home

A Test For Obama: Tell Joe Klein He Is Wrong

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:29:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If Lawrence Lessig is right about the willingness of Senator Barack Obama to stand up to the Beltway Establishment, then here is a chance for him to prove it. Joe Klein writes:

There [is] . . . less cause--to cut off funding for the war than there were last Spring. A renewed campaign on the part of the hapless Democratic leadership to cut off the supplemental funds will only increase the public sense of Democratic futility. . . . Too much time, and political capital, has been wasted fighting Bush legislatively on the war. . .

Prove something to those of us who want the Iraq Debacle ended Senator Obama. Prove Lessig right. LEAD the fight to end the Iraq Debacle NOW. In the Senate. Tell Joe Klein he is wrong.

< What To Ask Of Our Candidates | Defending States' Rights >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Test For Obama: Tell Joe Klein He Is Wrong | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    just thinking out loud (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    I'm kind of conflicted on this point.  On the one hand, I completely agree that the substantive case for moving to cut off funds is just as strong as ever.  There is very little hope of political reconciliation in Iraq and it's well past time to start withdrawing troops.  

    That said, I think Klein is right about the current political climate. Whether or not the military progress in Iraq is real or the drop in casualities meaningful, there's little question that many people in Washington, especially Republicans, think that we have turned a corner there. The Republicans are no longer pretending to believe we are winning in Iraq; they actually believe it now (again regardless of the substantive merits of that position). And this makes it even harder than it previously was to convince Republicans and wavering Democrats to take extreme steps to end the war.  

    Which is I guess a long way of saying that I think any Democratic attempt to end the war legislatively at this point (even if Obama were to put his full weight behind such an effort), would be doomed to failure. It would be a quixotic struggle.  

    Do you disagree? (not asking rhetorically; I'm genuinely curious)

    As I understand your point (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    Yopu agree that not funding the war woithout a date certain is the RIGHT thing to do but that the political thing to do is NOT do that.

    Let's assume first you are right, then shouldn't Obama, true to his rhetoric,k tell us the hard truiths and argue for the right policy?

    Now I think you are wrong. Ending the war by the END OF 2008 is a wonderful politicial approach. Think on it. If we ARe "wining" then should not we be able to then start bringing the troops home?

    What is winning? Will we have over 100,00 troops in Iraq NO MATTER HOW WE ARE DOING?

    Will the troops ever come home?

    Parent

    Good points. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    The Republicans have argued all along that anyone who wants to withdraw the troops does not want to "win" in Iraq. Whatever "win" might mean has never been defined, other than being the "goal". If they now believe that it is "won" but would politically fight against withdrawal, then they hand Democrats a stick to beat them with, put them on the defensive, and turn the debate in their favor... "What was the real goal all along? Never ending occupation?"

    Let Bush and the Republicans try to get anywhere arguing for that.

    The Iraq and Afghanistan wars could cost the United States $3.5 trillion through 2017 if "hidden costs" like higher oil prices, care for wounded soldiers and interest on borrowed money are counted, congressional Democrats said on Tuesday.

    The estimate, in a report by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, is about $1 trillion higher than an October 24 analysis of war costs by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which mostly weighed direct war expenditures and borrowing costs of more than $700 billion.

    The new report assumed the U.S. would withdraw about half of its present combat troops from Iraq by 2013 and maintain 75,000 soldiers there from 2013-2017.

    The estimate was released as the House of Representatives again prepared to debate legislation setting timetables for ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq, now in its fifth year.

    Anti-war Democrats want to link new war funds to a call for combat troops to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2008.

    "We cannot afford this war," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters, noting that 3,860 U.S. troops have been killed and 38,164 wounded in Iraq.

    If the Democratic Leadership will not pick up that stick and beat them with it... what is their real goal? Never ending occupation?

    Parent
    they are proposing a bill that goes (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    in that direction.

    And when Bush veties or the GOP filibusters, they say NO FUNDING bill.

    so I am supporting them right now.

    Parent

    It is going to end. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    Sooner, or later... no war lasts forever. It seems all that is left is the jockeying for who can take credit for an end to it, in the eyes of the public.

    "Iraq" and "Iraqis", and lives, both Iraqi and American, do not appear to matter to either Democrats or Republicans anymore.

    If they ever did.

    Parent

    to clarify (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 09:48:31 AM EST
    It's not talking about a difference between the right position and the politically savvy position.  I'm talking about what's possible.   I don't think Obama should change his position.  I just wonder whether a quixotic legislative fight is the best use of his time and resources right now.  I'm highly skeptical that the Democrats (even with Obama leading the charge) will be able to force Bush's hand in any significant way re: Iraq.

    Maybe it's worth fighting that fight anyway, just on principle.  But I'm not sure.  

    Parent

    Why would it be quixotic? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    Or do you not believe Congress can NOT pass a bill?

    Excuse me, I think you are not well versed on this issue.

    Parent

    No, I think I understand (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 09:46:16 PM EST
    I read you regularly BTD, and I understand that Congress could simply NOT pass any more war appropriations.  No veto-proof majority would be necessary. It's the do-nothing option. But I just don't think enough Democrats will get behind that strategy, even if Obama make it his singular crusade in life.  

    Suppose I'm right about that. Do you still think Obama should pursue such a strategy?

    Parent

    That presumes that Obama should (none / 0) (#3)
    by Geekesque on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 03:50:25 PM EST
    care about what Joke Line says.  Calling out every pundit who says stupid stuff is a full-time job.

    Just an example (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 03:52:14 PM EST
    It is the Beltway Establishment strain of thought.

    I am talking about action, not calling out Klein.
    I am pretty darn certain you know that.

    If I recall correctly, you agree with me on this.

    Parent

    Joe Klein on War Funding (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:20:32 PM EST
    The Iraq war needs to end and the Republicans need to be defeated in 2008. No matter what legislation is passed, including proposed legislation that stipulates "goals" for decreasing troops and corresponding funding decreases, the war will not be ended within the next year and the decrease in the number of troops will  be little  or none. Bush will be sure to make that happen. The Democrats are behind the curve on  war funding; the full-court press was called for immediately after the November 2006 elections.  The Bush administration was very concerned at that point, so much so that Rumsfeld was fired (I bet Bush regrets this rash action on his part). However, the administration has regained its swagger, thanks to the acquiescence of the Democrats. Presently, the spin is that the surge is  working, General Petraeus is a genius, and we are "winning". A funding and troop withdrawl without a persuasive Democratic critique of the situation (neighborhood cleansing/ segregation, Syria deporting/refusing refugees, new tribal war lords, etc.) will  lead to a who lost Iraq debate, with the Guiliani-type  warriors taking over for the next four  years--a circumstance worse for the country and democracy than even the Iraq debacle. Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid need a new, 2007-08 strategy, the present one is old hat.  Maybe, acknowledge the military gains as the sought after "win", let the Iraqi people sort out the politics, and advocate  for  immediate  withdrawal  of all  combat trrops. This  might  work, otherwise, Democrats: I am saddened to say, stay the Bush course you have been following so closely,for now.

    Main issues (none / 0) (#10)
    by koshembos on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 09:30:43 PM EST
    Civil wars take many years (e.g. Ireland, Tamils); there are ebbs and flows. The current relative lull should not lull us to think that 30,000 soldiers overcame the civil war in Iraq; they'll be back in force. The US must leave asap because we have no goal or purpose in this war.

    Klein is interested only and nothing else but looking good in the Village (Digby's term). He looks good with this article. proving him wrong is pointless; only the Village reads him anyway.

    Obama has not shown much leadership in anything else for that matter. Between 2003 and 2005 he basically supported the war. He is a celebrity because he is a celebrity. Except partnering with the fascists, he didn't come up with anything.

    Lastly, and probability leastly, the merry couple Pelosi and Reid. They are scared that the fascists will say that they aren't patriotic. Even with the Medal of Honor for each, the Reps will still say that they aren't patriotic.

    A Test For Obama: Tell Joe Klein He Is Wrong | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment