Wasn't it only recently that certain vocal members of the conservative GOP punditry were excoriating the "mainstream media" for failing to follow up on the National Enquirer's delving into the affairs of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards?
Think they'll stay on message?
September 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
One person in the comments section had a very valid point. Which was -- of course -- completely overlooked and -- not surprisingly -- ignored by everyone else.
This guy doesn't want people pouring through his personal life. His divorce may have been far from amicable, and it may very well have NOTHING to do with Palin. So, knowing how the media can turn anything into a feeding frenzy, he wanted to lock the files up. Completely understandable for someone who didn't ask or agree to be part of a national story.
Seems to be a perfectly reasonable possibility to me.
No question and to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less what either of them do with themselves under comparable circumstances.
My point is that there was a feeding frenzy over Edwards's personal life but the same frenzied feeders are complaining when it comes to a member of their own party.
There have been plenty of infidelity fiascos on both sides of the aisle.
I do think these two situations are different however. Edwards practically got caught with his dick in his hands. Whatever happened with Palin, if anything did happen, happened many years ago. So there is that difference.
Personally, it's become so freakin commonplace, it's almost like a required right of passage in politics. If I cheated on wife, she'd hang me by my balls from the lamppost outside our house. That would scare me more than any story in the press. Why this doesn't happen to more people in politics is beyond me.
Eh ... whatever happens come election time, I'm with Joe Biden ... it'll simply be "more of the same". That holds true for Obama AND McCain. These guys may be capable of serving in the role of President, but I think they're hardly FIT to be President.
So Bob Barr it is, then?
We should dig up the original "Dubya". George Washington for President ... again.
Even dead he'd make a far better President than the one we currently have in office.
Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.
-- Proverbs 3:3
Do I think there's something wrong with being a gay politician? Nope, not a damn thing. In general it's nobody's business.
Do I there's something wrong with being a gay politician who campaigns on an anti-gay platform? Damn right I do. Out those vicious hypocrites.
Same general principle here, if there's fire beneath the smoke. If you're going to tout your candidate's biblical morality, and try to cram your religion's notional (biblically defined) moral superiority down the public's throat, you thereby render possible evidence of her being a homewrecking adulterer somewhat relevant.
The lesson is, don't make biblical sexual morality a major plank in your political worldview if you don't want your political candidates judged by that standard.
it'll simply be "more of the same"
Which country do you suppose Obama will invade and occupy?
Which country would O invade and occupy? Why, Pakistan.
Why, Pakistan.
Really? Because I think that threatening strikes into border-straddling mountains isn't quite occupation, is it?
And could we have just a moment of seriousness, if you can manage it, on the question at hand: whether it will be "more of the same" with respect to invasion and occupation?
If you seriously think that Obama's remotely likely to invade Pakistan, occupy the country, overthrow the goverment, and be bogged down there in a full-scale imperial presence years later, you need your head examined. If you don't think so, then you don't think it's "more of the same", and are being willfully obtuse.
The lede from the linked story:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.
Troops ordered into a country "unilaterally"? That's an invasion by any reckoning, which puts us half-way toward Bushitlerism. But, Clutch says, there's no threat to occupy. To that I say, in for a penny, in for a dollar. What assurance is there that invasion would not result in occupation? And even if it didn't, how much of a break from Bushitler would "unilateral" invasion really represent?
Clutch may be on to something when he raises the specter of psychiatric intervention, deliberate obtuseness, or plain old frivolousness. Clutch slips, though, in laying those accusations at my feet. Sadly, the issue is whether O fits those descriptions. He's the one who made the threat, not me. I just assume that we take a presidential candidate at his word.
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Never occurred to me that O was being frivolous, hallucinatory or deliberately obtuse. But maybe Clutch is right, and O was indeed one of those things.
Claim: Obama will be "more of the same".
Datum: Prominent among "the same" is the full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Question: Is it remotely plausible that Obama will do "the same"?
WT's answer: Yes, because Obama once said:
"The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety [in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan]... As President, I would make... military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan... There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."
Let the grown-ups discuss: Did Obama, even in this one bit of sabre-rattling over a year ago, even vaguely threaten to occupy Pakistan?
Okay, that was a short discussion. So, given that it's obvious that he didn't say any such thing, what explanations could we offer for William Tyroler's frantic and marginally coherent insistence that he might as well have?
I find it hard to decide whether sheer cynical partisan dishonesty or some sort of borderline psycho-pathology ("Obamanoia") is the more charitable explanation.
Clutch:
Anyone ever suggest to you that (using the noun form as iT prefers), the ad hominem isn't a persuasive form of argumentation? That, and the idea that it doesn't go well with the Age of Aquarius post-partisanship Obama's supposedly ushering in. Just saying.
I think we're the only ones remaining at this particular party, Clutch, but here goes anyway. We agree (I think) that Obama threatened to invade Pakistan. That's a pretty serious threat to make, don't you think? Makes it hard to say he represents a clear break from Bush, doesn't it (at least with respect to muscular resort to militaristic problem-solving)?
This leaves you with 2 possible approaches. 1) He didn't really mean it. That would make Obama look awfully weak, though. If you make a threat that serious you have to follow through, or you lose any potential for deterrence. Takes the vigor out of his vigorous diplomacy.
2) Somehow, some way, invading a country in order to quell a perceived strategic threat ("wage the war that has to be won," as Obama bluntly put it) excludes the possibility of occupation. If that's what you really believe, Clutch, then fine; we'll just have to disagree. Same re: invading Pakistan in order to win a war that has to be won somehow in some way excludes the possibility of "full-scale" invasion. Consider, though, that few people thought that sending "advisers" to South Viet Nam would lead to us being bogged down in a protracted war. More pertinently still, one of the most trenchant criticisms of Bush is that he didn't have a good occupation plan after defeating Iraq militarily. I don't (unlike Obama) advocate invading Pakistan, but if he does carry out his threat, I hope he doesn't repeat Bush's mistake.
You can have the last word, Clutch, because frankly this discussion is a bit too obvious, and boring as a result.
Do learn what an ad hominem is. Calling you either dishonest or cognitively incapacitated may not be irenic, but it's hardly the reasoning I gave for rejecting your palpable silliness.
To recap, then:
1. Obama did not clearly threaten to invade, though he did, once, last year, in a clearly cynical Primany campaign speech, conditionally threaten strikes in the event that Pakistan refused to take action against terrorists in mountainous border regions. You seem to be the only person today treating this as an unconditional intention to actually invade and occupy Pakistan. What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't?
2. What he said certainly did not exclude the military occupation of Pakistan, no more than a list of your breakfast's ingredients would. Nothing that either candidate says this week is likely to rule out the military occupation of Pakistan. Your obsession with this utter vacuity is hard to fathom.
3. Clearly there is no reason to think that Obama's presidency would be "more of the same" with respect to the invasion and occupation of other nations.
4. Boring indeed, as juvenile perniciousness often is.
Back where we started, then. W.r.t. invasion and occupation, no sane and honest person thinks that Obama will be "more of the same".
Actually Clutch, the claim was that "Obama and McCain would BOTH be more of the same." As far as I am concerned, the campaign promises being made, are simply that ... promises. And promises, like rules, are made to be broken. Broken at the most convenient moment.
I won't apologize in the slightest for looking at both candidates and being cynical of their claims and promises. I literally think it's a crap shoot. Until they're in office, we have no idea how they'll perform, and by then ... it's too damn late.
Clutch:
Guess you can't help it. Maybe I can't either, so I'll break my pledge to say no more, this once anyway.
Let me help acquaint you with an actual working definition of ad hominem: "attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain." Pertinent examples, courtesy of Clutch, who didn't get the post-partisanship memo from Obama HQ:
you need your head examined
If you don't think so, then you ... are being willfully obtuse
hard to decide whether sheer cynical partisan dishonesty or some sort of borderline psycho-pathology ("Obamanoia") is the more charitable explanation
either dishonest or cognitively incapacitated
juvenile perniciousness (my fave, because it's such obvious projection)
Back to the merits, which have been rehearsed now in (yes) boring detail. Clutch says: "You seem to be the only person today treating this as an unconditional intention to actually invade and occupy Pakistan. What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't?" Clutch seems to have forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that the world indeed stood up and took notice of Obama's inflammatory statement. Thus, for example, The Times of London breathlessly headlined its account: "Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt."
But, there is that lawyerly "and occupy" Clutch throws into the mix. It seems to function as a security blanket to help his or her thumb-sucking. Perhaps (pardon me) clutching that blanket tightly will help him or her sleep more soundly, safe in the belief, as s/he puts it, "there is no reason to think that Obama's presidency would be 'more of the same' with respect to the invasion and occupation of other nations." Pleasant dreams, Clutch. I will say, again: if you invade a country you better be prepared to occupy it, and occupy it well. Isn't that one of the principal lessons of the invasion of Iraq?
tomjoe: I think it's false of McCain too. It's just more false of Obama, and the difference is important. None of which is to take issue with the claim that both are cynical, and that there are respects in which it will be business as usual no matter what. We agree about much of this, I'm sure, and are frustrated by many of the same things (you more than me, since you actually have to live under these drones, while I only have to live with the broader consequences of their actions.) The respects in which it will not be the same are very, very important, though.
William: two phrases the English meanings of which you must consult to avoid humiliating yourself further:
"rather than the policy or position they maintain"
"today"
I leave it to you -- as homework.
I overlooked what you intended to convey by "today," Clutch? Got me there. So, the entire world thought when he said it that Obama was threatening to invade Pakistan, but no one's thinking it "today," because it's an older news cycle. I bet I'm the only one thinking today that Bobby Thomson knew what pitch Ralph Branca was about to throw because the Giants were stealing the signs. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
My sarcasm in the last post may, on reflection, have been a bit inscrutable. This, I absolutely swear on my bible (Bill James version), is my final word on this thread.
The immediate international reaction to Obama's rather startling comment was that he had just threatened an invasion of Pakistan. Clutch says that "today" no one believes that. Problem is, Clutch has absolutely no proof of what anyone, O included, believes "today" on the subject. In the absence of such proof, we're left with the statement itself (not to say the initial reactions), which clearly threatened invasion. (If Clutch had troubled him or herself enough to do some minimal research, he or she probably could come up with some hedge-betting and weasel-wording qualifications from the Obama camp. Too bad the effort wasn't made. It would have taken the thread in a different but interesting direction. Doesn't matter now; I'm quite done.)
Well, gosh, that's a pretty weak mea culpa for getting caught in a strawman, William. But one takes what one can get, I suppose, especially since there was no apology or retraction of any kind for having fumbled and misapplied "ad hominem" as well...
Once again, just for the sheer thrill of it:
Obama threatened strikes, once, early in a primary race, when he was being depicted as too inexperienced to make the tough calls.
Quite properly, this elicited more than a little sharp commentary -- in particular from Pakistan. But because Obama has not beat this drum, everyone seems in the meantime to have recognized it as a garden-variety piece of primary politics. (The evidence being basically the same evidence for saying that nobody expects Obama to nuke Grenada; viz., nobody's saying a damn thing about it, and they would if they did think so.)
Nobody else seems to have taken those remarks as evidence that an Obama presidency would be "more of the same" with respect to invasions and occupations. Again quite properly, because that would be daft, given what's generally known about Obama's views on foreign relations, his views on war (he's not entirely agin'it, but is not much for it either), and the views of his base on war (probably, on the whole, more agin'it than he is), multa inter alia. Which is what makes it most reasonable, and even, oddly enough, most charitable to read William Tyroler's sudden and singular obsession with Obama's speech of Aug. 1 2007 as a failed attempt at pernicious rhetoric rather than the expression of some genuine prediction about an Obama presidency. (Viz., that it would be more of the same vis a vis invasion and occupation.)
So, yes, Obama once conditionally threatened strikes into border regions of Pakistan. Bill Clinton actually ordered strikes, lots of them, and ordered troops into various countries. Yet Bush's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were not just "more of the same" Clintonian foreign policy; nor does this denial imply that Bush somehow invented such things as military strikes, gunboat diplomacy, sabre rattling, American expansionism, foreign war for domestic purposes, lying, or shitty planning. Obama would be sort of like Bush, no doubt, and Bush was sort of like Clinton, and Carter was sort of like Nixon, and Indira Gandhi was sort of like Mahatma Gandhi, and meatballs are sort of like basketballs. Yes, yes. Now, does any grown-up think that Obama's presidency would be more of the same in the sense that Obama will invade and occupy as Bush has done?
No. Of course not. Not even, and perhaps even especially, not William.
In short, and as repeatedly demonstrated now, the key moves in William's reasoning are:
Obama once threatened strikes into a border region of Pakistan.
Therefore,
He might as well have threatened a full-scale invasion and occupation of Pakistan.
Therefore,
It is reasonable for us now to think that an Obama presidency would be more of the same, when it comes to proclivities to invade and occupy other countries.
I won't bother taking a view on which of these moves is the silliest.
Post a Comment