The Democrat Thread

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.slate.com/id/2236558/

 

Obama doesn't deserve all the whining. He's off to a good start and poised to rebound strongly. Like every one of his predecessors, he just temporarily set off Washington's most annoying political gyroscope. When a president's job approval percentage rating is in the 50s and 60s, everyone in Washington thinks his success was his or her idea. When the same president's approval rating dips below 50 percent, everyone in Washington thinks his or her idea is the president's only chance of survival.

 

In September 2008, I went to a breakfast meeting that the Obama campaign held for about 100 Washington insiders. Unfortunately for the poor staffers who had flown out from Chicago, the briefing took place during the only week all campaign long when Obama, not McCain, was the one below 50 percent. A parade of panicked politicos offered bad advice on how to right the ship. I left the meeting immensely reassured that the campaign hadn't been doing any of what Washington insisted it must do.

[lostfan]

http://www.slate.com/id/2236558/

lol at Maureen Dowd suggesting Obama become more like Palin. She is good for about 1-2 stupid comments per week.

[CrimsonWeltall]

lol John Wooden Legs

 

Perhaps the most embarrassing gaffe so far is her mis-attributed quote to UCLA basketball legend John Wooden. As the epigram to Chapter Three, "Drill, Baby, Drill," Palin assigns the following remarks to the Hall of Fame hoops coach:

 

Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their lives.

 

Only the quote wasn't by John Wooden. It was written by a Native American activist named John Wooden Legs in an essay entitled "Back on the War Ponies," which appeared in a left-wing anthology, We Are the People: Voices from the Other Side of American History, edited by Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and James W. Loewen.

 

via Andrew Sullivan via HP

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ecking-ctd.html

[BigSqwert]

It's obviously clear that there was absolutely no fact checking done on her book prior to publishing.

Edited November 30, 2009 by BigSqwert

[jasonxctf]

fact checking??? why start now?

[NorthSideSox72]

lol John Wooden Legs

 

 

 

via Andrew Sullivan via HP

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ecking-ctd.html

So not just a mis-attribution, but a completely opposite connotation of the quote. Impressive.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP

[lostfan]

Something that needs to be pointed out now and again for people who think more blood is the answer.

The vast majority of those people are innocent (although the US isn't solely responsible for all those deaths obviously, but those numbers are conservative estimates on the Muslim side), and people wonder why we have image problems in certain parts of the world and why nobody takes us at our word when we say we're there to help. War doesn't help in most cases. We can be our own worst enemy.

Edited December 1, 2009 by lostfan

[GoSox05]

Something that needs to be pointed out now and again for people who think more blood is the answer.

The vast majority of those people are innocent (although the US isn't solely responsible for all those deaths obviously, but those numbers are conservative estimates on the Muslim side), and people wonder why we have image problems in certain parts of the world and why nobody takes us at our word when we say we're there to help. War doesn't help in most cases. We can be our own worst enemy.

 

 

Plus most of the people that died in Iraq from the UN sanctions were children.

 

 

Madeleine Albrights response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the Iraqi sanctions

Death of 500,000 Children 'Worth It'

 

"It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."

 

[Rex Kickass]

Dan Rather was on Rachel Maddow last night, apparently he spent a good part of the month in Afghanistan last night, and of course he's parroting a lot of the "there's no point" line that seems to be talking head CW these days, but he did talk about noticing a surge in what he calls soft power - the military and NGO's working together to build useful structures for communities, creating bottom up leadership.

 

I don't claim to know a lot about this conflict, but it seems to me if the strategy has changed to squeezing out the Taliban and giving population centers in risky areas of Afghanistan tools to survive and grow (which is how the Taliban gain legitimacy in areas they initially control btw) I think we've found something that works. The goal in Afghanistan seemed unclear the last few years, now the goal seems to be shaking out to a somewhat stable and mostly harmless state and then we leave, hopefully with it in better shape than when we left. If what I understand to be the case is the case, it seems a pretty reasonable strategy and one with a pretty well defined goal especially in contrast to many of our recent foreign engagements.

[Rex Kickass]

Plus most of the people that died in Iraq from the UN sanctions were children.

 

 

Madeleine Albrights response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the Iraqi sanctions

Death of 500,000 Children 'Worth It'

 

"It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."

 

Let's be honest that had more to do with the leadership of Iraq than the sanctions. I don't believe food aid or medical supplies were restricted due to the sanctions.

[lostfan]

Dan Rather was on Rachel Maddow last night, apparently he spent a good part of the month in Afghanistan last night, and of course he's parroting a lot of the "there's no point" line that seems to be talking head CW these days, but he did talk about noticing a surge in what he calls soft power - the military and NGO's working together to build useful structures for communities, creating bottom up leadership.

 

I don't claim to know a lot about this conflict, but it seems to me if the strategy has changed to squeezing out the Taliban and giving population centers in risky areas of Afghanistan tools to survive and grow (which is how the Taliban gain legitimacy in areas they initially control btw) I think we've found something that works. The goal in Afghanistan seemed unclear the last few years, now the goal seems to be shaking out to a somewhat stable and mostly harmless state and then we leave, hopefully with it in better shape than when we left. If what I understand to be the case is the case, it seems a pretty reasonable strategy and one with a pretty well defined goal especially in contrast to many of our recent foreign engagements.

That's always been the way to go, unfortunately State only has a fraction of the resources DoD does and then we expect soldiers to be able to do diplomatic/humanitarian/police work and then wonder why they take so long/get poor results/fail outright.

 

We have this strange obsession with military power in this country, and completely unrealistic expectations of what our military can do for us. It's there for one reason, an unfortunate reason that should be avoided but is necessary nonetheless: to kill a lot of other people really fast.

[lostfan]

Let's be honest that had more to do with the leadership of Iraq than the sanctions. I don't believe food aid or medical supplies were restricted due to the sanctions.

Personally I wouldn't count the sanctions, but parsing out and rationalizing ends up being Orwellian doublespeak since the people who die don't care about the rationalizations (although in this case I would guess they blame Saddam, and not the US). However, the post-invasion deaths, even the sectarian violence we weren't directly involved in, we're ultimately responsible for, as much as I hate to admit it. That's what happens when you go into a major city and get rid of the police. Yeah you primarily blame the neighbor who robbed you, but the guy that eliminated the protection has to share some blame too.

[NorthSideSox72]

Regarding the Afghanistan thing, I've had some fascinating conversations lately with a couple people who know the situation there personally. One is a reporter who has spent time there, the other is a co-worker who is of Pashtun descent and has family in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

 

There are multiple themes from both of them, but two were in common, and stick out to me.

 

One, is that they believe the system of government needs to be more federal - NOT more NATIONAL. Basically, in many generations past, Afghanistan did have a central royalty, but they really were there by builing regional coalitional support. Much like a federal situation. Each region was very autonomous, and nominated their own representatives to the central ruling government. What is happening now is, Karzai is CHOOSING the regional representatives FOR those regions, thus defeating the purpose. This should change.

 

The other is, what we did in Iraq, but haven't really done in Afghanistan, is invest in infrastructure. The US spent something like $150B on infrastructure projects in Iraq. Afghanistan's government asked for $30B of infrastructure work, and got less than half that. Infrastructure means jobs, economy, transportation, and all sorts of things that would ally the regions with the US effort. It may seem like a bribe, and it kind of is, but it is likely to be very effective. This should be done as well.

 

[lostfan]

This article recognizes skepticism on Afghanistan and tries to explain continued involvement http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009...worth_the_fight

[Cknolls]

Let's be honest that had more to do with the leadership of Iraq than the sanctions. I don't believe food aid or medical supplies were restricted due to the sanctions.

 

 

Ah details.

[GoSox05]

Let's be honest that had more to do with the leadership of Iraq than the sanctions. I don't believe food aid or medical supplies were restricted due to the sanctions.

 

 

There are hundreds of pieces written about this. Here is one, that has a break down of the effects of the sanctions.

 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions

[Rex Kickass]

There are hundreds of pieces written about this. Here is one, that has a break down of the effects of the sanctions.

 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions

 

You are addressing an effect, I am addressing a cause.

 

The sanctions themselves didn't lead to food and medicine shortages in Iraq, the government in Iraq did.

[Rex Kickass]

This article recognizes skepticism on Afghanistan and tries to explain continued involvement http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009...worth_the_fight

 

There are a few articles out there along these lines and its refreshing to see a more nuanced approach to whether or not this effort makes sense. There's too much polarity in our thinking.

 

Either Afghanistan is the new Germany/Japan or its the new Vietnam in the punditocracy - and there seems to be no middle option of what it could be.

 

I don't think the goal of the US is to nationbuild like they did in Germany or Japan. And I don't think the goal is to prop up a failed state like it was in Vietnam. I think the goal is to provide them building blocks to create a relatively stable state and on the other hand protect Pakistan from destabilizing itself.

[lostfan]

There are a few articles out there along these lines and its refreshing to see a more nuanced approach to whether or not this effort makes sense. There's too much polarity in our thinking.

 

Either Afghanistan is the new Germany/Japan or its the new Vietnam in the punditocracy - and there seems to be no middle option of what it could be.

 

I don't think the goal of the US is to nationbuild like they did in Germany or Japan. And I don't think the goal is to prop up a failed state like it was in Vietnam. I think the goal is to provide them building blocks to create a relatively stable state and on the other hand protect Pakistan from destabilizing itself.

I wasn't originally going to read it but it acknowledges up front that there are reasons to be skeptical and says there isn't any one tangible thing to point to. I still lean towards "it's a waste of time" but I understand the arguments in favor.

[GoSox05]

You are addressing an effect, I am addressing a cause.

 

The sanctions themselves didn't lead to food and medicine shortages in Iraq, the government in Iraq did.

 

 

It made it harder for them to trade for food and medical supplies. Those are just two things that were a problem. There are other issues that were created by the sanctions. Such as water purification. Chlorine and other chemicals were banned and those were needed to help clean the water.

 

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) survey noted that almost half the children under 5 years suffered from diarrhoea, in a country where the population is marked by its youth, with 45% being under 14 years of age in 2000.

[DukeNukeEm]

Well, the UNSC did say they'd lift the sanctions if Iraq disarmed. Iraq didn't disarm so the sanction weren't lifted.

 

Kinda gotta split the blame on that one between the UN and Saddam.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, the UNSC did say they'd lift the sanctions if Iraq disarmed. Iraq didn't disarm so the sanction weren't lifted.

 

Kinda gotta split the blame on that one between the UN and Saddam.

There is no split. The blame is squarely with Saddam and his buddies.

 

[lostfan]

There is no split. The blame is squarely with Saddam and his buddies.

The majority of it, yeah, but if you look at the big picture and see how we were playing some realpolitik hardball with Saddam (only a couple of years ago he was an ally and we were all wink-wink about his intentions to invade Kuwait) and the more I think about it the more I realize how bad of a strategic mistake the whole thing was. We should've either done it, and gone all the way to Baghdad and gotten it overwith, or just left it alone.

[NorthSideSox72]

The majority of it, yeah, but if you look at the big picture and see how we were playing some realpolitik hardball with Saddam (only a couple of years ago he was an ally and we were all wink-wink about his intentions to invade Kuwait) and the more I think about it the more I realize how bad of a strategic mistake the whole thing was. We should've either done it, and gone all the way to Baghdad and gotten it overwith, or just left it alone.

Agreed on your first part, if you go far enough back, Saddam's very presence and strength is partly the fault of the west. Kind of like the Israel/Palestine problem is ultimately caused by the creation of the Israeli state in the first place.

 

But I completely disagree on the first Gulf War aspect. I think Bush I handled that exactly the way it needed to be handled.