Another thing the debate brought home to me is something Matt Yglesias complains about frequently. Both candidates claimed that Democrats understand national security and terrorism issues better than Republicans (”Democrats have a much better grasp of the reality of the situation,” as Hillary put it), and both agreed that a successful Democratic candidate would need to be able to make that case to the public. Obama thought he could make that case better because he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, while Clinton thought she could make the case better because she’s better prepared. But neither of them actually made that case. Both Obama and Clinton had a national stage where they had more time than usual to explain the liberal position on how to combat terrorism and make the world safer, and neither of them did it. They just said they needed to do it.
And they’re right. They do need to do that. So why didn’t they start last night?
The answer to Kevin’s question is blindingly obvious, and it could only escape someone who has bought heart and soul into the proposition that Americans are lined up 100% with liberals on Iraq and the war on terror.
They aren’t. This is still a primary…a Democratic primary. It’s necessary for Obama and Clinton to avoid trying to explain the liberal position on how to combat terrorism for two reasons: 1) There is no consensus liberal position on the matter, and 2) Anything they try to flesh out in this regard will get them branded as “warmongers” and “GOP Lite” by the netroots.
Democrats don’t want to combat terrorism right now. They want to pretend it doesn’t exist, then “police “it when it next occurs on US soil. That’s not a great message to put before the American public, and the Democratic candidates know it.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Netroots, Politics
….They want to pretend it doesn’t exist, then “police “it when it next occurs on US soil. That’s not a great message to put before the American public, and the Democratic candidates know it.
And here’s to you mrs robinson… jesus loves you more than you will know…. wohhh wohh wohhh…..
One word for you my boy….
CHINA.
That’s right. South East Asia. Black Gold. Middle East Tea.
Guess what mr genious…. what exactly do you suppose China is thinking? Comedy. That’s right. Comedy.
This is why… you see we borrow 700 BILLION (with a “B”) and blow up bridges in Iraq. We borrow 700 Billion to blow up bridges and then fix them… In Iraq.
Did I mention where we are borrowing the 700 Billion Dollars?
CHINA.
Meanwhile, while you keystone cops are running all over the middle east with your stupid fire fighter outfits on looking under every rock for the next hooka smoking camel jocky who might shoot at you…….
China is financing development and fostering relationships with Iran and the other oil rich Arab states – because they will need… guess what….. OIL.
Soooo… we borrow 700 Billion dollars to play cowboy in the desert while the Chinese are watching old John Wayne reruns and the Gipper in black and white B movies.. and laughing all the way to the bank in Dubai.
You friggen idiot! 19 guys who we had in our gunsights slipped away because we were too f-ing busy at the ATM in Shanghi to keep our eye on the ball. The get on our planes and kill 3000 of our fellow citizens. Definite failure of INTELLEGENCE!!!!. So know, because that gave us a big ole boner for rag heads,(no offence to muslims just saying so you can understand), off we go blowing revelry in the desert sands chasing them on camels in caves and mountain passes with over half of our military capaiblity on the ground.
WELL ISNT THAT JUST WONDERFUL.
Oh. yeah… almost forgot IMANUTJOB in Iran. Since we will have over two thirds of our military capability (up a quarter because of suicide rates and low recruiting) – parked next door in Iraq for the next hundred years… Why don’t we do some straight talking and realize there are going to be “more wars”. So we send the rest of the boys over and here were are in a dozen years or so, dusty worn out broken down tired and sad…. because YOU rightwingnut republican NEOCONs know best.
Right.
did i mention CHINA anywhere along the way… hmmmm.
Now a few more words for you.
Taiwan.
South Korea.
Eastern Europe.
The Middle East.
Just a curious question… which do you think is more urgent and worthy of attention.
A wheazing, turbin headed windbag with really bad kindneys, who your grandmother could take out if we actualy spent some time looking for him – or… (pay attention now)
CHINA.
Who will have aircraft carriers, ballistic intercontinental missles, spy sattelits, missle defense systems, the ability to shoot down our satellites, a moon base, and lest I forget…. SEVERAL BILLION PEOPLE.
Soooooooooooo now ….. since the Junior Senator from Illinois is the only Presidential Candidate of Either Party to actually GET IT… and articulate that we have much, much larger issues, and much greater opportunities keeping our eyes on the STRATEGIC BALL.
I salute the man.
And I voted for him….. one for the Gipper afterall!!!!
Sorry, but you are only making half sense.
Indeed, China is the sleeper issue that requires more attention than it is getting right now.
But as you also mentioned, part of that reason is because of their interest in oil and the Middle East.
How are we going to address that interest in the ME while we are removing our presence from it? If anything, the Chineese interest there requires us to maintain our presence in the region, not run from it, as Obama would have us do.
Iran is a non issue. DinnerJacket isn’t going to make it past their next election. Iranians don’t like his foreign policy or saber rattling. And contrary to what fear-mongers would have you believe, Iran’s weekly “DEATH TO (INSERT WESTERN NATION HERE)” protests are nothing more than government propoganda, and not reflective of the basic Iranian on the street. They don’t have any more interest in taking us on than we do of taking them on.
The Suadis are useless to us. Egypt is useless to us. Israel is useless to us. The only chance we have at a stable presence in the Middle East is to succeed in Iraq. And that is the only geopolitical strategy to counter the Chineese spread of influence in the region.
Thanks Red Pill.
ya.. I know a bit of a rant… sorry. a bit of a cartoon writing style when I get on one of those rolls.
Anyway –
Point being is that we all recognize terrorists are a threat. (terrorism)- emphasis ISM. especially islamofacism- …. ISM …. is quite a different matter.
Actually both Romney and Obama want to focus our activities against terrorists with targeted special operations forces drawn from all branches. No doubt we must continue the offensive heat on the extreamist.
The real policy matter that Obama is addressing in his campaign is that we simply cannot extend ourselves and continue to borrow money from China to finance it.
I think what we need is a President that will go to Bejiing and forge the ties for cooperation both economically and militarily that will transcend the current unilateral policy actions we are engaged in.
Every nation on earth knows that radical members of any religious or narrow ideological group represent an assymetrical threat to stability. In the age of Nuclear Weapons – it is in everyones intrest to find common security goals and work on them together.
I look back to the GHW Bush administration handeling of the first gulf war. People like Collen Powell, and General Swartzkoph. Wow. Brilliant. That is the kind of STRATEGIC cooperation and action we need to hold to.
You know.. not to minimize the tragedy whatsoever… but if a gang of druglords goes on a drive by shooting spree in the LA and kills a bunch of innocent bystanders who are kids… The govenor doesnt call in the national guard with TANKS and APCs backed by hellicopter gunships and the US Navy to deal with the problem. First because a lot more innocent people are going to die in the crossfire – second because he knows that is not the solution to an assymetrical problem of death and destruction.
The Armed Forces of the United States are a leathal killing machine of war. They are only to be used in the objectives of defending this nation from immanent STRATEGIC threats. It is appropriate to assign elements of our “special forces” to specific TACTICAL objectives. Howerver, our massive strategic forces ARE NOT… and I repeat… are not charged by WE THE PEOPLE to the task of nation building or democratic Imperialism.
The great “decider” – decided wrong.
I appreciate the conversation.
A vast majority of liberals either believe A. there IS no WOT, its all a boogie man Boosh made up to seize more power and start wars, or 2. there should BE no WOT because the US is an evil influence on the world, and the best case scenario would be for America to LOSE its dominance and ability to project its power in any way- and a good start is to just stop using it.
That’s 2 reasons why its tough for any Democrat to talk about the WOT in any way shape or form- the hard left is totally against the proposition there is a WOT or that if there is, we should fight it.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
That’s great twc, nice thread-mining. Can you find anything newer than 7 months old?
That’s an eternity in this election. Hell, Rudy was the front-runner then!
Ah yes, twc: The abandon Iraq and start threatening (nuclear armed) Pakistan plan. Leavened with extra special magic pixie dust that will send NATO swooning into President Obama’s arms, eager to provide the help in Afghanistan that they’ve denied us so far.
The rest of that speech? More pixie dust. We’ll redefine the way the extremists see the US? A $2bn fund to “counter” the message being taught at the madrassas? Travel to a “major Islamic forum” to deliver a speech? Not Nancy Pelosi and a handful of malcontents, but the President of the United States of America going to a Muslim forum hat in hand?
I’ve a feeling that speech wouldn’t go over so well today, given the way Democrats have decided they’ve lost the fight in Congress over Iraq. They lost it because they were never able to build a groundswell of public support for abandoning that effort, and that’s exactly what Obama’s calling for here.
doc: your statement that “vast majority of liberals” believe that there is no war on terror or that if there is the U.S. should lose it is utter hogwash and a figment of your own imagination. I linked to the remarks of one of the two candidates who will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, both of whom are liberals, discussing the war on terror — something you said was tough for any Democrat to do. Feel free to post some data that supports the position you ascribe to the “vast majority of liberals.”
As for your request that I find something newer, is five days too old? He continues to express the same basic conception to foreign policy and the war on terror — as you probably know. This is Obama in Denver, Colorado on January 30, 2008:
“We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that’s exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It’s not enough to say you’ll be ready from Day One – you have to be right from Day One.
I opposed this war in Iraq from the start, and I have never, ever wavered in that opposition. I warned about taking our eye off of Osama bin Laden, and overstretching our troops and their families as we have seen in communities across this country like Fort Carson. And when I am President, I will immediately begin to remove our troops, I will finally put meaningful pressure on Iraq’s leaders to reconcile, and I will end this war. And I will do what we should have done back in 2002: increase our commitment to Afghanistan, press Pakistan to take action against terror, and finish the fight with al Qaeda.
I will challenge the conventional thinking that says we can’t conduct diplomacy with leaders we don’t like. Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries as well as their friends, and that’s what I’ll do. And when I am President, we will keep nuclear weapons from terrorists by securing all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term in office. We will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we will pursue it.
It’s time for new leadership that reaches out, as President Kennedy did to my own father, to people ‘in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery.’
It’s time to restore our moral leadership by rejecting torture without equivocation; by closing Guantanamo; by restoring habeas corpus; and by again being that light of justice to dissidents in prison camps around the globe. It’s time for America to lead the world against the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and nuclear weapons, but also climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, ‘You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.’
This is what the moment demands of us – to cast off our doubts; to reach once more for what America can be if we have the courage to make the future our own. ‘
Joe: As you probably saw, a top Al Qaeda commander, Abu Laith al-Libi, believed responsible for plotting a number of attacks on U.S., Afghan and coalition forces, was killed in Pakistan Thursday by an American missile strike. This was not as a result of pixie dust but rather of our leaning on Pakistan to work more effectively with our efforts to eliminate that threat there. That is exactly what Obama called for.
No pixie dust needed in Afghanistan, either. What’s needed is more American firepower and maneuver capability, much better intelligence, and a much more robust American and coalition involvement on all fronts, especially economic and diplomatic as well as military. Say, some reasonable fraction (one-fourth? one-third? maybe half?) of the energy, blood, treasure, and other resources we are currently pouring into Iraq. NATO will follow our lead with what they can. They’ve done a fair amount in Afghanistan so far, actually, but their military capabilities are tiny compared to ours and they’re getting restless at holding the bag year after year while we chase phantoms in Iraq. Obama’s position on Iraq is nearly identical to Hillary Clinton’s, but he emphasizes in particular the need to get re-engaged in the fight in Afghanistan.
The POTUS appearing at an Islamic forum to address the Muslim world directly would be a powerful action. The war on terror is, very obviously, in large part a struggle over the message that is heard and accepted by billions of people around the planet. Such an address, by such a President, at such a time, could make “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” look like throw-away line.
I don’t see Barack Obama as a messiah or a magical figure. But I do see him as a smart, principled, well-grounded and wise politician who can bring some much-needed change to a country that is badly in need of a new direction. He’ll make some mistakes. But I suspect he’ll acknowledge them and learn from them much more readily than Hillary Clinton or John McCain will — much less our current President.
I never said what I believe the candidates believe. I actually have no idea what they believe, because they pander as the wind blows. I do read a plethora of liberal blogs, however, and they constantly mock the “War on Terra” as they call it, the security alerts, the very idea that Al Qaeda is a threat to America. They chalk it up to the Bush Admin simply wanting to keep everyone scared, and refer to Republicans “shitting their pants” in fear of the Islamofascist boogieman.
You show me a post on DKos, Atrios, firedoglake, Digby, Ameriblog, MyDD, Pandagon, hell, any left wing blog that even admits there should be a WOT or that a real enemy exists: my point is, whatever they believe, they don’t talk much about it because the far left base doesn’t believe it.
And that was the question in the original post, why don’t Dem candidates address the matter. In the Dem debates, the liberal MSM moderators were very helpful in not bringing it up. The Dem chickenshits skipped the Fox debate, where it very well might have been mentioned. That, in fact, is probably why they bailed.
All that said, today in particular I’m pretty sick of right wing radio and repelled by the far right in their intemperate, unfair, unhinged and batshit crazy hatred for John McCain. The latest slander is that he got a free apartment in Hanoi, stocked with 2 hookers, where he really was when he claimed he was in solitary. That, combined with Rush “Big Pharma”’s continued ranting about how McCain “stabbed the party in the back” makes me consider him and his ilk as bad as the most rabid leftwingnut poster on Kos.
I’m heading more and more to the middle. If MoveOn had not endorsed Obama, I might even entertain the notion of voting for him, should Mitt Romney weasel and buy his way into the nomination. Its still a possibility.
In the news this morning: for the third time in the last three months, another American missile strike inside Pakistan has killed a number of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. Such a strike in late January killed one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants, Abu Laith al-Libi. This is, of course, what Barack Obama suggested some time ago might be an appropriate action under certain circumstances, for which he was criticized (including by some on these boards) as being recklessly hawkish — a departure from the usual criticism that he, his party, and his fellow liberals want to surrender to the terrorists or treat it solely as a police matter or a communications issue.
No word yet on whether pixie dust was involved, but nuclear armegeddon does not yet seem imminent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031600840.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Obama was either talking about more than missile strikes in Pakistan, or he has shown that he knows nothing about military strategy and capabilities. I’ll let you choose which one.
These comments are from the link you posted on 3 Feb.
There is the line that most people quarrel about. But there is more in that speech that can be read as escelating things in Pakistan.
Translation: Terrorists in Pakistan pose the largest threat to the safety of America and Afghanistan. And what is the basis for that claim?
Fair enough.
Surely Obama doesn’t think missiles can fly into caves to kill pockets of extremism. No. That takes troops on the ground. He either knows that and is advocating such action, or he is showing how unqualified he is to run a military.
Tora Bora showed us that bombs do not remove safe-havens for terrorists. Again, that requires troops to be put in harms way. He either knows that—or he doesn’t know that. He can’t have it both ways.
The main issue Musharraf brings up is permission from Pakistan to launch military operations in his country. I don’t see Obama mentioning that word when he speaks of striking in Pakistan. Do you know that we have not gotten that permission the last 3 times we struck?
Six months down the road and how does this thread look now? It appears that Sen. Obama’s ideas on how best to combat terrorism — ideas for which he took some criticism when he advanced them — have now become the consensus approach. Far from not wanting to combat terrorism, pretending it doesn’t exist and then merely “policing” it when it next appears on U.S. soil, Sen. Obama’s judgment on how to combat terrorism has been proven sound.
More than a year ago he stated that as President he would act to strike in Pakistan if we got specific Al Q targets in our sights and the Pakistanis couldn’t or wouldn’t act: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will” He was criticized for that along the lines of that posted on this thread, as being foolishly and naively hawkish, by Sen. Clinton among others. Since then, the Bush administration has adopted the policy he advocated and there have been at least three such deadly effective strikes that we know of.
Today’s news has confirmation from Al Qaeda of yet another U.S. airstrike that has taken out yet more high-level Al Qaeda operatives: the fourth time that strikes in Pakistan such as those he advocated have eliminated some of our enemies who attacked us on September 11, 2001.
No nuclear war on the horizon. No pixie dust required. Just good, sound foreign policy judgment.
Oh, and that stuff about needing “extra special magic pixie dust” to “send NATO swooning into President Obama’s arms?”
Having gone to Iraq, Afghanistan, the MIddle East, and Europe and having impressed both the people and their leaders, having said the following to a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin who were waving American flags and cheering:
I’d say Sen. Obama is pretty well-positioned to get some additional support from the NATO countries in the fight against Al Qaeda terrorists, should he win this election.