This is an ad from the Tennessee GOP attacking Michelle Obama. Here is Barack Obama's response.
The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.”
He called the strategy “low class.”
The video, posted on YouTube, centered on remarks Michelle Obama made while campaigning in Wisconsin last February, when she said: “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.”
In general, I agree with Barack Obama's sentiment, however there are a few things to keep in mind. First, Michelle Obama has thrust herself into the campaign. For instance, back in October she criticized Hillary Clinton.
ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: In advance of her trip tomorrow to fundraise overseas in London, Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., mirrored her husband's attacks this week going after frontrunner Hillary Clinton in an interview with the Sunday Times. You can read the article HERE.
Linking Hillary and Bill to old hat, Mrs. Obama compares them to "the same suit and defies the sense that Hillary is the "inevitable" candidate because she doesn't have the most money nor the biggest base of donors. Mrs. Obama also addresses the issue of Clinton being a polarizing figure.
Now, Barack Obama can't have it both ways. He can't allow his wife to be an attack dog, while then maintaining she is off limits. Furthermore, Michelle Obama has on many occasions criticized the political system
We live in isolation, and because of that isolation we fear one another.
Because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.
Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed
Remember, Barack Obama has made a theme of the so called broken political system that he is going to fix. Now, if she is going to be an attack dog against that system, then he makes her fair game.
Furthermore, her remarks paint the picture of an individual that is cynical and unhappy and that is the polar opposite of the theme that Barack Obama is trying to present. If his wife is totally cynical about America, how will he bring hope to the rest of the country? Furthermore, most of the comments that Michelle Obama has made are laced with pompous elitism and narcissism. The ones I just referenced basically say that the only hope for the fatally flawed America is her husband.
Now, it should be noted that if Abraham Lincoln had a 24 hour news cycle then his wife would have likely cost him the Presidency. Mary Lincoln was a schizophrenic with a history of all sorts of crazy behavior. Had the 24 hour news cycle gotten a hold of this information his entire campaign would have likely been derailed. Thus, we must be careful just how much we go after spouses.
That said, the final problem for Obama is that it continues a pattern where every criticism is met with righteous indignation. Every single time he is attacked it is a distraction. Reverend Wright was a distraction, Bill Ayers, the Bush speech at the Knesset was a veiled attack and now his wife is also a distraction. At some point, people start to notice that the candidate just doesn't like being attacked.
28 comments:
I think the door is open to not so much attack her, as how can you attack someone with words they said? I say go for it, she has inserted herself as a part of his campaign by tagging others, turnabout is fair play.
That's a good point though don't forget that the 24 hour news cycle would have butchered Mary Lincoln with her own words, though I don't know how much she spoke on policy matters.
Obviously, this is a dicey proposition. The spouse is never a very good target, however what Michelle Obama has said is to me perfectly legitimate and something that they need to explain. She has a pattern of cynical and anti American statements. That is a legitimate campaign issue.
If she is going to campaign for her husband and criticize his opponents she's fair game. Voters have a right to know what a candidate's closest advisor really thinks.
If in politics, wives are fair game, it is perhaps only within the repub party. Otherwise, back in 2000 and again in 2004, we would have witnessed some Democratic state party group posting You Tubes about Laura Bush’s role in the death of one of her “exes” (she skated on a potential motor vehicle homicide charge – ran a red light resulting in his death). I can see the title now: “Death by Association.”
The truth is, other than George W. Bush, few things are more threatening to the prospect of continued republican control of the White House than Barack Obama. The GOP is having so much trouble dealing with the substance of the issues Barack raises that these machos have resorted to playing bully boy against his WIFE!
It’s the GOP’s pathetic standard operating procedure, of course, but it helps illustrate the vacuous nature of the republican party when it comes to issues on which they can run a presidential campaign. What’s it going to be, Mike? Iraq? The economy? Gas prices? President Bush’s “accomplishments” in office? Political corruption?
The repubs cannot attack him on any of these issues because they’ve so royally screwed up on them all. Thus, they are reduced to piteous personal attacks on the patriotism of individuals who love America so much, that they now labor to save it from the death grip of the present day GOP.
Unlike you, Mike, the voters of America are a bit too sophisticated to reject a candidate on the basis of a poor choice of words by that candidate’s wife.
It’s substance time, Mike. America has learned the hard way that presidential qualifications extend far beyond the fool’s question of “who would be more suited to have a beer with” — the “quality” if you will, that helped get Bush his votes.
America has move beyond such piss-poor standards, Mike. When will you?
What a red herring comparing Laura Bush to Michelle Obama. Are you actually comparing something Laura Bush did when she was 17 to something that Michelle Obama said on the campaign trail? Laura Bush never inserted herself into the campaign. She never attacked her opponents and certainly not her country.
Furthermore, this is not an either or question. We can debate gas prices, Iraq, the economy, Iran, and talk about Michelle Obama's penchant for anti American comments. This will be one of the longest campaigns ever. It will last more than a year and a half. We have time for everything.
As you can see, we are now in the middle of a substantive debate on diplomacy with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Barack Obama thinks we ought to speak to him with NO pre conditions. I disagree vigorously and so does John McCain.
I welcome any debate with any liberal about the future of Iraq. I welcome any debate with anyone that thinks it is wise to pull troops out precipitously because that is also a substantive debate.
I have long ago pointed out that both parties have stuck it to the people on gas prices. If you think the Reps are wicked and the Dems are pure on gasoline you are just a typical partisan. While the Dems force stoppage of replinishing the strategic oil reserve they refuse to allow drilling in eight different places that would cut 70% from the price of oil. Don't pretend like the Dems, in bed with the environmentalists, are pure. The Reps are of course protecting the oil companies like their family works there so they are no less pure, but I know that I present the evidence straight as opposed to the partisan rhetoric you just presented on every issue.
Are you actually comparing something Laura Bush did when she was 17 to something that Michelle Obama said on the campaign trail?
-------------------------
Why not? If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. As I said earlier, this "red herring" style of politics comes straight out of the GOP playbook.
As for the wisdom of pulling out troops from Iraq; the true issue here is the questionable degree of wisdom exercised by Bush in sending them there in the first place. No diplomacy, just “shock and awe.” Now look where that has gotten us.
Regardless of the role some democrats played in providing authorization and funding (based on “evidence” supplied by the “in-over-its-head” Bush administration), the war and its resulting effect as a recruiting tool for Islamic extremists and its buttressing of Iran’s stature is the product of the woeful exercise of “judgment” by an inept Commander-in-Chief.
War is the failure of intelligence and not solely of the clandestine variety. It is the failure of the type of intelligence that comes in the form of skillful diplomacy that can prevent the use of arms and save thousands of lives, both American and Iraqi. This is what Obama brings. This is what Bush and Co. lack.
Having said that, it is useful as well as revealing to bear in mind that the vast majority of politicians who disapproved the authorization and funding of the war, and who insisted on the continued use of diplomacy and inspectors were democrats.
The same cannot be said of lock-step repubs who can’t seem to pass up the opportunity to send Americans off to die against non-formidable enemies (i.e., Iraq as opposed to actual nuclear menaces such as North Korea).
Now, it’s up to more sophisticated politicians like Obama, to pull us out of this quagmire. If negotiating from strength with “enemies” like Iran is part of that process, who are you to say “don’t use your brain; use your guns.”
But, if you want our troops to stay, why not join them? Because, like our present day Commander-in-Chief and the party he “leads,” they clearly need all the help they can get.
With all due respect, if I wanted to hear the Democratic talking points, I would just read the weekly email the DNC sends me. I am on their email list, along with just about every other political organization. Your entire arguement is a mix of Dem talking points along with the talking points far left blogs. You even end the piece with the standard boiler plate, if you like the war so much, join the military. I am in the process of applying to be an embed blogging reporter so if I am accepted, then I will. That should end that particular one. Though, it is silly regardless.
As for Laura Bush, she did what she did when she was a private citizen at 17. Michelle Obama said what she said while campaigning for her husband. You are comparing apples to oranges.
As for your Iraq arguement, no this isn't about what mistakes Bush did or didn't make. That is for historians to debate. Right now, this is about what is best for the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. Handing Iraq to the terrorists doesn't help Iraq, the Middle East or the world. We are now finally beginning to win. The government is finally beginning to function. Maliki is finally taking the lead. He personally went to Basrah to oversee the operation there and Sadr backed down. He is personally overseeing the operation in Sadr City, and prior to that he personally went to Mosul to oversee the operation there.
On top of that, they passed an oil sharing law, provisional elections, and amnesty. We are finally seeing a functioning government and now you want to pull out precipitously.
The rest of your comments appear to be a long winded diatrobe that says absolutely nothing.
If you think the Reps are wicked and the Dems are pure on gasoline you are just a typical partisan. While the Dems force stoppage of replinishing the strategic oil reserve they refuse to allow drilling in eight different places that would cut 70% from the price of oil.
… I know that I present the evidence straight as opposed to the partisan rhetoric you just presented on every issue.
-----------------
Mike,
First off, I didn’t say the Democrats were “pure” on gasoline. I simply mentioned the hot button phrase, “Gas Prices.”
But you appear to believe that the present oil problem stems from our refusal to take advantage of available supplies. I would say that is a misconception.
Keep in mind that America now controls a country (Iraq) that holds 25 percent of the world’s known oil supplies which, added to a similar amount held in Saudi Arabia that we control (via proxy), would seem to cover our oil needs for the foreseeable future.
Yet, despite our plunder, crude oil prices have soared over 300 percent since the start of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).
I believe the answer is clear: it is the basic economics of supply and demand. The world’s crude oil supplies are vanishing – we are running out of oil – while demand is skyrocketing. Whenever a commodity becomes scarce it increases in value. I’m sure you know that.
Yet, when OPEC nations artificially inflate levels of their crude oil reserves as a means of remaining competitive, the per-barrel price will reflect the true level of remaining crude oil supplies.
Meanwhile, the locations you cited as prime areas for oil drilling offer supplies of crude that are simply inadequate to meet both our present and future needs.
In addition, we are not locating fresh supplies of crude to offset the known diminishing supplies.
Consider this: Mexico, which in 2006 was the 6th largest producer of crude (at 3.71 million barrels a day), currently has just enough proven reserves to last only another 9 years.
So, I am not necessarily blaming repubs for high gas prices, but the price increases which have occurred on their watch renders repubs accountable for their role poor prior planning.
In this case, just as it was during the oil crisis of the Carter years, it’s out of control gas prices.
By the way. I disagree strongly with your politics, but I do like your blog.
With all due respect, since you don't read what I write, you make a long diatrobe that becomes irrelevant.
Neither party is pure and I pointed this out. The Democrats are in bed with the environmentalists and thus we don't drill. The Republicans are in bed with the oil companies and thus the cartel is allowed to operate.
The short term problem is that we don't drill even though we have plenty of places to drill in.
The long term problem is that we don't have any plan for energy independence, and that's because the folks that should lead it, the oil companies, are too busy getting fat on gasoline made from oil, and the government doesn't hold their feet to the fire for creating an industry that acts much more like a monopoly than it does a market.
In fact, I have written plenty on this...
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2007/12/big-oil-and-my-new-favorite-latin.html
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/05/hypocrisy-everywhere-on-gas-tax-holiday.html
And I have even given my low tax solution to the problem...
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/03/from-oil-to-energy-part-iii.html
Of course, you wouldn't know this because you decided to attack me without checking out my position on the matter.
Just like you attacked me on everything else without checking out my position on the matter.
That's why a debate about Michelle Obama turned into one about Iraq and now about oil. It's because everytime I counter one of your arguements rather than defending yourself you simply change the subject. While you may think you are slick, your cheap debate tactic is obvious.
I allow free reign to weak debaters, like yourself, on my site, however I take every opportunity to expose them.
I am sure now that you realize that you have no arguement left on oil, you will go ahead and move onto illegal immigration or gay marriage or mortgages, not knowing my positions on any of those either.
Your entire arguement is a mix of Dem talking points along with the talking points far left blogs.
---------------------
That's a typical cop-out from those whose well of facts has run dry.
Talking points, whether democratic or republican do not necessarily denote an illegitimate argument. If so, then these “talking points” can be EASILY rebutted.
It is shameful for you to cloak your inability to respond to legitimate arguments with little more than the label of "talking points."
As for my "go to Iraq" suggestion. It is legitimate for anybody who opposes the war to insist that its supporters do more than simply blog about it from the relative safety of America’s shores.
Me personally, I don't want our soldiers to fight in Iraq under the circumstances that got them there. Nor do I wish to join that fight. As such, I myself would not promote someone else's obligation to do something I am not willing to undertake.
But for those who insist that American's remain fighting and dying for an illegitimate cause, it is the duty of all patriotic Americans such as myself to insist that they join that cause -- not in the relatively wimpish role of "embedded blogger," -- but as a fighting member of the armed forces, especially if they insist that they were dispatched there for legitimate reasons.
Of course, you wouldn't know this because you decided to attack me without checking out my position on the matter.
-------------------
Give it a break, Mike. I don't "attack" people (that's what repubs do), I attack points of view.
I disagree with most of your points even as I maintain an understanding that you have every right to hold them.
But I also have a right to express why I disagree with you. That's not an attack.
In addition, I don't feel the need to research your entire body of previous work to respond to the points you are making on this blog entry today.
Apparently there is some disconnect between what you may have said then and what you are saying now if my responses to your points of today are somehow not legit because of points you made in the past.
Finally, as I said before, I disagree with your politics but I like your blog primarily because it seems to be a place where a conservative and a progressive can engage in an honest debate on our differences.
But you seem to be getting angry.
I'm not too fond of angry bloggers as their emotions get in the way of logical thought and destroy honest debates.
Don't let your anger eliminate the fondness I have for your blog.
Otherwise, keep up the good work expressing your side's point of view.
(PS: I am at work now, so I may not be able to immediately respond to any comment you may have.)
Ciao.
There is no cop out, I am merely pointing out that nothing you say is original and I have read the same thing in DNC emails.
I did respond to your arguement but obviously you didn't notice so I will do it again.
Right now, the most important thing is not to debate whether or not George Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. That is for historians to debate. Right now, the main issue is what do we do moving forward. Debating whether or not George Bush was wrong is something that left wingers can't get enough of because their main priority is proving how horrible he is.
That isn't the issue.
Iraq is getting better much better. The IRAQI government just took the lead in securing Sadr city, Basrah, and Mosul. In the process they are simultaneously battling Sunni and Shia terrorists. You simply can't get a better ally in the GWOT than one willing to battle any terrorist of any stripe like what the Iraqis are doing now.
Second, they have recently passed an oil sharing law, provincial elections, and amnesty.
Third the population is en masse rejecting the terrorist and siding with the coalition. Sunni and Shia alike are rejecting their terrorist brethren and taking up arms alongside the coalition against them.
That is success and I assume that you are in favor of some sort of precipitous withdrawal that takes that success and hands a victory to the terrorists regardless.
That is not something I support.
This is exactly what I said originally however you chose to ignore it when you claimed that I didn't answer your question.
I don't care if you attack me. I just don't think it is much of a debating point when you do it by saying things I have said as well. I have written plenty on the subject of energy independence and I have attacked the oil companies, the Democrats, and the Republicans. I have furthermore attacked the surrogates they protect like the environmentalists and again the oil companies.
I know the problem is complex and I have pointed out its complexity. Yet, you attack me as some sort of right wing fanatic who only sees drilling as the answer when that is nowhere near my position.
Furthermore, you changed a debate about Michelle Obama because your position on that debate became untennable when you made the ludicrous comparison to Laura Bush.
I don't care if you attack me, however if you make a cheap debating point, I will point it out and challenge it.
Third the population is en masse rejecting the terrorist and siding with the coalition. Sunni and Shia alike are rejecting their terrorist brethren and taking up arms alongside the coalition against them.
---------------
I wish I could agree with you on that, but sadly, you are wrong about what's up with Iraq's population. Please read the Rolling Stone article about why the surge is not working.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/myth_surge_6785
The population is being paid off with our tax dollars to suspend hostilities against coalition forces.
It's about dollars and cents Mike, not hearts and minds.
When the payments stop, the violence will recur.
BTW: You mentioned that you don't care if I attack you. So, obviously you haven't read what I said.
I'll repeat: "I don't attack people, I attack ideas."
Which are you: a person or an idea?
Had fun. I know I leave with a question, but this is my last post.
Had fun though.
First of all, paying off the population in order to curry favor with them is standard operating procedure in most counter insurgencies. Second of all, quoting some obscure source who's agenda is unknown is usually a way for those with an agenda to pass of a source with an agenda as an unbiased source.
Third of all, the population didn't turn on the terrorists because we paid them off, they turned on them because the terrorists are evil. Michael Yon wrote an excellent piece on this.
AQI cut off the middle fingers of men that smoked. They raped and beat women that placed the wrong set of vegetables in their groceries, and they invited families to dinner and actually served their child's head on a platter. This is what turned the population against AQI, not our money.
You don't know nearly as much about this as you think you do. You start with the premise that we are going to lose and work your way back.
Man, you are making it difficult for me to end this discussion.
You said: First of all, paying off the population in order to curry favor with them is standard operating procedure in most counter insurgencies.
----------------------------
Really? What took America so long to adopt this SOP? Why did we wait until more than 3,000 American soldiers perished before finally waking up to this reality?
------------------
You said: Second of all, quoting some obscure source who's agenda is unknown is usually a way for those with an agenda to pass of a source with an agenda as an unbiased source.
-------------------------------
Okay. So we can both play “pick the source that supports my view.”
Tell you what though. I promise to read Mr. Yon’s article. I am a person who responds to logic even if it destroys my point of view (in your case, that is something I eagerly await). So, if Mr. Yon makes a credible argument I’ll change my view about this issue accordingly.
Will you read the Rolling Stone piece?
Finally, you said: Third of all, the population didn't turn on the terrorists because we paid them off, they turned on them because the terrorists are evil.
---------------------
And American soldiers and military contractors like Blackwater have not committed any atrocities in Iraq, you say? Does the word “Abu Ghraib” ring any bells within your enlightened head?
How about torture, oops, I mean “enhanced interrogation techniques” (I guess that’s a phrase that works for those Iraqis for whom such techniques have been applied to them, their family members or friends).
Gotta admit, those acts may be a great way to show the terrorists who is boss, but it does little to win hearts and minds of the ordinary Iraqis caught up in all of this.
I often hear conservatives talk about “deranged bush syndrome” which they define as an irrational hatred of dubya.
Considering the fact that you are part of the scant 20 percent of the American public that continues to support bush’s Iraq policies, don’t you think that definition should be amended to apply to hard-core bush supporters like you?
Most everyone else has given bush a chance, bush squandered it, and the American public has finally woken up.
When will you?
The whole entire strategy for the first four years was incompetent. That is an accepted fact and no one of reasonable intelligence will argue that. I think we were paying off the population however the population believed that the terrorists were on their side. The Shia believed that the Shia militias were the only thing that would protect them. It was a big mess that is too long to detail here.
The main difference is that we moved our operations within the population and we left a presence after we cleared the bad guys out. Before, we would clear the bad guys out and then move back to the bases and the bad guys would return.
Michael Yon is an embedded reporter that is a former special operations officer and has been embedded in Iraq for the better part of three years. There are few authorities more impressive in the media world on the issue of Iraq than Yon. Yon's piece was written after he was embedded with the military in Anbar, and it was following one on one interviews with Iraqis. Just because you obviously know nothing about him, doesn't mean he isn't an authority.
I didn't notice you defending your source because you likely found it through google.
The military overwhelmingly has performed valiantly and magnificently, and they have respected the rights of the citizenry better than any we have had before. All you are doing is smearing them with a handful of examples of bad apples. You know full well that cases of torture and sadistic treatment of prisoners is NOT the norm, but the exception and it has been investigated and prosecuted. Taking a cheap shot at the military in order to score a cheap political point is the bottom feeding of debate tactics.
I don't base my positions on opinion polls. That is ludicrous. I don't decide the proper course of action based on what the opinion polls say at the time. If that is the basis of any decision, then we need not have politicians. We will just poll all decisions.
Mike,
Your losing me, dude.
You said: “The whole entire strategy for the first four years was incompetent. I think we were paying off the population however the population believed that the terrorists were on their side. The Shia believed that the Shia militias were the only thing that would protect them.”
-------------
For someone who seems to claim expert status on Iraq issues, you appear a bit ill-informed.
It’s common knowledge that one of the strategic military goals of Al Qaeda in Iraq was to create havoc by splintering the population along sectarian lines. The bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra by Musab al-Zarqawi (whom I believe was a U.S. agent-provocateur) was clearly designed to foment sectarian civil war. And we all know which group would be targeted for atrocities by Zarqawi, a Sunni muslim.
So sure, perhaps the Shia did believe that the militias would protect them – and for a while, they were right. But once the shrine was destroyed, it became a whole new ballgame.
You said: “I didn't notice you defending your source because you likely found it through google.”
-----------------
As if that makes a difference. Trust me, what do you think will happen if I google up “Michael Yon.”
(By the way, I don’t think I passed judgment on the credibility of Mr. Yon. In fact, I specifically promised you that I would withhold judgment until I have read him. So I’m a bit confused about what point you are trying to make.)
You said: “You know full well that cases of torture and sadistic treatment of prisoners is NOT the norm, but the exception and it has been investigated and prosecuted.”
-----------------
Get serious. Why isn’t Rumsfeld in jail (or even indicted)? Why is Bush non-complicit with regard to the implementation of his policy? It is now understood that these directives on the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib came directly from the top. Why can’t you acknowledge this? The government prosecuted a few low-level scapegoats and you consider that justice?
You said: “Taking a cheap shot at the military in order to score a cheap political point is the bottom feeding of debate tactics.”
------------------
Citing actual events involving U.S. military personnel in a debate over U.S. policy is not a “cheap shot” nor is it “bottom feeding” it’s reporting.
You said: “I don’t base my opinion on polls.”
---------------
That much is obvious. It is also obvious that you base your opinions on whatever it is you hear from Centcom. (Perhaps you are a shill, like Jeff Gannon or Armstrong Williams.) Guess that makes you more knowledgeable on these matters than some lefty kook like me, huh?
Perhaps it is you who does not know as much about this subject as you think you do. But keep flattering yourself. Apparently, it works wonders for you.
admit it, you will never leave...
anyway, good point, in Iraq everything is tribal. I should have been more specific. The Sunnis thought that AQI would help them rise to power again, while the Shia thought their militias, JAM etc., were the only source of protection. When the Anbar Awakening began, and the Sunnis turned on their militias, that began the long process that has lead to a huge strategic victory for the coalition. Once we broke AQI and turned them into a shell of their former selves, the Shia militias were no longer as needed to protected the Shia population and they turned on them. This is what we have now.
You can google Michael Yon, however I have been reading him for a while. He is coming out with a book soon.
In any case, it is pointless to argue whether or not torture is the norm in the U.S. military. If you insist on defaming our fine men and women in battle to score cheap points that is your business, however the norm is the finest, most professional fighting force ever assembled. We have nearly 200k in a battlefield somewhere in the world, so of course if you search hard enough you will find those that acted in a despicable and unacceptable manner. You will find all sorts of evil and that's because when you take a pool of 200k, that is just simple statistics. Of course, there will be those that went way out of bounds, and of course, that happens in every war.
You are of course fixated with those that stepped out of bounds and pay no attention to the 99.9% that risk their lives everyday to kill bad guys and bring freedom and democracy to folks they have never met.
That is where we are different. I focus on the 99.9% that represent the best of America, not the .1% that represent the worst.
You do it because it is part of your world view.
I can't base my opinions on what Centcom says because I have never heard them.
I do know that you are constantly shifting the debate and talking in soaring and incendiary rhetoric and rarely do you have facts, evidence, or logic to back anything up. Your onl mission now is to try and sully the troops in some sort of a twisted attempt to attach their perceived incompetence to the perceived incompetence of the effort.
You never counter any of the points I have made about the substantial gains of the effort, from decimating AQI and JAM, to passing a bunch of needed laws, to seeing the Iraqis take the lead in hotspots like Basrah, Sadr City, and Mosul. The only thing you have is incendiary rhetoric based on nothing but your own ideology.
As I stated earlier, Mike. I like your blog. I am also enjoying our little debate. So, I admit it. I guess when you say "I'll never leave."
Now, I think you are being disingenuous in saying that I have not responded to your points. After all, I have been posting in the "you said" format for the last two or three of my responses.
I commend you on the relatively civil manner in which you are engaging me. Often when I post on conservative blogs, the responses are silly and ignorant.
Outside of a little baiting on both our parts, I don't think we've stooped to that level yet.
I also would like to commend you for conceding some of my points as you move forward with points of your own.
I think that shows a level of class in our debate that is often missing from those I engage on other conservative sites.
Lastly, I would say that it is fine that we disagree. I truly believe that we both love this country and want it to succeed, but that we have different ideas about how that success should be achieved.
It is very important to me that you realize that I respect and admire our troops in Iraq and acknowledge that the bad apples there tend to remove the shine from the great Americans who are truly there to make a difference in the lives of both Americans and Iraqis.
However, as a patriotic American I am compelled to speak out on those aspects of our government’s actions that are outside of the dream of our founding fathers.
Sure, the U.S. military is the finest in the world. But just like a fabulous automobile, if put in control of the wrong individual, disgrace can be the result for our nation.
I think Bush is the wrong individual and that someone like Barack Obama epitomizes the type of person whom I believe is right for our nation.
Despite our differences in philosophy, I consider you a patriotic American who only wants what's best for your fellow countrymen.
I sure hope you share feel the same way about me.
Again, I like your blog. I’ll be back.
By the way, I also have a blog (although I don’t post on a regular basis). Of course, I am sure you will find its content (progressive and clearly anti-Bush) objectionable, but not crass.
You are welcome to visit: http://www.freewebs.com/non_prophet/writersblock.htm
PS: By the way, Centcom is short for Central Command.
Regards,
Non_prophet
I welcome anyone that is a constant visitor onto my blog. I especially welcome those that have a different opinion, since it is not much of a debate if everyone simply agrees with each other.
That said, while you respond to somethings, what you do is pick and choose what you respond to.
You fixate on one or two points and pick at those even though they aren't necessarily the important ones.
While you may have a lowly opinion of the President, that doesn't mean that the troops in the field are somehow a collective bunch of torturers and sadists, and nothing you have said here in any way proves that point.
If you believe that Barack Obama, with less than four years of Senatorial experience, is prepared to be CinC, that is frankly your business. I have posted a plethora of posts about why I furiously disagree with that characterization, and you are welcome to respond to any of them.
While you may have a lowly opinion of the President, that doesn't mean that the troops in the field are somehow a collective bunch of torturers and sadists, and nothing you have said here in any way proves that point.
-------------------------
Read closer, Mike. I repeat
"It is very important to me that you realize that I respect and admire our troops in Iraq and acknowledge that the bad apples there tend to remove the shine from the great Americans who are truly there to make a difference in the lives of both Americans and Iraqis."
Having said that earlier, I am puzzled at your statement claiming I believe that "the troops ... are a collective bunch of torturers and sadists..."
I'm trying to be civil. Let's not make me into something I am not.
Additionally, I discuss specific aspects of the overall argument because this is not a forum for more comprehensive, wide-ranging discussion on this topic.
If you have a specific issue related to our discussion you would like to focus on, I'm all for it.
As for Obama's relative inexperience, first off, that works in his favor with regard to the voting public's mood right now -- out with the old and in with the new.
But more importantly, anyone who supported Bush's quest for the presidency, with him having only a poor record as Texas governor and even poorer pre-political career as a basis, is in no position to criticize the relative inexperience of the man seeking to take his place.
Well you can say that you have respect for the military however the only specific things you have said about them is that they torture and they are sadists. you can try and blame this on Bush all you want, however he himself didn't torture anyone, and thus when you accuse the military of torture, you are actually accusing the men and women in uniform of doing it.
obama's lack of experience maybe a good thing politically, though that's debateable, but it is not a good thing when he actually would be CinC.
Bush didn't have a poor record as a governor and a governor is the sort of management experience one needs to be President. Obama has never run anything let alone an entire country.
Mike,
I know this comes somewhat late, but unfortunately, I had not read your last comment until today. As a result, I was not able to respond to until now. I actually had no plan to respond but felt compelled to do so after reading your comment. I am sure that this won’t end with my response, but hey…whatever.
Anyway:
You said: “…you can say that you have respect for the military however the only specific things you have said about them is that they torture and they are sadists ….thus when you accuse the military of torture, you are actually accusing the men and women in uniform of doing it.”
---------------
This is what I would call debate “bottom-feeding” (to use your term).
Printed not too far above this post is a clear representation by me that I am not painting the entire military with the same filthy brush I would use against those in the military who behave like sadists.
Yet, in order to “win” this debate, you put words in my mouth. This indicates that either you are not reading what I said (twice), your ability to extrapolate is lacking, or you are engaging in hyperbole to obscure the fact that you cannot rebut my charge that the some members of the U.S. military have behaved like savages in the commission of atrocities in Iraq.
That is not a democratic talking point. It is a widely accepted fact. Even the FBI had complained about so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/washington/20cnd-detain.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Why do you have trouble accepting what even the Federal Bureau of Investigation acknowledges?
You said: “…you can try and blame this on Bush all you want, however he himself didn't torture anyone”
--------------
You are being snarky, Mike. You know darn well that regarding matters of the U.S. military, the buck stops with the Commander in Chief.
And, although Bush may not have personally tortured anyone, in March he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other abusive techniques.
--------------------
You said: “Bush didn't have a poor record as a governor”
--------------
As a native of Texas (Wills Point, near Dallas) I think your opinion on this is quite arguable. Bush’s fiscal approach as governor served as a harbinger of the kind of fiscal mismanagement he has exhibited as president which has resulted in this nation now teetering toward a recession.
Check the record. His legacy as Texas governor is one of deficits, high interest rates, high unemployment and recession – exactly what we are experiencing today under his presidential “leadership.”
Some examples:
• As Texas governor, Bush signed 13 supplemental spending bills totaling nearly $100 BILLION even though the state was operating in a deficit.
• Also during his term as governor, Bush pushed a $1.7 billion tax cut through the Texas legislature. By July of 2000, the Texas legislature needed to raid the state budget to fund $600 million in new costs for Medicaid coverage and prison costs.
• One aspect of a tax plan proposed by Gov. Bush, elimination of the deduction Texans can take on their federal taxes for state property taxes (which he proposed while simultaneously increasing non-deductible state taxes (i.e., sales and value added taxes) would have resulted in higher federal personal income taxes for those who itemize – up to $250 million more collectively resulting from the loss of their federal property tax deduction.
• In 1997, the Fort Worth Star-Telegraph gave Bush an “F” on taxes.
You don’t have to take my word on these points. Below is a link to a report about Bush’s tenure as Texas governor.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bush.pdf
In closing, I’d like to say that I think the above responses provide a clear basis for my opinion of Bush.
Over the course of our discussion, you have accused me of “constantly shifting the debate and talking in soaring and incendiary rhetoric and rarely do (I) have facts, evidence or logic to back anything up.”
I believe that to be a false statement on your part. I also believe that my comments which appear on this page back up my belief. When I bring up examples of related issues to buttress my point, you call it “shifting the debate.” How else can one make his point without adding information that is germane if not necessarily specific to the issue being discussed?
I would add that what you call “soaring and incendiary rhetoric” is what I would call debate points with which you disagree.
Respond if you wish Mike. But please do me a favor and don’t put words in my mouth. In doing so you are engaging in a dishonest debate. I’d rather you simply make up lies to prove your point rather than try to put lies into my mouth.
Believe me, if I felt about the military the way you say I do, I would waste no time expressing it.
I have a problem with the way SOME members of the military conduct themselves. It puts this great country to shame. If you wish to gloss over these things because it eases stress or makes you feel better about this country, so be it.
But that doesn’t change the facts that atrocities have occurred in our name. In order to be able to say with acuity that the U.S. military is the finest in the world, we must acknowledge its bad seeds and rid our armies, etc. of them as quickly as possible.
First of all, you need not apologize for taking time in getting back to me. You don't need to get back to me and I won't feel any less of you if you do.
This arguement is getting rather stale.
You frankly want to have it both ways. On the one hand, you say that the military has performed valiantly and at the same time you say there have been so many atrocities that it is ultimately the responsibility of the CinC.
It is either one or the other. If there are so many atrocities being committed by the military that it is systemic then they haven't performed valiantly. If they have performed valiantly then any atrocities were performed by bad apples that will frankly happen in any war because there are hundreds of thousands of military personnell on the battlefield and it is just simply a matter of statistics that some of them won't be valiant but vicious and evil.
As for Bush's record, he left with over 60% approval and you just don't leave office with that high an approval if the economy is tanking. You speak in nonsense. He was a fine governor. Even Dems in Texas liked him.
Mike,
Sigh!! You are so hostile toward those with whom you disagree that you even reject common courtesy! No problem. I retract my apology.
But you are correct in that this argument is getting stale. In fact, it is beyond stale; it’s rancid. The reason? My guess is that you seem to be experiencing some type of cognitive problems. I think I overestimated your ability to manage viewpoints that differ from yours. Well, you should know that the ability to do so is an essential attribute for people who debate issues. If you are going to be a real blogger, you need to work on that.
You are clearly hung up over the fact that I and other Americans have the audacity to criticize both George W. Bush and some members of the U.S. military.
Too bad. This is America and we are Americans just like you. Dissent is part of our glorious history. It is both my and your duty as American citizens to speak out about the problems that affect this country's position and its status in the world community. You seem to believe that the duty of all Americans is to just STFU and follow orders. Maybe in Saddam’s Iraq, Castro’s Cuba or Hitler’s Germany. Not here, Mike. This is America.
You seem to be of the "My country, right or wrong" persuasion. Of the "America, Love it or Leave it," clique. That is a sentiment that may have flourished in the 60’s but, like this discussion, it is stale as yesterday’s news.
So, I'll end our discussion with the following:
You said Bush was a fine governor. That's an opinion, not a fact. Until I hear some evidence from you it will remain a mere opinion. And you know what they say about opinions – they are like assholes in that everybody’s got one, me included.
Provide me with some evidence other than your opinion that Bush had a “60 percent approval rating” (source please?) or your opinion that “even dems in Texas liked him (who?).
I said he was a lousy governor. That's a fact that I backed up with details.
I said Bush was aware of and condoned torture. Those are facts that were buttressed by the links I provided. Again, not an opinion – fact.
As for the scumbags who commit atrocities while wearing the uniform of the United States Armed Forces. Unfortunately, you seem to believe that ANY criticism of even a PORTION of the military equates criticism of the ENTIRE military. Based on the fact that I repeatedly stressed the opposite again indicates a poor ability to extrapolate on your part.
Meanwhile, your seemingly blind allegiance to Bush borders on idol-worship. Perhaps for you, Bush is the true “American Idol.” But well over 70 percent of the rest of America’s population sees Bush for what he is – a failed president. Right after Sept. 11, Bush’s approval rating topped 90 percent. Since then he screwed up the country, lost the support of the American public and (at least in the near-term) effectively destroyed the repub party. You probably see him as Reagan incarnate, but in reality, he is the republican’s own Jimmy Carter.
To you I ask: What is your basis for such seemingly limitless loyalty and lockstep allegiance? Is this an infatuation that you have for any POTUS or are you hopelessly stuck on Bush? If it is the former, I just can’t wait to hear all the praise you will be showering on President Obama.
And by the way, you are absolutely correct in maintaining that I lay the blame for torture directly at the feet of the Commander in Chief. Upon whose feet should it lay, mine? Yours? The minions who carried out these acts? Have you never heard the phrase: "The buck stops here?"
If it were Clinton, Kerry or Obama enacting these torture policies or allowing them to continue under their watch would you feel that they too should be looked upon as innocent bystanders? Would you cut them the same slack that you cut Bush? Your position on this matter is absolutely ludicrous.
But don’t take my word for it. Ask any relative of any U.S. soldier in Iraq whose safety has been further compromised due to our torture policy. Most realize that by the U.S. condoning this practice; our military has no basis for insisting on humane treatment of its own captured soldiers. They also realize that this policy helps create even more insurgents from the ranks of those Iraqis who might otherwise stand down. The more insurgents, the longer our occupation will last which further subjects our soldiers to more danger.
Unfortunately, the more I interact with you, the less informed you sound. I’m beginning to have second thoughts about your blog.
It was fun (for a while, anyway).
Peace out.
The only one getting hostile is you. I always enjoy a good debate, however if you are of the opinion that you will change my mind then that is your first mistake.
Our so called torture policy puts no soldiers in any more danger. The terrorists are going to kill, maim, and torture them if captured no matter how we treat their prisoners.
Our so called torture policy has been called effective by both, George Tenet and Michael Sheuer. Michael Hayden has called the techniques effective. Every interrogator that has spoken on the record has said the techniques are effective. Waterboarding of KSM eventually lead to the extraction of information that lead to unquantifiable intelligence.
Post a Comment