Who’s Foreign Policy Adult?
Barack Obama knows which countries border Iraq; he understands the difference between Shia and Sunni; and he is probably aware that Czechoslovakia no longer exists—but as John McCain complains, the young senator has “no military experience whatsoever.” Indeed, like both of the last two presidents, Mr. Obama possesses scant credentials in national security and foreign policy.
Why, then, does he appear increasingly plausible as the next president? Assurance, grace, and mastery of the facts have helped to lift his stature, as did his daring decision to venture abroad, directly challenging his older opponent’s perceived strength. But granting his talent and initiative, the strongest argument for the Democrat is the weak performance of the Republican regime’s vaunted “grown-ups,” including Mr. McCain and his advisers. They have gone far in proving that experience can be overrated.
Following the 9/11 attacks, conventional commentary constantly informed Americans that we were lucky to be led at that perilous time by the old Republican hands in the Bush White House. Not George W. Bush himself, of course, whose résumé featured an abbreviated stint in the Texas Air National Guard and perhaps a few visits to Tijuana. We were supposed to thank providence for the wisdom and skill of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, along with a phalanx of deputies, assistants and subalterns. They had won the first Gulf War and their presence in Washington dated back to the Nixon era. They would know what to do.
Nearly every decision those highly qualified individuals made, from the day they took over in 2001, has been wrong, starting with the dismissal of the Al Qaeda threat and moving on to the invasion of Iraq; the diplomatic standoffs with Iran, North Korea and Syria; the sidelining of the Mideast peace process; and the unilateral impulse that has damaged American alliances around the world.
Rarely during the past seven years did Senator McCain, whose own foreign policy skills and knowledge have begun to seem seriously overrated, speak up in dissent from the failed Bush policies. His most significant contribution to the national debate—namely, his insistence that the U.S. commit more troops to Iraq—is overshadowed by his much more consequential mistake of supporting the invasion on false pretenses. More than once he has displayed the same stubborn ignorance about Iraq, Iran and the Gulf region that led to this strategic disaster. They underestimated the division between Shia and Sunni, the influence of Iran on the new leaders of Iraq and the resistance of the Iraqi people to any prolonged American occupation.
That persistent ineptitude has brought the supporters of the war to an ironic comeuppance, as the Iraqi government and people demand the withdrawal of U.S. troops on precisely the same timetable suggested by Senator Obama. The bombshell remarks uttered by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his aides over the past several days should not be so surprising to anyone who has paid attention to Iraqi public opinion or to the botched status-of-forces negotiations between the United States and Iraq.
As Juan Cole has pointed out, the Bush administration repeatedly irritated the Iraqis with their insistence that a new agreement ratifying the American occupation must continue to exempt private contractors and U.S. troops from prosecution under Iraqi law, and permit U.S. commanders to operate without consulting the Iraqi government and arrest and imprison Iraqi terror suspects indefinitely. Those perceived outrages against Iraq’s sovereignty were underlined by an American operation in the prime minister’s hometown that evidently killed one of his cousins.
The net result of the status negotiations is no result, which has made the Iraqi government highly susceptible to pressure from its own people and from its friends in Tehran for an end to the occupation. Attempts by the Bush White House and the McCain campaign to suggest that the Iraqis didn’t mean what they had plainly said only provided a darkly comical coda.
But then the Iraq war has always been a saga of incompetence and ideology, compounded by deception and self-deception. Against that lethal mixture, the experience of the old hands seems to have provided no protection, for them or for the rest of us.
jconason@observer.com
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.6
- 44.2
- Obama +2.4
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.8
- 35.8
- +20.0
- McCain
- 54.8
- 36.6
- +18.2
Poor Ol' Joe just can't get past the fact that, after some horrible initial missteps, the War in Iraq is being won. The surge is working. Political reconciliation is working. Fifteen of the eighteen political benchmarks have been met. Street violence is down 80%. U. S. casualties, which totaled 78 last July, are at 5 this July.
And poor Senator Obama doesn't know which way to turn. He says, even after admitting the success of the surge, that he still thought it was wrong. Then he says, yes, things are safer, but the political benchmarks haven't been met. (For the fallacy of that statement, please see above.) Then he proclaims, in the most tortured logic possible, that, no, it wasn't the success of the surge but the success of the political reconciliation process that has quelled the violence.
His interviews so far, with Terry Moran and Katie Couric, have just been horrendous. He can't put two words together without stammering and stuttering. One would have thought that Demosthenes had developed a speech impediment. And his actual thoughts, his core beliefs, if you will, are utterly indecipherable. As Gertrude Stein once famously uttered, there is no "there" there.
No, Mr. Conason. The child is still in Iraq. The adults have remained stateside.
It's stunning how supporters of the miserable failure that currently occupies the White House manage to parrot the same old lines, week after week, year after year. Can you please explain to me why the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first place?
First we were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. By now, even viewers of Fox News would have to finally admit defeat on this issue. Then we were told that we overthrew Saddam Hussein because of his mistreatment of the Iraqi people and the threat he posed to stability in the Middle East. After Abu Ghraib and the horrors of Gitmo, the Bush administration has forfeited all credibility on human rights issues. The rest of the world now views our government as an absurd joke, as Bush supported torture and unlawful detention. And Iraq has been so destabilized that Iran is now the strongest power in the region, and the same absurb clowns that got us into this mess seem determined to provoke a conflict with that country.
When will the Fox News watching, Rush Limbaugh listening hordes finally admit that their guy screwed up? Iraq isn't a political debate anymore; it's a debacle that threatens to cripple the U.S. economically, and render the U.S. a pariah in the world. Iraq is preventing the U.S. from effectively waging war in Afghanistan, and choking off any efforts to improve the U.S. healthcare system and myriad other needs. The so-called "grown-ups" need to be sent to a rest home.
One thing the White House is not sharing nor "leaking" to their conservative media "darlings" is the details of the current negoations going on between the new Iraqi Government and the Bush administration for troop withdrawl..that perhaps includes kicking out the likes of contractors such as Halliburton as well...which most likely would be a real "deal braker" for the Bush Administration!
Why did we invade Iraq in the first place?
Well, let's see. First, every major Democrat leader supported the invasion, thinking there were weapons of mass distruction.
The Twin Towers had just been hit. Better safe than sorry.
Every major foreign nation believed that Saddam had WMD's.
Iraq was in violation of fourteen straight UN resolutions regarding cease and desist from the first Iraq war.
Saddam Hussein was commiting genocide on his peoples.
Saddam Hussein was conducting terrorist training camps in Samarra, Ramadi and Salman Pak.
And on and on and on.
Please, no more softball questions. This is too easy.
All US leaders know that our country has bet the family farm on the military occupation of Iraq. Were this war to end in anything less than victory the USA would face the economic music unbolstered by all that captured oil.
This last commentator is repeating the Bushite pseudo-moral mantra and the rest of their sorry excuses. Everyone knows how highly American conservatives regard the United Nations. Frankly I would have more respect for him and his ilk were they men enough to say "That's our oil beneath their sand. We are going to take it. And if we must mix it with blood so be it."
Chris Herz
cdherz44@yahoo.com
There's an old saw in journalism about never letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
While it is certainly a facile argument that the big bad capitalists were responsible for the invasion of Iraq, the fact is that, in the five years since the invasion, American companies have not taken one drop of oil from Iraq.
Further, while the final deals haven't been struck, it appears that three of the five major oil companies up for contracts are foreign (BP, Total and Shell).
Please - a little intellectual rigor. Once again, you make this too easy.
You know, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Here are some of the things that Bush's oil cronies said in the runup to the war.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Oh no, wait. These are all quotes from major Democrat leaders in the months before the invasion.
Please.
Unfortunately, none of the quotes above are from Barack Obama. Sadly, he was only a state senator at the time, so anything he might have said would have been totally without foundation, as he had no access to intel reports.
Unless, of course, someone might argue that he illegally had access and believed them to be incorrect.
Does anyone remember the "Oil for Food" program at the U.N.? The dishonorable French and Russians were lining their pockets while Saddam was building palaces. The U.N. was interested in nothing but the status quot. Post 9/11, this was unacceptable and it's a good thing Bush had the vision to do something about it.
Bill08:
Looks like the cool aid is fine, but how about facts not repo talking points.
1. Every major foreign nation believed that Saddam had WMD's Everyone knew there was chemical and biological. Chenney and Rumsfeld sold them to Iraq during the Reagan years. That is when they weren't selling arms to the Iranians a few scant years after they held our people hostage. Very few beleived the nuclear claims of the bush admin, and that was the major selling point. Not the cia, not the state dept, nor the weapons inpectors from the un, nor foreign govs.
2. Iraq was in violation of fourteen straight UN resolutions regarding cease and desist from the first Iraq war. Isreal is in violation of many un resolutions as well, should we invade them also.
3. The Twin Towers had just been hit. Better safe than sorry. The attack came from Afganistan. The whole world supported our action in Afganistan. Bush admin blew it, for some crazy neocon idealology. Admit it and move on, or just enjoy the cool-aid.
Remember when the far-right loons who eagerly supported (and still support) Bush's hands-off policy in Osama Bin Laden (what's 3,ooo people, after all?), talked about the need to attack Reagan & Bush' Sr's friend Saddam Hussein because he "committed genocide and torture of his own people". Then, when lil' Georgie took over the Abu Graib franchise and proceeded to kill over a million innocent Iraqis in 3 years, suddenly the same Iraqis those benevolent dittoheads wanted to "free from tyranny" suddenly became "dangerous terrorists"?.. Now, after the Bush administration's genocide Iraq, those same mindless rightwingers boast that "violence is down in Iraq" (which is like saying the crime rate in Nagasaki and Hiroshime went down considerably in 1946! Hurrah!!).
The stay-at-homes moms of the GOP (Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.) will continue to support the blanket murdering of US troops in Iraq, while the people that attacked the US (remember 9.11? It was in all the papers), are not only stronger than ever, but Bin Laden -- the guy Bush "doesn't think about" -- is an undisputed hero throughout the Middle East.
And the lesson rigtwingers have learned for supporting the weakest, most cowardly president in US history -- George W Bush -- who allowed the USA to be defeated by a Saudi street gang? We need to continue to kill off US troops in Iraq, while both the Taliban and Al Queada are stronger than pre-9.11... Is it wany wonder the American people hate the gutless Republican?
No credible argument is made by any sane person that the USA is winning anything in Iraq. None of the so called advances will stand if any of the major Shia leaders decide to overturn them and that can happen in as few as 6 hours.
It takes a mental midget to affirm that sll is well and no reverses will happen because there is less violence today and possibly tomorrow.
If the USA has won in Iraq it also won in Vietnam and Somalia.
I can't believe the lame arguments offered by Bill08. He is immensely ignorant about anything other than GOP talking points. Does he work as a writer for Limbaugh and Hannity?
I grew up in the middle east and I see no way for the USA to come leave Iraq as winners other than to simply declare victory and slink out. Much like Nixon's victory in Vietnam. The last Republican president to win a war was Abe Lincoln. No other Republicans will follow in his footsteps since he was willing to find someone who understood wars and was tough enough to win them. No living GOP civilian will ever go that far. None have the brains or the guts.
McCain knows full well how to turn tail and run. He did it in 2000 during the primaries. He'll do it again.
"Why, then, does he appear increasingly plausible as the next president? Assurance, grace, and mastery of the facts have helped to lift his stature, as did his daring decision to venture abroad, directly challenging his older opponent’s perceived strength.
But granting his talent and initiative, the strongest argument for the Democrat is the weak performance of the Republican regime’s vaunted “grown-ups,” including Mr. McCain and his advisers. They have gone far in proving that experience can be overrated."
The strongest argument for Obama is Zbig Brzezinski. I can't wait for Obama's new brand of global politics infuriating Russia and China. I'm all for traditional politics, hoping Hillary takes her rightful place as the Dem Nominee in Denver.
We're not ready for ZBig's upscale creation of a wireless version of a bronzetone Jimmy Carter!
Well Well Well ...
Joe Conason HIT'S THE NAIL ON THE HEAD... (once anyway)...
i.e.: "the strongest argument for the Democrat is the weak performance of the Republican..."
and that's supposed to make basis to elect the most powerful man on the planet?
Please - Joe _ even you must be able to grasp that the USA needs *sever change alright* not "...scant credentials in national security and foreign policy." Nor does "...Assurance, grace, and mastery of the facts... offer anything relevant.
We - the USA - *NEED REPRESENTATIVES THAT STUDY, UNDERSTAND, RESPECT AND CARRY OUT THE CONSTITUTION* ... nothing more and nothing less - neither party has done this *ONE MAJOR POINT OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION* since Renaldus Maximus.
Our nation is in serious peril - and Joe Conason GET'S IT - I applaud you for that. However - remaining a liberal is unforgiveable - ONCE YOU "GET IT"... Joe!
Yes, Joe! Get with the program. If John Voight get's it..
http://www.showbizspy.com/showbiz/07282008/angelina-jolies-dad-barack-ob...
and I'll fill in what he didn't say:
We have one chance remaining ensuring Hillary is the nominee and that chance lies in Denver.. Would it be too much to ask if you would compose a stellar article highlighting the only real chance we have for a legitimate president? Please?
Here is good research with authentic facts surrounding our candidate. We know who Hillary IS as opposed to the mysterious pretend self styled nominee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwSZv7bpltw
Uncle Sam has a message for you..
We Love you, Joe...
Who's Foreign Policy?What grammmatical moron is proofing your headlin? Geesh! Patrick D.Hazard, Retired English professor, Weimar, Germany.
Israel is in violation of general l assembly resolutions. General assembly resolutions carry no weight and are never enforced and have never been enforced. Security council resolutions are they ones that are enforced. Sorry Saddam was in violation of o security council resolutions..
Cheney nor rumsfield sold chemical or biological weapons to iran. This old lie has been disproven so many times its not even funny. Iraq legalyy bought on the open market chemical precursors. Many dozens of chemicals can be bought that can be weaponized. Thats what Saddam did. Example CHLORINE that is bought and sold in the USA by the millions of gallons to clean backyward pools can be weaponized. I guess by this standard my local pool supply company sales WMD. To say because REAGAN was president Iraq legally bought chemicals on the open market that "reagan" is pretty specious if not a lie.
GW did go into afghanistan. Invasion of IRaq wasnt until over 1 year after 911.
You need to get no talking points or do better research.
To Jorge:
Learn to spell.....that way you won't look like such an asshole.
U.S. And Iraq Go Way Back
Report: Documents Show Cozy Relationship During Iran-Iraq War
NEW YORK, Dec. 31, 2002
A 1995 affidavit by former National Security Agency official Howard Teicher, obtained by the Post, claimed that the U.S. "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required."
Teicher claimed that the CIA supplied Iraq with cluster bombs through a Chilean company. However, German and UK firms sold more weapons to Iraq than U.S. arms companies, the Post reports.
Congressional investigations after the Gulf War revealed that the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.
When Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1987, there was anger in Congress and the White House. But a memo in 1988 from Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy stated that "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is … important to our long-term political and economic objectives.
To Bill08:
What you and your ilk...errr party have become....drum roll please:
unhinged gay-hooker-patronizing zealots
greedy FOX News-humping hypocrites
corrupt fearmongering demagogues
bloodthirsty New Orleans-abandoning blowhards
unmedicated Big Brother-worshipping cowards
puritanical civil-liberty-seizing nutjobs
un-American military-wrecking extremists
intolerant gay-hooker-patronizing hypocrites
shameless oil-company-fellating nutjobs
heartless dissent-stifling wingnuts
bedwetting male-page-seducing bloviators
selfish torture-sanctioning zealots
sexually repressed deficit-expanding morons
incompetent bathroom-sex-seeking revisionists
Oh and Sean Hannity called, dinner is a 8:30...please wear that tight little mini skirt that you know turns him on. Oh and Rush will be there as soon as he's done getting high on Oxycontin.
Chow
Wingnuts