so i just read this article in the post. Mr Krauthammer not only has a funny name, but also has a problem with the assertion that McCain wants to occupy Iraq for a century.
McCain never clarified hos position. Look at the quotes the he provides.
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
the thing is that Americans are being killed and wounded on a daily basis. another thing is that we were allies from the beginning with South Korea, and Japan submitted and accepted our presence. Iraq neither wanted us there to begin with and isnt submitting in any way. i dont see how you can claim that we will stay in Iraq for any time and expect that no harm will come to our troops.
Krauthammer attacks the Democrats for making the jump from a presence to a war, but with the previous thoughts in mind, its more of a baby step than a jump. and if McCain was thinking something else, wouldnt he have called out Obama and Clinton for distorting his words? has he?
the title of the article is "A Rank Falsehood." what Obama and Clinton claim about McCain is not a falsehood at all. its an interpretation given the statement and the conditions in Iraq. the falsehood is the idea that American troops can remain in Iraq without being harmed. its just not a viable idea. im not saying that some, perhaps many, want us there, and need us there. but there is no way we can stay without casualties. there are enough people there who hate us for being there. who will stop at nothing to make us leave, and it is naive to think that our soldiers could remain there without a threat to their safety. Iraq is not Japan. Iraq is not South Korea.
perhaps this is a misunderstanding. but if McCain misunderstands the situation should he really be president? but i am fairly sure that McCain does understand, which is why you havent heard him decry with the Democrats are saying. but that doesnt stop people like Krauthammer from defending an untenable position. and since McCain hasnt corrected Clinton and Obama, then it must not be that far from the truth. keep that in mind as you choose who to vote for.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Man in Black
today im taking a cue from Johnny Cash. today is the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq. im not going to make a comment on the politics, the money, the right or the wrong. i simply want to express my sadness for all those who have lost loved ones. thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis have perished, and no end is in sight. today im wearing the black to mourn the thousands who have died, and who will die. and my heart goes out to those who have lost someone to the war.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
13% of Americans think that Barack Obama is Muslim. i found this out when i was watching the news and eating my breakfast this morning. the bit started out with them interviewing random people on the streets of NYC to see what they would say. and at first, i felt a bit embarrassed as i wasnt sure, but i thought he was Christian, which, in fact, he is.
then i realized something. if i cared i would have known, im sure of that. so then i felt pretty happy realizing that the major candidate that i like best could have been a Muslim and i didnt care. he could be Jewish or an atheist, it really doesnt matter to me.
it was one of those realizations that you have to step outside yourself a bit to make. whether Senator Obama practices Christianity or Islam doesnt matter to me, and i really only realized when the news made a point about the perceptions of the public, and somewhat covertly about how believing that Obama was not Christian would affect their vote. im very happy that i can see past this and be able to look issues that really should matter when selecting a candidate.
this reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Keith Ellison in his choice to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office as the first Muslim US congressman. there was a call for him to use the Bible, which makes no sense to me. the oath of office is taken over a holy book in order to promise to not just your constituents, but also to your deepest faith, to take your position seriously and abide by your values that got you elected and to honor your promises. having a Muslim take such an oath over the Bible is like a Christian saying "by Allah, i swear i will do my best." it means nothing. (check out the un-bias in this article)
the point here is that too much is made of things that really shouldnt be of great importance. have you heard anything of Keith Ellison since he was sworn into office? has he tried to topple our government from the inside? it really doesnt matter, and it doesnt matter that Obama has a Muslim father. it doesnt matter that Obama is in fact Christian. what matters is what he stands for.
i also find it interesting that the religious right attacks his links to Islam through his father and step father, they also take the opportunity to attack his connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright has come to light lately and his sermons have been all over youtube. Obama has tried to distance himself from the man who baptized his children and married he and his wife, Michelle. its hard to ignore this connection. i dont see it as a liability, but many could. i like Ralph Nader, but i wholly disagree with some things he says. i like Rolling Stone magazine, but i think the lean a little too far left and sometimes go too far in endorsing and denouncing candidates. the point is that Wright probably helped Obama by encouraging his early political activism in Chicago, but that doesnt meant that Obama stands for all that Wright does. just like Obama's enrollment in a Muslim school does not mean he is in fact Muslim.
the important thing here is not what religion Obama is. its not who Obama is associated with, or whose sermons he has heard. the important thing is to look at the candidates yourself. to see who they are through your own eyes. dont let media spin make your decisions. dont let me make your decisions. take it all in, do your own research, and decide for yourself. then cast your vote for the person who you think will do best on the job.
i think that Obama's exposure to Islam and Christianity alike make him the best suited of all candidates to understand and better the situation in the middle east. he has already made trips to Iraq, Israel, and Syria. i think that he above the other candidates is best suited for diplomacy in that troubled region of the world. but its no up to me. its up to you and me.
then i realized something. if i cared i would have known, im sure of that. so then i felt pretty happy realizing that the major candidate that i like best could have been a Muslim and i didnt care. he could be Jewish or an atheist, it really doesnt matter to me.
it was one of those realizations that you have to step outside yourself a bit to make. whether Senator Obama practices Christianity or Islam doesnt matter to me, and i really only realized when the news made a point about the perceptions of the public, and somewhat covertly about how believing that Obama was not Christian would affect their vote. im very happy that i can see past this and be able to look issues that really should matter when selecting a candidate.
this reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Keith Ellison in his choice to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office as the first Muslim US congressman. there was a call for him to use the Bible, which makes no sense to me. the oath of office is taken over a holy book in order to promise to not just your constituents, but also to your deepest faith, to take your position seriously and abide by your values that got you elected and to honor your promises. having a Muslim take such an oath over the Bible is like a Christian saying "by Allah, i swear i will do my best." it means nothing. (check out the un-bias in this article)
the point here is that too much is made of things that really shouldnt be of great importance. have you heard anything of Keith Ellison since he was sworn into office? has he tried to topple our government from the inside? it really doesnt matter, and it doesnt matter that Obama has a Muslim father. it doesnt matter that Obama is in fact Christian. what matters is what he stands for.
i also find it interesting that the religious right attacks his links to Islam through his father and step father, they also take the opportunity to attack his connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright has come to light lately and his sermons have been all over youtube. Obama has tried to distance himself from the man who baptized his children and married he and his wife, Michelle. its hard to ignore this connection. i dont see it as a liability, but many could. i like Ralph Nader, but i wholly disagree with some things he says. i like Rolling Stone magazine, but i think the lean a little too far left and sometimes go too far in endorsing and denouncing candidates. the point is that Wright probably helped Obama by encouraging his early political activism in Chicago, but that doesnt meant that Obama stands for all that Wright does. just like Obama's enrollment in a Muslim school does not mean he is in fact Muslim.
the important thing here is not what religion Obama is. its not who Obama is associated with, or whose sermons he has heard. the important thing is to look at the candidates yourself. to see who they are through your own eyes. dont let media spin make your decisions. dont let me make your decisions. take it all in, do your own research, and decide for yourself. then cast your vote for the person who you think will do best on the job.
i think that Obama's exposure to Islam and Christianity alike make him the best suited of all candidates to understand and better the situation in the middle east. he has already made trips to Iraq, Israel, and Syria. i think that he above the other candidates is best suited for diplomacy in that troubled region of the world. but its no up to me. its up to you and me.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
a rebuttal to a rebuttal.
be fore you read my rebuttal, you should probably read the article here.
Mr. Hitchens goes to great lengths to try and shoot holes in the argument of Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stigliz, but makes no real point in his article, despite the title which might lead someone to believe that the struggle in Iraq is entirely worth the $12 billion a month we are currently spending and all that we have already spent.
Hitchens asserts in his article that Iraq was not a war of choice. well i personally havent seen a real reason for it yet. and he presented nothing new. nothing at all really. people have said that Saddam was a despot, but such was the case when we funded him in fighting Iran, was it not? i heard that he had weapons of mass destruction. we all did. then we found out that was entirely false. sure intelligence is not infallible, but it should be damn accurate when thousands of American, and many fold Iraqi citizens', lives are at stake. am i wrong?
his next argument is that the article he is picking apart contains the flawed logic that they only calculated the cost of the war and didnt compare it to the cost of not going to war and imposing diplomatic and military measures to cripple and oust Saddam. i have to say that Mr Hitchens is correct on this point. But i can counter that a couple of ways.
first, the war, including indirect costs, all of which is in the original article that Hitchens attacks, has cost the US $3 trillion dollars. 3 trillion. THREE FUCKING TRILLION. there is no way that embargoes, enforcing no fly zones, restricting trade and dimplomacy could have come close to that figure. thats almost a quarter of the total US gross domestic product last year. im sure that has nothing to do with the looming r-word.
second, and more importantly than any monetary amount, Hitchens completely fails to take the human cost into account. tell any soldier's young widow that the war is worth the cost, worth her husband dying, and see what she says. look a dead soldier's mother in the eye and tell her that her child's life is just the price we have to pay. and pay for what, i might add. anarchy?
Hitchens also addresses the costs of keeping Saddam in power, which i havent seen any figures on, he is quite correct in that. i want to emphasize at this point that i in no way sympathize with Saddam Hussein. he was a terrible person and ran a ruthless cold blooded government that repressed, tortured and slaughtered its own people. its hard to know when to get involved. and in this case even worse because of the way the US once supported and funded the same man that we effectively brought to the gallows. at what point do we say that you cannot behave in that same way that you did and that we funded you to do? why, after years of this, did the US deem it necessary to end it and send to the slaughter our own men and women?
he next asks that we take into account the value that the future independent Iraq will be a third party to the petroleum duopoly of Saudi Arabia and Iran. talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. plus, those chickens arent even ours. and who says that Iraq is going to look favorably on us whenever they come to run their country and oil. there will be people who have grown up entirely under US occupation and relative anarchy. i doubt that their view of the US will be all that magnanimous. and i thought this war wasnt about the oil...
next, Hitchens notes that our troops have gained valuable experience in fighting terrorist groups such as Al-Queada. sure they have. but i doubt that would be nearly as big of concern had we not sent the country and region into anarchy. plus, where are his calculations on how many troops have lost their lives to IEDs, guerrilla attacks, and suicide bombers in the process? learning to fight a foe that we in large part created with the Iraq war is circular logic at its best. to expand an analogy i have used before, this logic is like repeatedly shitting in youre bed, then saying that doing this has allowed you to become very good at cleaning up shit in your bed.
Mr Hitchens completes his article by making fun of Bilmes and Stigliz. and while i cannot say that they were entirely correct in their calculations, it just seems like a low blow. he then suggests that all the money that Obama and Clinton have raised should be used to help resolve poverty, which is again a low blow at the left, and a surprisingly civic minded thing to come from such a right side voice.
ill end by saying that Hitchens is dead on in that most war cost calculations fail to take into account a cost of other options. but he, and we, must acknowledge that war is an expensive proposition. that there is no way that no war is more expensive that a prolonged war that adds $13 TRILLION every month. i certainly cannot say that anything we have achieved there has been worth the loss in life. there is no way that this war in Iraq has been worth it. no way.
Mr. Hitchens goes to great lengths to try and shoot holes in the argument of Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stigliz, but makes no real point in his article, despite the title which might lead someone to believe that the struggle in Iraq is entirely worth the $12 billion a month we are currently spending and all that we have already spent.
Hitchens asserts in his article that Iraq was not a war of choice. well i personally havent seen a real reason for it yet. and he presented nothing new. nothing at all really. people have said that Saddam was a despot, but such was the case when we funded him in fighting Iran, was it not? i heard that he had weapons of mass destruction. we all did. then we found out that was entirely false. sure intelligence is not infallible, but it should be damn accurate when thousands of American, and many fold Iraqi citizens', lives are at stake. am i wrong?
his next argument is that the article he is picking apart contains the flawed logic that they only calculated the cost of the war and didnt compare it to the cost of not going to war and imposing diplomatic and military measures to cripple and oust Saddam. i have to say that Mr Hitchens is correct on this point. But i can counter that a couple of ways.
first, the war, including indirect costs, all of which is in the original article that Hitchens attacks, has cost the US $3 trillion dollars. 3 trillion. THREE FUCKING TRILLION. there is no way that embargoes, enforcing no fly zones, restricting trade and dimplomacy could have come close to that figure. thats almost a quarter of the total US gross domestic product last year. im sure that has nothing to do with the looming r-word.
second, and more importantly than any monetary amount, Hitchens completely fails to take the human cost into account. tell any soldier's young widow that the war is worth the cost, worth her husband dying, and see what she says. look a dead soldier's mother in the eye and tell her that her child's life is just the price we have to pay. and pay for what, i might add. anarchy?
Hitchens also addresses the costs of keeping Saddam in power, which i havent seen any figures on, he is quite correct in that. i want to emphasize at this point that i in no way sympathize with Saddam Hussein. he was a terrible person and ran a ruthless cold blooded government that repressed, tortured and slaughtered its own people. its hard to know when to get involved. and in this case even worse because of the way the US once supported and funded the same man that we effectively brought to the gallows. at what point do we say that you cannot behave in that same way that you did and that we funded you to do? why, after years of this, did the US deem it necessary to end it and send to the slaughter our own men and women?
he next asks that we take into account the value that the future independent Iraq will be a third party to the petroleum duopoly of Saudi Arabia and Iran. talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. plus, those chickens arent even ours. and who says that Iraq is going to look favorably on us whenever they come to run their country and oil. there will be people who have grown up entirely under US occupation and relative anarchy. i doubt that their view of the US will be all that magnanimous. and i thought this war wasnt about the oil...
next, Hitchens notes that our troops have gained valuable experience in fighting terrorist groups such as Al-Queada. sure they have. but i doubt that would be nearly as big of concern had we not sent the country and region into anarchy. plus, where are his calculations on how many troops have lost their lives to IEDs, guerrilla attacks, and suicide bombers in the process? learning to fight a foe that we in large part created with the Iraq war is circular logic at its best. to expand an analogy i have used before, this logic is like repeatedly shitting in youre bed, then saying that doing this has allowed you to become very good at cleaning up shit in your bed.
Mr Hitchens completes his article by making fun of Bilmes and Stigliz. and while i cannot say that they were entirely correct in their calculations, it just seems like a low blow. he then suggests that all the money that Obama and Clinton have raised should be used to help resolve poverty, which is again a low blow at the left, and a surprisingly civic minded thing to come from such a right side voice.
ill end by saying that Hitchens is dead on in that most war cost calculations fail to take into account a cost of other options. but he, and we, must acknowledge that war is an expensive proposition. that there is no way that no war is more expensive that a prolonged war that adds $13 TRILLION every month. i certainly cannot say that anything we have achieved there has been worth the loss in life. there is no way that this war in Iraq has been worth it. no way.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Effect and Cause
i was listening to Icky Thump by the White Stripes on the way to work this morning. i have always really like the last song, Effect and Cause. and i kind of thought that it was the best come back to what John McCain has been spouting lately.
he has said repeatedly that 'we are where we are.' which has about as much substance as Jessica Simpson. really, i thought that we are where we were from what hes been saying. all the while claiming that he has the record to prove he is the one to lead. but then he missed the vote on the economic stimulus package. the economy has got to be in the top 3 of just about everybody's big issues this election year. if not the issue that determines who they will vote for.
so McCain is basically saying "dont look at the past, we need to focus on the present. and what makes me best to lead in the present is my past, which shouldnt be looked at, but trust me its what qualifies me." he is pulling a Bush/Cheney and riding the Iraq war, terrorism, and fear to success. he has made these issues his cause, but in reality they are the three musketeers' effect and legacy, not the cause. I dont understand how the republicans have been able to run on the same issues for more than 6 years.
now if we focus on what McCain is doing now, its not so bad, but what he has proposed for the future is a little scary. he has admitted that he doesnt know jack about the economy and says that we will be in Iraq for another 100 years. i dont understand how people can consider voting for a candidate that says these things. in contrast Obama has denounced NAFTA in an appeal to bring back jobs lost to our neighbors to the north and south. mostly south. he has also pushed to withdraw troops as quickly as possible and push for talks with Iran and other hostile nations. while this sounds better to me than McCain, its still has its problems as Michael Gerson of the Washington Post lays out.
the issue i have here is that McCain is deliberately redirecting our attention to a cause that is really the effect of what he is in large part responsible for. Obama and Clinton have made promises that are unlikely to be honored, mostly because they sound good, the idea is right, but as president all actions must be calculated, thought through thoroughly, and planned out. one cant shoot first and ask questions later or you end up in a prolonged conflict with people you dont really understand, hemorrhaging money in a place where you didnt belong in in the first place.
what we cant do is allow McCain to get away with turning a horrible thing that he is at least partially responsible for into a cause that he can ride to the white house. its like if i came into your house and crapped in your bed, then said 'i am the one to resolve this problem! over the next month we will use a tooth pick to slowly remove the shit, then leave the sheets on the bed for the next year, and maybe, sometime after that, we will rinse off the sheets.' when any idiot can see that you kick the asshole who fucked up your house out, clean up the mess, and get on with life.
people keep saying that this is an historic election, what with a black guy, and girl, and and old white guy vying for the presidency. but its also historic because of what is at stake. the economy, the war, the renewal of real diplomacy, the restoration of fundamental American rights, and restoring the world's respect for the US. i have been pointing the finger at McCain, but i have little more confidence in Clinton, and a bit more for Obama, but i fear that none of them is really bringing America together and proposing realistic solutions.
like i said before, ill probably become disenfranchised by the time of the election and vote for someone like Ralph Nader. while i dont agree with all that he says, he does address the issues at hand, propose solutions to them, and seem to actually care about America and Americans.
woe is me. when i think about the future, i get scared. maybe ill move to Denmark, not have to worry about social issues, work 3o hours a week, and stay out of the worlds business. except for the occasional inflammatory cartoon...
he has said repeatedly that 'we are where we are.' which has about as much substance as Jessica Simpson. really, i thought that we are where we were from what hes been saying. all the while claiming that he has the record to prove he is the one to lead. but then he missed the vote on the economic stimulus package. the economy has got to be in the top 3 of just about everybody's big issues this election year. if not the issue that determines who they will vote for.
so McCain is basically saying "dont look at the past, we need to focus on the present. and what makes me best to lead in the present is my past, which shouldnt be looked at, but trust me its what qualifies me." he is pulling a Bush/Cheney and riding the Iraq war, terrorism, and fear to success. he has made these issues his cause, but in reality they are the three musketeers' effect and legacy, not the cause. I dont understand how the republicans have been able to run on the same issues for more than 6 years.
now if we focus on what McCain is doing now, its not so bad, but what he has proposed for the future is a little scary. he has admitted that he doesnt know jack about the economy and says that we will be in Iraq for another 100 years. i dont understand how people can consider voting for a candidate that says these things. in contrast Obama has denounced NAFTA in an appeal to bring back jobs lost to our neighbors to the north and south. mostly south. he has also pushed to withdraw troops as quickly as possible and push for talks with Iran and other hostile nations. while this sounds better to me than McCain, its still has its problems as Michael Gerson of the Washington Post lays out.
the issue i have here is that McCain is deliberately redirecting our attention to a cause that is really the effect of what he is in large part responsible for. Obama and Clinton have made promises that are unlikely to be honored, mostly because they sound good, the idea is right, but as president all actions must be calculated, thought through thoroughly, and planned out. one cant shoot first and ask questions later or you end up in a prolonged conflict with people you dont really understand, hemorrhaging money in a place where you didnt belong in in the first place.
what we cant do is allow McCain to get away with turning a horrible thing that he is at least partially responsible for into a cause that he can ride to the white house. its like if i came into your house and crapped in your bed, then said 'i am the one to resolve this problem! over the next month we will use a tooth pick to slowly remove the shit, then leave the sheets on the bed for the next year, and maybe, sometime after that, we will rinse off the sheets.' when any idiot can see that you kick the asshole who fucked up your house out, clean up the mess, and get on with life.
people keep saying that this is an historic election, what with a black guy, and girl, and and old white guy vying for the presidency. but its also historic because of what is at stake. the economy, the war, the renewal of real diplomacy, the restoration of fundamental American rights, and restoring the world's respect for the US. i have been pointing the finger at McCain, but i have little more confidence in Clinton, and a bit more for Obama, but i fear that none of them is really bringing America together and proposing realistic solutions.
like i said before, ill probably become disenfranchised by the time of the election and vote for someone like Ralph Nader. while i dont agree with all that he says, he does address the issues at hand, propose solutions to them, and seem to actually care about America and Americans.
woe is me. when i think about the future, i get scared. maybe ill move to Denmark, not have to worry about social issues, work 3o hours a week, and stay out of the worlds business. except for the occasional inflammatory cartoon...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
