A Big Difference
Ross Douthat forecasts Barack Obama’s political strategy:
Even with the GOP brand in the toilet, Republicans are still trusted as much or more than Dems on foreign policy, mostly for somewhat nebulous “toughness” reasons. So why give the Right a chance to play what’s just about its only winning card, when you can satisfy your base with a phased withdrawal from Iraq that’s scheduled to happen anyway while waxing hawkish on Pakistan, Afghanistan … and who knows, maybe Iran as well? (I have a sneaking suspicion that a President Obama will be slightly more likely to authorize airstrikes against Iran than a President McCain would have been.) [...] And with his right flank safely guarded (assuming, of course, that Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran doesn’t become his Administration’s Iraq), he’ll have that much more political for the big-ticket goals that will guarantee his place in the liberal pantheon – universal health care, a New Deal for energy policy, a succession of young liberal judges who will tilt the Supreme Court leftward for a generation, etc.
I object! All the work here is being done between the parenthesis. A phased withdrawal from Iraq plus a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan wouldn’t be a lurch to the right, that’s what Obama’s been calling for throughout the campaign. And, indeed, way back in 2002 he was saying that instead of invading Iraq, we should have a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But add “authorize airstrikes against Iran” to the mix, and then you’re talking about something entirely different. Obama made repeated, explicit promises during the campaign for a new approach to Iran, and the new approach wasn’t “bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”
But I’m going to make a bold prediction. During the campaign, Obama stood foresquare for major health care reform and major energy legislation. When events occurred that made major economic stimulus seem desirable, he stood for that as well. Then for about a week on either side of Election Day there was a lot of talk about how Obama maybe should go back on all those pledges. But as he’s rolled out what we’ve seen of his team so far, they’re talking about throwing “long and deep” and fulfilling their key campaign pledges. On the only national security issues the transition has addressed, he’s reiterated his determination to close Gitmo and end torture.
Maybe he’ll break the pattern. But until he actually does, I think the safe thing to assume on foreign policy is that we’ll keep seeing more of the same — a President who meant what he said when he was a presidential candidate. That means withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a renewed focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan issues, along with a new diplomatic initiative aimed at Iran, and work on an Israel-Arab peace accord “starting from the minute I’m sworn into office”. That’s the agenda he campaigned on, and there was no real reason for him to have campaigned on it unless he meant to do it.
65 Responses to “A Big Difference”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Douhat: I have a sneaking suspicion that a President Obama will be slightly more likely to authorize airstrikes against Iran than a President McCain would have been.
What on earth are you smoking? McCain? The ex-zoomie who never saw an airstrike (or war) he didn’t like?
But until he actually does, I think the safe thing to assume on foreign policy is that we’ll keep seeing more of the same
Amen. Particularly since the Ross Douhat’s of the world would attack him for going back on his word.
max
['Right-wing: Dear President-elect Obama, here are many excellent reasons to do stupid shit. Please to fuck up and follow our advice.']
November 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
McCain actually sang “Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” during the campaign. Douthat, as right-wingers often do, is projecting like a madman.
(I realize that McCain was paraphrasing a question he’d just ben asked, but it doesn’t suggest that he’d be restrained in attacking Iran.)
November 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
he’s reiterated his determination to close Gitmo and end torture.
Obama: “I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture, and I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture.”
Bush: “This government does not torture people.”
Bush: “As I’ve said before, the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values.”
Yeah, huge difference. Oh, wait. Obama actually means it. We know this because…..well, just because. Faith-based analysis.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
That’s a pretty stupid suspicion, alright.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I think that President-elect Obama is intelligent enough to know torture is both ineffective as an intelligence-gathering technique and highly destructive to the reputation of anyone who employs it.
During the Bush administration, there were high-level discussions IN THE WHITE HOUSE about how to torture people. No other presidential administration could possibly be that incompetent.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
A lot of political commentary these days is more akin to monkeys slinging poop at shadows than to any kind of intellectual exercise. It’s rather painful to watch. Maybe they just need to cry.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I think he’s confused because, as a conservative, he assumes the order goes: 1) win campaign based lies and misdirection 2) once in office, do all the things you didn’t want anyone to know you were planning to do.
I’m waiting for Obama’s Social Security privitization plan to be rolled out any day now.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Thank you, Matt. This echoes what I’ve been thinking today as I’ve seen various lefties freak out over Obama’s supposed sneaky plans to lurch right (so sneaky there’s no evidence for them).
And Mixner, the difference is that Bush was in charge of the government and authorized and encouraged tourture as a matter of policy and was therefore clearly lying. Obama may not mean what he is saying, but we have no reason at all to think that at this point. Until he’s actually president and is shown to have authorized or encouraged torture I’d say there’s a pretty big difference in the two comments. What you call “faith based analysis” I’d call giving someone the benefit of the doubt and judging them by their actions instead of their words.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
A phased withdrawal from Iraq plus a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan wouldn’t be a lurch to the right, that’s what Obama’s been calling for throughout the campaign.
Exactly. Obama has effectively dictated our course in Iraq during the campaign. It’s Bush and McCain who have lurched to the left.
Bush originally asserted that any timeline was surrender, now he’s practically adopted Obama’s original 16-month schedule. McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” quickly devolved into “We’ll be out by 2013!”. We’ve started to refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and the Taliban.
Ross want’s to pretend that these are Republican positions now and that if Obama adopts them he’ll have lurched rightward by simply standing still.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
And Mixner, the difference is that Bush was in charge of the government and authorized and encouraged tourture as a matter of policy and was therefore clearly lying.
I’m afraid you’ll have to substantiate these accusations before they can be taken seriously.
Obama may not mean what he is saying, but we have no reason at all to think that at this point.
What reason do we have to think he’s telling the truth? Obama’s bizarre “America does not torture” construction, also favored by Bush, suggests that his public statements on the issue are an exercise in legalistic Clintonesque parsing to cover up a more complicated policy (”But, you see, Chief Justice, when I said ‘America doesn’t torture,” I just meant our agencies don’t torture as a matter of policy, not that we would never use torture at all.”)
November 19th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Obama should be smart and leave the domestic policy to Congress and his Cabinet. He needs to concentrate on foreign policy where he can do some good. Stop the torture and start talking.
And I’m sorry Mixner, torture is the policy of this government and Bush did nothing to stop it. And when he sends his minions out to call the Geneva conventions ‘quaint’, he’s supporting torture. Your idea that a president should not be held responsible for what goes on in his administration is laughable. The buck stops at the president. Anything that happens under him is his responsibility. If he can’t control his people, he’s a bad leader. And if he wanted people to torture, he’s a war criminal. I would hope that he’s only incompetent, but it’s pretty clear that he at least made a conscious effort to not know anything about the torture. But conscious ignorance doesn’t save you when your president. And that’s the best we can say about Bush. In reality, he knew about it and liked it. He’s a sadist and a war criminal.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
It used to be that one expected a President to follow through on at least some of his campaign promises.
Carter promised to start pulling out of Korea, and he did… until that misunderstanding with an axe. Reagan promised to cut taxes and regulations, and he did. It wasn’t until GWB started his talk about compassionate conservatism that outright bullshit became the new baseline.
Why on earth would Obama want to go back on the health care reform, energy initiatives, and economic stimulus? Oh yeah, because the network news anchors were wondering how Obama was going to balance the budget. Who were the idiots writing their copy?
November 19th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
1) I hope that Obama remembers that Lyndon Johnson tried to “guard his right flank” — and it destroyed Lyndon’s reputation.
2) As Master Yoda said — “Do. Or Do NOT. There is no TRY”
3) Any President has to do the Political Calculations –but those should be secondary.
The Primary calculation should be: What is in the best interest of the People of the United States.
If you make an honest, good decision you won’t have to waste large amounts of time later trying to defend it.
If you tell the truth, you won’t have to waste a lot of time and energy on trying to make your lies come true.
2) Bush’s Administration, by contrast, has been totally focused on playing the political game. That’s why it has been such a disaster.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
And I’m sorry Mixner, torture is the policy of this government and Bush did nothing to stop it.
There you go again with the unsupported accusations. By the way, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
If you’re so confident that Obama will not torture, why don’t you ask him to sign a clear written statement to that effect? Something like:
Of course, even this wouldn’t completely settle the matter, but it would be whole lot clearer than this “America does not torture” guff that Bush also uttered.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Carter promised to start pulling out of Korea, and he did… until that misunderstanding with an axe. Reagan promised to cut taxes and regulations, and he did.
Right. Except for the hated Bush, Presidents always do what they say they’ll do and never lie.
“I did NOT (thump) HAVE (thump) SEX (thump) with that woman, Ms Lewinsky.”
Oh, wait. Clinton wasn’t really lying because “it depends on what the meaning of is is.” Or something.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
All the Republitards who are so anxious to start bombing PakistanSyriaIran should just sign on with Blackwater and get their own AK-47. Otherwise, these chickenhawk f*cktards should just STFU!
November 19th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Ouch! Thanks for loading me back up with that image.
In fairness, Clinton didn’t campaign on a pledge not to doink the WH staff. He campaigned on – among other things – major health care reform.With a bit of luck and skill, BHO will avoid screwing the pooch on that promise.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Foursquare, dummy.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
More guff, DTM. The statement “No Administration should allow the use of torture” is not a pledge never to torture. It’s not a pledge at all. An does “Administration” include the armed forces? The CIA? A foreign government or agency acting on behalf of the United States (hello, “Extraordinary Rendition”)? How about the President acting in his role as Commander in Chief?
Why don’t you ask Obama to issue a public statement such as the one I proposed above?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Matt,
This comment is not limited to this post (and may not be directly relevant), but I wanted to comment to a recent post with the hope that you might read it. Sadly, I find that your level of snarkiness has risen dramatically lately and I am disappointed. I have been reading your blog for over a year now and generally enjoy it (even though I am from Boston!) because you address serious policy issues, but your commentary has been significantly less enjoyable lately. What gives? Why so cranky?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
DTM,
I am far happier with Obama speaking in an intelligent and informed manner than trying to use you as his speechwriter.
No, you’re far happier with Obama hiding behind vague, cryptic statements about how “administrations” “should” act than in trying to get him to clearly and unambiguously describe his complete position on the use of torture because you fear you would not like the results if he did.
For example, in the passage I quoted he specifically categorized “‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like water-boarding, head-slapping, and extreme temperatures” as torture.
No he didn’t. He merely suggested that such techniques can be torture. This is consistent with case law and expert legal opinion on torture, which have held that interrogation techniques such as beatings can be, but are not necessarily, torture, depending on their severity and duration. Obama is a lawyer, DTM. He chooses his words carefully. Especially on issues like this.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
DTM,
If you understand that issue, then you know closing those loopholes shuts down torture by all American personnel everywhere–military, civilian, anyone.
Wrong again. First, making an act unlawful doesn’t “shut it down.” The law is merely a deterrent to unlawful acts, not an absolute barrier. Second, there are various ways of avoiding or circumventing any statutory prohibition on torture that cannot be eliminated by “closing loopholes,” including prosecutorial discretion, the necessity defense, jury nullification and presidential pardon. And third, Obama gave no indication of what legal provisions he considers to be “legal loopholes.” One man’s loophole is another man’s fundamental right. See the debate over whether the Exclusionary Rule is a loophole for an example.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
DTM,
Obama didn’t say waterboarding can be torture, but might not be
He merely said that torture can include waterboarding. He didn’t address the question of whether all waterboarding is torture. The phrase “Torture, including waterboarding” does not mean that all waterboarding is torture, any more than the phrase “Politicians, including women” means that all women are politicians. Do you really not understand this? You seriously think that Obama believes a single light slap to the head is torture, do you?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
DTM,
I am glad the era of the top people in the Administration having this sort of view of the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws is about to be over.
Er, presidential pardons are a long-standing tradition that Obama is likely to continue. Bill Clinton used the pardon. George HW Bush used the pardon. Ronald Reagan used the pardon. Jimmy Carter used the pardon. Gerald Ford used the pardon. And so on.
Prosecutorial discretion, jury nullification and the necessity defense aren’t a matter of the president’s duty at all.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Mixner is pedantically correct: The phrase “Torture, including waterboarding” does not mean that all waterboarding is torture…
However, what I’ve ready thus far leads me to conclude that all waterboarding is – in fact – torture. Getting back to post #3, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Obama’s intent was along the lines of “Torture? That’s just not done”.
Naturally, if one wants to split hairs, feel free. It’s one of the core factors that turns elected citizens into scripted “politicians”.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
DTM,
“Politicians, including women,” doesn’t make much sense for precisely that reason–it would have to be something like, “Politicians, including female politicians”,
No, it wouldn’t “have” to be any such thing. No one except you would interpret the phrase “Politicians, including women” to be suggesting that all women are politicians rather than be a reference to politicians of both genders.
Second, I believe that Obama believes the interrogation technique known as “head-slapping” is torture.
Well, make up your mind. You just denied that Obama was saying that he thinks waterboarding “might not be” torture. In which case, you think he was saying that all waterboarding is torture. In which case, he was also saying that all head-slapping is torture, not merely head-slapping used as an interrogation technique. Which is it?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Are there different kinds of waterboarding now? I believe Obama’s choice for AG included no cruel or degrading treatment.
How long before the stench of neo-con paranoia and the insistence that if one cannot prove a negative that one is guilty going to continue? This culture has been insane long enough.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
DTM,
Of course Obama is likely to use the pardon power,
So, in fact, contrary to what you just said, you do not believe that “the era of the top people in the Administration having this sort of view of the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws is about to be over.”
What I don’t think he is going to do is order people to do something illegal with the promise of giving them a pardon if they get prosecuted, tried, and convicted.
I don’t think it’s likely he’d order that with the “promise” of a pardon. More likely, he’d just order it, period. But that’s beside the point. I cited presidential pardons as an example of ways of avoiding or circumventing a ban on torture that cannot be eliminated by “closing loopholes.” Ditto for prosecutorial discretion and the other things I mentioned.
And by the way, the Constitution says the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” You may not understand what that means, but I do, and it doesn’t allow for the President to seek out “various ways of avoiding or circumventing any statutory prohibition.”
What does it mean, DTM? Since you assure us that you know, you shouldn’t have any problem explaining it.
When Jimmy Carter pardoned Oscar Collazo for attempting to assassinate Harry Truman, was that “tak[ing] care that the laws be faithfully executed?” How about when Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for his Watergate crimes? Or when Bill Clinton pardoned his brother for cocaine possession?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
cmholm,
Mixner is pedantically correct: The phrase “Torture, including waterboarding” does not mean that all waterboarding is torture…
It’s not “pedantic,” but I’m glad you agree that I’m correct. DTM, unfortunately, is still incapable of understanding this.
However, what I’ve ready thus far leads me to conclude that all waterboarding is – in fact – torture.
Thousands of U.S. military personnel have been waterboarded as part of their survival training. So you think the U.S. government has been torturing its own citizens on a massive scale in this way, do you?
November 20th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Yeah, Mixner sucks. Apparently he’s part of a political cadre that can’t win shit, lost everything. Why argue with him anymore? You don’t need to sit and rehash why 24 is just a tv show anymore.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:42 am
If Obama is a man of his word then he would give us a net cut in government spending. And for every dollar of new programs that he would introduce he would find a dollar to cut.
If you look at his sixty minutes interview he has already broken that campaign promise. He said it, I didn’t. He has already embraced bigger deficits.
Talk to me about being a man of his word. Depending on who he talked to those words changed anyway.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:03 am
a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan
That was the most glaring simplification in Obama’s debates.
What on earth did he mean by it?
If neither Kabul nor Islamabad can control places like Waziristan, how does Washington DC propose to do it?
There is a worryingly prophetic articlehere.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Very few people seem to remember that Obama said this in 2004:
November 20th, 2008 at 4:33 am
Matt: “Obama made repeated, explicit promises during the campaign for a new approach to Iran, and the new approach wasn’t “bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”
JESUS FUCKING BARON VON CHRIST, MATT!! Don’t you READ ANYTHING OBAMA SAYS? ANYTHING AT ALL?
Get your head out of your ASS, Matt!
Obama has REPEATEDLY STRESSED the following:
1) He will NOT take military action off the table.
2) He will NOT go to the UN for sanctions for said military action.
3) He will NOT allow Iran to have one single centrifuge.
4) He will attempt to blockade Iran’s imports of refined gasoline and other products – an act of war in itself.
How many times have I QUOTED Obama on this subject here, Matt? You don’t read any of these sources?
Top Obama Adviser Signs on to Roadmap to War with Iran
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?
And how many fucking times do I have to quote this article which has direct quotes from Obama stating all of the above?
Rivals Split on U.S. Power, but Ideas Defy Labels
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23policy.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
Matt, what part of this sentence do you not comprehend?
What part of this statement being exactly the same as Bush on Iraq don’t you comprehend, Matt?
What part of this end goal being completely impossible to attain with Iran don’t you comprehend, Matt?
Matt, you sound like a fucking idiot making statements like you just did about Obama and Iran.
You also sound like a fucking idiot when you make statements indicating that Obama is correct to expand the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan – against the advice of just about every military and regional expert in the world on those two countries.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Here’s some more to take note of:
Making Excuses for Obama
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13698
The Limits of Change
What to expect from the Obama administration on the foreign policy front
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13709
November 20th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Obama: Iran’s Pursuit of Nukes Is Unacceptable
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/07/obama-hits-out-at-iran-closemouthed-on-tactics/
Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran
By Peter Symonds 6 November 2008
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/iran-n06.shtml
On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes.
The article entitled “New Beltway Debate: What to do about Iran” noted with a degree of alarm: “It is a frightening notion, but it not just the trigger-happy Bush administration discussing—if only theoretically—the possibility of military action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program… [R]easonable people from both parties are examining the so-called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.”
Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons
capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”.
A key member of the Center’s task force was Obama’s top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, who is well known for his hawkish views. He backed the US invasion of Iraq and is closely associated with neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz. Ross worked under Wolfowitz in the Carter and Reagan administrations before becoming the chief Middle East envoy under presidents Bush senior and Clinton. After leaving the State Department in 2000, he joined the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—and signed up as a
foreign policy analyst for Fox News.
The Bipartisan Policy Center report insisted that time was short, declaring: “Tehran’s progress means that the next administration might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.” It rejected out-of-hand both Tehran’s claims that its nuclear programs were for peaceful purposes, and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by US intelligence agencies which found that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The report was critical of the Bush administration’s failure to stop Iran’s nuclear programs, but its strategy is essentially the same—limited inducements backed by harsher economic sanctions and the threat of war. Its plan for consolidating international support is likewise premised on preemptive military action against Iran. Russia, China and the European powers are all to be warned that their failure
to accede to tough sanctions, including a provocative blockade on Iranian oil exports, will only increase the likelihood of war.
To underscore these warnings, the report proposed that the US would need to immediately boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf. “This should commence the first day the new president enters office, especially as the Islamic Republic and its proxies might seek to test the new administration. It would involve pre-positioning US and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, [and] emplacing other war materiel in the region,” it
stated.
In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options remain on the table”, the report declared: “We believe a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a military strike “would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”
Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior Democratic advisers “unanimously approved” the document, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for defense under Clinton.
Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the
bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September, which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an element of any true option”. While Ross examined the diplomatic options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements” that had to underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial bombardment of Iran.
Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled, “Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on the Iranian nuclear challenge”, drafted in June by a Washington Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of policy options”, including “preventative military action”. Ross was a
taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.
As the New York Times noted on Monday, Obama defense adviser Richard Danzig, former navy secretary under Clinton, attended a conference on the Middle East convened in September by the same pro-Israel think tank. He told the audience that his candidate believed that a military attack on Iran was a “terrible” choice, but “it may be that in some terrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible choice”. Richard Clarke, who was also present, declared that Obama was
of the view that “Tehran’s growing influence must be curbed and that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” While “his first inclination is not to pull the trigger,” Clarke stated, “if circumstances required the use of military force, Obama would not hesitate.”
While the New York Times article was muted and did not examine the reports too deeply, writer Carol Giacomo was clearly concerned at the parallels with the US invasion of Iraq. After pointing out that “the American public is largely unaware of this discussion,” she declared: “What makes me nervous is that’s what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.”
Giacomo continued: “Bush administration officials drove the
discussion, but the cognoscenti were complicit. The question was asked and answered in policy circles before most Americans know what was happening… As a diplomatic correspondent for Reuters in those days, I feel some responsibility for not doing more to ensure that the calamitous decision to invade Iraq was more skeptically vetted.”
The emerging consensus on Iran in US foreign policy circles again underscores the fact that the differences between Obama and McCain were purely tactical. While millions of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia—including the use of military force against Iran.
Matt Yglesias – pimp for Obama’s next war – just as he pimped for the Iraq war.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Matt: “That’s the agenda he campaigned on, and there was no real reason for him to have campaigned on it unless he meant to do it.”
Christ, what a moron. This sucker KID is supposed to be a “foreign policy pundit”?
It’s like calling Bill O’Reilly a “journalist.”
November 20th, 2008 at 7:57 am
calm down children, it’s going to be ok…
November 20th, 2008 at 11:57 am
DTM,
Again, in order to make sense of your hypothetical phrase we have to “interpret” the phrase “women” to actually mean something like “female politicians”. There is no such need to reinterpret Obama’s phrase to make sense of it.
No one is “reinterpreting” it. Obama’s phrase “torture, including waterboarding” doesn’t mean that all waterboarding is torture any more than “politicians, including women” means that all women are politicians or than “passengers, including children” means that all children are passengers. Cmholm understands this. I don’t know why you can’t.
“Head-slapping” is an interrogation technique, and it is always torture. The same is true of “waterboarding”.
You just make one absurd assertion after another. Both “head-slapping” and waterboarding can obviously be used for purposes other than interrogation. Punishment, for example. Is it now your position that head-slapping and waterboarding are torture only when used as interrogation techniques, and not torture otherwise?
No, as I said, the era of viewing things like the presidential pardon power as a way of avoiding or circumventing a statutory ban on torture is over.
What “era” would that be? When has the presidential pardon ever been used to pardon torture? Given that it’s been used by recent presidents to pardon attempted assassination and gross abuse of power, your assumption that it will never be used to pardon torture by Obama or some future president is just more of your usual wishful thinking.
Among other things, it means the President can’t attempt to find “ways of avoiding or circumventing” statutory prohibitions.
More nonsense. Presidential pardon is one obvious a way of circumventing statutory prohibitions. And it’s not necessarily the president who would be avoiding or circumventing a ban on torture, anyway. It could also be prosecutors (prosecutorial discretion), juries (jury nullification) or courts (the necessity defense).
This was always one of the dumbest arguments from the pro torture crowd. SERE training involved preparing people for torture in the case of capture by, among other things, subjecting those people to torture techniques.
It’s your “arguments” that are dumb, DTM. Tell me, what’s the difference between torturing someone and “subjecting” him to “torture techniques?” Apparently, you now think Obama could get away with torture by claiming “We’re not torturing them, we’re only subjecting them to torture techniques!”
November 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Didn’t the Obama team’s pledge to throw “long and deep” orginate with Obama’s former advisor, Linda Lovelace?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:36 am
Buy Cheaper
WOW goldyou just choose any two professions and use it to gather raw materials l2 power leveling
January 19th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Thanks for the review! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me.
viagra