View Story | 159 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Every American is affected by this war in one form or another.
Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy
by dansac on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:51:05 AM PDT
http://thepage.time.com/...
by Kitty on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:58:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Thanks Kitty! If you find the video afterwards, let me know.
by dansac on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:58:54 AM PDT
didn't see it
by Kitty on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:03:10 AM PDT
Glad you're here.
by dansac on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:03:55 AM PDT
and Chuck Schumer was asked about Obama's criticism of Hillary's war vote. His response was essentially that it doesn't matter why or how we got into the war, but how we're getting out. This is the same tune all of Hillary's supporters are singing. They will do all they can to focus on the NOW, and in some ways that seems like the right thing to do. Obama keeps trying to point out that the NOW is connected to the THEN. He speaks about judgment as opposed to experience. I think that when hammering on the points you made, we also have to keep pushing the judgment argument just as hard.
by Kronos Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:08:08 AM PDT
Joe Scarborough did the same thing on Real Time last week---didn't want to deal w/the judgment and decision.
by serrano on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:17:58 AM PDT
it doesn't matter why or how we got into the war, but how we're getting out.
Obama can draw a crystal clear distinction with McCain on the Iraq debacle that HRC can not.
McCain says overturn Roe v. Wade.
by peraspera on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:24:00 AM PDT
that feature the discussion on Iraq. Last night the final speaker said it will be very difficult to get out and can not be done the way Clinton and Obama project in 16 months. That it will be hugely costly. That we will pay for this for generations. That the whole Middle East considers America a force for nothing.
Are other people watching any of this?????
by yoduuuh do or do not on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:25 AM PDT
..."It doesn't matter how or why I shot that man in the head, but how we are going to clean up the blood..."
I want my Two Dollars!
by Ken in MN on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:03:17 AM PDT
... while you're at it, let me have the gun back."
"Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse
by gsbadj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:51 PM PDT
because it is directly connected to HOW WE GET OUT and if we ignore the mistakes we made getting IN we will NEVER LEARN and be destined to make the exact SAME MISTAKES!!!
what schumer was really saying is: discussing how we got in is detrimental to Hillary's campaign....
OIL UBER ALLES says "MORE WARS" McCain
by KnotIookin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:00 PM PDT
It doesn't matter how or why we got into a war with Iran....
oh, wait....
Through all this world of pain and sorrow, we still can have singing tomorrow. --Pete Seeger
by Castine on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:54:46 AM PDT
Sorry, but I think that fact is very relevant in choosing who I want to clean up this mess. I don't want someone who helped to create it in the first place.
by elmo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:03:38 AM PDT
http://aumf.awardspace.com/
by 1alpha on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM PDT
amendment?
Plus, show me Hillary Clinton at an antiwar march protesting the invasion. Or even a speech objecting to the invasion?
by elmo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:10:25 PM PDT
The basic fact of how we got into the war is this: a complicit Congress succumbed to a petulant President drunk with power. Instead of performing their Constitutional duties to check the President's power, they ceded more and more power to him. People who voted for the war have used as justification, repeatedly, the argument that they meant to strengthen the President's hands by giving him the authority ahead of time, even as they were hoping to avoid war. That is the quintessential argument that shows what's wrong with our government. Hillary Clinton and John McCain both seem to believe in the edict that the President is a superior, not equal, branch of government and hence deserves the added power. That is the fundamental problem with our government. Barack Obama, a Constitutional law expert, will not make that argument. He will not grab for vast powers for the Presidency at the expense of the other branches of government.
THAT is why it's important to focus on the mindset that got us into this occupation, if we hope to avoid future ones.
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:06:14 AM PDT
In 2002, United States Senator Hillary Clinton and State Senator Barack Obama both believed that Saddam had developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
If Barack Obama had his way, he was willing to do nothing and let an un-restricted Saddam in Iraq, with no U.N. weapon inspectors on ground for 4 years, to continued weapons of mass destruction development at his will. A.U.M.F. was key for the U.N. inspectors re-entry into Iraq..
Barack Obama 26 October 2002: "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity". He"s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
Either Barack Obama does understand the Senate A.U.M.F. debate and vote (most don't) and is just playing politics of duplicity or he does not understand the A.U.M.F. debate and vote, which makes him just naive.
Hillary was PRO U.N., Bush was Pro War, Obama was PRO doing nothing... http://aumf.awardspace.com/
by 1alpha on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:12:51 AM PDT
Barack Obama was always pro doing something. He was pro-putting inspectors in. I hate to remind you of history, but at the moment the Congress voted on the resolution in 2002, inspectors WERE in Iraq already. Hillary Clinton was pro-war, not pro-UN. She wouldn't even vote for the Levin amendment that required the President to come back for a second vote if he couldn't get the UN to do something constructive. That's not what I call being "pro-UN." That revisionist history that you are peddling is generally known as SPIN.
by deaniac83 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:04 AM PDT
Lies and bullshit
Democrats promote the Common good. Republicans promote Corporate greed.
by murasaki on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM PDT
Hillary voted against the Levin amendment which required Bush to come back to congress if the UN failed to act on actual evidence of WMF turned up by the inspectors.
From the Levin amendment: "return to session at any time before the next Congress convenes to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if in the judgment of the President the United Nations Security Council fails to adopt or enforce"
Hillary insisted on giving Bush complete discretion as to whether and when to go to war. He was not required to allow the UN inspections to take their course which he did not. He was not required to consult with congress. Hillary voted to let Bush do what ever the hell he felt like doing. That included launching a preemptive war without cause. There were no constraints what so ever on the Presidents authority and discretion in the "Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"
Bush's press secretary made that abundantly clear in a press conference before the vote so that there would be no confusion.
Worse Hillary did it again with the Iran resolution even after knowing how Bush abused the powershe hande3d to him in the Iraq resolution.
by hankg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:15 PM PDT
every time you start to look at the issues, the war, the economy, the environment, health care, etc...you start to see how intertwined all these issues are, and how the solution to one issue will provide the map to solutions for the others.
Harry Taylor for Congress!
by Fredly on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:09:54 AM PDT
is why I've come back to the Democratic party after nearly 20 years. I got fired up by the Greens in the early 90s because they were speaking about all those problems in exactly that way, but not many were really paying attention.
That Obama gets this and can articulate it so clearly on so many different levels is more than anything else what's got me so excited about him and his candidacy (well, that and the fact that he's been able to get sooo many people to hop on board).
by vadasz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:31:21 AM PDT
) Add your own here. There are plenty more "costs" that the war cheerleaders don't think about or mention.
MC=W^3: McCain=W's 3rd term
by sd4david on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:19:33 AM PDT
by those soldiers coming back and not being able to re-acclimate into family life. It's a horrible strain, and when the family member is having 2-4 tours, eventually the family will be forever torn apart.
"The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, (insert act) is outrageous!" - McSpokesperson
by Muzikal203 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:22:36 AM PDT
that the biggest brunt of the war is being felt by such a small group of people, while the super rich get tax cuts.
Obama needs to call these repeat tours what they are : A back door draft, affecting only those who have already served. This is NOT supporting the troops. It is taking advantage of them.
by sd4david on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:30:04 AM PDT
Let's be serious. If you were someone who had enlisted in the Service or National Guard 6 or 7 years ago, you'd quite naturally assume that you'd be obligated to serve your hitch, be done and move on with your life.
Instead, you're prohibited from getting out, even after your hitch is over.
Hell, it's WORSE than a draft. At least with a draft, you'd serve your years, get out and be replaced by someone freshly drafted.
Under the current system, the current troops may yet be there continually for the next 100 McCain years.
by gsbadj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM PDT
by pileta on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:44:29 AM PDT
Howard Dean, when he was running for president, was right on the money about the greatest cost that America suffered under the Bush presidency. It isn't that we got into an occupation. It wasn't that we went from a huge surplus to a huge deficit. The biggest loss, Dean said, was the loss of the American sense of community under Bush. The sense that tells us that we are all bound together in the destiny of time, the sense that we have a responsibility to care for each other, that it matters to me when you can't get a job, and that it matters to you when my kids to go to bed hungry. That sense of community - that we are all in it together - is what this country lost under eight years of George Bush. That's the loss we are going to have to reverse if we hope to restore our nation to its glory.
by deaniac83 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:15:11 AM PDT
that there's no sense of community anymore, I don't think it can all be laid on bush, as much as I'd love to pin it on his dumb ass...the move toward alienation has been going on ever since WWII, truthfully. Right about the time everyone moved to the suburbs and took jobs building bombs and shit.
Which isn't to say that these brain-dead, violent, narcissistic 8 years haven't iced the cake, so to speak.
-5.88, -6.00 When the ELGIs are defeated, the GWOT is over. -- Richard Clarke
by Porfiry on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:54:35 PM PDT
but I do know that before George Bush came into office - and certainly in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 - there was a sense of community - for whatever reason, people seemed to understand that our destinies are bound together, and since Bush has started exploiting his power, I have seen the ideology of the "me" party pervade the American society.
by deaniac83 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:07:12 PM PDT
but that is also true, bush did indeed squander every little fucking bit of not only national but global goodwill after as he says, "September The Eleventh."
There's no doubt the guy has a total lack of grokkage regarding the human race. Except the filthy rich fraction of it.
by Porfiry on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:19:09 PM PDT
.....the medical, psychiatric and financial needs of returning vets as well as those of their families who are trying to get on with their lives. After WWII any vet had no financial problem with buying a decent house or going after a college degree due to the various government programs. What do the current vets have?
by calibpatriot on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM PDT
the GOP meme is that rescinding the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is "largest tax hike in the history of the world." Why aren't our candidates making the obvious observation that it is actually the correction of the most egregious tax inequity in the history of the country, and back it up with examples of how the working poor pay more of their gross income in taxes than Rupert Murdoch?
"Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.
by nailbender on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:22:41 AM PDT
Congress finally took way all their tax breaks
and they are screaming that they got a tax hike
There is just as much horse sense as ever, but the horses have most of it. ~Author Unknown
by VA Breeze on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM PDT
I agree with you and want to throw in my 'vote' to say that the focus of the coming weeks should be talking about the War and the Economy.
The economy is currently the No 1 issue on people's minds, what with all the things that are happening. The war is up there in terms of critical and important issues on voter mind. A laser focus that shows how these two are connected and how they are harming us all will kill the proverbial 'two-birds with one stone' in more than one way.
Thanks for a great diary!!
Old style politics of 50%+1 will NOT get us to where we need to go!!
by SpringFever on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:50:02 AM PDT
For all their "experience," HRC and McCain share blame for getting us into this mess, and their "experience" won't get us out, either. Hillary is refusing to set any timetables, leading me to believe that she won't withdraw troops for at least a year, maybe longer. Obama laid down the gauntlet, a responsible drawdown of troops on a solid timetable, and demonstrating how Iraq has caused so many of our economic woes.
As a personal note, I know this, because it will stick with me forever. On March 18, 2003, I filled up my car with gas, and I paid $1.49/gallon. Today, I find myself disgusted that I get mildly happy to find it at $3.19/gallon. Iraq hasn't done anything but sink us into the mud, and for what? So Bush could get his family some revenge? So he could show up Daddy?
His dad knew about responsibility. His dad volunteered in WWII, skipping Yale to do so. His dad, for all his domestic faults (and some foreign ones), knew when to cut the cord on a war. Bush probably made his father feel more ashamed, instead of proud that his son got the bastard of Baghdad.
"In 10 years, I've never seen the press lay a glove on him." Chris Matthews on John McSame
by wolverinethad on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:14:48 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 159 comments