: Given that this legislation was all for show, Hagel's vote was consistent with that of a dove who otherwise is a right-winger; Specter's because he loves questioning the Bush Administration when it doesn't count and falling in line when it does; and Stevens probably needs all the friends he can get.)
Later that day, a resolution introduced by right-wing Republican John Cornyn of Texas sought "to express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." This gutless resolution passed 72-25 with every member of the Stepford Party and twenty-three (23) Democrats without intestinal fortitude voting in favor of it. (Most in the latter group are from Repub-leaning states- which does not account for Senators Mikulski and Cardin of Maryland; Feinstein of California; Klobuchar of Minnesota; Kohl of Wisconsin; Leahy of Vermont; and, arguably, Carper of Delaware. Lieberman was, well, Lieberman.)
One may wonder whether Democrats- especially a liberal (this is not an expletive or slur) like Barbara Boxer- should vote for a resolution which, if enforceable, would prohibit unkind criticism of (if this came about) Presidential nominee John McCain, he of the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Distinguished Flying Cross. Not to mention constitutional issues. However, given the circumstances, the move probably was intended to put Repubs on the spot and expose their hypocrisy. (Haven't we seen enough of that lately?) The twenty-five Democrats who voted "nay" included Hillary Rodham Clinton. Absent were three Democrats- Senator Biden, Senator Cantwell, and.... Senator Obama. Senator Obama? Wasn't he there earlier in the day for the less-controversial vote? Why, yes he was.
I was tempted, initially, to credit Clinton's vote, in contrast to Obama's abstention, as an act of courage. But then I came to my senses. Clinton's vote- though not without its risk and, thus somewhat courageous, was due largely to something else, which she has consistently demonstrated this campaign season- savviness. For the the slashing, partisan style- and her words themselves- of the New York Senator have exhibited that she understands what Obama doesn't. The Democratic nominee will be attacked, personally and repeatedly, by the Repub Party, its candidate, and its toadys. The nominee must be prepared to counterattack- promptly and repeatedly. So, if Clinton is nominated, she will be attacked for allegedly being unpatriotic because of this vote- and, if she had voted otherwise, attacked for allegedly being unpatriotic (see Captain Cleland, Lieutenant Kerry). Better to secure one's base and demonstrate at least a little integrity in the meantime.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Bush Cowering
I'm not always negative. Chris Matthews can be infuriating, disingenuous and, to some guests, obsequious, but often insightful, and on Tuesday night he was at his best. As host, with Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC's coverage of President Bush's speech on Iraq, Matthews pounded on the relationship of Mr. Bush to General Petraeus. He noted "this President has tried to make him (Petraeus) the chief salesman for the policy" and "it's not the job of a military man to sell the policy. It's the job of the commander-in-chief." When guest Mike Huckabee made the usual, dishonest comment about politicians inserting their beliefs for those of the "guys getting shot at," Matthews shot back, noting the President is a "politican" and asserting "they should be calling the shots in Iraq, not asking the military to set the policy. They should be setting the policy and defending it. It's their policy." And Matthews, who before the speech reminded us that the Administration's best argument is "the critics were right- we're stuck," ended the evening by maintaining that the American people will find it "very frustrating" if they believe "the only reason we're in Iraq is we're afraid to leave."
We have a President lacking the courage to present his policy as his policy, instead cowering behind a General whose statement reportedly was reviewed by Mr. Bush's astute political strategist, Ed Gillespie. And we have a President who, having made it clear that he wants to leave this war to his successor, seems willing to sacrifice American lives for the sake of his legacy.
I'm not always negative. Chris Matthews can be infuriating, disingenuous and, to some guests, obsequious, but often insightful, and on Tuesday night he was at his best. As host, with Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC's coverage of President Bush's speech on Iraq, Matthews pounded on the relationship of Mr. Bush to General Petraeus. He noted "this President has tried to make him (Petraeus) the chief salesman for the policy" and "it's not the job of a military man to sell the policy. It's the job of the commander-in-chief." When guest Mike Huckabee made the usual, dishonest comment about politicians inserting their beliefs for those of the "guys getting shot at," Matthews shot back, noting the President is a "politican" and asserting "they should be calling the shots in Iraq, not asking the military to set the policy. They should be setting the policy and defending it. It's their policy." And Matthews, who before the speech reminded us that the Administration's best argument is "the critics were right- we're stuck," ended the evening by maintaining that the American people will find it "very frustrating" if they believe "the only reason we're in Iraq is we're afraid to leave."
We have a President lacking the courage to present his policy as his policy, instead cowering behind a General whose statement reportedly was reviewed by Mr. Bush's astute political strategist, Ed Gillespie. And we have a President who, having made it clear that he wants to leave this war to his successor, seems willing to sacrifice American lives for the sake of his legacy.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
GOP Distorts MoveOn Ad
The following was posted yesterday, Tuesday, September 11, 2007 on the Huckabee for President website:
The disgraceful act of the leftist organization, moveon.org, has marked a new low watermark in American discourse. To accuse a patriotic, honorable, and highly decorated soldier like General David Petraeus of treason by intimating that he had betrayed his duty, his honor, and his country is appalling.
The full page ad in the New York Times run by this organization is an attack on our entire military – and George Soros should spend an equal amount of his vast wealth for another full page ad apologizing to General Petraeus and to every American who has served or who is serving in the military.
The very people who Soros savaged with his vile, despicable, and cowardly attack are the ones who have earned Mr. Soros and people of his ilk the right to display their pathetic hatred of this nation's military in a public forum.
While an apology to General Petraeus would be in order, one can’t expect it from the caliber of people who are devoid of dignity.
I call on every candidate for President, whether Democrat or Republican, to join in a condemnation of this outrageous insult to our military. The fact that such an abuse of free speech is legal doesn’t make it right or responsible. Surely everyone who wishes to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces can agree that the attack on the character of a General currently directing our troops in battle deserves condemnation. I hope that Democratic and Republican candidates alike will take a stand and denounce this dishonorable act."
So much wrong with this statement and so little time to point it out.... but I'll start by noting that the ad in question is "no attack on our entire military" nor is it "an outrageous insult to our military." The former Arkansas governor deserves credit for referring to the "Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces" rather than, as the current President does, the "Commander in Chief". (This may reflect more than a semantic difference, Mr. Bush's nomenclature unsurprising in a man who believes that he is not to be questioned by anyone or anything, least of all the two other branches of the federal government.)
More disturbing, though, is that Huckabee- and the other Republicans who have leapt onto the ad without questioning its veracity- have embraced a double standard. Yesterday, on September 11, Rudy Giuliani saw fit to take center stage at the 9/11 commemoration in lower Manhattan. But appearing were other notables- including the right-wing author Ann Coulter, who in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" wrote of widows who formed a group after their husbands were killed in the terrorist attacks "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." She called them "self-obsessessed women" (who) "believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony." CBS News reported that she dubbed them "The Witches of East Brunswick.", referring to the town in New Jersey in which two of them then lived.
Given that Rudy Giuliani's campaign theme is "I was there at 9/11, Elect Me," it would be especially appropriate for a rival for the nomination, such as Huckabee, to question Giuliani's involvement with Coulter. We await such statements by Mr. Huckabee, Mitch McConnell, and others so exorcised by MoveOn.org's ad.
The following was posted yesterday, Tuesday, September 11, 2007 on the Huckabee for President website:
The disgraceful act of the leftist organization, moveon.org, has marked a new low watermark in American discourse. To accuse a patriotic, honorable, and highly decorated soldier like General David Petraeus of treason by intimating that he had betrayed his duty, his honor, and his country is appalling.
The full page ad in the New York Times run by this organization is an attack on our entire military – and George Soros should spend an equal amount of his vast wealth for another full page ad apologizing to General Petraeus and to every American who has served or who is serving in the military.
The very people who Soros savaged with his vile, despicable, and cowardly attack are the ones who have earned Mr. Soros and people of his ilk the right to display their pathetic hatred of this nation's military in a public forum.
While an apology to General Petraeus would be in order, one can’t expect it from the caliber of people who are devoid of dignity.
I call on every candidate for President, whether Democrat or Republican, to join in a condemnation of this outrageous insult to our military. The fact that such an abuse of free speech is legal doesn’t make it right or responsible. Surely everyone who wishes to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces can agree that the attack on the character of a General currently directing our troops in battle deserves condemnation. I hope that Democratic and Republican candidates alike will take a stand and denounce this dishonorable act."
So much wrong with this statement and so little time to point it out.... but I'll start by noting that the ad in question is "no attack on our entire military" nor is it "an outrageous insult to our military." The former Arkansas governor deserves credit for referring to the "Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces" rather than, as the current President does, the "Commander in Chief". (This may reflect more than a semantic difference, Mr. Bush's nomenclature unsurprising in a man who believes that he is not to be questioned by anyone or anything, least of all the two other branches of the federal government.)
More disturbing, though, is that Huckabee- and the other Republicans who have leapt onto the ad without questioning its veracity- have embraced a double standard. Yesterday, on September 11, Rudy Giuliani saw fit to take center stage at the 9/11 commemoration in lower Manhattan. But appearing were other notables- including the right-wing author Ann Coulter, who in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" wrote of widows who formed a group after their husbands were killed in the terrorist attacks "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." She called them "self-obsessessed women" (who) "believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony." CBS News reported that she dubbed them "The Witches of East Brunswick.", referring to the town in New Jersey in which two of them then lived.
Given that Rudy Giuliani's campaign theme is "I was there at 9/11, Elect Me," it would be especially appropriate for a rival for the nomination, such as Huckabee, to question Giuliani's involvement with Coulter. We await such statements by Mr. Huckabee, Mitch McConnell, and others so exorcised by MoveOn.org's ad.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Kerry Attacks MoveOn
The criticism of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry of MoveOn.org's ad criticizing the Congressional testimony of General Petraeus was particularly interesting. According to CNN, Kerry called the ad:
"over the top." "I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.
"I think there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked, a lot of probing that ought to take place; there's a lot of legitimate accountability that needs to be achieved. It ought to be done without casting any aspersions on anyone's character or motives," he added.
These comments are extraordinary. This is an Administration which consistently implies that its critics do not support American soldiers. As reported by MSNBC, the President in a speech in Pennsylvania on 11/11/05: “As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them...” In his speech last month in Kansas City, Mo. to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Bush charged that his critics "would pull the rug out from under U.S.troops." And The Washington Post reported on November 17, 2005:
Speaking before a Washington dinner of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative research organization, Cheney said last night that Democrats who say they were misled by the administration are "making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war." The criticism, Cheney said, threatens to undermine the morale of U.S. troops while "a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
Kerry's comments also call into question the proper role of a United States Congressman in confronting an important issue. No Senator or Representative should be intimidated by any witness offering testimony to Congress. And that includes anyone in uniform.
At least now we understand better how pre-war claims made by the President and his supporters escaped scrutiny. And how Kerry remained passive in the face of Swift Boat claims about his war service while his opportunity to be President sailed away.
The criticism of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry of MoveOn.org's ad criticizing the Congressional testimony of General Petraeus was particularly interesting. According to CNN, Kerry called the ad:
"over the top." "I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.
"I think there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked, a lot of probing that ought to take place; there's a lot of legitimate accountability that needs to be achieved. It ought to be done without casting any aspersions on anyone's character or motives," he added.
These comments are extraordinary. This is an Administration which consistently implies that its critics do not support American soldiers. As reported by MSNBC, the President in a speech in Pennsylvania on 11/11/05: “As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them...” In his speech last month in Kansas City, Mo. to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Bush charged that his critics "would pull the rug out from under U.S.troops." And The Washington Post reported on November 17, 2005:
Speaking before a Washington dinner of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative research organization, Cheney said last night that Democrats who say they were misled by the administration are "making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war." The criticism, Cheney said, threatens to undermine the morale of U.S. troops while "a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
Kerry's comments also call into question the proper role of a United States Congressman in confronting an important issue. No Senator or Representative should be intimidated by any witness offering testimony to Congress. And that includes anyone in uniform.
At least now we understand better how pre-war claims made by the President and his supporters escaped scrutiny. And how Kerry remained passive in the face of Swift Boat claims about his war service while his opportunity to be President sailed away.
MoveOn Ad
MoveOn.org is receiving a lot of criticism for the ad, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?", it posted in today's New York Times. Subtitled "Cooking the Books for the White House," it charged "General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts."
Predictably, as ABC reports, White House spokesman Tony Snow called it a "boorish, childish, unworthy attack." CNN notes a letter distributed "among Senators" and sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid charging "the ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America's commanding general in Iraq has earned." House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio contended "Democratic leaders must make a choice today: either embrace the character assassination tactics MoveOn.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful." (emphasis mine- without our knowledge, Petraeus apparently has been commanding American soldiers in the Khyber pass.) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, according to Politico.com, intoned "these childish attacks are an insult to everyone fighting for our freedom in Iraq" (our freedom?). Never one to miss an opportunity for demagoguery, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I.-Ct.) urged Democratic leaders to "denounce MoveOn.org's attack on General Petraeus." Even Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts joined in with "I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that calls into question any active duty, distinguished general..."
So what is lacking in all the criticism? That would be any description, claim, or allegation that anything asserted in the ad is inaccurate. For good reason- MoveOn broke it down into nine different claims and cited reference(s) for each. The organization's critics, however, wisely adopted the characteristic style of this White House and avoided any uncomfortable association with the facts.
MoveOn.org is receiving a lot of criticism for the ad, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?", it posted in today's New York Times. Subtitled "Cooking the Books for the White House," it charged "General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts."
Predictably, as ABC reports, White House spokesman Tony Snow called it a "boorish, childish, unworthy attack." CNN notes a letter distributed "among Senators" and sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid charging "the ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America's commanding general in Iraq has earned." House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio contended "Democratic leaders must make a choice today: either embrace the character assassination tactics MoveOn.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful." (emphasis mine- without our knowledge, Petraeus apparently has been commanding American soldiers in the Khyber pass.) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, according to Politico.com, intoned "these childish attacks are an insult to everyone fighting for our freedom in Iraq" (our freedom?). Never one to miss an opportunity for demagoguery, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I.-Ct.) urged Democratic leaders to "denounce MoveOn.org's attack on General Petraeus." Even Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts joined in with "I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that calls into question any active duty, distinguished general..."
So what is lacking in all the criticism? That would be any description, claim, or allegation that anything asserted in the ad is inaccurate. For good reason- MoveOn broke it down into nine different claims and cited reference(s) for each. The organization's critics, however, wisely adopted the characteristic style of this White House and avoided any uncomfortable association with the facts.
Friday, June 08, 2007
GOP Debate (On Hunter, Giuliani, Brownback)
Some impressions, albeit three days later, from the Republican Presidential debate of June 5, 2007:
Representative Duncan Hunter, following applause for remarks by Representative Tom Tancredo, former Governor Huckabee, and his own remarks regarding two Border Control agents imprisoned after shooting an illegal immigrant bringing a huge cache of marijuana into the U.S.A., makes a notable mistake for a GOP debate: he betrays an interest in the middle class (and immediately after mentioning the iconic Ronald Reagan!) And, of course... no applause.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani accuses the Democrats of having two nights earlier promoted socialized medicine. Given that only one (Representative Dennis Kucinich) of the candidates specifically advocated a single-payer system, this would be disturbing if Rudy actually believed it. Of course, if moderator Wolf Blitzer doesn't call him on it, there is no reason why Rudy 9-11 Giuliani shouldn't throw his audience some red meat.
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has recommended in at least two GOP debates a three-state solution (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) for Iraq. This puts him in the same company as his colleague, Democratic candidate Joe Biden of Delaware, who has recommended this for, oh, probably over a year now. In the unlikely event something positive comes out of Persian Gulf War II, it will probably be something similar. Perhaps President Bush will come to believe thusly- or perhaps he does already. However, in September General Petraeus comes back to Congress and will not say: "Sorry, I have failed, the situation is growing grimmer." Some progress and/or a need to give the escalation (pardon me, "surge") more time will be claimed. A three-state solution, however, may have to be invoked at some time as the rationale for continuing military involvement.
Some impressions, albeit three days later, from the Republican Presidential debate of June 5, 2007:
Representative Duncan Hunter, following applause for remarks by Representative Tom Tancredo, former Governor Huckabee, and his own remarks regarding two Border Control agents imprisoned after shooting an illegal immigrant bringing a huge cache of marijuana into the U.S.A., makes a notable mistake for a GOP debate: he betrays an interest in the middle class (and immediately after mentioning the iconic Ronald Reagan!) And, of course... no applause.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani accuses the Democrats of having two nights earlier promoted socialized medicine. Given that only one (Representative Dennis Kucinich) of the candidates specifically advocated a single-payer system, this would be disturbing if Rudy actually believed it. Of course, if moderator Wolf Blitzer doesn't call him on it, there is no reason why Rudy 9-11 Giuliani shouldn't throw his audience some red meat.
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has recommended in at least two GOP debates a three-state solution (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) for Iraq. This puts him in the same company as his colleague, Democratic candidate Joe Biden of Delaware, who has recommended this for, oh, probably over a year now. In the unlikely event something positive comes out of Persian Gulf War II, it will probably be something similar. Perhaps President Bush will come to believe thusly- or perhaps he does already. However, in September General Petraeus comes back to Congress and will not say: "Sorry, I have failed, the situation is growing grimmer." Some progress and/or a need to give the escalation (pardon me, "surge") more time will be claimed. A three-state solution, however, may have to be invoked at some time as the rationale for continuing military involvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)