Open thread
Brought to you by the commentariat, since the site's elected leadership seems to have forgotten how to do it, or in the case of our newest overlord, managed to completely b***s it up at the 1st attempt.
Couple a things to get us started:
Hagiography alert John McCain war hero - who knew? What has Barack Obama “sacrificed” for America?
Billmon's back - courtesy of the Orange Satan, game on!
--
GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Spartacvs's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -

Seeing this tripe flow from the pen of one of my most beloved childhood authors is a bit like learning that Antoine de Saint Exupéry moonlighted as a writer of training manuals for the Hitler Youth.
Well, Card hasn't written a really good novel since Speaker for the Dead, nor even a passable one since The Ships of Earth. Creative fatigue? Personal troubles? A secret ether addiction? Your guess is as good as mine, but something happened to the poor guy.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
)His sci-fi was great stuff, but he's always been spouting off in other venues, notably the LDS press, where he's a big shot.
I never worked out homophobia or denying anyone their rights in law. Seems to me, though Christianity has some harsh words about homosexuality, Christ himself was known as a Friend of Sinners. Personally, my own pride and lust and gluttony and sloth preclude me from waxing hot about anyone else's sins of the flesh, and for my money, homosexuality is a bogus charge. Nobody chooses to be gay, and attempting to repress it leads to nightmarish consequences and self-hating bullshit of the Larry Craig variety.
And thus it is with poor old Orson Scott Card. I contend those who most viciously persecute homosexuals are closeted homosexuals themselves. How can any rational person deny another person rights in law?
It is the most curious of hypocrisies to read
Orson Scott Card has put homosexual characters into his own fiction, on several occasions, most notably Ships of Earth.
I write some fiction. Others around here do, too. For any fiction to work, it must contain believable characters put into believable situations. For every character who appears in my stories, I have assembled pages of back story. I have a character in some of my stories, a man who rigidly compartmentalizes his life: his homosexuality is completely disconnected from the rest of his soul. He can and does love people, but he does not love his sexual partners. I based him on one of my best friends.
Orson Scott Card reveals his true colors in The Hypocrites of Homosexuality.
There's the rub: the LDS Church demands allegiance, the conviction of blind obedience to authority, not the willing enlistment of the rational mind to a cause greater than itself.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and living there taught me a lot about being an outsider. I was what I liked to call the "token Episcopalian" at BYU.
True story: one day I happened to agree to fill in at a booth run by BYU's non-Mormon Student Association. (I wasn't a member, being more interested in classes, freelance gigs, and the Unobtainable Blond.) Up walks a prototypically dumb student:
Moron: You mean you're not LDS?
JKC: No, I'm not.
Moron: Uh, then why are you here?
JKC: I'm here to get an education. Why are you here?
There ended the conversation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You got the point across without being abusive. Hopefully, she learned something from the experience.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it was a 'she'?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I misread the last sentence in the comment and thought he had used a female pronoun.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Just when I had just about resigned myself to the conclusion that I probably wasn't going to increase the grand total of answers to my question re: Obama's position on beginning withdrawals from Iraq -- the grand total being ONE answer after about 180 comments on one thread alone, and that after much effort to pull that tooth on prior threads -- it occurred to me to present multiple choice to you guys. Maybe that would help (although I'm not counting on it).
Here goes:
I think the list below covers the possibilities for Obama's position regarding what he'd do if he comes to believe that beginning withdrawals immediately upon taking office would jeopardize stability in Iraq:
A) I will NOT delay beginning withdrawals, even if I think doing so will jeopardize stability.
B) I WOULD delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
C) I MIGHT delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
D) I WOULD delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
E) I MIGHT delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
F) I WOULD delay as long as I thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, period, even if that meant NEVER withdrawing.
G) I MIGHT delay as long as I thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, period, even if that meant NEVER withdrawing.
Does anyone have a very good sense of which of the above is Obama's position? If not, isn't it a question worth trying to get an answer to, in itself and also because he won the nomination largely by strongly implying that his answer was the first regarding beginning withdrawals immediately, and either the second or third regarding sticking to his 16-month timetable after beginning withdrawals, yet as of July 3 he has been cleverly trying to have it all ways via ambiguous statements?
There ya' go gents. Nice, quick, easy, convenient format for ya'. All you have to do is pick one (or say if you just have no idea what his position is), and if you think I've missed a possibility, please let me know -- but PLEASE make sense, don't just throw out something as a smokescreen to avoid giving an answer while trying to make it seem like you're answering.
- Login or register to post comments
)Perhaps smarter even than Socrates? who knows. But smarter and saner than attempting to test fly Socratic questioning beyond its design limits appears indisputable at this point.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )blah, blah, blah (I'm not including a title because I'd like you to see 6 "blahs").
Would you like to give an answer to my question, or just pretend that your avoidance is somehow legit and criticize my calling you on it (and imply that I'm insane? hmm, posting rules?)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you were half as smart as you think you are you'd still be half as smart as I think I am.
We're both wrong.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How about an answer?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Once Harley rolls out that level of snark, you have to simply understand he has disengaged from any real discussion.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Self-deprecatory humor is really the atom bomb of snark.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and when Harley wishes he can very graceful.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...logic. Consider that we would really have to pin down the meaning of the word "stablity" before an honest answer could be made. I don't believe you've done that. You must be assuming that Iraq can be "stable" with a US troop presence. That in an outlandish assumption to make. But most of all, I object to the condescending and wise-ass tone that you employ as a rhetorical device. Please stop that first.
But thanks for composing a title, rather than lazily letting the formatting do it for you. I hate repeating words, and that's what I'd have to read every time I encountered your name, which, by the way, usually comes up in my browser as "Brooks and B Rat...". Cheers!
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obama said on July 3:
Presumably he has some definition/concept of "stability" in mind. Whatever definition HE has in mind is fine with me for the purposes of my question here. And apparently Obama is making the "outlandish assumption" that it could benefit stability to delay/suspend/slow withdrawals to some extent. Are you saying Obama is being "outlandish"?
And by the way, stability is a relative matter. When I say "jeopardize stability", I obviously don't mean that there is any policy that would provide/maintain a completely "stable" Iraq; I just mean that an alternative policy would put an otherwise achievable/maintainable level of stability at significant risk (or if you prefer this wording, would risk substantially greater instability than would otherwise be expected).
As for "Brooks and B Rat", a rose by any other name...
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Unless you answer his question as written, he is going to complain that we're all dodging the issue for nefarious partisan reasons.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If that was meant as snark -- as an implication that I'm being unreasonable -- it's unjustified. Wanting a straight answer to a straight answer isn't too much to ask. Any snark should be directed at those who persist in evasiveness for partisan (or any other) reasons.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )or at least you've recently accused me and several others of being myopically partisan on this issue. And I addressed Zelig's comment, in all seriousness, hoping he might try to answer your question, if only to avoid adding any validity to that accusation.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As others have pointed out, it would be unwise to lay out plans and declarations to the degree of specificity he naively insists on.
Iraq is a bad situation and it's gonna get worse. Nothing we can do about that. We shouldn't have gone in in the first place, and there is no clean way out. The Iraqis will sort this out once we've left. Obama is more likely to get us out quickly than McCain.
I wonder how much we're gonna pay them when we're gone. You know, to compensate for all the damage and all the dead people.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Well, I was reading between the lines and seeing an implication on your part that I was being unreasonably or unfair -- and wrong -- in making those accusations in response to getting respones to my questions that were presented as if they were answers but were clearly NOT answers, and repeatedly getting more of the same despite many efforts to explain, clarify (not that clarification really should have been needed in the first place since my questions were quite clear), etc. You seemed to be implying that I was being unreasonable by excessively demanding about some idiosyncratic format or semantics, rather than the (real) truth, which is that I just wanted answers, period -- actual answers, not responses filled with apparently deliberate vagueness apparently intended to avoid giving a straight answer.
Was I wrong that you were making such an implication?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I will admit that I'm dodging the issue because of the extreme tedium that lies in store of a response.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Nope. If you're dodging it's because you don't want to give an answer. Tedium has entered the picture only because of all the evasiveness and my "pulling teeth" efforts just to get an answer from people.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He's dodging because he wants the last word, not because there is any value-add from the conversation. Once you posted a diary which could be shortened to read, "Anyone who disagrees with me is
--stupida hyper-partisan," you kind of set the long-term structure of the debate.It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This particular thread, which has now overrun more than one diary, is the rhetorical equivalent of kudzu. God Help Us All.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is nourishing.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )IF you want to use withdrawal as a way to pressure the Iraqi government into making the compromises necessary for a multi-ethnic democracy...
... and...
IF hedging on withdrawal would infuriate your political base and give comfort to your political enemies by allowing them to charge you with inconstancy...
... then why on earth would Obama want to answer your question -- either diplomatically or politically?
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sounds like you're making a case for why it is wise for Obama to avoid giving any indication of what his position is (which position among my multiple choice list). Is that what you're saying? And if so, are you saying that Obama has not given an indication of which position is his position? If so, I agree (because as of July 3 he has been deliberately vague and ambiguous to have it both -- or actually ALL -- ways), but others seem not to. They assert he's been fairly clear, but then can't tell me which is his position.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obama is being strategically vague. Tying himself to detailed hypotheticals would be unwise.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, I'm glad we agree that Obama is being vague. Seems most of the Obama supporters here think he's been reasonably clear, even though they can't tell me with any degree of confidence at all what his position is (which of my A through G above).
But...
detailedhypotheticals ??
You mean,
- when the central question of (arguably) the central issue of the entire campaign is whether or not we should announce and withdraw per a (more or less) fixed timetable vs. making withdrawal contingent upon not jeopardizing stability,
- and after Obama clearly implied during the primaries that his position was the former and depended largely on that position to win the nomination,
- and then he says after essentially winning the nomination that "the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability."
asking him what his position is now on that question -- including if his position is "MAYBE" he would delay for a couple of years or more in the interest of stability (if that's how he came to see it) vs. a position that he would NOT wait a couple of years to begin withdrawals regardless of impact on stability -- is asking him to "tie himself to detailed hypotheticals"
I don't see it that way. First, saying "maybe", as in, "I would consider policy/choice X in that scenario and may or may not choose that policy/choice" (as opposed to "No, I will not even consider that policy/choice in that scenario. My policy would be Y in that scenario") is not what I would generally consider someone "tying himself down" to a policy/choice. Second, I don't see where the "detailed" part of "detailed hypotheticals" comes in. I realize there are details pertaining to how much jeopardy of how much (and what kind of) stability under what kind of circumstances, but I don't think that my question constitutes some "detailed" hypothetical -- it's a general conceptual, fundamental policy question.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you accept Obama's argument that setting a withdrawal timetable will pressure the Iraqi government into making the necessary compromises, then saying "maybe we'll stay to help them out if they really need it" just reduces the pressure.
As I've said before, you might consider this amount of detail to be inadequate, but Ike in '52 and Nixon in '68 were far vaguer. They said nothing... literally. And they were right to.
Spelling out the conditions under which we would prolong our stay would be assinine... both politically and as a matter of foreign policy.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oh, I agree (and I've said previously on other threads) that it may be wise for Obama, from a policy perspective, to avoid indicating what his answer is if his answer is really anywhere from "D" through "G", for exactly the reason you state: If he thinks that convincing the Iraqis of an unconditional, roughly fixed timetable is key to getting them to act as he desires, then he could consider it wise to bluff if his real position is that he would (or he'd at least consider) delaying withdrawals for years or for his entire term(s) if withdrawals would jeopardize stability.
Having said that, if he really wanted to bluff hard, he would give a clear answer of A, B, or C. But having said THAT, it also could be wise policy to be vague as a kind of in-between bluff with wriggle room, which splits the difference, giving the Iraqis the impression that his position is more likely than not A, B, or C, but without his having to climb down completely and obviously if his bluf doesn't work and he chooses (further) delay of withdrawals.
But a few points:
- Again, unlike you and me, many here on Forvm have been arguing that Obama's answer is at least reasonably clear -- yet they can't tell me what it is (which from my multiple choice list, which I think is mutually exclusive and exhaustive, although if anyone disagrees I'm all ears). And it is that contention that Obama has been reasonably clear on his answer that I have been disputing.
- IF Obama is being deliberately vague in the interest of policy (to, in his view, increase the likelihood that his plan will work by bluffing the Iraqis), then it's just an awfully funny, convenient coincidence that this vagueness and ambiguity also happens to be clever politics.
- Obama very strongly implied answers A, B or C during the primaries, and as of July 3 he has deliberately made his position ambiguous -- in other words, we don't have a good idea what, from A to G, his position really is.
Lastly, again, the word "detail" is out of place here, and gives the false impression that my question, and the potential answers, are something...well...detailed, as opposed to very basic, fundamental and central to the whole Iraq debate. I mean, either the guy is saying/implying that he would (or would at least consider) delaying withdrawals for years, or he's saying/implying that that's out of the question even if withdrawals would jeopardize stability, or he's not answering at all. I don't see a heck of a lot of detail there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obviously, his policy would be worth nothing if he lost the election. That's not suspicious self-interest entering the equation, that's just the way things are. That's the way you fight for the things you care about. I've acknowledged that politics enters the equation (as no doubt it does for Maliki's virtual agreement with Obama.)
And I agree with you... Obama wouldn't want to make a boldface promise (like your choice A, for instance.) That would merely feed the protest, once in office, if he were to break his promise by not withdrawing on schedule.
So he has to walk a thin line. So far, he's doing a great job. The guy is good, not just as a politician, but as a statesman. And despite the vagueness on both sides (let's not forget that McCain won't even talk about 'time horizons' lest our enemies overhear) I don't think either of us is in confusion about the difference in instinct between these two candidates.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'll just address one of you're points. Then gotta go out to dinner and then that Mummy movie (girlfriend's pick this time; I'm just glad Hugh Grant isn't in it).
My point about the coincidence of Obama's vagueness being clever politics was to imply that the bluff may not be the real reason for Obama's deliberate ambiguity. He may believe that being unclear to voters on this very important policy question is not really justified on the basis of the benefits of such a bluff, but is doing it because it increases his chances of winning. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but whenever a politician thinks such a strategy (ambiguous message on an important issue to try to have it both ways) will increase his chances of winning, it's hard to have any degree of confidence that he's doing it because he thinks it's justified as simply the right thing to do.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We could make unkind assumptions about any politician that way.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That's a mischaracterization of my point. I'm just saying that just because there COULD be a justifiable reason for a political candidate being deliberately vague and ambiguous, we can't just assume that he IS behaving that way for that justifiable reason, as opposed to doing it to increase his chances of winning even if he doesn't think that potentially justifiable reason really applies and really makes that behavior justifiable. If you assume he IS doing it for the justifiable reason, you ARE making an assumption regarding his state of mind. The fact that you are assuming the best of intentions and ethics and morality IS an assumption of his state of mind, just as much as assuming the worst would be. See?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )unless of course you are an empty suit.
Obama's primary promise has rapidly, well it is gone. He now is a thin skinned pol with no CV.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'll have to remember that next time McCain goes nuclear on a reporter for asking a slightly aggressive question.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )compare and contrast whimpers with a temper as it pertains to an executive position.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )CE) I MIGHT delay for several months, if stability needs absolutely required it, and I MIGHT continue delays longer than a year if emergency situations continued, but sooner or later, the US military is going to have to hand responsibility for the security of Iraq over to Iraqis, and that is the core of the policy.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )So "somewhere between" a year and a couple of years, Obama would decide to begin withdrawals even if he thinks doing so would jeopardize stability. Is that what you're saying. No fudge, please. That seems to be what you're saying. Is it?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I feel compelled to point out that you are still resisting giving an answer. You said, in response to my question as to what Obama’s position is:
somewhere between C) and E) … MIGHT continue delays longer than a year if emergency situations continued, but sooner or later, the US military is going to have to hand responsibility for the security of Iraq over to Iraqis
Well, I’ll paste them again here, with difference bolded:
C) I MIGHT delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
E) I MIGHT delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
So presumably you were saying that Obama’s position is that the length of time for which he might delay withdrawals was greater than one year but less than “a couple of years”, and that at some point prior to “a couple of years”, Obama WOULD begin withdrawals anyway even if he still thought it would jeopardize stability. But then you say that you’re not saying “would”, but rather “might”. Well, if you’re saying that he only “might” begin withdrawals at some point short of a couple of years, then you’re also saying he might NOT, which means he might delay for a couple of years or perhaps more. In other words, I still have no idea if you think Obama’s position is C, E, or for that matter G.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, G is a (remote) possibility too. Obama isn't George Bush. He isn't the kind of guy who sticks to a plan no matter how bad that plan may turn out to be. As dumb a definition of "integrity" as Bush's definition of "effective action" which somehow rules out diplomacy. For Obama, the goal is more important than the plan.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The only one here who should be expressing frustration is yours truly, the one who asked a straight-forward question and got reply after reply after reply with comments masquerading as answers that were nothing of the sort.
And by the way, I think this answer from you is now your fourth supposed answer in as many weeks, and each time you claimed or implied that the answer is clear.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I've answered your question as explicitly as I can: Obama has never committed to withdrawing troops regardless of the stability situation. He might do something like that, and then again, if Iraq is tipping towards something like WWIII, he very well might not. He has not closed either of those options.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Hey, how about instead of snark, you become only the second person in all of Forvm, after tons of effort on my part, to actually answer the darn question? What a concept!
Or maybe you could post some clever animal animation that ridicules the people who deserve it -- those who spent a substantial amount of time being evasive rather than just giving a straight answer to a straight question. Good animal candidates: weasels, chickens, (perhaps) ostriches.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )my belief is that Obama will set a goal of removing the majority of the troops from Iraq in about a year and a half. Events on the ground could cause him to slow down the withdrawal, cancel it, or even reverse it depending on the severity of what happens. Static from the military could also cause him to modify the schedule. Since no one knows the future, one can only speak of intentions at this point and that's what I believe his intentions are.
BTW, if you come back with a list of options from A. to ZZ. I'll post that graphic again.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, just to be clear, my question isn't what you think will or may happen, it's what you think, based on what Obama has said (and not said), is his position regarding what he'd do in that scenario (if he came to believe that withdrawals would jeopardize stability in Iraq).
Are you saying that Obama's public position (via explicit statements and implications) is answer "G", he might not ever even begin withdrawals if he comes to think that doing so would jeopardize stability in Iraq?
Sounds like that's what you're saying. Is it?
And by the way, you can keep dropping little snarky comments about my efforts to get straight answers from people, but those snarky comments have all been simply off -- the implications are simply erroneous.
And as for the A,B,C, etc. multiple choice, it was an new approach I thought of, after much previous effort in vain, to try some more to get people to simply give straight answers. I just presented what I think is an exhaustive list of mutually exclusive possibilities, so that if someone thinks they know what Obama's position is, they should be able to tell me which it is from that list. Yet people STILL won't just give an answer. Let's see how it goes with you.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I am sure there are scenarios where Iraq might become so unstable that Obama would refuse or delay the withdrawal of US troops. (an Iranian invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan would be one scenario) I am also sure that these events are so unlikely that it isn't worth discussing them in detail.
Why don't you tell us what you think Obama's public position is? You have been asking the same exact question for weeks now. You obviously aren't getting the answer you want. Why don't you try a different way of getting your question answered. The Socratic method doesn't seem to be working.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As I've said many times, I don't think he HAS a public position at this point. His statements are ambiguous so they can be read in both/all ways. He wants voters who want withdrawals to begin immediately and to proceed from start to finish per roughly a 16-month timetable to believe that that is unconditional (a sure thing), and he wants voters who are concerned about Iraq going to hell in a handbasket if we withdraw prematurely to believe that he would not begin/continue with withdrawals if doing so would jeopardize stability. And if his supporters on Forvm are any indication, he has managed to get people to think he's being reasonably clear and to think they know what his position is, even though they can't say what it is.
During the primaries, his very strong implication was that his position was either probably A, but perhaps B, or C with regard to beginning withdrawals (and similar re: his 16 month timetable), but as of his July 3 statement and deliberately ambiguous statements since, who the heck knows what his position is? A grand total of one person here was able to say. Everyone else here has been emulating/parroting Obama's vague, ambiguous language to create the false appearance of an answer.
It sounds like you are saying Obama's position is "G" (that he may NEVER even begin withdrawals), but that it applies only to scenarios you find highly unlikely. Is that what you're saying?
And the type of distinction you are making is worthwhile. There are some developments that we could assume he reasonably considers exraordinarily unlikely. But that need not be a loophole for folks avoiding answering the question when they say they know what his position is, nor should it necessarily be an excuse for Obama to give some idea what his position is -- after all, he had no problem doing it during the primaries when it was helping him win, right? Then on July 3 all of a sudden he shifts to ambiguity, and who knows if his position is A,B,C,D,E,F, or G?
And let me ask you this, barring invasion (or large-scale bombing) by an army of a neighboring country, what is your answer regarding what ("A" through "G") is Obama's position?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I can't give you a quote from Obama that says that but yes, that is my impression of his public policy regarding withdrawing US troops from Iraq. If there is a good reason to never withdraw the troops then they will be there until the Sun expands into the Earth's orbit and destroys our homeworld.
If by that time, Iraq developed a space program and colonized a new planet, Obama would want US troop to occupy that planet, if there was a good reason to do so.
If Iraq doesn't qualify for the 2010 World Cup that could jeopardize stability. If that kind of instability is what you are talking about then it wouldn't be enough to delay withdrawals. If there is a wicked humongous oil spill in the Persian gulf that might also jeopardize stability. In that case Obama might delay withdrawing troops. If Isreal bombed Iran that might also jeopardize stability. In that case Obama might delay withdrawing troops. If there was a nerve gas attack in Portugal that might also jeopardize stability. In that case Obama might delay withdrawing troops. If there were an outbreak of a disease which killed all of the goats in Iraq that might jeopardize stability enough for Obama to delay the withdrawal of troops. If the Iraqi Prime minister were assassinated that might jeopardize stability enough for Obama to delay the withdrawal of troops.
The common theme among all of those scenarios is that the amount of destabilization in Iraq is what will determine if there is a delay or an abandonment of Obama's plan to withdraw a large number of US troops from Iraq.
(On a personal note, I would like to thank Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders for the recording Mystery Achievement. Without that song in the background I could not have written this comment.)
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )you're showing your MASS roots yet again in this comment and you should've linked the Pretenders tune:
p.s. you + I are the only ones to have defended swiftboating McCain on this site. A joint brainstorming session re: particular attacks might be in order, Blue.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Angry John dumping his first wife, Carol, for the luscious, 25 year old Cindy would probably bear the most fruit. It is too bad Carol has more class than Old Man McCain. She has remained loyal to the womanizing opportunist. If she went on Oprah to spill the beans about 'girl in every port' McCain this election would be over.
Hopefully the Vicky Iseman rumors will get some play after the conventions.
But anywho, I am up for a brainstorming session. Let me know how you want to go about it.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Maybe he can get a court order to *force* Carol to dish up the dirt on McCain--that's how he won his Senate seat, after all.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't see any evidence of that in the links.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0406180364jun18,0,7479994.s...
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .that Obama caused those records to be unsealed himself--but he certainly was the obvious beneficiary of it, both before and after it happened--cui bono, anyone?. It was also done against the will of Jeri Ryan, though she confirmed her statements after the files were unsealed. Hey, the privacy of a family and the interests of a child are small potatoes compared to getting the media's chosen candidate elected to the Senate.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )were gunning for Ryan. Why? Also for the record, bringing your wife to a sex club is not something you can reliably plan on keeping a secret.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .if a judge is willing to overturn the wishes of both parties in the divorce and the best interests of their child to unseal a record. After all, there was an election to win--and Chicago rules were in play.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And especially if your wife is Jeri Ryan. If nothing else, the other club members are gonna start complaining if your wife isn't making every meeting!
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm not willing to go back and research everything that he's said about withdrawal, and even if I did I'd still be expressing my opinion. You use the word "stability" (without defining it), as if that's the key to everything. I don't think it is, plenty of things could happen that don't affect stability per se, but would make it wise to leave troops in place just in case. I don't think it's likely, but just about anything could happen over there.
I'm just not interested in going into mind-numbing detail and parsing the living s&^t out of his statements - there are very few topics that I can get that obsessed about, and this isn't one of them. My statement stands, ambiguous as you may think it is.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Thanks for proving my point. Like all except one here on Forvm, you won't give an answer. You'll pretend to be giving an answer, or may even really think you're giving an answer, but you are simply NOT. No question about it.
And as for "stable", as I've said previously in response to a similar comment, Obama said on July 3 -- the flip that started this all -- that "I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.", and whatever concept of stability he has in mind, or anyone thinks he has in mind, is fine with me for the purposes of my question here.
No, I'm not asking you to "go into mind-numbing detail and [blah, blah, blah]". I'm just asking you what you think his position is on this fundamental, central question to this hugely important issue, and apparently either you have no idea or you refuse to say, and you won't admit to either, but you will pretend to know, pretend to answer and to have answered, throw out bits of snark based on erroneous premises, and repeatedly mischaracterize what I am asking of people.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As far as I can see, almost everyone here was attempted to answer your questions. It's you who have the problem with the answers you get.
Absolute uncontested fact: Iraqis want us out of their country.
The higher the monkey climbs, the better you see his ass, says the old Japanese kotowaza. You won't define stability. In failing to define Stability, you have made any potential answer vague by default.
I have answered your question, saying Obama should withdraw from the north and west of Iraq, forming up lines into Kuwait and Basra, protecting our eastern flanks facing Iran. It will happen in stages, each such stage predicated on the the fallout from the previous stage. A settling of scores is sure to erupt in the wake of our departure, eventually reaching some stasis, as in the Balkans. The situation will require peacekeepers and a massive resettlement of refugees will ensue, if the world is prepared to deal with the problem, sure to aggravate the situation for years to come.
You see, what you call Stability in the present time is a charade. There is no Stability, only a Status Quo. Iraq is internally divided, its politicians beholden to many interest groups. They're all fighting over the oil money. There's also two components to Stability: city stability and rural stability. Iraq's cities are in turmoil, especially Kirkuk and Mosul. Basra is a mess, that's the most important one, strategically, for the Americans will withdraw their materiel through Basra, Umm Qasr and Kuwait.
Obama is correct: our presence in Iraq is a major irritant. Do you really want Stability in Iraq? All people of good will wish Iraq well, and pray for stability. Get this through your head, once and for all: Iraqis have told us time after time to leave Iraq. We are not their problem any more.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )so you're the source of which answers are sufficient and which aren't?
This is worse than I thought.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://www.dailylit.com/
Squeeze [jon lovitt voice] literature! [/jon lovitt voice] into your daily grind.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
)I was led to the other day.
Not quite as classy, but for me? The price is right.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Link
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)He has two cute little dogs, who ride around with him constantly. He tells me of women who lean over to pet the doggies, and give him a great view of their bazooms. That being his favo-right part of the female anatomy, he finds these doggies to be great chick magnets. Of the fun and games in the bunk in the back of his truck I shall say nothing, but he tells me all. Fade to black. Prurient minds will fill in the blanks. 'nuff said.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )or the Prevention of Virtue. Seems like it might be a wash at this point. :)
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )5.7% in July, labor force participation unchanged.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)When a liberal academic economist and a Ron Paul conservative investment analyst agree on something, they're probably right.
From Paul Krugman's NYT blog today:
And from Michael Shedlock of Sitka Capital Management...
Once again I'm reminded of the old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times...
- Login or register to post comments
)Maybe "Zorro" isn't the best movie choice for a long bus trip http://news.aol.com/article/passenger-stabbed-beheaded-on-bus/111785?ici...
- Login or register to post comments
)