Against: Fascism, Trump, Putin, Q, libertarianism, postmodernism, woke-ism and Identity politics. For: Democracy, equalism, art, science, Enlightenment values and common-sense liberalism.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Question
I know that Josh Marshall did not turn against the war until fairly late. What did Moulitsas, Huffington, Aravosis, Mark "Buzzflash" Karlin and Skinner (DU) think -- in 2003?
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Can't tell you what he thought about the war way back when, but in case anyone here is curious, Skinner actually post a defense of Clinton's "assassination reference" in the DU: Primaries forum yesterday which was pretty good (he tried to tell the Obama folks that he didn't see evidence she was trying to get Obama killed).
It'll be interesting to see if anyone gets banned for flaming him about it. Little known thing about DU.com—one of the only surefire ways to get banned is to insult a moderator or an administrator straight out; they hate that (although insulting Democratic presidential candidates and other posters is okay as long as it doesn't violate the other relatively lax posting guidelines, apparently).
By your implication, the wrong belief in 2003 would have been aligned with Hillary Clinton (and John Edwards) and opposed to Obama. Edwards admits he made a mistake in authorizing force. Obama has been on record against the Iraq war since the beginning. Clinton? Yet to admit she thought it was a mistake.
Jen, I saw that. Skinner also said that the statement was a "major gaffe" -- which it was not. I'd probably say the same thing. Again. Hindsight and all. Hillary was saying that the frontrunner could change late in the race. The last time that happened was 1968. But RFK didn't REALLY zoom out in front because he could not complete the campaign. I don't know how you can draw the comparison without mentioning the assassination!
m.jed, it was Obama himself, when making excuses for the pro-AUMF votes of Kerry and Edwards, I guess, who implied the vote might not have been a mistake, when he said because he wasn't privy to the intel the Senate saw, he wasn't at all sure how he would have voted if presented that data.
It was Kerry who said that, knowing what he knew now (2004. then, he still would have voted for the AUMF act. Obama supported Kerry after his comment to this effect. By contrast, HRC has since said that knowing what we know now, then, there wouldn't even have been a vote held, let alone having it passed.
Let's face it. If you want to be considered a serious presidential contender, you have to signal your willingness to resort to war, the lifeblood and health of the state in the opinion of the military-entertainment complex.
Knowing that, Obama shrunk from his prior anti-war position, made sure the speech was never recorded, and took the transcript off his website, and then voted for the war (as votes for funding it have been characterized), while stating there was little difference between his and George W.'s policies for Iraq.
Partially because of his perceived pacifism, BHO has had to saber rattle and talk tough about the use of military power, including a claim that he'd violate the sovereignty of a delicately balanced, poised for coup by Islamicists, Pakistan.
As for the 'responsible' supposed left-leaning blogger types, they took a Mike O'Hanlon type as credible, and lined up in favor of the argument for pre-emption.
Yeah, sof. I looked into BO's war stances (note the plural) in a couple of previous posts. He has been all over the damn place -- although when local interviewers, who knew the score, asked him in 2004 if he would still have voted against hte resolution, he did say yes -- with some reluctance, or so I read it.
But the facts remain:
1. When he spoke out against the war at a public event in 2003, he did so as the representative of a very liberal district. He would have run a risk taking any OTHER position.
2. Running for Senator in 2004, all of his Democratic opponents also opposed the war. Such are the politics of Illinois. Obama was much more reticent than they to discuss the issue.
3. When he spoke at the Democratic Naitonal Convention -- his national debut -- he refused to denounce the basis of the war. He simply criticized the way it was being fought. By contrast, both Clinton and (nomnee) John Kerry admitted in thier speeches that the war was founded on a lie.
The evidence is there on YouTube for anyone to see. I never could see why everyone loved that speech so much. Even at the time, I thought it was poorly-delivered boilerplate stuff.
I've never been impressed by the guy's rhetorical ability, and I can't believe that he is considered a magnetic speaker.
(Then again, do we have ANY great orators these days? I've asked that before, and have yet to receive any heartening replies. The only political speaker who enchanted me this season was Elizabeth Kucinich. It's the accent. Slays me every time. I confess my weaknesses.)
Elizabeth seems like a nice person, but her husband is an absolute ass. Of all of the candidates I met in person during the Nevada caucus campaign (and I met seven of the eight Democratic candidates--Gravel didn't campaign here--and three Republican candidates), Dennis Kucinich was the only one I really didn't like. He was all ego, the stereotypical short guy, and he couldn't be bothered with people who waited a long time and came to the convention center in the snow to see him. No, it was much more important to him to go to the local radio station and give an interview rather than to take the time to meet and greet with supporters. He was a total ass. I was one of the few out of hundreds who met with him and got his autograph. He was a jerk though, and he should have stuck around until the end. Nobody else who campaigned in Reno who I saw in person, including Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, were that way.
I would really be interested in knowing where Mark Karlin stood in 2002. As I remember it, he was defending the 2002 authorization but I may be remembering wrong.
8 comments:
Can't tell you what he thought about the war way back when, but in case anyone here is curious, Skinner actually post a defense of Clinton's "assassination reference" in the DU: Primaries forum yesterday which was pretty good (he tried to tell the Obama folks that he didn't see evidence she was trying to get Obama killed).
It'll be interesting to see if anyone gets banned for flaming him about it. Little known thing about DU.com—one of the only surefire ways to get banned is to insult a moderator or an administrator straight out; they hate that (although insulting Democratic presidential candidates and other posters is okay as long as it doesn't violate the other relatively lax posting guidelines, apparently).
By your implication, the wrong belief in 2003 would have been aligned with Hillary Clinton (and John Edwards) and opposed to Obama. Edwards admits he made a mistake in authorizing force. Obama has been on record against the Iraq war since the beginning. Clinton? Yet to admit she thought it was a mistake.
Jen, I saw that. Skinner also said that the statement was a "major gaffe" -- which it was not. I'd probably say the same thing. Again. Hindsight and all. Hillary was saying that the frontrunner could change late in the race. The last time that happened was 1968. But RFK didn't REALLY zoom out in front because he could not complete the campaign. I don't know how you can draw the comparison without mentioning the assassination!
m.jed, it was Obama himself, when making excuses for the pro-AUMF votes of Kerry and Edwards, I guess, who implied the vote might not have been a mistake, when he said because he wasn't privy to the intel the Senate saw, he wasn't at all sure how he would have voted if presented that data.
It was Kerry who said that, knowing what he knew now (2004. then, he still would have voted for the AUMF act. Obama supported Kerry after his comment to this effect. By contrast, HRC has since said that knowing what we know now, then, there wouldn't even have been a vote held, let alone having it passed.
Let's face it. If you want to be considered a serious presidential contender, you have to signal your willingness to resort to war, the lifeblood and health of the state in the opinion of the military-entertainment complex.
Knowing that, Obama shrunk from his prior anti-war position, made sure the speech was never recorded, and took the transcript off his website, and then voted for the war (as votes for funding it have been characterized), while stating there was little difference between his and George W.'s policies for Iraq.
Partially because of his perceived pacifism, BHO has had to saber rattle and talk tough about the use of military power, including a claim that he'd violate the sovereignty of a delicately balanced, poised for coup by Islamicists, Pakistan.
As for the 'responsible' supposed left-leaning blogger types, they took a Mike O'Hanlon type as credible, and lined up in favor of the argument for pre-emption.
...sofla
Yeah, sof. I looked into BO's war stances (note the plural) in a couple of previous posts. He has been all over the damn place -- although when local interviewers, who knew the score, asked him in 2004 if he would still have voted against hte resolution, he did say yes -- with some reluctance, or so I read it.
But the facts remain:
1. When he spoke out against the war at a public event in 2003, he did so as the representative of a very liberal district. He would have run a risk taking any OTHER position.
2. Running for Senator in 2004, all of his Democratic opponents also opposed the war. Such are the politics of Illinois. Obama was much more reticent than they to discuss the issue.
3. When he spoke at the Democratic Naitonal Convention -- his national debut -- he refused to denounce the basis of the war. He simply criticized the way it was being fought. By contrast, both Clinton and (nomnee) John Kerry admitted in thier speeches that the war was founded on a lie.
The evidence is there on YouTube for anyone to see. I never could see why everyone loved that speech so much. Even at the time, I thought it was poorly-delivered boilerplate stuff.
I've never been impressed by the guy's rhetorical ability, and I can't believe that he is considered a magnetic speaker.
(Then again, do we have ANY great orators these days? I've asked that before, and have yet to receive any heartening replies. The only political speaker who enchanted me this season was Elizabeth Kucinich. It's the accent. Slays me every time. I confess my weaknesses.)
Elizabeth seems like a nice person, but her husband is an absolute ass. Of all of the candidates I met in person during the Nevada caucus campaign (and I met seven of the eight Democratic candidates--Gravel didn't campaign here--and three Republican candidates), Dennis Kucinich was the only one I really didn't like. He was all ego, the stereotypical short guy, and he couldn't be bothered with people who waited a long time and came to the convention center in the snow to see him. No, it was much more important to him to go to the local radio station and give an interview rather than to take the time to meet and greet with supporters. He was a total ass. I was one of the few out of hundreds who met with him and got his autograph. He was a jerk though, and he should have stuck around until the end. Nobody else who campaigned in Reno who I saw in person, including Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, were that way.
I think Al Sharpton is a great orator, and my beloved John Kerry is still good, although he has to prepare to be great.
I would really be interested in knowing where Mark Karlin stood in 2002. As I remember it, he was defending the 2002 authorization but I may be remembering wrong.
Post a Comment