Barack Obama rightly scored John McCain's outrageous gaffe on Iraq. He also said these words:So ask yourself: who do you trust to end a war – someone who opposed the war from the beginning, or someone who started opposing it when they started preparing a run for President?Ah. So Obama is trustworthy because he has been consistent in his opposition to the war.
Someone ought to inform the Boston Globe, because on March 8, they published a story titled "Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view."
In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.Before you gear up the rationalization machines, answer this question (with ruthless candor and no ducking): How would the progressive blogs make use of those exact same words if Hillary had uttered them on the same date?
"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died...
During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned.2005 was when the polls turned decisively against Bush's wretched little war -- and when Obama first considered stepping inside the oval office.
By contrast, in 2002 (the time of the vote) we did not know the truth about the OSP, Chalabi, the Niger forgeries and the other ginned-up "evidence." Bush had yet to show his full colors. Few thought that Colin Powell would countenance outright deceit. The intelligence community was sending mixed signals, even though progs would have you believe that the only message then sent to Congess was no go. The congressional resolution did not give Bush carte blanche; it authorized the use of force only if Saddam did not allow weapons inspectors to enter -- which, in fact, he did.
That was 2002. By 2004, things were different.
30 comments:
ohhh Glory!
I have been delivered!
I have seen Satan (long nose and fire coming from seemingly nowhere)!
I am saved!
I see the light...at last!
HILLARY..shines...and I am finally saved!
I listen to RUSH every few days for a half hour(he repeats the same talking points every half hour, so all you have to do is listen after every long commercial break and you get the gist of it) or so... for laughs and to see what the right has to say about the left.
Well RUSH says that the problem is not Obama and is not Wright. The problem is Obama+Wright. Wright is a loony and Obama is a bunch of words and both can be laughed out of town. Together (now that he has thrown his White Grandmother under the bus, and you know he was telling the truth about that) they may make you think there is something to think about here. And thinking and empathizing is just not what you want to do. Rush says:
Folks, don't let your guard down. You don't want to stop hating and judging and condemning....cause if you do...You may actually pay some attention to the people who are really screwing you.
Beeta, you have become annoying. Why are you (like most of my other readers) afraid to address the specific points made in my posts? You don't have to agree with me -- just don't switch subjects.
How many times must I tell the world that I remain unenthused about Hillary? Was I insufficiently emphatic in my endorsement of Edwards?
But like a lot of numbskulls I've encountered since 1992, you seem to be under the impression hurling the epithet "Clinton lover" relieves you of the obligation to mount an argument and to cite evidence.
In my post, I said that Obama's recent statement conflicts with his previous stance, as documented by the Boston Globe. If I am wrong, cite evidence. I don't care if you are sweet-tempered or uncivil -- just stop dodging.
Your Rush comment was nonsensical and off topic.
I feel strange coming to Obama's defense, but he did NOT throw his grandmother under the bus. I don't know how you got that.
"How many times must I tell the world that I remain unenthused about Hillary?" -- Joe
An infinite number, Joe? I don't think there's anything you can do about this particular mode of "black vs. white" thinking--that if you're opposed to some thing or some one, then you must harbor some deep hungering lust for whatever is considered by main stream thinking to be the "opposite" of that which you're opposed to. Where does such an attitude originate? Lotsa places--the media, the movies, grade schools, all schools, etc.
Let me give an example of someone else who opposed the war in 2002, but initially felt that after we were there we had an obligation to stay until we achieved stability, until realizing that the occupation was the problem and that we should leave. That would be me. Even now I worry about the consequences of leaving precipitously and am not sure about the best way to leave. Thank goodness that decision will be made by (I hope) President Obama not me.
Joseph,
You've become annoying. I've come to this site for years because I've enjoyed your "take" on things. Now, with this hate Obama obsession, you seem to have taken off. Which of your points do you want to argue? You have thrown so much against the wall, the floor is a mess, and I keep slipping while trying to get close enough to read what has stuck.
In the PDQ yesterday, here in middle America, the guy behind the counter was going on about Obama sitting in the pews for 20 years, listening to this pastor, so he should have denounced him. What? I don't really believe that Noah brought 2 animals of every kind, onto a boat to avoid a flood, but I certainly don't denounce my priest for saying so!
You were right on lossy codec's, but you're wrong for trashing Obama the way your are. Especially the racist tinged "slowbama" you headed a column with. And that fire around Obama to suggest he's the devil. Cheeeses Christ!
Finally, in July of 2004, there was no Iraqi government. To have just up and left at that time, would have been disastrous. Rational thought of how to get out was needed at that point, to ensure stability to enable the bringing home of troops.
given the vitriol coming from cannon, i would guess the clinton campaigns check finally cleared.
what's that nothing about the clinton teams use of the term mugging!
"How many times must I tell the world that I remain unenthused about Hillary"
You may become more enthusiastic as the economic abyss grows deeper. Hillary (and yeah, Bill and the 92-'00 team) are the only people who can pull us out of the deep doo-doo that Dubya has mired us in.
I despise Wright. But if Obama had more chops (hell, ANY chops) I might consider voting for him if he had more of a resume. But, as he has no resume, and he has a maniac for a close spiritual advisor whom he says is as close as family, I cannot. If he gets the nomination, I don't know what I'll do. I can't vote for McCain.
Joseph,
I don't believe that Obama threw his grandmother under the bus- Rush listeners are saying that. Actually I think that part of his speech resonated with a lot of people.
You must not have listened to his speech because if you had, you would have caught on to what I was trying to say in the last half of my comment. Rush is trying to defuse what Obama said (divisiveness-racial or otherwise- only takes the focus off of what really ails us) and re-focus on why we should hate this guy and his minister. Rush can be brutally honest at times (not that most of his listeners catch on) and although I do not think much of his intellect, he is good at playing the bully game. He knows that racism, hatred and intolerance are necessary to keep the masses ignorant and out of the government's business.
As for annoying, well.... you don't have the corner on that (although I was not trying to be annoying, I was trying to be funny- guess I am not funny).
As for dodging, I am not. You asked me if I thought Hillary was racist and I said loudly that I did not think she is. Petty, yes.... very!
And I never called you a "Clinton Lover", but if you are trying to illuminate the weaknesses of Obama the candidate (as a man I like and admire him), you should try and be fair minded and evenhanded in your treatment of both candidates. You have not been lately.
I think I have given Obama every fair shake. And I did vote for him, despite my misgivings.
You know that passage about JJ Jr's racist appeal? The one I've quoted twice now? Why the hell doesn't that bug you the way it bugs me?
Why aren't you bothered you by the fact that Obama's camp got the African American vote by making false accusations against Hillary?
Why doesn't the sheer toxicity of the pro-Obama blogs bother you? I keep hearing that things are just as bad on the pro-Clinton sites, but I just don't see it. Who is accusing Obama of murder? (As in: "Vince Foster! Vince Foster! Vince Foster!")
Sites like Kos, DU and TPM are repeating every lie told about the Clintons in the 1990s. The progressives are doing everything which, in the 1990s, made me truly hate (as opposed to merely disagreeing with) the right wing. Consequently, I have come to hate the progresives in exactly the same way I hated the right.
I HAVE given the Obama a fair shake. More than fair. I voted for a man who, I felt, did not have the qualifications for the office.
But there comes a time when one must render judgment. Barack Obama simply is not a good man. You think he is because he has become a Rorshach test onto which people project what they want to see.
By the way...
Did I bring up Rush in my post?
Did I talk about the Wright speech in my post?
No. So why the hell did YOU go in that direction?
I keep telling you, and you keep refusing to listen. If you will not address the issue, if you keep switching subjects, then you are acting like someone with a losing argument.
The topic of this post is Obama's recent statement about his war stance. I demonstrate that he lied.
Address THAT or I will delete you.
STOP DODGING. STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
jazz...
"slowbama" is racist? Are you nuts?
That came in the middle of a paragraph devoted to making fun of the way he talks. I've twisted the names of other pols in similar ways.
According to jackasses like you, if I treat a black politician the smae way I treat a white one, I am racist.
Fuck THAT shit.
Kid glove treatment and special favors would be racist.
Look, idiot, the fire was on his pants. There's this taunting phrase hear in schoolyards about...
Oh, what the hell. Why bother? You'll think whatever foolish thing you want to think.
(That said, I reserve the right to create a visual which infernalizes any cnadidate. Have done so in the past, will do so in the future.)
gary,
I don't agree, but thank god for you. You are the only one with enough guts to address the subject of my post!
That said, I think you are wrong.
As long as you are placing things on the level of personal experience, my own is this: I might have voted myself in 2002 to force the weapons inspectors in. The inspectors DID go in. It became clear that Bush wanted war anyways. That's when the whole appalling scenario became clear to me -- that he was engineering systemic lies, that the war would be a fiasco.
As we saw the "shock and awe" campaign on the television, I told my ladyfrined "This is a disaster. This is going to be the worst move in the hisory of this country."
SHe seemed a little shocked, because the mood of njearly the entire country was pro-war, and at that stage, everyone was tyring to rationalize in Bush's favor. It pisses me off no end that a lot of people -- including many I know personally -- claim that they were agianst it fromt he beginning, and I know damned well that they weren't. The polls were overwhelming supportive, and continued so even after serious signs pointed out what a disaster the whole thing was.
Those signs were quite apparent in 2004. They should have been apparent to Obama.
The fact is, he did not critiise the basis of the war at that time. Bill Clinton did.
And he simply cannot now claim to be a consistent critic of the war when his views have, in fact, "evolved." (To quote the Boston Globe.)
Again: Obama is a Rorshach test for you. You are projecting onto him everything you want to see.
"The topic of this post is Obama's recent statement about his war stance. I demonstrate that he lied."
Maybe he lied, maybe you demonstrated it, probably neither is true. Probably you can't accept what has become of his generation's minds.
At least 10 years ago, Lewis Lapham (former editor of Harper's) lamented the horrible thinking and writing skills of the freshmen at Yale, where he was teaching composition.
He pointed out to a student all the contradictions in his paper. (Let's call them 'lies' for the moment.) The student explained that Lapham wasn't reading what he wrote, he told Lapham that he said thus-and-so here, and thus-and-so (the contradiction) there, in a different place. See? (It's the no-two-snowflakes-are-the-same defense!)
Lapham went on to blame TV, but especially, MTV with its built-in 'incoherence' of unrelated fast-cut images.
Sure, Barry's a trained writer and former law review editor; but his brain is hard-wired for montage associations.
Barry and Joe both get the benefit of the doubt!
Happy spring day!
My point is that yes, his views have evolved. So have mine.For a while I bought the idea that it was a mistake going in but we're there now. I still have concerns about what will happen when we leave. I don't know why Hillary voted yes in 2002 so I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt: she was misled. 23 senators saw through the bad intelligence or lies (there was some of both.)
Both sides have played tough in this campaign. No doubt both sides have stretched the truth at times. What else is new? I will happily support either candidate in the fall.
With the economy and Iraq 2008 should be an easy win for the Dems in November. Yet there is a very real chance that McCain will be our next President, which will mean continuation of the occupation of Iraq, and very possibly war with Iran.
By the way, I really related to Obama's story of his grandmother. My grandfather thought that black people originally came from Venus. Both of my parents, good democrats, said things about race that made me cringe. I certainly heard the n word growing up. Hell, I said it. Remember, "eeny meeney miney moe?"
Happy Spring Day to you too Gary!!
This is a special day for me.... Long story...
OK Joe.... Hillary voted for the war. She says she was misled. Bull crap! Of all the people, she, the first lady (and not the be seen and not heard from kind) until a couple years back had access to more information and contacts to find out what was really going on in Iraq. But you are right, the mood back then was pro war and she figured it was safe to go with the flow. She knew Bush wanted to go to war and what inspectors would find had nothing to do with it (which is why they were pulled out early). So she is lying about being misled. Is this her biggest sin? No. She is a politician and that's that.
Is Obama lying about his stance on the Iraq war then? Did he feel pressured to keep his mouth shut as a junior Senator? Did he really feel that this war was going to be disastrous? Has his position evolved? I don't know for sure. Is he the biggest liar and jackass if he lied? No. He is a politician and that's that.
So I clicked on the Boston Globe link and read the article. Glad I did. Early on, Stockman writes: "The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion." Not so hard to understand or parse. Why is it that you call him a liar on this? One can oppose the war (I do! and have from the beginning) AND also face the reality that we're there & can't exit stage left on a whim.
Perhaps your real fight, real purpose for your latest pants-on-fire article is to take the progblogs to task: "How would the progressive blogs make use of those exact same words if Hillary had uttered them on the same date?" You got the BG questioning Barack's stances but that's not enough. You're at war with the progblogs, right?
Gary, I have no idea what your grandmother, or Obama's grandmother, had to do with it.
My own Sicilian grandmother tried to train her poodle to bark at black people on TV. (Which means the dog was responding to cues from her; dogs can't figure out TV.) This was pretty hypocritical behavior from a woman who could recite chapter and verse on the bigotries EYE-talians and Catholics suffered in this country.
But so what? What did her behavior earn her? Eventually, her own family decided that they didn't want to be around her anymore, and she died lonely.
None of that has to do with the current war, and Obama's views therein.
Nobody reading or hearing Obama's statements would get the impression that his views have -- and YOU used the word, g -- "evolved." He is trying to convey a very different impression, and you know it.
And that's the point of trouser ignition.
b:
"But you are right, the mood back then was pro war and she figured it was safe to go with the flow."
That is bullshit. It's odd that this is said so forthrightly and repeatedly about no-one in Congress at that time aside from Hillary Clinton. Of course, Clinton-hate is the national religion.
Beeta, did you address my points? The false intelligence. The mixed signals fromt he intel community. The stipulations within the resolution. Did you address any of that?
No. And I have had it with your refusal to address the points I make. You are hereafter deleted on sight, and I don't care if you write someting praising me.
Just go away.
citizen k:
"You're at war with the progblogs, right?"
Gee, you NOTICED? I was worried that the clues were too subtle.
I would say that just as others have re-written the history of 2002, you are re-writing the hisotry of 2004. Abu Ghraib had just exploded, the Plame case went off that year, the Niger forgery was exposed, the anti-American forces in Iraq made clear that they were not going away -- and so much more.
Neither Obama nor Hillary are talking about stabalizing Iraq now.
What has changed between 2004 and 2008? As far as I can see, the only thing that has changed is the public mood. Well, that, and Obama has decided to run for president.
Did Obama decry the decision to go into Iraq when he spoke at the DNC? No. That was one of the reasons why I was not impressed by that much-hyped speech at the time.
(The other reasons: He spoke of unity at an event designed to rally the troops against the foe. He was too defensive, as were Kerry and Edwards. And he devoted too much of his speech to himself.)
In 2004, we certainly had enough information to justify a harsh public denunciation of that decision.
But Obama did not make it.
In 2002, he was not on a national stage. In 2004, he was, and therefore the "visionary" decided to be Mr. Caution.
Later, when the polls made doing so safe, Obama changed his stance -- and now he pretneds that he had felt that way all the time.
That said -- I like you, k. You at least tried to address the argument. Since you are not the coward that the others seem to be, perhaps you could take on another point that I have made a few times...? I refer to the comparison of Josh Marshall on Hagee/Mcain to Marshall on Wright/Obama.
I call hypocrisy. Got anything to add?
"I refer to the comparison of Josh Marshall on Hagee/Mcain to Marshall on Wright/Obama.
I call hypocrisy. Got anything to add?"
First off, why Hagee/McCain to Wright/Obama? Why not Hagee/McCain to Farrakhan/Obama? The material is there, and you eliminate the problem of McCain not having attended Hagee's church.
Second, I don't know if I can stand to find out the answer(s) to my own questions by watching the Wright videos strewn all over the net but how can Trinity have had someone like Wright at the mast, and also have accomplished so much? Pardon the pun but Wright isn't so black & white to this citizen. What I mean is, he appears to have been involved in feeding and clothing the poor, starting one of the biggest gay Christian churches in Texas, helping those with aids... the list goes on. It would be difficult to forget all that and denounce him as Obama denounced/ rejected Farrakhan.
But ya, as you've set it up, JM is showing his bias for Obama. Your parallels show him to be a hypocrite.
No, Joseph. No one would ever accuse you of being subtle.
Aitchd mentioned Lewis Lapham above, who is my favorite living essayist. Being a die-hard Harper's fan myself, I have spent a great deal of time on Scott Horton's blog, No Comment.
Horton is quite the giant, an academic lawyer who has written powerfully about the US attorney scandal, the Siegelman travesty, and torture. In fact, he is featured in the Oscar-winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side.
Was a time, Joseph, and not so long ago, when I thought you came close to rivaling Horton's eloquence and breadth of knowledge, in the arts and literature as well as politics. But now the divergence is so stark it hurts the eyes.
I offer a recent post from him as my case in point.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002694
Somewhere recently here you lamented that your readers "heave mindless insult" at you, presumably because they are "losing the argument" and are "cowards."
Since when is calling someone a coward not an insult? And would that this were your mildest abuse!
And how do you fail to see in that short paragraph how you indict yourself?
No wonder no one wants to sign their names. No wonder your oldest and most loyal readers are leaving.
You've lost any semblance of class. Such a pity to see.
No, Joseph. No one would ever accuse you of being subtle.
Aitchd mentions Lewis Lapham, who is my favorite living essayist. Being a big fan of Harper's, I've also been following Scot Horton's blog.
Scot Horton is a giant, an academic lawyer who speaks several languages, and shows remarkable eloquence and breadth of knowledge, in the arts and literature, as well as politics.
As a case in point:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002694
Was a time, Joseph, and not that long ago, when I felt you rivaled Horton's mastery. But this recent obsession, for well over a week now, has sent you off into some perpendicular universe.
Somewhere in a recent note you lamented that your readers "heave insults" at you, which you interpret as meaning they are "losing the argument," and you call them "cowards."
Since when is calling someone a coward not an insult? Your paragraph indicts you!
No wonder no one wants to leave their names. No wonder your oldest and most loyal readers are leaving.
Fudd, I may indeed be a grouchy old grizzly, but I have also tried to address the substance of what folks have asked me. And I've lost money doing so -- by which I mean, all of the extra writing has eaten into work time.
I keep telling you -- my readership stats have gone up. I would be happier if they were cut in half.
John Cleese once said that "Fawlty Towers" was based on an innkeeper who seemed to think that his guests were an impediment to the efficient running of his hotel. I have long considered my readers to be just such an impediment.
What is more, you should take exactly that attitude if you should ever start a blog. The moment you start caring about being liked, you start to compromise your work.
I've heard this complaint privately from other bloggers. (I won't name names.) Unlike me, they try to eke a living from their writing. Remaining popular thus becomes a matter of financial necessity. And as a result, their opinions get a bit "shaved" -- by which I mean, the edge goes missing.
Once you give up on all hopes of earning a living, and once you stop caring what other people think about you...
...you achieve true freedom. The kind of freedom all writers dream about.
You don't like my views? Start your own blog! I say that without rancor. In fact, I honestly hope to encourage you. If you do, you'll soon see the wisdom of adopting a "screw the audience" attitude. Write for the sake of writing. Write free and be happy.
Joseph wrote: "... dogs can't figure out TV".
I don't know if that's true, Lassie did a pretty good job until they cancelled her show.
My bowser won't watch Animal Planet, but he'll watch the A & E Biography of Pavlov over and over. I have a theory that dogs need to see a show seven times to our one time before they get it.
Also, Pat Robertson has a pretty big audience of dyslexic dogs - they actually start to howl when Pat shuts his eyes tight.
Joseph, there are such differences between "not caring" what your audience thinks and ignoring them, and then treating them with utter disrespect and hatred.
And these distinctions do not require much subtlety, so give it a shot.
If nothing else, you might at some point come to recognize that what you're calling freedom is really that loss of mature constraint we've all experienced when mom and dad left us alone for an evening, or when we're tripped out on drugs.
You're not writing better, fella, I so hate to tell you. You're merely ventilating.
And I don't doubt your hits have increased; for a time the rabid hatred at Faux Snooze attracted both wingnuts and rubberneckers alike.
Soon enough the rubberneckers will move on, and you'll be left with nothing but the same cultish echoing core. Different tune, but same tone.
Meanwhile, curious what you might make of this piece:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20080331&s=ehrenreich
Which references this stunning piece from a few years back (yes, in my favorite, Harper's):
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
How might you reconcile this information with your bile about Obama's Wright?
Oh, and just came across this, as well:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860
How do you reconcile this with your insistence on calling Obama a liar (along with everyone else here who disagrees with you)?
Fudd, I have already responded to Ehrenreich. You act as though she had done new research. She did not. She merely cited an older piece in Mother Jones -- her ONLY source -- which in turn tried to sensationalize a claim made by one (1) unnamed source.
You got nothin'!
I doubt that you'll red this, Fudd...you may be ignoring the thread by this point...
But: About a year ago, a well-known journalist told me: "Despising your audience is simply part of being a writer."
Oh, I wish I could tell you who said that! It's someone I think you know and respect.
I certainly agree that Obama is a liar with no credentials to be President. But Hillary is little better. Do you defend her obvious whoppers about Bosnia?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html
Don't you think her lying about Bosnia, and in fact heightening the drama with repeated re-telling, is both an insult to her audience's intelligence and a sign of derangement?
Post a Comment