home

Post-Debate Thread: Iraq Topics

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:37:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

CNN's Jack Cafferty's post debate question:

Is Dennis Kucinich right that the Congress should end the Iraq war by not funding it?

Answer? Yes. What did the candidates say?

Also, Democratic Underground extremely upset with CNN for not asking a question on impeachment.

< Post Debate Thread: Topics Other Than Iraq | Laptop Drive >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Post-Debate Thread: Iraq Topics | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    One more thought. No one asked the candidates (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:06:24 PM EST
    their positions on de-funding and only Kucinich brought it up. The question was--how will you get us out of Iraq?

    Typical (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:08:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Dodd didn't take it and run with it. I (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:11:10 PM EST
    was hoping Clinton would but she didn't either. Why? They've already cast those votes. Why dissemble now? See the poll you referenced today. Couragio.

    Parent
    They are pols (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:12:14 PM EST
    What can you expect.

    We have to pressure them to do it.

    Parent

    Probably the most important lesson (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:14:56 PM EST
    I have learned from your writings, a good politician isn't born or made but pressured.

    Parent
    They are vessels (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:16:23 PM EST
    The deification of pols always stuns me.

    Parent
    Hey, don't be cutting down Grandma Vera (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:38:50 PM EST
    She had a numbered print that was a sketch of Gore and Clinton in profile.  You gotta love Grandma Vera a little now.

    Parent
    That is different (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    I really admire Clinton the pol and the intellect and the President.

    Gore is great.

    But once they are pols, they become a different species.

    They are nourished by polls and votes only.

    Parent

    Now you give grandma too much (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:44:52 PM EST
    credit.  When she was still alive and they were trying to impeach Clinton I was miffed one day and said that I didn't care who had slept with, it wasn't my business because he hadn't slept with me.  Grandma Vera said well, he hadn't asked to sleep with her.

    Parent
    LMAO (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:46:10 PM EST


    Parent
    is feingold (none / 0) (#102)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:24:42 AM EST
    just a vessel?

    presumably he still has to get himself re-elected to the senate at some point.  there's no tenure there.

    i don't think feingold's a vessel.  i think he has strong convictions about things, and when and if he does change his mind it's because he has considered new evidence, a different perspective, or the consequences of his decision have changed, or the balance of pros and cons has shifted in some tangible way.

    just my opinion.  but i'll point out that i don't think my opinion on this means i have deified senator feingold.  i have decided that he is merely human, probably no better or worse than myself.

    although possibly more successful in life.  LOL.

    in any case.  i don't know why it keeps bugging me but to say the things i just said about feingold (and i will extend those observations to other politicians as well) DOES NOT mean i have deified those politicians.

    there is a condescension in equating the observations i have just made about feingold with deification.

    i hardly even agree with him on everything.

    no. deification is certainly not the right word to describe how i view politicians.

    gotta come up with a different one.


    Parent

    Clinton didn't shy away from universal health care (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    advocacy, but, to me, that isn't as important an issue to most likely voters and probably no less controversial. She also sd. we have to impose more tax on corporate profits of oil companies, also bound to lose her some votes.

    Parent
    If she keeps up the steam she has (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    and doesn't get too crazy I think she'll have the votes to lose if taking those stands do lose her a few votes.  I don't think they are though.  My God oil company revenues are ginormous right now and everybody I know is chapped.  The only people I know who aren't chapped seem to be oil executives.  Lots of people around me upset too that we don't have diesel hybrids in the states yet.......all sorts of things.  Lots of people I know want to know what is tying up the technology here in the States that will give us more energy efficiency and if you have spent a deployment in Korea you know that the new light bulbs we have now have been in Korea now for five years, and their air conditioners use half the energy ours do and they all have solar hot water heaters there because they don't have the support grid that we do in the U.S. and have had to develop energy efficient products that we don't have in the States.

    Parent
    So you thought the light bulbs in the bathroom (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:31:56 PM EST
    video question was right on point, then?

    Parent
    It was okay, but I think (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    they could have used that time for a better question.

    Parent
    If she loses Iowa in January (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:32:42 PM EST
    then we'll know if she can get up.

    Nothing is likely to change until then.

    Personally, I think Obama is finished.

    Only Edwards can stop Hillary now imo.

    Parent

    He surely didn't tonight. But, having relatives (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    in Iowa who are active in the caucuses, got to say he, and especially his wife, are very well-liked there.

    Parent
    This debate (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:37:02 PM EST
    will be long forgotten by then.

    Parent
    When he got wound up on health care, it sounded (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:50:29 PM EST
    like he was delivering one of his successful closing arguments to a jury. Very emotional.

    Parent
    That'll be forgotten too (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:52:04 PM EST


    Parent
    He had better start speaking from (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    the diaphragm at least.  Damn that girl is sharp right now, I have no other advice for him and he's going to need something else.  Yoga classes.......visualization with Tony Robbins.

    Parent
    He needs to do whatever (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:39:23 PM EST
    can win Iowa.

    If Hillary wins Iowa it is over.

    Parent

    He's got to have a consultant videoing and (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:51:32 PM EST
    critiquing his every move and probably did as a trial lawyer too.

    Parent
    Debate (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by falazmah on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:49:38 PM EST
    In form, I think Clinton was a clear winner, followed by Edwards and then Obama.  In form, I'd give it to the unwinnables:  Gravel and Kucinich.  I thought the format was terrible and contributed to the dumbing down of discourse in America.

    How do YOU feel about the debate tonight?  Who do YOU think won the debate?  Vote for your candidate on http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=217

    Make your voice heard.  You can vote on polls on the topic of importance to you, and if it's not there, you can sign up and create a poll in less than a minute (literally).  

    It's new, it's easy and it's cool...and above all, it's good for the public debate.

    http://www.youpolls.com.  Check it out.

    Did you mean to say (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:53:12 PM EST
    "in substance" in your 2nd sentence? If so, I agree.

    Parent
    The shame of it is ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:29:20 PM EST
    ... CNN was allowed to choose the Youtubes so it was mainly the same ol' crap for questions.

    And I hate the censorship that was applied to Gravel. Equal time or no time.

    p.s. Gravel at least was honest about the 'died in vain' setup.

    p.p.s. A pox on all their houses and both Houses.

    p.p.p.s. But the last time I didn't think there was a difference between repubs and dems, king george was (almost) elected.

    IRT prez, I'd vote for a turnip if he knew evolution was a fact, didn't discriminate against Americans and understood we never had any business in Iraq and should leave ASAP.

    'Died in vain' is a bogus construct (none / 0) (#99)
    by joejoejoe on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:21:38 AM EST
    I think this question is framed every bit as falsely as the "you can't serve the poor if you live in a big house" questions or the "you can't be for public schools if your kids go to private schools" or even the "will you live on the minimum wage if you're elected" question.

    Just about every country on this earth has professional soldiers. If they serve honorably under their professional code then they don't die in vain whether they die in Grenada, in Iraq, testing a new weapons system in peacetime, or ever.

    Soldiers who volunteer (or are drafted) are captive to the mission given them. Their loss, even in a horribly misguided and futile mission, is not in vain. The cost of their life in service is added to the experience of the nation and has merit and value always in shaping future debates.

    Policies can be begun and ended in vain but the lives lost in service of those policies have enduring value. Try telling most military men that  the Confederate soldiers in Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg died in vain. Those soldiers died in a losing battle, in a lost war, in a horrible cause and yet their service was still honored in the immediate aftermath by their Union counterparts.

    War is a battle of ideas fought with violence. Blaming the losing soldiers for dying in vain is like blaming the words of a losing argument, not the person who made it.

    Parent

    Here's what I would have said (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:48:31 AM EST
    Yes, they died in vain, as did the men of Pickett's Charge before them, and the Light Brigade before them. Soldiers are rarely, if ever, afforded the luxury of second-guessing their commanders' orders. If there is shame in defeat, it belongs not to the fallen man, but to his superiors. Just as Johnson before him, George Bush -- to his eternal shame -- has tasked soldiers, trained to kill, with the job of statesmen, trained to forge nations. George Bush has repeatedly and pointedly refused to seek diplomatic solutions to the chaos in Iraq, insisting that the martial prowess of the Army and Marine Corps will unite a broken people. While they may struggle valiantly, and they do, our soldiers and marines cannot and must not be burdened with the responsibilities of diplomats. And yet that is precisely what George Bush insists must be done. He wasted the international goodwill we received after September 11, he wasted the future of Iraq, and with each passing day he wastes the lives of our troops.

    Parent
    Sorry. My cut and paste didn't work. (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:49:28 PM EST
    Richardson on getting out of Iraq is at the end of that. Hillary, unfortunately, waffled.

    Fix it (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    and I'll delete that one.

    Parent
    I already deleted it (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:56:03 PM EST
    Feel free to repost with a link and a few quotes.

    Parent
    I'm not adept at links here either. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:04:25 PM EST
    Richardson sd. out in 6 months. The only person willing to openly advocate de-funding was Kucinich. Clinton preferred to talk about Bush admin. failures. The entire transcript is available on CNN.com

    Parent
    I get so emotional about Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:06:34 PM EST
    issues I can't keep track of who said what.  Just sort of shut down right now.  Probably better that way,

    Parent
    What was your reaction to the assertion all lives (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:08:03 PM EST
    lost in Vietnam were lost in vain?

    Parent
    Obviously it is true (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:09:46 PM EST
    North Vietnam took over South Vietnam.

    But that is no shame for the soldiers whose service to us we honor.

    People can not separate the two thoughts so pols have to fake it.

    I know you did not ask me but I hated the question.

    Parent

    As I recall, the candidate who sd. it was not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:13:48 PM EST
    responding to a direct about Vietnam. You are correct, of course. But I doubt the families of military killed in Vietnam really wanted to hear about Baskin Robbins in Hanoi. Most people in the U.S. have no idea how the Vietnamese, both North and South, have moved on and want to be the next China.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:15:17 PM EST
    no one wants to hear it and do we really need to say it? It seemed a ridiculous question.

    Parent
    Just reviewed the transcript. It was (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:28:46 PM EST
    a direct question, based on something Gravel (I think) had sd. before the debate.

    Parent
    What do they want to hear (none / 0) (#101)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:58:44 AM EST
    That the people of Vietnam run like whipped dogs at the mere mention of America? That we showed 'em why you don't talk to Commies / mess with Texas? I suppose he could have brought up the rightwing trope about how we won every battle, like anyone gives a sh*t. That's like saying that the Brits should have held on to India because Gandhi never threw a punch, or that the civil rights movement actually failed, because no black person ever shot a white person with a fire hose.

    Parent
    My husband had just walked in during that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:18:26 PM EST
    question.  He and my son had taken allowance to purchase a new video game so coming home to blaring debate was sort of startling for them, but my husband's reaction was very geniune and he agreed whole heartedly and thought it was one of the finest statements made that he saw.  I can't think about it right now, I suppose I fear becoming too depressed about things to function well.

    Parent
    He says that soldiers don't die in vain (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:20:31 PM EST
    when they are working together and protecting each other but the mission was in vain and America lost her troops in vain.

    Parent
    This makes me feel better about that year in (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:37:54 PM EST
    Norfolk while my then-spouse was cruising around the Carribean all winter on a Navy cargo ship.

    Parent
    How to link (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:07:44 PM EST
    Left arrow a href equal sign quotation mark webaddress linking to  close quotation mark Right arrow Link Left arrow backslash a right arrow

    Parent
    W/that much info I could restore Jeralyn's (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:09:29 PM EST
    Mac.

    Parent
    andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:13:19 PM EST
    gives the better advice.

    It is the 4th icon above the block for comments.

    Parent

    I got a caution from our hostess for not using (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:15:13 PM EST
    HTML. We need EK over here--but just for practical info, not impeachment rallying.

    Parent
    EK is a great guy (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:23:08 PM EST
    Very passionate. Obviously frustrated. I feel for him.

    He's wrong as rain on the merits of course.

    Parent

    He was perfectly nasty to me last night (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    But I give almost as good as I get.

    Parent
    That;'s not the real EK (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:27:02 PM EST
    He is all passion now.

    Parent
    Never really had any run-ins with him (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:31:18 PM EST
    before.

    Parent
    A great guy (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:33:43 PM EST
    Talk about something else with him.

    Smart and funny.

    Impeachment fever has hold of him now.

    Parent

    Way too bright and intellectually curious (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:25:03 PM EST
    too have taken this path.

    Parent
    The funny thing (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    I am pretty good friends with all the impeachment folks, cept Kagro now I guess.

    Buhdy is a good friend.

    EK was a buddy when I was still there.

    Heck, I am friendly with OPOL.

    The diaries bother me less than the FP stuff.

    Parent

    Agreed, as there was just another reminder on the (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:39:13 PM EST
    FP of who speaks for DK.

    Parent
    I was mostly a reader until pretty recently (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:43:46 PM EST
    The only time OPOL really pisses me of is when he (?) gets into the conspiracy stuff. Actually, that's about 75% of what pisses me off about Daily Kos these days. I am avoiding Kagro now.


    Parent
    Oh OPOL (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    is a freak, but in a good way.

    Treaqt hinm with a little respect and he will give it back. Even if you are telling him you think he is full of crap.

    Parent

    Not supposed to be any (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:59:43 PM EST
    "conspiracy stuff."

    Parent
    Or just press the button (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:09:42 PM EST
    with the chain on it. ;-)

    Parent
    Molly Bloom provided this method awhile ago (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    On scoop sites such as this one, Dailykos, Mydd etc., you can use brackets to make links as follows

    [talkleft's url space TalkLeft] which give you this: TalkLeft

    Parent

    Always works at DK but seldom here. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:39:59 PM EST


    Parent
    make sure you have http:// (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    at the beginning of the url, for the bracket method to work

    Parent
    Here are (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:41:49 PM EST
    some other ways to make links.

    Parent
    O.K. What I tried to do was "select" (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    from the entire debate transcript the portion where Richardson responded on getting out of Iraq. But, what I posted was the entire debate transcript. How do I cure that one?

    Parent
    You can highlight the text (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:51:56 PM EST
    you want to select, then press CTRL-C to copy it.

    Then put your cursor where you want to paste it, and press CTRL-V to paste it.

    Parent

    That is exactly what I did. (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:58:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Try it again (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:05:56 PM EST
    and paste it into the comment box as a test till it works.

    I'm going to highlight just the words "till it works" above, press CTRL-C, then put the cursor below this sentence and press CTRL-V.

    till it works

    See?

    Parent

    Duh . . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:10:32 PM EST
    But select the text first.

    Parent
    Sometimes I put the text in. . . (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:16:13 PM EST
    afterwards!

    Parent
    Luddite (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:22:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah, yeah Mr. (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:24:38 PM EST
    "double quotation mark backslash"

    Parent
    Slow and steady (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    wins the race.

    Parent
    Aesop didn't have a Saab. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:28:08 PM EST
    (or a PowerBook. . .)

    Parent
    If CNN had only had the smarts to ask (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:19:44 PM EST
    Talk Left posters and (some) commenters to pose the questions, think how much better the debate would have been. I did like the follow-up question by the same person on the video. Good idea.

    I bet (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:25:39 PM EST
    of the 3000 submissions, there were 39 better questions.

    I only saw the first 3 or so, thought they were awful.

    Heard about the Snowman, just saw the singing taxpapyer.

    Absolutely absurd.

    Awful Terrible. Worst thing I hasve ever seen.

    A joke.


    Parent

    Clearly going for the lowest common denominator. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:28:16 PM EST
    Meanwhile, the candidates are still afraid to back gay marriage. Amazing.

    Parent
    They are where they are (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:31:29 PM EST


    Parent
    All this will be resolved at Yrly Kos though? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:29:18 PM EST


    Parent
    What will? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:31:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Questions to the candidates filtered through (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:40:57 PM EST
    Mr. Frameshop. (I'm kidding.)

    Parent
    Jeff'll do good (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:42:05 PM EST
    Sharp as a tack Dr. F. is.

    Good guy too.

    Parent

    Happy to hear that. I fear all questions (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:44:31 PM EST
    on impeachment and getting rid of Gonzales and none on getting us out of Iraq.

    Parent
    It would shock me if (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:45:35 PM EST
    mcjoan does not handle the Iraq stuff.

    Parent
    I'm counting on her to do that. (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:47:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I really hope you are right on this. (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:57:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, I got to do Logic Games (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:29:30 PM EST
    which are worse. . .?

    Parent
    I love logic games (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:30:56 PM EST
    The debate, or the first half hour was the worst thing I have ever seen in politics.

    Parent
    I don't feel bad for missing it (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:33:47 PM EST
    But then, I knew I wouldn't.

    Parent
    It was worth watching to see all those men in (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:42:18 PM EST
    dark business suits and Hillary in her salmon colored jacket. Also to see her appraisal of Obama while he was responding to questions.

    Parent
    So you missed the Bush/Kerry debates, then? (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:43:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:44:36 PM EST
    Those really mattered, especially the first one.

    The whole country watches them or the spin.

    Parent

    It will be interesting to who wins highest (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    percentage of viewers in the debate time slot tonight.

    Parent
    Oh the Dems will (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:59:46 PM EST
    they have consistently.

    the GOP field is awful and Republicans know it.

    Parent

    Of course the Dems will as opposed (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:31:20 PM EST
    to the Repubs. I'm talking about the time slot of tonight's debate only!

    Parent
    Ira Chernus (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:26:44 PM EST
    Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, today posted the most sobering article I've yet seen about the prospects for the Iraq occupation, and what can be expected from presidential candidates.

    The Democrats' Iraqi Dilemma

    Pity the poor Democratic candidates for president, caught between Iraq and a hard place. Every day, more and more voters decide that we must end the war and set a date to start withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Most who will vote in the Democratic primaries concluded long ago that we must leave Iraq, and they are unlikely to let anyone who disagrees with them have the party's nomination in 2008.

    But what does it mean to "leave Iraq"? Here's where most of the Democratic candidates come smack up against that hard place. There is a longstanding bipartisan consensus in the foreign-policy establishment that the US must control every strategically valuable region of the world -- and none more so than the oil heartlands of the planet. That's been a hard-and-fast rule of the elite for some six decades now. No matter how hard the task may be, they demand that presidents be rock-hard enough to get the job done.

    So whatever "leave Iraq" might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate.
    ...
    So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war -- with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts -- while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

    It's depressing, but I'd recommend reading the entire article.

    What cred do we give to a religious studies (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    professor on this issue?

    Parent
    Ira Chernus (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:32 PM EST
    blogs at The Smirking Chimp as well, and is the author of:

    Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror And Sin:

    Book Description
    In an ambitious effort to clarify a complicated issue, Ira Chernus tackles the question of why U.S. foreign policy aimed at building national strength and security has the paradoxical effect of making the country less safe and secure. His answer: The "war on terror" is based not on realistic appraisals of the causes of conflict, but rather on "stories" that neoconservative policymakers believe about human nature and a world divided between absolute good and absolute evil. The root of the stories lies in these policymakers' terror of the social and cultural changes that disrupted American society during the sixties. The neoconservative stories portray those responsible for change not simply as political opponents, but as enemies or sinners acting with evil intent to destroy American values and morals--that is, as "monsters" rather than human beings.

    Exploring both secular and religious components of this political ideology, Chernus shows that after 9/11 the Bush administration transferred the story from a domestic to a foreign stage. The goal of the war on terrorism is to keep on fighting monsters forever, to give Americans a global arena where they can show that they still believe in eternal moral values and have the strength to resist the winds of change. Traditional conservatives support the war on terrorism because its story mirrors their own stories about a war against sin. Liberals accept an endless war against foreign evil because they fought the same kind of war against communism for forty years. They act out old stories that feel familiar and safe, rather than finding new policies that would actually make us more secure. This turns the United States into a national insecurity state.



    Parent
    Neocons adverse reaction to the '60s? Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:42:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Luam at OpenLeft (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:52:26 PM EST
    wrote a good diary yesterday about the need for a drastic overhaul of US Foreign Policies: Foreign Policy in a post-Bush America

    Parent
    Chernus has obviously done his history homework. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:46:26 PM EST
    But my own opinion is that Dennis Kucinich and Armando Llorens are the two people I know of who make the most sense re Iraq.

    I hope the window can be moved far enough...

    Moving The Overton Window: How Ideas Become Political Reality
    An Introduction to the Overton Window of Political Possibilities
    by Nathan J. Russell, Mackinac Center for Public Policy

    Parent

    Trying really hard to avoid that Overton Window (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:50:12 PM EST
    discussion and haven't seen it referenced lately. Did you see that Obama won the debate hands down?

    Parent
    Mmmmm... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:33:39 AM EST
    George W. Obama?
    "The single most important job of any president is to protect the American people," he affirmed in a major foreign-policy statement last April. But "the threats we face.... can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.... The security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." That's why the U.S. must be the "leader of the free world." It's hard to find much difference on foreign policy between Clinton and Obama, except that Barack is more likely to dress up the imperial march of U.S. interests in such old-fashioned Cold War flourishes.

    That delights neoconservative guru Robert Kagan, who summed up Obama's message succinctly:  "His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough.... To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States."  To control everything and everyone, he wants "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world.... A 21st century military to stay on the offense." That, he says, will take at least 92,000 more soldiers and Marines -- precisely the number Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has recommended to President Bush.



    Parent
    Or... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:23:36 AM EST
    Hillary R. Bush?
    Hillary Clinton declares forthrightly: "It is time to begin ending this war.... Start bringing home America's troops.... within 90 days." Troops home: It sounds clear enough. But she is always careful to avoid the crucial word all.  A few months ago she told an interviewer:  "We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq.... What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region."  A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017.  

    Why all these troops?  We have "very real strategic national interests in this region," Clinton explains.



    Parent
    Withdrawal of American "combat troops"? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    American combat brigades only add up to perhaps half of the troops presently in Iraq.

    Parent
    Post-Debate Thread: Iraq Topics | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment