this from the New York Post:
Obama Tried To Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal
--by Amir Taheri
All his promises of getting the troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible, yet while in the midst of his whirlwind tour of the middle east he secretly wants the troops to remain. Why?
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
To claim credit for the draw down of troops in Iraq. No other explanation makes sense, in light of his refusal to meet with injured US Troops in Germany while playing Messiah to a crowd of Germans who cannot vote.
Way to go, B.O. Way to go.
71 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The next strike was the slew of unfounded assumptions. Things like, " Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.
By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June."
And he doesn't mention the practical reason that a presidential candidate might not want to be committed to a plan of action that his administration had no hand in planning.
The further idea that troops can't begin withdrawing or re-staging until a status of forces agreement has be negotiated and signed with the Iraqi government is silly.
All in all a slanted article without much substance.
This from someone who has knowledge of treaties? foreign relations? military logistics? I think it's silly to expect you to have a fair understanding of what it takes to move troops, or negotiate with world leaders.
Furthermore, your objection doesn't address Obama's attempt to stall negotiations for the draw-down of troop levels in Iraq. Senator Obama is NOT the president of the United States. He has no business whatsoever in attempting negotiations with Iraq. Community Organizer "experience" [experience with no credible success] does not make Barack qualified to negotiate with the Iraqi government.
Whether or not Taheri is critical of Barack is irrelevant in light of Obama's actions. Do you argue that no critic of Obama, least of all Taheri, can have a valid point or opinion or grasp of the situation? Why? Because he may or may not be an Obama critic? That's an insupportable stretch of logic even for you.
But this is the tone media and the Obama administration will adopt, assuming he actually wins in November. Any criticism of Obama will be labeled as either racist or conservative hate-speech. No one will be allowed to criticize Barack Obama, and anyone who does will be labeled a racist or hate-filled.
But what your logic fails to consider is the very real bias in Media toward both Republican and Conservative figures. Every article vomited out by leftist media is couched in "language...slanted to suit a declared personal bias."
"Declared" personal bias, you said. Yet nowhere in the article did I read Amir Taheri "declaring" he had a personal bias. THAT is something YOU read into the language. By that measure, every article critical of Palin, McCain, Bush, Rove, whomever, brands each author as having a "personal bias," and therefore "slanted" and "without much substance". I'll remind you of that next time you put forth an article from such rags that have a declared personal biases.
There is plenty of substance in this article, but your own, "declared personal bias" prevents you from recognizing it.
[sigh] I just posted in another thread about people taking statements to their extreme ends to build strawmen.[sigh]
I DO NOT ARGUE that any critic of Barack Obama is bereft of validity or acumen. I do hope for better critics than Amir Taheri. Taheri was the person who in 2006 said a new Iranian law required Jews to wear yellow stripes, and was latter soundly discredited.
There are two issues relating to troops in Iraq. One is the direct withdrawal and redeployment of forces. And that the Commander and Chief can do anytime he wants. To my knowledge Barack Obama has never advocated delaying the withdrawal of surge troops or troops that are regularly scheduled to come home, or even troops being drawn down because of lessening violence.
The second issue though is a long-term Status of Forces Agreement between the nation of Iraq and the United States. That Barack Obama has argued should be delayed because, it would be unseemly for Pres. Bush to commit the next administration to an agreement so close to the end of his term.
The Status of Forces Agreement will outline long-term US troop levels in the country along with financial obligations, levels of jurisdiction, and facilities. These are things Barack Obama says that should be debated in Congress before being approved by the President.
So that there will be no confusion let me restate. I find this singular report and critique of Barack Obama by Amir Taheri to be without credibility.
"In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said."
Despite all the protests to the contrary by the Obama camp, they confirm enough enough of Tehari's story as to make no difference. Obama DID suggest/ask that the Iraqi's NOT "rush through a Strategic Framework Agreement governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office."
Go figure.
"...the language is slanted to suit a declared personal bias."
I merely pointed out that no personal bias was, in fact, "declared". That's not a strawman. Neither is analyzing the implications of your statement.
As far as your most recent comment, I find this statement bizarre..
"That Barack Obama has argued should be delayed because, it would be unseemly for Pres. Bush to commit the next administration to an agreement so close to the end of his term."
But it would not be unseemly for Barack to suggest that the Iraqi's hold off until after the election? Barack is not the President. George is. George Bush is president. It would be unseemly of George Bush to NOT discuss negotiations with Iraq in regard to troop reduction. If the media got hold of such information they would crucify him with it. Barack would use it as a campaign bludgeon.
It's unseemly that you would suggest Bush shouldn't do his job as Commander in Chief. It's unseemly that Obama would seek to undermine the efforts of the president of the United States.
Barack, btw, is losing the electoral college. There's still six weeks to go, but Obama is trending down.
1. The president can reduce/remove/redeploy troops as he sees fit. Barack Obama has never requested or suggested otherwise.
2. The Status of Forces Agreement is a treaty between the US and Iraq regarding future troop commitments, guarantees of jurisdiction, ceding of control of facilities, etc. Barack Obama has said this agreement should not be negotiated by a lame duck administration without oversight by Congress, or the American public. He has said it would be wrong for George W. Bush to sign a treaty binding the hands of the next administration. Whether that administration is Democratic or Republican. Delaying negotiations on the Status of Forces agreement doesn't endanger any American servicemen.
He said that, TO WHOM?
If he told President Bush that he shouldn't negotiate any agreements with the Iraqis, that would be quite impertinent -- as the term "lame duck" is found nowhere in the Constitution, and the President has as much Constitutional authority on his last day in office as he did on his first day -- but not terribly objectionable.
Instead, it appears that Obama told the Iraqis that they shouldn't negotiate any agreements with President Bush.
To repeat, a United States Senator may have been attempting to undermine the diplomatic efforts of the sitting President and his Administration, by telling the government of the foreign country with whom the President is negotiating, not to negotiate with him.
Particularly because we're talking about a war zone where American troops are in harm's way, the allegation is extremely serious.
That Media seems not to be interested in this story speaks volumes. Whose water are they carrying?
I think it is entirely appropriate for a presidential candidate after the convention to begin inserting himself and his views into presidential issues. After all there's less than six weeks to the election. Four and a half months until the inauguration.
George Bush may have technically just as much authority on Jan. 19 as he did on Sept. 11th. But the effective amount of power he can exercise is draining away as his term ends. That's the way the American presidential system works.
THAT would be risking lives for political gain.
According to Mr. Hashemi, William Casey, who had just become Ronald Reagan's campaign manager, met with him in late February or early March 1980 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Mr. Casey quickly made it clear that he wanted to prevent Jimmy Carter from gaining any political advantage from the hostage crisis. The Hashemis agreed to cooperate with Mr. Casey without the knowledge of the Carter Administration.
Mr. Hashemi told me that he and his brother helped to arrange two critical meetings. In a Madrid hotel in late July 1980, an important Iranian cleric, Mehdi Karrubi, who is now the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, allegedly met with Mr. Casey and a U.S. intelligence officer who was operating outside authority. The same group met again several weeks later. Mr. Hashemi told me that Mr. Karrubi agreed in the second Madrid meeting to cooperate with the Reagan campaign about the timing of any hostage release.
In return, he was promised that the Reagan Administration, once in office, would return Iran's frozen assets and help them acquire badly needed military equipment and spare parts. Two other sources subsequently described these meetings in very similar terms in interviews with me and my colleagues. The Carter Administration had no knowledge of these meetings.
At about the time of the second meeting in Madrid, according to two former Israeli intelligence officers I interviewed, individuals associated with the Reagan campaign made contact with senior Government officials in Israel, which agreed to act as the channel for the arms deliveries to Iran that Mr. Casey had promised. Israel had been eager to sell military equipment to Iran, but the Carter Administration, which was maintaining a total arms embargo on Iran, had refused to agree.
As the threat of war with Iraq began to mount in early September 1980, Iran opened direct hostage negotiations with the Carter Administration. In retrospect, it appears that Iran may have been playing both sides, seeking the highest bid for the release of the hostages. The Carter Administration, however, did not realize it was involved in a three-cornered bidding contest, and resisted Iran's apparent interest in military equipment.
source
And exactly what is the point you are trying to make? If that story's allegations about the Reagan campaign are true, they are extremely serious.
Are you willing to say the same thing about the allegations about Obama? Or are you too busy to deal with such trivial matters as the current presidential election and the war in Iraq?
If the allegation was credible, it would indeed be serious.
But far more credible is the allegation against Obama since it appears -- as HotAir reports -- that the campaign confirms the most damning details about Taheri's story.
Some actions committed by presidential nominees are clearly wrong (working out agreements with terrorists to better one's chances to be elected) and other actions may or may not be.
That's all I meant to suggest.
I think past crimes and questionable behavior by the US is VERY relevant to this election. It's part of the change of ways that Obama represents. We will no longer place ourselves above the law, according to the Obama camp and that's a good thing, seems to me.
1) You neither retracted nor substantiated the claim that the "October Surprise" involved WMD's.
2) If you don't have an opinion about the allegations that Obama's campaign appears to have confirmed, that Obama asked the Iraqi government not to negotiate with the sitting President -- which is possibly a crime, in violation of the Logan Act -- you probably shouldn't insist that Obama represents "change," in that "We will no longer place ourselves above the law."
3) Speaking of comments you probably shouldn't make, it strikes me as hypocritical that you would so strongly condemn Reagan, allegedly for "working out agreements with terrorists to better one's chances to be elected."
Where did Obama begin his political career? At a party at the house of two admitted and unrepetant terrorists, William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn.
What executive experience did Obama herald early in his political career? His serving as the chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation founded and guided by Ayers.
In terms of unsavory relationships with terrorists, Obama's no Boy Scout, and your refusal to deal with his long-standing working relationships with domestic terrorists involves a level of denial that borders on the pathological.
Maybe you should spend some time researching BHO and the incident in question rather that trot out something that was unable to be substantiated 20+ years ago. You could also look at BHO's relationship (read $$$) to Fannie May, Freddie Mac and how he and others torpedoed legislation in 2005 (sponsored by JM) that could have mitigated the current situation we find ourselves in. These are serious questions (not to mention the Ayers/Rezko/ACORN stuff) and should be addressed fully. Somehow I can't see C Gibson asking BHO about it though.
What has Obama done with Rezko/Ayers/ACORN that was illegal and/or unethical?
What laws have been broken?
What crimes committed?
Where's the evidence?
Enlighten me.
To briefly review the Rezko connection, in June of this year, Tony Rezko was found guilty of 16 separate offenses, including "mail fraud, wire fraud, soliciting bribes, and money laundering in connection to a federal investigation into political corruption in the state of Illinois."
Obama wasn't involved in any of the crimes for which Rezko was convicted, but Obama has had close personal ties to Rezko long after the Chicago press had written about his being a slumlord. The most damning tie is that, in 2005, after more than a hundred stories had been published about Rezko's misbehavior, Obama and Rezko purchased property together:
- Obama purchased a house while Rezko puchased the adjacent undeveloped lot.
- Both closed on their properties on the same day.
- While Rezko paid full price for his vacant lot, Obama's price of $1.65 million was $300,000 less than the asking price for his house.
- Less than a year later, when it was widely known that Rezko was being investigated, Obama purchased a portion of that adjacent lot, ostensibly for building a fence, and Obama paid Rezko nearly $64,000 more than what the land is worth.
The suspicion is that Obama was compensating Rezko for helping him purchase a house he couldn't afford.
We could just as easily review the other unsavory connections. In addition to working as a "leadership trainer" for the organization, Obama has had a long-standing relationship with ACORN, which has had a history of voter fraud in over a dozen states, to say nothing of their thuggish tactics of "direct action," with which Obama may have participated.
The man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children subscribes to what can only be described as a racist theology, and from the pulpit Jeremiah Wright slandered the U.S. government by accusing it of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide.
And William Ayers is an unrepetant domestic terrorist who even tried to murder soldiers and their loved ones at a dance on-base. Obama's political career was inaugurated by a party at the home of Ayers and his wife and fellow terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn. And Obama worked as the chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and directed, and which distributed more than $100 million in grants to other radical projects and organizations.
The man who apparently helped him purchase his house. The organization which is most closely tied to his years as a community organizer. The "spiritual mentor" who married him and baptized his kids, in whose church he spent 20 years, and to whose church he sent tens of thousands of dollars. And the man in whose organization he served to distribute tens of millions of dollars, and who inaugurated his political career.
These are hardly guys Barack Obama met once at a fund-raiser: they didn't shake hands, get a picture taken, and never meet again.
And while it is no crime to have such close ties to race-baiting hate-mongers and unrepetant terrorists, Obama's relationships -- to say nothing of his voting record, in Chicago and in Washington; and to say nothing of his campaign and its attempts to have his critics shouted down and even prosecuted -- completely undermines the narrative that Obama has built for himself, the narrative to which Dan clings.
Obama presents himself as free from corruption, but his close ties to Rezko greatly undermines that claim.
Obama presents himself as post-racial, but his long relationship with Jeremiah Wright puts the lie to that posturing.
Obama presents himself as a post-partisan moderate, but his associations with ACORN and Ayers (in addition to his voting record) shows that he's anything but moderate.
And Obama tells us that judgment trumps experience, but he has shown the most remarkably poor judgment in the people with whom he is surrounded. We are now supposed to trust that his judgment is sound, details to the contrary are mere distractions.
The truth is, if Obama wasn't corrupt, he probably wouldn't have been able to advance through the Chicago political machine.
And if Obama wasn't a radical, the Democratic party wouldn't have nominated him, and Dan Trabue wouldn't be so giddy about the "new beginning" that he thinks Obama will usher in.
The party has been taken over by its most radical wing, to the degree that it drove out its 2000 vice-presidential nominee, a man who is liberal across the board but who dared to believe that it is no contradiction to be hawkish Democrat, in the mold of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Scoop Jackson.
Obama's associations with other radicals underscores the reason Dan supports him, but they must be downplayed in order to convince the American public that he is not what his record and history clearly shows him to be.
In the face of Obama's record and history, Dan will almost certainly dissemble and prevaricate to ignore or dismiss the evidence. The wildest, most unsubstantiated theories about Reagan, he'll herald and swallow without flinching, but it doesn't matter the strength of the evidence against Obama.
For Dan, this isn't about determining what's true by measuring the plausibility of the evidence. It's about accepting or dismissing the evidence by the simple criterion, not of what is plausible, but of what is expedient. To him, truth isn't an objective reality that should be sought for its own end, but a subjective illusion to be manipulated to advance an agenda.
* "In June of this year, Tony Rezko was found guilty of 16 separate offenses"
Rezko. Not Obama. This year, not back when Obama bought his house.
* "Obama wasn't involved in any of the crimes for which Rezko was convicted"
As I said.
* "but Obama has had close personal ties to Rezko"
"close" according to Bubba. But has Obama supported Rezko since it has come out that Rezko has committed crimes? Has Obama said that Rezko ought to be not punished or something? Has Obama defined his relationship as "close" or is that merely something his political enemies are doing to try to drag Obama's name through dirt for political reasons?
* Obama got a deal on his house that Bubba alleges was purchased from Rezko. He managed to save 18% (if my math is right) on a $1.65 million house.
Is there a crime in that? Does that somehow suggest corruption? Our first house we purchased for $17,000, when it was valued at $20,000 - a 15% savings (if my math is right). Was there some corruption or crime in that?
* Obama purchased some adjoining land and paid too much for it.
Really?
* Obama has worked for ACORN, a community action organization where SOME chapters have demonstrated questionable or possibly illegal behavior.
Do those misbehaving chapters have ties to Obama? Has Obama been linked to criminal or corrupt behavior?
* Bubba and some others don't like Obama's former pastor.
So? I do. What of it?
* Obama knows a guy (Ayers) who used to believe that violence was an appropriate way to try to stop bad behavior. Obama once went to this fella's house.
Really? I know a fella who got in trouble and went to jail. I've been to parties with that fella and sat next to him in church. I am not sure if he was repentant of his behaviors or not.
Is that it? That's what you got as far as corruption and crimes? He knows people you don't like and has ties to organizations you don't like?
But he has not been convicted of any crimes. There is no evidence to suggest he has taken part in any corrupt or criminal behavior. Just suspicions and rumors and oblique connections?
That's it?
Okay, so don't vote for him. Vote for the fella who divorced his disfigured wife to hook up with a young blonde socialite, who later went on to illegally get drugs to feed a drug habit.
I'm not buying your suspicions as reasons not to vote for Obama. Are they reasons to question a politicians' sincerity and trustworthiness? Man, we ought ALWAYS question politicians sincerity and trustworthiness. That should go without saying. McCain certainly ought to be held in suspicion and so should Obama.
Nonetheless, it seems to me at this point that the person most likely to get us away from the politics of lies and corruption is Obama, not McCain. Disagree if you wish. But you have nothing on Obama of significance, so it would behoove you to not keep trying to drag his name through the mud.
If you want to make the case that we ought to be wary of Obama's and McCain's claims, by all means, do so. But when you blindly heap crap on one party's candidate based on so very little, you ought not be surprised when people think you're merely a partisan hack.
Now, I think that there's much that can be said in response to your fairly dishonest reply.
First, I explained the relevance of Obama's long-standing relationship with his race-baiting hate-mongering pastor: it severely undercuts the supposedly post-racial nature of his candidacy.
That Tony Rezko apparently helped Obama purchase his house is, I think, ample evidence of an intimate relationship. People rarely help mere acquaintances buy houses, and people rarely accept such help from acquaintances, and this particular sort of arrangement isn't a million miles from the political corruption for which Rezko was already infamous and for which he has since been convicted.
And if you want to dredge up drug use, I will remind you that Obama admitted to using marijuana and "maybe a little blow when [he] could afford it."
But I want to focus on William Ayers.
Obama knows a guy (Ayers) who used to believe that violence was an appropriate way to try to stop bad behavior. Obama once went to this fella's house.
This grossly understates the relationship between Obama and Ayers. Obama went to "this fella's house" not for some random party, but for a party that launched Obama's political career.
And you completely ignored the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, founded and guided by Ayers, chaired by Obama, and responsible for distributing more than one hundred million dollars in grants.
But more than that, you understate who Ayers is. He isn't that he "used to" endorse terrorism; he has never publicly repented or regretted his acts of terrorism.
And to say he believed "that violence was an appropriate way to try to stop bad behavior," is a dispicable attempt to whitewash his actual violent acts. He constructed, planted, and detonated bombs in acts of terrorism against our government. He targetted the Pentagon, public restrooms, and even an officers' dance -- that is to say, soldiers and their loved ones.
Dan, if there has been one principle, one ideal to which you seem to adhere faithfully -- and, I would argue, to a ridiculous degree -- it is strict pacifism.
Political conservatives complain about the worst sorts of abortion policy, and you bring up Hiroshima and demand that we share your outrage: a muted or remotely hesitant condemnation of the bombing of Hiroshima isn't enough, you insist that every moral person's reaction should be as severe as your own.
When the Bible teaches that God commanded ancient Israel to have a small army, you think the passage is not only authoritative, you think it's directly applicable today. But when Scripture teaches that God commanded Israel to use that army in wars of annihilation, you dismiss any literal interpretation of the passage as gross atrocity.
I would have thought that your repulsion to violence would be non-negotiable. I see now that even your most cherished values can be bought at a price.
If you had repudiated Ayers as the scumbag that he is and showed deep concern about Obama's clearly close relationship with Ayers, I would have found that position honorable, even if you think Obama's (somehow) less tarnished than McCain or that, because you agree with his policies, he's still the less problematic candidate.
Instead, you sacrifice your ostensible commitment to non-violence, to become an apologist for scum, to protect your candidate.
You have a lot of nerve then to invoke the spectre of my being a poltical hack, but that sort of baseless hypocrisy is nothing new.
But your defending an unrepentant domestic terrorist as some "fella" whom Barack Obama hardly knows, that's noteworthy.
It's not a sign that you've hit rock-bottom in your politically motivated moral compromises. It's proof that there's no bottom to hit.
It demonstrates that you're a fraud, all the way down.
I apologize for misstating, I was wrapping up the selling of arms illegally to Iran by the Reagan administration with the "October surprise" - nothing intentional, just a slip on my part. That administration was involved in so much illegal (and implicated in much unethical and illegal) that it can be hard to get your facts right sometime about which crime and allegation we're talking about.
My apologies for the confusion.
Your sources for this "apparent" help?
I have stated (and I'm not bothering looking it up) that I understand why I am opposed to even the softer sort of violence used by WU (who mainly targeted STUFF, not people - they never killed anyone except three of their own in an accident), but why would you who believe violence - even deadly violence against innocents - as an acceptable method in fighting evil, why would you condemn Ayers? You don't disagree with his methods, only his target.
And still, you offer no crimes that Obama has committed other than knowing Ayers who was using violence against buildings, cars and stuff to try to stop what they considered to be the evils of imperialist US actions.
Obama has not endorsed such action, nor has he been accused of such action.
Do you offer similar condemnation for Reagan who knew and supported contra terrorists? Or whose administration funded Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?
Real terrorists and thugs?
Or, do you have no condemnation for Reagan in support for REAL terrorists and thugs but an unbelievable amount for Obama who has known but not supported the actions of non-deadly terrorists (horrible enough) and "community organizing thugs"?
One ought not jump to accusations of fraud so quickly when one lives in a glass house.
About the first, I do not support the targeting of civilians. I don't believe you can find any statement where I have written otherwise, and if I had, I misspoke, because my position is not that I support targeting civilians, it's that I believe it is sometimes morally permissible to bomb military targets even when civilian casualties are easily predicted, as when the enemy puts hospitals and orphanages next to armories.
About Hiroshima, specifically, I explained to you well over a year ago, that I'm reluctant to conclude that bombing Hiroshima was definitely immoral, only because I don't find wholly implausible the argument that the alternative would have been "a comparably brutal full-scale invasion where we would be fighting everyone, including non-uniformed men, women, and children."
About the principle in general, about this time last year, you made the same bone-headed assertion, that I support "the deliberate targeting and killing of children in wartime."
I responded then as I would do now:
"I do not: I support the bombing [of] military targets."
And I will reiterate my frustration that, concerned as you pretend to be about clear communication, you continue to misconstrue my position, over and over again.
About Ayers, your assertion that he was a "non-deadly" terrorist who only targeted "stuff" is false.
Beyond the fact that Weather Underground's three-fingered salute was a rather grotesque reference to the Manson family murders, and beyond the fact that, in reference to the Pentagon bombing, Ayers boasted that "the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them," there's this little bit of trivia about his plans to bomb that officers' dance:
That bomb, which fortunately detonated during its construction, was a NAIL BOMB which Ayers admitted was going to tear through "windows and walls and, yes, people too."
William Ayers intended to murder soldiers and their loved ones. That we had the good fortune that no innocent lives were lost, was not part of the plan and is only being invoked in hindsight to give Ayers the thinnest cover.
In the best case, I could conclude that you're very forgetful about my position on targeting civilians, and that -- despite your knowing so very much about Weather Underground -- you didn't know that Ayers planned to use a nail bomb in attacking that dance.
In the worst case, you're slandering me and knowingly pushing propaganda... and for what?
To compare me unfavorably to an unrepentant terrorist.
This is totally unacceptable.
I agree.
The point of any honest debate is the propagation of honest ideas. In a sane world honest rhetoric would so out-shine dishonest rhetoric that the two would be as distinguishable as night and day.
Clearly, to my mind, the two of you are not evenly matched... rhetorically speaking. Bubba's debating skill is undeniable; his ability to recall and refer to previous discussions is unmatched among all the blogs and sites I frequent; his ability to distill an argument and analyze its individual components and how they relate to the greater issue... again, unmatched anywhere I frequent.
Dan on the other hand is all but wholly unfocused. Or so it would appear. From Dan I see a lot of sleight of hand arguments; strawmen, distractions, introduction of unrelated issues, and often a poor grasp of history and salient facts.
Speaking strictly for myself, I bend over backward to make sure that what I write in factual. I don't always succeed. No one does. But what drives me is the sure knowledge that Ben, Dan, ER, and even those on my side of the ideological divide, will call me out publicly for my sloppy rhetoric.
Thing is, I see a lot... A LOT of sloppy rhetoric here. And Dan, I hate to say it, but a lot of it comes from you.
Case in point: This thread.
1) There is no proof that Reagan negotiated a delay of the release of the American Embassy captives in Iran. None. What you refer to, the October Surprise Theory, is just that... a theory. No proof, however, exists to support that theory. Just the fevered imaginings of Reagan-haters.
2) You admit that you don't know "enough about the alleged Obama incident to have an opinion..." but you're conversant enough with a theory to "think the Reagan crimes likely happened." Likely. But apparently none of the charges of poor judgment against Obama are even remotely likely.
"Why? Because we LIKE you!"
And all this under the guise of a "suggestion."
3) No one has accused Obama of crimes here (accept the quite possible violation of the Logan Act) yet you demand proof of crimes. Obama's "crime" is not prosecutable, but it demonstrates his lack of judgment, and "good" judgment is what makes a good president. His associations speak to his motivations. He feels no compunction in associating himself or his campaign with people of questionable integrity... until it comes to the public light, and then it's "under the bus!" He uses people like the little folk use toilet tissue.
4) You blatantly make excuses for Obama, yet you crucify McCain for getting a divorce? You think it is preferable to elect a man who could not vote in favor of saving the lives of infants born alive despite the attempted abortion? Yet you balk at a man who "divorced his disfigured wife to hook up with a young blonde socialite, who later went on to illegally get drugs to feed a drug habit." ? Is that all you have?
You do not argue honestly Dan. You ignore or excuse the poor judgment of Barack Obama and claim the moral high-ground while castigating the opposition with distortions and innuendo.
The point is, Ayers IS a murderer. No, the bombs he and his fellow terrorists didn't kill any innocent civilians, but they did kill three of their own... and that, Dan, is still murder. He is responsible, by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Weathermen, for the deaths of three people. And William Ayers, still unrepentant the day of 9/11, supported Obama, worked with him, even held Obama's political "coming out" fund raiser at his own home.
You do not wish to see this. Fine. Your choice. Our choice, however, is to not take you seriously. And since debating you in just about anything quickly grows tiresome.......
My point was only that all you all have is vague innuendo and what you consider to be "poor judgment" against Obama for who he has associated with. If that is enough for you to consider him a poor candidate, then don't vote for him.
But the hostility and disgust with which you discuss the man seems wholly uncalled for. Okay, so you don't like three people with whom Obama is acquainted. Fine, don't vote for him.
But his association with people whom you find distasteful does not make Obama a terrorist, nor a racist, nor a "friend of" terrorists and racist.
All I'm saying is that if that's the best you got against Obama, you're not going to do a very good job of making other folk think they shouldn't vote for him.
Those are losing arguments, it seems to me. I'd much rather see discussions of policy than these "His pastor stinks!" sorts of conversations.
It's a despicable insinuation, low even for you, one you should either retract or defend.
Now, you say that Obama's associations with Ayers and Wright doesn't make him a "friend of" terrorists and racists, but that appears to be an argument you can't justify. You glibly dismiss the evidence we offer as "vague innuendo," but that is a lie, because the public record about Ayers' history and Obama's association with him, for instance, is pretty clear.
You haven't disputed our claims -- much less disputed them credibly -- such as the claim that Obama launched his political career at a party at Ayers' house. You just downplay that claim in the most ludicrous fashion, ignoring the salient points: "Obama once went to this fella's house."
And you haven't disputed the claims about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, namely, that Ayers founded it and guided it, and that Obama chaired it. You haven't even acknowledged the claims.
You have no substantive response.
The facts about Obama's close relationships with Ayers and Wright (and others, like Rezko) suggest that the term "friend" is entirely apt. Between the details of his black liberation theology and the bile he has spewed from the pulpit, it's entirely appropriate to call Jeremiah Wright a racist. William Ayers constructed, planted, and detonated bombs; targeted the Pentagon and other government buildings; and even planned to set off a nail bomb at an officers' dance with the intent to harm and kill soldiers and their loved ones, so if the word "terrorist" doesn't apply to Ayers, it applies to no one.
The facts of the matter confirm that it's entirely appropriate to conclude that Barack Obama is a friend of racists and terrorists.
The only thing going against this conclusion isn't truth, it's expediency: it's inconvenient to Obama and his supporters to admit the radicalism and horrible judgment his close friendships reveal.
Your reaction shows a concern more for political expediency than for simple truth.
And your sudden desire to focus only on policy positions is as transparently dishonest as it gets. You haven't been focusing solely on Republican policy positions, instead choosing to use your blog to advance the smear that the GOP convention contained almost nothing but lies, and to make hay about Gov. Palin's attendence at an Alaska Independence Party convention.
And when you think Obama's experiences help his campaign, you don't set them aside to focus on policy differences. Instead, you herald them.
"I'd take the community organizer experience over Senatorial experience. Community organizing (think King, think Gandhi) teaches much that is vital for a healthy Republic."
It is only when the details of that experience is less than convenient, that experience suddenly becomes irrelevant.
And, most importantly, we just discussed energy policy and foreign policy at length in that previous thread. The discussion fizzled out, not because EL and I are unprepared to discuss policy (we're not), but because you were taking the opportunity to smear Republicans as unconcerned about "living within our means," and you couldn't clearly explain what you meant by the phrase.
I personally think it's obvious that character, temperament, judgment, and experience matter in how a President performs: he doesn't just send a list of policy positions to Congress, he has to deal with our allies and enemies, as both the head of state and commander-in-chief of the world's sole superpower and the leader of the free world. If you were in a more honest mood, I suspect you would agree with me.
But, obviously, policy is incredibly important too: a President who is wrong on the issues but is sincere about it may have a more disastrous term in office than one who runs with sound policies merely because they're politically popular.
I'm actually willing to discuss both in detail: you only seem willing to use both as rhetorical weapons, invoking experience when it's convenient and denouncing it as distraction when it's not, and using an ostensible discussion about policies to smear your opponents.
It's long past time for you to start taking these lengthy discussions more seriously or stop wasting our time.
2. The problem is when we AGREE with or support the "sins" of our friends/acquaintances.
3. IF Obama was saying that Ayers' actions with the WU were those of a hero and he should be honored for that violence, or that such action is a good and to be encouraged, I would be the first to come out in disagreement with Obama on that point.
4. Obama has NOT endorsed terrorism, violence against innocents, racism or corruption. YOU have not demonstrated that he thinks these are goods and all we have to go on are his words and actions and those have all thus far been diametrically opposed to terrorism, violence, racism and corruption.
5. You have no case. Nothing. You have not offered anything worthy of being "disproved." There's nothing there. Not a charge, not a case, not some specific thing to say "Obama thinks THIS!" and have something to discuss.
You have nothing to which to substantively respond. Do you understand?
6. Do you want me to respond substantively to the "charge" that Obama once ate dinner at Ayers' house? Yes, he did. So?
Do you want me to respond substantively to the "charge" that Obama purchased a home from Rezko? Yes, he did. So?
There's nothing there.
Thus, given what we know about the Reagan administration, the charge that they may have engaged with negotiations to delay a hostage release sounds credible.
On the other hand, you all have offered that Obama knew some people you don't like and who may have indeed had undesirable pasts. But there's nothing anywhere - nada - that suggests that Obama might somehow find that negative behavior to be a moral and political good.
That's the difference between bringing up the Reagan charge and the Obama non-charge: There's something on which to base the suspicion of Reagan.
I would if I had, but I didn't.
What I actually said was:
"...but why would you who believe violence - even deadly violence against innocents - is an acceptable method in fighting evil, why would you condemn Ayers? You don't disagree with his methods, only his target."
That is, if Ayers walked up to you and said, "There are these people who are committing evil actions. We have tried negotiations with them, we have tried political pressure, nothing works. They're still committing these evil actions. Given that, is it okay to use violence in response to these evil actions to try to stop them?"
Your position, as I understand it, is, "Yes, if negotiations and political pressure aren't working, then you can engage in violence to try to stop evil."
That is the rule that you support, is it not?
My point then, was NOT to compare you to a domestic terrorist, but rather to raise the question: Why are those who advocate violence as a solution surprised when other people embrace that philosophy as well?
Comprehend?
First, you continue to downplay the relationship between Obama and Ayers, writing that Obama "once ate dinner at Ayers' house," when Obama launched his political career at Ayers' house.
On top of this, there is the Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Ayers founded and guided it, Obama chaired it, and you've yet even to acknowledge its existence.
I've made both these points before and you have made no effort to deal with them.
In turning from Obama to Reagan, you show how little you care for the truth. You think the "October Surprise" is more important than Obama's actual relationships with actual terrorists even though the former is unsubstantiated fiction. You think it sounds plausible because your image of Reagan is so very low, and that's good enough for you. Because you think Reagan was such an evil man, all it takes is that an allegation "sounds credible" for it to have any bearing on this discussion.
Most importantly, you most certainly did accuse me of supporting the targeting of civilians...
What I have also done, though, is to ask why YOU would condemn it, since you're the one who believes it's okay to target civilians if the cause is just.
...and you excused William Ayers by implying that he isn't a "real" terrorist and by writing that he was engaged in "non-deadly" terrorism in which he only used "violence against buildings, cars and stuff."
Both of these are lies. You slander me, and you're pushing propaganda in defense of a guy who planned to use a nail bomb against soldiers and their loved ones.
Rather than own up to your lying, you engage in more sophistry:
Why are those who advocate violence as a solution surprised when other people embrace that philosophy as well?
You're now suggesting a moral equivalence among all who reject strict pacifism, between those who think that the limited use of force against legitimate military targets is sometimes morally permissible, and those who target innocent civilians deliberately to cause as much horror as possible.
By this logic, there's no distinction between telling the truth and deliberately lying, since both involve language. There's no distinction between surgery and torture, since both involve using sharp objects to cut into human bodies. There's no distinction between marital fidelity and adultery, since both involve sexuality.
It is absolutely perverse to suggest that the only people who can object to deliberately targeting civilians are strict pacifists who eschew violence in all circumstances.
As Bill Buckley said to those who propose a false equivalence between the U.S. and the Soviets, what you're doing "is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around."
What you're doing is wrong, evil, and really a fairly flagrant betrayal of our ostensibly common faith. It should be denounced in no uncertain terms, and you should repudiate this approach immediately. You won't, because you think you're scoring rhetorical points with your little game, and that's reprehensible.
It has nothing to do with my "image" of Reagan. Rather, it is about the fact that his administration committed war crimes, sold weaponry to terrorists and thuggish nations and lied about it all.
My "image" is based on those "facts."
Listen closely, Bubba, I've made no effort to deal with these "points" for the simple reason that there's nothing to deal with.
Continue to raise them all you want. Yes, Obama knew these people. Yes, Obama served on that board.
No one cares. There's nothing wrong in any of that.
There's nothing to deal with. To the extent that there's something to deal with, it's only in your mind.
Feel free to keep bringing it up. We'll feel free to keep ignoring it until such time as you have something to actually deal with.
Most importantly, you most certainly did accuse me of supporting the targeting of civilians...
And then he quoted Dan:
What I have also done, though, is to ask why YOU would condemn it, since you're the one who believes it's okay to target civilians if the cause is just.
That is not slander, Bubba. It is the case that you believe it is okay to target civilian populations if the cause is just. You have said that you think it is okay (the cause is just) if there is also a military target there.
Hiroshima was just, according to you, because it was at least partially a military target. (that stretches credulity a bit, since it was primarily a civilian center and the point was to terrorize Japan into forcing surrender, but taking you at face value...)
Therefore, you believe that it is okay to target a civilian population (Hiroshima) if the cause is just (there's also a military target.)
Now, I fully understand that your primary stated goal in supporting such action is the supposed military target. That does not change that you are also targeting a civilian population.
If you target a ship building factory in a residential neighborhood, you ARE targeting a civilian population, even if the actual target you want to take out is military related, the civilians are nonetheless there. To say otherwise is disingenuous.
I've linked to two posts from last year showing that my beliefs regarding the use of military force do not match what you claim about me. About Hiroshima in particular, I don't believe I've ever taken the position that the bombing was definitely just, only that I'm reluctant to say that it definitely was unjust, because the alternative of a full invasion risked just as many civilian casualties. About the awareness of their being civilian casualties, my position is that we have a duty to reduce those casualties as much as possible, but I believe there's an obvious difference between bombing a missle silo, knowing that our enemy put it right next to a hospital, and deliberately targeting the hospital itself.
While I've documented my own position, you've linked to absolutely nothing and quoted me on absolutely nothing. Were the situation reversed, you would be griping this very moment about how I think I know you better than you know yourself, how I'm displaying literally megalomaniacal arrogance and pretending to have the omniscience of a deity.
You're lying about me, Dan. You're continuing to slander me.
Provide proof to back up your claims, or retract your slander and shut your lying mouth.
If so, I apologize sincerely for misunderstanding your position and I'm glad that we agree that such behavior is wrong. I would never knowingly misstate your position.
To be fair, I was MOSTLY trying to talk about those who DO think such actions are just and even good and I was just using you as an example, as I thought you were one that agreed that targeting the civilians at Hiroshima was a good thing.
My sincerest apologies for misstating that position for you. It was not my intent and I am sorry.
You have already insisted to presume to tell me what I believe...
"It is the case that you believe it is okay to target civilian populations if the cause is just."
...and to presume to tell me what I've said.
"You have said that you think it is okay (the cause is just) if there is also a military target there."
And now you ask me to clarify my position? Earlier this morning you had no problem telling me what I believed and telling me what I said, but now that I'm asking for proof to justify that, you want me to explain what I believe about Hiroshima?
If you didn't know what I believe, you shouldn't have acted as if you did.
And what a totally cowardly position to take regarding civilian targets anyway. That was the gold standard of hard decisions and you would have let an equal or greater number of people die so as to avoid any possibility of pansy-assed pacifists thinking you were too mean. Any claim to following the Lord's Will would be, and is, also dishonest because it implies a great evil by the person who made that incredibly hard decision. No evil was committed whatsoever by Truman's decision to drop those bombs because of his intention while his back was against the wall. Your self-satisfied holier-than-thou position on the subject is vile.
Let's ignore the fact that BHO has political advisors who (through ENRON thye accounting) managed to pull down tens of millions of dollars in bonuses while running fannie/freddie into their current condition. Let's ignore the fact that BHO is the second leading recipient of contributions from F/F. Let's ignore the Spanish language commercial BHO is running that takes quotes out of context, and lies about McC's position on immigration. Let's ignore that fact that the a significant reason doesn't send e mail (other than the significant security risks, Gov. Palin being hacked), is because his arms were damaged during his captivity and typing is painful for him.
Yes let's ignore all of thses things that call BHO's judgement into question. Let's keep focusing on stuff that may or may not have happened back in the 80's. That my freind is a great plan, hope it works out well for you.
um, yes.
Holy cow! And McCain actually knew these people! (Actually, beyond that, he was found to have acted in poor judgment, so maybe this is not the best example...)
So, how about:
Carl H. Lindner Jr., former CEO or Chiquita bananas? He has been a supporter of and fundraiser for McCain and he was found to have funneled money to terrorists in Colombia!!
Sarah Palin's HUSBAND was a member of the AIP, whose founder said:
"... the fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my HATE for the AMERICAN GOVERENMENT, and I won't be buried under their DAMN FLAG. ..."
And MR. Palin WAS PART OF HIS PARTY!
Further, McCain promotes the endorsement of known terrorist supporter OLIVER NORTH!! A known terrorist supporter and arms supplier to Iran and contra terrorists and, unlike Ayers, one who was actually convicted for some of his crimes.
Do we really want to start convicting people by association? Especially when the associations for McCain might be more troubling and direct than Obama's?
But if Dan is going to bring up Oliver North, I'll remind Dan that his three convictions were vacated in 1990, that Ayers wasn't convicted because of a procedural matter -- that the unrepentant terrorist himself crowed to being "guilty as hell, free as a bird" -- and that North's crimes weren't remotely comparable to what Ayers did and planned to do. It is disgusting the degree to which Dan defends Bill Ayers, not only implicitly denying his being a "real" terrorist, and not only pushing the lie that Ayers never intended to harm or kill anyone, but now dragging out name after name to compare people unfavorably to the scumbag.
About which, I have more to say in a moment.
If we want to compare notes on CEO's -- because as we all know, businessmen are less reputable than bomb-building professors; and when a government official leaves D.C. for the private sector, that's automatic evidence of corruption -- we'd be happy to discuss the ties between Barack Obama and Fannie Mae.
And if Palin's discredited because her husband joined a party founded by a guy who hates the American government...
...well, we can make sure that certain chickenssss. Come home. TO ROOST.
I don't want to convict anyone by association. I also believe that it is almost impossible to last for any significant time in politics without having some contact with "unsavoty characters". What I do however look at is how both candidates handle their associations. BHO's are certainly more current, and in some cases have palyed significant roles in his campaign (Raines). My problem is not really the associations, it is how BHO supporters refuse to admit that these are problems for BHO. It is the fact that you slam Mr. Palin for what appears to be a brief involvement with the AIP (who knows perhaps the kind of rhetoric you mentions is what caused him to dissacociate from them. It certainly doesn't sound all that different from Rev. Wright and his God damn America.), while giving BHO a free pass.
Look, you want to ignore the BHO stuff feel free. But, there are some real questions that he hasn't answered and probably won't ever be asked. That's a shame.
"[T]he notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."
and:
"Mr. Ayers is a 60-plus-year-old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was six or seven years old."
McCain on his terrorist, North:
the McCain campaign helpfully circulated a column Oliver North had penned in the Washington Times, extolling the senator's virtues, under the heading "In Case You Missed It: Oliver North on John McCain." The e-mail made a point of pulling out the key laudatory quote [from North] and placing it in bold, making it even easier for reporters to read...
When asked about accepting an endorsement from North - a man rather notorious for his reprehensible crimes, McCain's team said:
"We'll let the comments in the release stand,"
So, that would be one difference between the two campaigns: Obama has clearly repudiated Ayers' actions ("detestable," "deplore") whereas McCain rather blandly accepts North's endorsement and support, without condemning his crimes but without coming out and saying he approves of North. Sort of wimpy, seems to me.
Still, of the two, only Obama has clearly repudiated the crimes of their "friends."
That's a significant difference to me and, I'd suggest, most people.
??
North:
* Sold US weapons (illegally) to IRAN!
* Took the ill-gotten money from those sales and gave it to Nicaraguan terrorists to help them overthrow a democratically elected gov't!
* Lied about it all to congress
* As a result, untold thousands died
Ayers:
* Blew up some buildings and cars
* Only three of his comrades died in an accident
Clearly, in my mind, BOTH conducted themselves horribly. Despicable actions all around. I would not and have not suggested otherwise.
Just as clearly, by sheer body count if nothing else, North is in a league of infamy all by himself hardly comparable to Ayers' petty crimes.
Do you really think "that North's crimes weren't remotely comparable to what Ayers did and planned to do."??
That astounds me.
Fortunately, you are not most people. I think (just my guess) most people are appalled by North's actions. They were unChristian, immoral as hell and un-American. And that he stands proudly behind them only makes it worse.
WHAT questions, Craig? His associations with these people have been thoroughly covered in the media and there's nothing to them.
Wright is by most accounts a great Christian preacher who made some horrible comments a few times over a lifetime of Christian service. His comments were wrong and Obama addressed that.
Ayers actions have been rebuked by Obama.
There is no significant relationship between Rezko and Obama and it has all been investigated fairly thoroughly and covered in the news. As it should be.
What questions are you wanting answered?
There is no ignoring of Obama's actions and comments or association with these three individuals. They have been investigated and there simply is not anything there.
If there's some question, some allegation you'd like to make that hasn't been covered, by all means, do so.
I am no blind follower of Obama. He is a politician like most politicians in many ways and human enough to make mistakes and to be lured into corruption by powerlust. We have to keep our eyes on all our leaders.
But I simply see nothing there in these "allegations" of knowing three men.
If there were even a remotely plausible comparison to be made between, say, William Ayers and Oliver North -- and there isn't; Ayers is worse by any honest measure -- Dan would find a way to excuse Ayers. Even now he's implied that Ayers isn't a "real" terrorist while dishonestly applying the same term to North.
The important thing to note is that this behavior is only partly due to his partisan tubthumping for Barack Obama.
Dan will find greater sympathy for Ayers than he will for North because Dan and Ayers are on the same side of the most fundamental political issue, the issue that transcends any single politician: the question of Western civilization and America in particular.
Does the person display antipathy, and even hatred and enmity toward the West and toward America as the leader of the Western world and its strongest bulwark?
Since Ayers does, Dan gives him a pass. Since Reagan and North did not and do not, he presumes the worst about them, just as the Contras' alliance with the American government is reason enough to accept the very worst accusations about them with no real regard for the Sandinistas and their Soviet sponsors: the Marxists overthrew the existing government, and he not only ignores their Marxism, he refers to them as democratically elected.
But all this talk about disreputable relationships does make this an excellent time to note one key difference between McCain and Obama, and Dan's supposedly significant difference deserves a reply.
The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that, when McCain spent years in the company of violent Marxists who hated the United States, it was against his will.
Dan would find a way to excuse Ayers. Even now he's implied that Ayers isn't a "real" terrorist while dishonestly applying the same term to North.
I and Obama have both condemned Ayers actions in WU. His actions certainly were terroristic. Just not on a level with North/Reagan's terrorists, but still Ayers' actions were terrorism.
I do not excuse Ayers' actions. They were wrong. Anyone who would suggest that I'm excusing it hasn't read what I've written.
Since Ayers does, Dan gives him a pass. Since Reagan and North did not and do not
Ayers' actions were wrong and terrorism. I have not said otherwise. I have said that they don't compare to Reagan/North's support for terrorism, which was terrorism on a whole other scale.
Ayers' terrorism killed no one but three of their own and that was in an accident. Reagan/North's terrorists in Nicaragua killed 30,000 people. They tried to overthrow a democratically elected gov't. They thus were undermining American ideals and killing thousands of people.
And that's not even getting into a discussion of funding/providing weapons to Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden or Iran.
Ayers was wrong, but on a whole different scale than Reagan/North. I don't give Ayers a pass. And I don't hold Reagan/North accountable for their crimes because they don't hate America. I hold them accountable because their actions are UN-american. Bubba is sadly wholly mistaken on why I oppose their actions.
Now you know the truth about my positions.
It's what you consider truth to be that is troubling. As we've gone over this in the past, I'll only say that your description of Reagan/North is typical of a supporter of the Soviet supported Marxist Sandinista government, "democratically" elected after they got the rules changed to allow 35% of the vote to be considered majority enough to win. Based on your ideas of terrorism in that case, you'd no doubt view the colonists as terrorists against the British. In any case, you've misrepresented the Nicaraguan situation based on anecdotal testimony from people that you can't confirm AREN'T Sandinista supporters. The bottom line is that a conflict arose in that country and Reagan chose a side to support. You don't like Reagan, so you don't like his pick. In any case, it doesn't come close to the depth of scumbag status in which Ayers joyfully takes great pride, that being acts against his own country and people. You're right, Dan. No comparison. Ayers is far worse. His incompetence in carrying out his plans do not lessen his criminality.
As mentioned, Obama chose his associations. These guys were all players and it's a bit hard to believe that Barry couldn't know anything about any of the people criticized by conservatives. So either way you cut it, the guy's judgement is horrible. He either knew the people with whom he formed associations, or he never saw fit to find out about them. Neither is in the least bit intelligent for a guy who wants to be president. Poor judgement either way.
Marshall said:
The bottom line is that a conflict arose in that country and Reagan chose a side to support. You don't like Reagan, so you don't like his pick.
1. I was a Republican and a Reagan fan. It was the dawning recognition of his actions in Nicaragua, Iran and elsewhere that slowly began to turn me away from him. That I liked Reagan had nothing to do with me "siding" against the terrorists in Nicaragua.
If anything, it slowed my response - I should have come out much stronger against Reagan much sooner, but my support of Reagan the man made it hard for me to see Reagan the criminal.
2. Yes, the bottom line is that a conflict arose in Nicaragua and Reagan got involved - illegally and contrary to cherished American ideals - and sold weapons to IRAN (after selling weapons to IRAQ) - illegally - in order to raise money for a group of terrorists - illegally and specifically forbidden by Congress - who by most reports killed nearly 30,000 people.
The Reagan administrations actions were horrendous and it would seem that only blind partisan loyalty - to a much greater degree than even the craziest Obama supporter has - could explain why people continue to defend such outrageous, un-American and illegal actions.
You'll see no condemnation in his first comment here that addresses Ayers, nor his second, where he writes (dishonestly) that Ayers "used to believe that violence was an appropriate way to try to stop bad behavior" when Ayers has never changed his mind on the matter, and where he refers to Ayers and Rezko not as the despicable terrorist and corrupt slumlord that they are, but merely as "people you don't like."
When he finally gets around to it, Dan claims, without proof, that he's already condemned Ayers' actions, "to the extent that he was involved with using violence," as if WU was a direct-mail PAC that occasionally got out of hand, and he started peddling the lie that Ayers targeted only "stuff" and even implied twice that Ayers was not a "real" terrorist.
I don't believe Dan has ever retracted either the lie that Ayers didn't target soldiers and their loved ones, knowing that the nail bomb he was planning would tear through, "yes, people too," Nor has he admitted that the "real" terrorists comment was disgusting and that he has retracted the comment that should never have been made in the first place.
And to the degree that he's condemned Ayers, he's made quite sure to emphasize just as much his belief that Ronald Reagan and Oliver North are much, much worse. Hesitant as Dan is to admit that Ayers is a real terrorist, he not only calls North a terrorist supporter, he refers to North as a terrorist outright.
Even Dan's emphasis on criminal convictions is revealing. It matters a lot that Ayers wasn't convicted of any crime while North was...
[North is] A known terrorist supporter and arms supplier to Iran and contra terrorists and, unlike Ayers, one who was actually convicted for some of his crimes.
...but it's hardly worth mentioning that Ayers wasn't convicted because of a procedural error on the part of the police; that Ayers' associates were convicted; that Ayers crowed about being "guilty as hell, free as a bird;" and that North's convictions were later vacated.
And while it matters a great deal that Obama's never been convicted of any crime...
[Obama] has not been convicted of any crimes. There is no evidence to suggest he has taken part in any corrupt or criminal behavior.
...he hardly keeps to the same high standard before demonizing Reagan. Neither Reagan nor any members of his Administration has ever been convicted of "war crimes," but that doesn't stop Dan from making the accusation.
And though Reagan was personally convicted of no crimes -- and, I reiterate, Dan has made criminal conviction crucial -- he can still ludicrously write this:
...my support of Reagan the man made it hard for me to see Reagan the criminal.
(His claim to having been a former conservative and Reagan supporter might well be true, but I think it's obvious that Dan doesn't really understand the conservatism he claims he used to affirm: neither free-market economics, nor social traditionalism, nor the arguments for a strong foreign policy. His ignorant devotion didn't turn to mere disillusionment, it's now ignorant hate, and I see that Dan has not once referred to efforts to bomb federal buildings and murder American soliders as "un-American." He's used the word three times in this thread, each time to denounce Reagan and North, never Ayers.)
In the case of the conspiracy regarding the "October Surprise," Dan not only highlights an essay that has been discredited and fails to reckon with the conclusion of a Democratic Congress that the conspiracy couldn't be substantiated, he admits evidence isn't what's determinative.
In attacking Reagan, Dan thinks that the conspiracy theory "sounds credible" based on other things Dan knows or thinks Reagan did, and that's good enough for him.
...and all that leads us back to the original topic of this thread, the fact that the Obama campaign seems to have admitted that Obama did what Reagan was accused of: interfering with the sitting President's diplomatic efforts during an extremely serious situation.
I admit I may have missed it, but I still haven't seen Dan admit that this charge is serious when it applies to Obama.
But much more broadly, I stand by my assertion that it's clear that Dan gives people a pass for their hatred of this country.
Jeremiah Wright is probably even a better example of this than Ayers.
Wright is by most accounts a great Christian preacher who made some horrible comments a few times over a lifetime of Christian service.
It is perfectly clear that this is nonsense.
Wright didn't just happen to utter a few a race-baiting comments, he subscribes to a theology that is inherently racist in both name and content: one would think that an explicit assertion to being concerned with "black liberation" solely would be sufficient evidence of its racist character, but we also know that its founder Cone wrote at length about the white Anti-Christ in describing this theology.
And between Obama's own earlier description of the first sermons he heard from Wright, and the absolutely jubilant reaction of the congregation in the videos, it is obvious that Wright's bile wasn't a random digression that caused his listeners to shrink back in shock. It is, instead, clearly his bread and butter.
Dan defends the indefensible, and like the candidate he supports, he offers the mildest condemnations very late in the day, not as a reflection of real moral outrage on his part, but to provide the smallest fig leaf to his own radicalism.
He wraps himself in the flag to denounce Reagan, repeatedly, as "un-American" just to grab some cover for his consistent apologizing for and stand with those who burn the flag, who are gladly photographed standing on the flag in a darkened alley, who call for God to send to Hell the nation that flag represents, who peddle the worst sort of conspiracy theories about that nation, and who even target its soldiers and buildings for murder and destruction.
There are arguments to be made regarding whether Reagan's actions were prudent, ethical, and legal, but let's ignore the intellectual questions for a moment -- Dan can't seem to do very well addressing these questions, anyway -- and look at the emotion.
I think it's absolutely clear that, say whatever else about them, Ronald Reagan and Oliver North loved and love this country.
Dan Trabue clearly hates these men, repeatedly calling their actions "un-American" and attacking Reagan as a "criminal" and North as a terrorist.
But you won't see one tenth the outrage at America's explicit enemies, their words, deeds, and beliefs.
He attacks Reagan because he hates Reagan. He denounces Ayers because he thinks he has little choice but to denounce him.
This isn't about the scale of what these two people have done, either. EL, Marshall, and I are mere foot soldiers in this rhetorical war for the soul of Western civilization, and Dan can't help but smear us either, to lie in accusing us of supporting the targeting of civilians and to slander us by saying that we conservatives don't care about "living within our means."
When is the last time Dan Trabue has displayed as much primal outrage at the jihadists who targeted our soldiers in Iraq as he has for the President who sent them? When is the last time the jihadists even came up?
Like so many other things -- the Bible, the Constitution, the concern for civility, the priority on policy -- Dan invokes concern about behavior that he deems un-American only when it suits him, not to attack America's enemies, but to attack his own.
As has consistently been the case lately, my central criticism is applicable, that Dan Trabue is guilty of gross hypocrisy in his attempt to bury his truly radical ideology with an implausible veneer of being politically moderate.
Reagan had cabinet members convicted of lying to Congress. The Reagan administration caused the US to be convicted by a World Court of WAR CRIMES for committing WAR CRIMES in Nicaragua. It's a matter of public record.
Bubba is simply wrong on this matter, or playing loose with language. To the degree that Reagan himself was never personally convicted of anything, he is correct. But that does not change that HIS administration WAS convicted of crimes, including war crimes.
I go back and forth between referring to Reagan and Reagan's administration. If you prefer, I'll clarify and say what I'm talking about is Reagan's administration.
It is Reagan's administration that was guilty of war crimes and other un-American acts and of lying to the American people. I hold Reagan responsible for the actions of his administration, which seems reasonable to me.
Just to clarify your misunderstanding on that point. I am sorry if I was not clear enough for you to understand aright.
Part of your problem is that I, (and I believe most of the rest of the commenters here) am not as rabid of a McCain supporter as you are of BHO. Since the cnvention I have moved from borderline sitting this one out to most likely voting for McC, but not being happy about it. As someone who at one point in this process said "If a dem wins the election I hope it is BHO becasue he doesn't have the HC baggage", the more I know about BHO the less I believe he should be POTUS. I agree with Bubba that your and BHO's repudiations come pretty late and after equivication and excuses. But better late than never. You still understate BHO's connection with Ayers. It is more accurately, I don't like what he did long ago, but I have to get in bed with him now to achieve what I want. You still ignore BHO's lying in campaign commercials. I understand you are a true believer and support your guy, just don't assume I feel the same about McC.
As far as questions, I have never heard BHO directly questioned about his relationships. I have never heard BHO questioned in the manner SP was by Gibson (although I think she handled it well, and it probably helped her). In fairness I have not had a chance to listen to the O'Riley interview where BHO might have asked some tough questions.
My only comment about North is, it seems as though he has gone through some kind of "repentence" in the last 25 years, and that he does not say (as Ayers does) I wish I had done more. I am a little suprised that you don't accord North, the same latitude you accord BHO. Of course you would probably go after Colson for endorsing McC also. You also would never engage in guilt by association, no not Dan.
In short McC dosen't excite me at all. But the thought of a BHO presidency will probably get me to poke the chad for McC in Nov.
The bigger dissapointment is the fact that the quality of candidates on both sides seems to have declined so much.
Reagan had cabinet members convicted of lying to Congress. The Reagan administration caused the US to be convicted by a World Court of WAR CRIMES for committing WAR CRIMES in Nicaragua. It's a matter of public record.
It is a matter of public record, and I believe the accusation of war crimes -- sorry, "WAR CRIMES" -- is inaccurate and unfair.
You've been inaccurate about a lot of things in this thread, from the claim that Bill Ayers never targeted people, to the implication that Wright's politically inconvenient hate speech was anomalous, to your assertion that I personally support targeting civilians, and now your assertion that the Reagan Administration was convicted of war crimes.
The pattern of deceit isn't random either: I believe you lie to make the radicals on the left look moderate, and to make conservatives on the right look monstrous.
* trained, armed, equipped, financed and supplied the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua;
* made numerous attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984;
* mined the harbor at Corinto;
* Used force against another sovereign nation, violating its sovereignty;
* produced in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to contra forces, and therefore encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law;
Among other actions.
I summed these atrocities (which resulted ultimately in the deaths of some tens of thousands of people - mainly civilians, if my memory serves correct) as "war crimes."
There was no deceit intended. What do you call it when the forces of another nation mine the harbor where you live, Bubba? When they support and encourage guerrilla warfare that costs some tens of thousands of lives in your community?
Not being a lawyer, I could well be mistaken in using that term. Mass killing supported by actions of one sovereign nation towards another sovereign nation sounds like war crimes to me, but please correct me if you know a more appropriate term.
As far as questions, I have never heard BHO directly questioned about his relationships. I have never heard BHO questioned in the manner SP was by Gibson
I'm not sure what you want. George Stephanopoulos questioned Obama about it and Obama answered, saying he knew him, his actions early in his life were despicable and what of it?
What other questions are there you'd like asked? He admits knowing the man. He admits the facts as you all have outlined them here. He calls his actions with WU despicable and obviously does not approve of those actions.
What else do you want to ask Obama? "Do you really REALLY think his actions were despicable?"
It doesn't matter what past acts Barry found despicable. It's the attitude the perp holds now that demonstrates Barry's lack of judgement, or worse, his desire to use whatever means to get what he wants politically. Either disqualifies him for public service. Add that to the list of points that equally disqualifies him..
So, given that, should McCain reject North's endorsement and clearly repudiate him as the criminal low-life he is - a man responsible for dealing with terrorists and the deaths of tens of thousands?
By attacking these acts as "atrocities" and "war crimes," you leave nothing left in the English language for acts that truly qualify as such, such as genocide and executing POWs.
Because you exaggerate in one direction when attacking political conservatives and exaggerate in the other direction to downplay the reprehensible behavior of people on the left, I believe it's entirely appropriate to describe your behavior as deceitful.
So far as I know, Obama has never rejected Clinton's endorsement. Heck, Clinton spoke at the Dem convention this year.
I don't remember Oliver North speaking at the GOP convention...
If thousands of people being killed, raped, attacked and "disappeared" is not enough to justify the term "war crime" to you, what is? How many people have to die for you to consider it an atrocity?
As to this:
since the United States and the rest of the Western democracies were at war with the Soviet Union and its satellite states.
Oh, really? When did Congress declare that war? I missed that in the history books.
What I recall from school is that we can't invade countries unprovoked and that the president does not have authority to engage in acts of war without approval of congress.
We have rules and I expect our leaders to follow those rules. If they don't, then I expect that they be held accountable. Seems reasonable to me.
Your selective responses are getting old. BHO has plenty of questions I'd like to hear the answers to. I'd especially like to see the Gibsonesque follow ups that Palin got. It is obvious that BHO could say about anything at this point and you would defend him. The fact remains he's got plenty of more recent things to explain. I'll wait to see.
As Bubba has pointed out, this would probably work better if you were to hold those you agree with to the same standards to which you hold others.
The difference is that I am more than willing to condemn both Ayers AND North. Whereas you all seem to want to hypocritically condemn one (whose actions resulted in only three accidental deaths) and appear to support the other.
Since you only condemn the one who has a tenuous link to the Democrat candidate, it appears that you all are merely being partisan in your approach to the candidates.
For my part, I have criticized Obama. I criticized his support for off-shore drilling. I criticized his support for the domestic spying program. I have criticized his support for ethanol (which I believe he has backed away from, somewhat).
I have further repeatedly pointed out that he is NO Messiah, that he is a politician and that we must always keep a close watch on all politicians, including Obama, because of the temptation to be corrupted by power.
In short, Craig, your criticisms of me don't seem to bear out what I've actually said.
I will also note, Craig, that you didn't answer my question: Obama HAS been asked about these points, what more would you like to ask Obama that hasn't been asked?
Which standard is that?
That we ought to condemn actions like those of Ayers and North?
I've done so.
That it's okay to question a candidate about his acquaintances?
It's okay with me for both Obama and McCain.
That I'm not especially concerned about someone knowing someone with a less than reputable character?
I'm okay with that both in the case of McCain and Obama.
That someone ought not accept the endorsement of someone with North or Ayers' reputation?
I'm consistent there.
That we ought to disagree with a candidate when they hold a position that I don't support?
Check and check.
So, I reckon I'm good, then? I AM holding Obama to the same standards that I am holding McCain.
Now, in fairness: Do you think you are holding McCain to the same standards as you are Obama?
Since I have not really addressed my standards here,I'll try to do so. If anything I am my expectations of McCain are higher that my expectations of Obama. You keep expecting me to conform to your preconceptions. I have not been a McC supporter, I probably disagree with him more than I agree with him nonetheless, I do have certain expectations for him. He meets some and fails to meet others. You can keep trying to herd me into supporting McC and you won't have any luck. I'll address the North thing several ways (none of which will satisfy you). First, If North was acting under duely constituted higher authority then his actions cannot be considered crimes. Second, wasn't he basically convicted of lying to congress, and then wasn't his conviction overturned? That's hardly the stuff of war crimes. I could probably come up with a list of presidents who lied to congress. Third, the judicial system had it's shot at North, and at this point in history he's as free as any other citizen. Fourth, by your standards the people who negotiate arms sales to Israel, Suadi, Egypt, or Canada are just as guilty as North if the materiel was used in combat. Frankly I'm more bothered by Lieberman's endorsement than North's. North is a pretty minor figure and his endorsement isn't a big deal. (don't forget, my issues with McC run deeper than an endorsement by anyone). So if it makes you feel better, I agree that McC should repudiate North.
I'll even take your word that BHO has been mercilessly grilled on the reason he continues his associations with people like Ayers, Rezko and Wright, and that he has thrown them all under the bus.
I would love to hear his rationale for approving a commercial that is so obviously false that he could not have been unaware of it's falsehood.
I would love to hear him defend the large amounts of money he has recieved from fannie/freddie as his advisors took them down the nron road to overstated profits,(in this case a huge govt. bailout) and tens of millions of bonuses based on prefromance.
I would love to hear his rationale for trying to usurp the powers of the executive branch by negotiating with The Iraqui's.
I would be interested in if/why the women in his campaign make less than the men.
There, I've answered you challenge. The rub is I would like to hear BHO answer these questions not you. I'm sure that you will be able to come up with something that McC or Regan did that is worse in your eyes. I don't really care,(I pretty much know what you are going to say) I want to hear it from him. The bottom line is even if it could be proven that BHO succeeded in banning library books in Chicago (that appearantly being high on the list of sins), you would still support him. Please understand I don't begrudge your right to support the candidate of your choice in the manner of your choice, but he's not all that and a bag of chips.
That Ayers is an asshole who sought to murder Americans is not debatable. That North supported rapists and terrorists is Dan's own twisted interpretation of events.
I've shown in the past that the Sandinistas were not above butchery in the name of the Contras in order to discredit them. I've shown where the Sandinista forces slaughtered people as well. As did Reagan, Dan took sides and has shown a willingness to believe any negative story to support his decision.
I do NOT condemn McCain for accepting North's endorsement. I DO condemn Obama for having anything to do with an asshole like Ayers. There's no freakin' comparison.
(Sorry for the language, Eric)
As did Reagan, Dan took sides and has shown a willingness to believe any negative story to support his decision.
To be clear, you mean only that Dan took sides "as did Reagan," not that both Dan and Reagan were equally dismissive of inconvenient evidence, right?
What personally amazed me in a past conversation over this very subject is Dan's capacity to treat America alone as the world's sole free agent. His formulations of the evils in Nicaragua ignore the other major player that was intervening in that country's affairs -- the Soviet Union -- and when forced to acknowledge the USSR's support of the Sandinistas, he first distorted the chronology of events to argue that the Sandinistas were pushed to ask for Soviet aid by our intervention, and he then argued that the Sandinista coup itself was the result of earlier American intervention.
I am reminded of Jeane Kirkpatrick's speech at the 1984 GOP convention, speaking about the Democrats at their convention in San Francisco.
They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn't blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.
But then, somehow, they always blame America first.
When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the "blame America first crowd" didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.
But then, they always blame America first.
She continued:
The American people know better.
They know that Ronald Reagan and the United States didn't cause Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, or the repression in Poland, or the brutal new offensives in Afghanistan, or the destruction of the Korean airliner, or the new attacks on religious and ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, or the jamming of western broadcasts, or the denial of Jewish emigration, or the brutal imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky and Ida Nudel, or the obscene treatment of Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner, or the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.
The American people know that it's dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems that we did not cause.
They understand just as the distinguished French writer, Jean Francois Revel, understands the dangers of endless self- criticism and self-denigration.
He wrote: "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." [emphasis mine]
I hope that we still realize as a country that the United States government and its military is not the focus of evil in the modern world. Though we defeated the Soviet empire -- since some like Dan still refuse to admit we were even at war, my use of the word "we" is quite qualified -- we still face quite dangerous enemies, from jihadist terrorists and the rogue states who would likely arm them with nuclear weapons, to the oppressive and occasionally belligerent China.
Even if Dan thinks our best option is to "wage peace" -- a naive position that ignores the reality that, while might doesn't make right, what's right must often be protected by the use of force -- his tendency to assume the very worst about our country is dangerous.
Even efforts to defend this country only by non-military means are severely undermined by the Left's constant implicit message, that this country isn't worth defending.
"To be clear, you mean only...right?"
Exactly. Good catch of a poorly thrown pass.