It always cracks me up when Obamaniacs think McCain is the one getting a free ride from the media.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 10:19:54 AM

"free ride" probably isn't the proper phrase.

More like, completely ignoring, for better or for worse.

6/4/2008 10:26:39 AM

Like the time the NYT ignored unsubstantiated rumors about an unconfirmed affair.


[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 10:40 AM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 10:40:36 AM

Socks`` a McCain hack, GoldenViper an anarchist, transhumanist nutter.

Who could have predicted it? Where did we go wrong?

6/4/2008 10:48:22 AM

I think it would have been fair to clarify, for example, whether McCain really understands the situation in the Middle East re: Sunni/Shiite conflict, Iran's role in the Iraq conflict, troop levels, etc. because he has gotten all that wrong in the past few weeks and the media has totally let it slide.

Because we have to know why Obama doesn't wear a flag pin, whether Jeremiah Wright loves America as much as he does, and whether he believes in the flag.

6/4/2008 10:50:25 AM

Quote :

"Like the time the NYT ignored unsubstantiated rumors about an unconfirmed affair. "

And that cycle lasted for what? Three days?

How long has Obama been having to rebuff guilt by association garbage?

6/4/2008 10:52:06 AM

Boone, the Wright stuff is the only thing Obama has recieved flack for.

Action Pants lists a bunch of other shit McCain has had to put up with (note: as argued previously in this thead, McCain's mention of Al Qaeda when he meant extremists wasn't as huge a deal as some people like to think. They just don't realize that Iran actually does likely assist Sunni militants fighting U.S. troops in Iraq). He just pretends that stuff hasn't recieved air time. Apparently he's not watching CNN or reading NYT.

6/4/2008 10:55:49 AM

(ActionPants watches plenty of CNN and is fairly certain the democratic primaries have gotten orders of magnitude more coverage than anything John McCain has said for months)

6/4/2008 11:00:12 AM

It's raining McCain.

6/4/2008 11:01:03 AM

^^^ I assume we're discussing the amount of flack-- not the number of issues.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ^]

6/4/2008 11:01:38 AM

I'm talking about NET amount of flack.

You complain about the Wright thing, so let's start there. Did the media cover the Wright thing a lot? Sure. But was it always bad for Obama? No. I mean, when he gave that first speech defending Wright everyone from Joe Klien at Newsweek to Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic said it was the best political speech of our generation. I don't hear you complaining about that. Was that the media's anti-Obama bias?

You complain about the flag pin stuff and all that hooey. Hey it even got brought up during the ABC debates with Charles Gibson (was that in Penn?). Okay. But how many pundits/columnists/talking heads came out the VERY NEXT DAY and complained about how these were non-issues and that the ABC debates were the most trivial of the campaign?

McCain has simply not recieved that kinda support in the media this election. 2000? Sure. But not now. I mean, how many reporters, REPORTERS mind you (not commentators or pundits), have claimed that McCain is so inspirational that it's hard to be objective when covering him? How many times has Christ Matthews said he felt a thrill go up his leg when McCain speaks?

This is really no contest. Has Obama recieved a large amount of flack in gross? Yes and mostly over Wright (no one has said shit about Obama's flimsy position on major issues). But he's also recieved a large amount of positive press that McCain has simply not enjoyed. ON NET, I would argue that McCain is the whipping boy in this election.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 11:17:42 AM

^That's more attributable to McCain's faults rather than the media. If he had said anything deserving of such praise, he probably would have gotten it. But he didn't. And as a result, he got no coverage and the media is still perpetuating the "maverick" meme from 2000 that clearly is no longer applicable. If that's not a benefit to him, I don't know what is.

Obama certainly took a lot of flak over the Wright thing, and if that would have sunk a lesser politician. On the other hand, look at the media's treatment of McCain and Hagee. Hagee says that Hitler was sent by god to herd the Jews into Isreal so the apocalypse could happen, McCain says "oh sorry didn't know this guy was crazy when I intentionally sought his endorsement" and that's the end of it. Look at the stream of lobbyists who were actively doing lobbying work while riding on McCain's bus, and how little the media has paid attention to that. One of the lobbyists even said "Yeah, people won't care about that," which is only true because it's not treated as an issue. And McCain tries to paint Obama as the special interest candidate last night in that joke of a speech? Ridiculous.

6/4/2008 11:27:59 AM

^

So you're admiting that the members of the MSM have indeed allowed their opinions of Obama to influence their coverage of his campaign? I'm glad we're in agreement. I just don't think people with communication degrees are in good positions to decide what is or is not praise worthy (is it any wonder they value looks and charisma so highly? policy is too boring and complicated).

And If McCain attended Hagee's church for 20 years, I would say your analogy is apt. But since he didn't...well...

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 11:40:05 AM

Yeah, McCain is boring, but that has nothing to do with what he's actually saying. Obama's speech last night had more policy than did McCain's, which was mostly filled with pandering to Clinton voters and making personal attacks on Obama. But since he said it in a boring way, I guess that means he's actually the one who's right.

The race speech was an important speech. It addressed a real issue that most public figures won't touch and needed to be discussed. That's why it got coverage. What has McCain done that's comparable?

6/4/2008 11:48:21 AM

McCain has not done much praise worthy I guess. He certainly has not gvien any good speeches. But here are a few things he did that kinda matter.

With Joe Lieberman (Democrat) He introduced the *first* bill into the senate that proposed capping GHG emissions (Climate Stewardship Act of 2004(?)). A bill that when McCain re-introduced it in 2006, Obama co-sponsored (though Obama changed his mind when he started running for President)!

With Ted Kennedy (Democrat) he led the debate on reforming America's immigration laws by introducing The 2005 Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (another bill Obama co-sponsored!). While the issue of immigration reform remains to be settled, their bill was the first of its kind in recent years and like the CSAof2004, it spawned a series of bills and debates that got the nation talking about what form immigration reform should take.

With Russ Fiengold (Democrat) He led a near decade long fight to set limits on soft money in to help making campaign finance more transparent. Their Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed into law in 2002. Their efforts won them both Profiles in Courage Award (awarded by the JFK Presidential Library).

He helped formulate and promote the troop surge that has resulted in reducing violence in Iraq (i.e. saving actual lives), despite the fact it was unpopular and despite the fact that Obama predicted that it may increase the level of violence in Iraq (though Obama changed his mind when numbers started comming in).

A victim of torture himself, he led the fight against inhuman treatment of prisoners by introducing the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which was signed into law in 2006. Critics complain that bill was made ineffectual by Bush's 2006 signing statement, but (as mentioned earlier in this thread) these critics apparently don't realize these signing statements do not carry actual legal weight. They essentially only have the potential to be used by the courts as one of many sources (such as congressional debates, committee hearings, etc) when trying to determine the intent of the bill). And even if one believes that Bush or a future President will still ignore the provisions of the act, it created a legal path for taking these trangressions to the judiciary (if there is evidence Bush is breaking this law, he can be taken court).


So aside from working across party lines to led the fight on global warming, immigration, campaign finance reform, torture, the war in Iraq and many other issues he has not done anything at all praise worthy in the past few years.

I mean, can anyone name the last time McCain gave a good speech!!?? Or shot sunk a basket form halfway across the court!??? How can this guy expect to be President!?

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 12:52:16 PM

Wow. You're right.

He's too damn valuable to the Senate for us to vote him out of it and into the Presidency.

6/4/2008 1:11:42 PM

^ The implication being that Obama has been a lackluster Senator...so let's make him President and see how it goes? Okay.

6/4/2008 1:37:41 PM

I jest.

What I'm arguing, though, is that I think they both have enough experience to qualify.

So given: they both have enough experience, and there's really no correlation between an overabundance of experience and presidential success.

Therefore, the debate should be on the issues, and not on experience.

6/4/2008 1:43:41 PM

"Obama changed his tune when the numbers came in"
Are we against when people change their minds in the face of evidence, now?

6/4/2008 1:45:35 PM

McCain is [Old] and divides Republicans. Go Red Team, Go!

6/4/2008 1:51:08 PM

Obama has had plenty of legislative accomplishments from reform for government transparency to bipartisan restructuring of the Illinois justice system in the Illinios State Senate to nuclear nonproliferation legislation

I'm not trying to downplay what McCain has done in the Senate, but during this campaign, when he would be doing the things that would get him attention in the media, what has he done?

6/4/2008 2:27:31 PM

Boone,

This whole thread has been about the issues and experience is an issue. I have given a littany of policy proposals that Candidate John McCain offers that I like--Cap & Trade of GHG emissions, Market-based Health Care Reform, Immigration Reform, etc. But it takes a President to turn policy proposals into legislative achievements. Senator John McCain has a history of working across the aisle to get things done a number of major issues. His experience shows that he has what it takes to get things done.

I don't value experience because it prepares one to become President (there is really no job experience to prepare you for it), I value it because it provides an indication of one's ability to govern and work with those you disagree with. Senator Barack Obama has not shown that capacity. Over the past 3 years, he has consistantly stayed with in party lines and not stuck his neck out on any issues.

Now, I would still consider voting for Candidate Obama if his policy proposals were good enough. But if anything they only betray his lack of understanding of basic issues. He apparently does not understand the Health Care crisis America faces (his proposals do nothing to curb rising health care costs and may infact worsen the trend). He apparently does not understand the implications of the taxing capital gains on U.S. investment and U.S. growth. He apparently does not understand the implications on gas prices of taxing oil company profits.

I try to take each candidate as a whole package. And as a whole package, I think Obama is the weaker.

6/4/2008 2:36:56 PM

why couldn't somebody from the republican party win the nomination who doesn't have to "cross the isle" on half the issues.

6/4/2008 2:38:37 PM

Oh please Socks... I've read your posts several times before and we both know you will vote Republican regardless of what anyone thinks, says, does, or spins.

6/4/2008 2:39:43 PM

Quote :

"Oh please Socks... I've read your posts several times before and we both know you will vote Republican regardless of what anyone thinks, says, does, or spins. "

Not a frequent reader of TSB, huh?

6/4/2008 2:42:04 PM

Lies.

6/4/2008 2:48:02 PM

Quote :

"I don't value experience because it prepares one to become President (there is really no job experience to prepare you for it), I value it because it provides an indication of one's ability to govern and work with those you disagree with."

I totally agree with that. Experience provides evidence to bolster your statements.

This is sort of why I'm a die-hard Obama supporter. For all of McCain's experience, he still voted for the Iraq War-- so apparently all his experience hasn't provided him with sound judgment, yet. Obama's experience demonstrates to me that no matter how much of a noob he is, he still has better judgement than his opponent.

6/4/2008 2:48:24 PM

Boone,

"Judgement" sounds good, but I think Obama can only be credited with good judgement if you ignore the vast majority of his record in the past 6 years.

Where was Obama's judgement when he supported ethanol subsidies to a handful of special interests, even though they have been a major factor in rising the price of food for all Americans.

Where was Obama's judgement when he predicted that the Surge would lead to an increase in violence in Iraq?

Heck, where was Obama's judgement on Iraq at all after 2002? Here (again) is a list of Obama's 6 positions on the Iraq War post 2002. And please note that I have done my best to get these from credible sources and to quote them within context.

1) We should Stay In Iraq.
2004: Obama says US forces should remain in Iraq and that “there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

2) We Should Leave Iraq Immediatley.
2008: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

3) Congress should not set time-tables for withdrawal.
2006: "But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy".
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

4) Congress should set time-tables for withdrawal.
2007: "That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070130-floor_statement_8/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?ref=politics


5) If we must set time-tables for withdrawal, they should be flexible to the realities on the ground.
2006: "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

2007: Under the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, "withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

6) We have set time-tables for withdrawal and they are inflexible.
2008:

Quote :

""MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home. SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie...Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

Where is the judgement in any of that???

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 2:59:34 PM

^son of a bitch. see what happens when you do your homework on obama guys? he says shit just to keep you smiling.

didn't you see the 3 retarded ladies in the bottom right in the crowd behind obama last night cheering and booing like they were at a football game or damn wwf wrestling tourney? i mean, such gullible fucks are the likes of who is voting for this guy.

6/4/2008 3:02:09 PM

We're gonna talk gullibility, changing your mind, and telling people things to keep them happy after Bush and all those years of a Republican Congress? Really? I guess we should talk fiscal responsibility, reducing the size and influence of government, and not interfering in other people's countries, too.

6/4/2008 3:10:38 PM

You also need to realize that by 2004, when the War in Iraq was not so unpopular with voters in Illinois Obama was trying to impress, his rhetoric on the war got much more parsed. He said that he still didn't think case had been made as a Senator, but that he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the war if he was a Senator. He also said that there was room for disagreement for whether authorization for the war was justified.

How did he explain this parsing to Tim Russert? If he had stuck to his guns, it would have been unpopular and hurtful to the Democratic Party.

Quote :

"MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it. SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/

Maybe State Senator Obama had better judgement US Senate Candidate Barack Obama?

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 3:11:47 PM

^^^^I know you're trying to show me incongruity in his positions, but I'm really not seeing it.

1-2: Things were very, very different in Iraq in 2004 and 2008. One would hope his position shifted in that time.

3-4: You're quoting 3 out of historical context. He was arguing against a "leave tomorrow" scenario that was being discussed when Murtha et al were stirring the pot. Given that, 3 is not incongruous with 4.

5-6: I really don't see how you derived "We have set time-tables for withdrawal and they are inflexible" out of 6.


But even if he had flip-flopped on this issue, he at worst strayed into McCain territory. The fact that he (hypothetically) stayed there for only a few months is still reassuring.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 3:13:20 PM

Boone,

Things were different in 2004? How? Casualties were greater in 2004 per month than they are now, Obama himself admits that the level of violence has decreased, yet Obama still wants to leave. What changed to change Obama's mind? When asked about that very same quote by Tim Russert, Obama said that it was not the time to criticize the war because of political reasons (the Dems had a nominee that voted for the war in Iraq) <See previous post with quote and links>. What kind of judgement is that?

And you are incorrect on 3 and 4. Obama had several beefs with Kerry-Murtha. One of them was that it set hard deadlines for withdrawal. 10 months later, when he proposed his own deadlines, he tried to incorporate this criticism by making his deadlines flexible (withdrawal could be haulted indef. if the Iraqi government met goals set by the Bush admin).

But again, Obama changed his mind. In 2008, Obama's campaign manager said that Obama's latest time table of leaving in 16 months after beeing elected was NOT flexible. He said US troops would be out in 16 months PERIOD. When Gibson asked whether this was true, Obama said yes.

All you have to do is read the words.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 3:22:52 PM

Woops. I think I misread your post. Are you saying that in Obama's 2006 speech he was not arguing against withdrawal deadlines per se but only against withdrawal deadlines that were inflexible? And therefore 3 and 4 are not him changing his position at all because he was never against deadlines in the first place??

If so, I might possibly agree with you. That's actually similar to the way I understood him the first time I read the speech. But it's really a tough call. Obama uses language that sounds clear cut, but once you really look at it he leaves himself a lot of wiggle room. And even if that is what he meant, he has since changed his mind again anyways.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 3:36:29 PM

6/4/2008 4:09:09 PM

the left-wing of the Democratic Party really picked up Bush campaign strategy pretty well.

1) 2004: Accuse opponent of relentless flipflopping (quotes taken out of context or on trivial issues are the best!)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html

2) 2000: Don't fight your opponent, fight his less popular predecessor! (It doesn't matter what Gore says, so long as you keep them in mind of Slick Willy).
http://www.bush-mccainchallenge.com/

3) 2004: Make a big deal about your opponent's rich heiress wife (here the Dems openly acknowledge they’re doing it because the Republicans did it in 2004).
http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/05/cindy_mccain_at.php

4) 2000 & 2004: Elect a candidate with little experience and an inconsistant record on major issues, but is good at parsing his words to misdirect voters.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx

I wonder if the Dems will have a version of the Swift Boat group too.



I know a lot of the kids voting for Obama and posting on this board were just in high school at the time, but for those of us that actually protested Bush and the War, this is very depressing. Somehow I stay fired up about it, but I don't know why.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2008 4:22:34 PM

Quote :

"I know a lot of the kids voting for Obama were just in high school at the time, but for those of us that actually protested Bush and the War, this is very depressing."

Not all of us, Socksie. I still don't understand how you can go from protesting the war and opposing Bush to supporting a hawk like John McCain.

6/4/2008 4:28:37 PM

Quote :

"Things were different in 2004? How? Casualties were greater in 2004 per month than they are now, Obama himself admits that the level of violence has decreased, yet Obama still wants to leave. What changed to change Obama's mind?"

The mediamatters quote was from January of 2004. That was before the bombing of that Shia mosque that sparked the civil war crap storm over there. That's the difference I was talking about. Taking casualties is one thing, being in the middle of a civil war is another.

Quote :

"Obama said that it was not the time to criticize the war because of political reasons. What kind of judgement is that?"

I wouldn't classify it as judgment at all-- it's tact.

Quote :

"Woops. I think I misread your post. Are you saying that in Obama's 2006 speech he was not arguing against withdrawal deadlines per se but only against withdrawal deadlines that were inflexible?"

Yeah, but you're right about his language. Who knows what he really, really meant. I don't see any evidence to indicate it was any substantial shift in his views.

Quote :

"the left-wing of the Democratic Party really picked up Bush campaign strategy pretty well."

Yeah .

But #2 is fine by me. He used to be so cool, now he OMG FLIP-FLOPPED!1 towards Bush. He deserves the comparison. I don't get why people would care about the f-f'ing, though.

6/4/2008 4:39:31 PM

The biggest reason is that I think we fucked up huuuugggeee in Iraq. We're talking thousands dead because we had no fucking clue what was going on and had a trigger happy President. And I'm afraid if we leave immedialtey like Obama is proposing, things will just get worse. I think we need to maintain security in the country until they can get a government set up that can serve and protect the people.

Will we be able to do it? I don't know. But it seems like it would be wrong not to try. That isn't to mention what leaving Iraq may do to U.S. security down the road, by breeding even more hatred in the region.

But, at the same time, McCain worries me on other foreign affairs issues (where the President really has the most power). I mean, the way he is talking about N. Korea and Iran it's like he's talking about the Soviet Union. Appeasement? Come on. But Obama doesn't impress me either with his attitude that we can talk our enemies out of hating us. I don't think it's feasible.

My support for McCain is probably more reluctant than it sometimes sounds. I *think* he's the best person in the race, but still probably not the best person to be President.

6/4/2008 4:44:40 PM

Quote :

"And I'm afraid if we leave immedialtey like Obama is proposing, things will just get worse."

I'm not 100% for a hard timetable, either, but Obama's plan is a bit more complex, and he's talked quite a bit about how it's somewhat situationally dependent. In fact, one of the last quotes you posted was him talking about listening to the commanders on the ground and what-not. I assume/hope he's serious about it.

Quote :

"But, at the same time, McCain worries me on other foreign affairs issues"

If you have worries about an overly hawkish President, I'm not sure how Mr. "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" could be even remotely, reluctantly palatable. Saying something like that is not the kind of *ahem* "judgment" I'm looking for.

6/4/2008 4:52:04 PM

I think its entirely possible Iran may need to be bombed.

I also feel the war was the right call at the time. So did 90+% of americans. We stepped in it and are makign the best. I think things will be wrapping up and there are very positive signs coming out now.

I dont believe obama will pull them out immediately, mainly bc he cant. Its just a political tool to appease many. I dont fault him for that, and he has backed off the immediate withdrawl, and I look for him to back away from that further as he has clinched the nomination. He stance on iran and whether he would bomb them if needed IS of concern to me.

Of the two, i would trust McCains experience and knowledge over Obamas. I think the majority of people agree with that on military and foreign affairs.

6/4/2008 4:58:20 PM

Quote :

"I also feel the war was the right call at the time. So did 90+% of americans."

yeah cause they were going off evidence the administration was cherry picking

6/4/2008 5:13:20 PM

Quote :

"So did 90+% of americans. "

It was nowhere near 90%

6/4/2008 5:16:07 PM

Quote :

"If you have worries about an overly hawkish President, I'm not sure how Mr. "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" could be even remotely, reluctantly palatable. Saying something like that is not the kind of *ahem* "judgment" I'm looking for."

Just because I'm not a hawk doesn't mean I'm a dove. I don't think McCain is going to invade Iran (despite what the DNC tells you). He has made it clear that he would not attack Iran without congressional approval. And given the constraints of the Iraq War on our military forces, any attack would probably be small targeted bombing raids because we simply would not have the power for any sort of full scale invasion (nor would I support such a move anyways). But we can't take the option of military force off the table.

Iran is still apparently moving forward with its nuclear ambitions and that is scary.
http://www.pr-inside.com/us-eu-criticize-iran-s-nuclear-defiance-r625323.htm

As I said in my other thread, I would prefer a diplomatic solution above all else since our military options are so limited. But if diplimacy fails, and the threat grows greater, we can't be afraid to take out key facilities or development sites. We simply can't allow Nukes to wind up in their hands--period. I just don't think Obama has the balls to do it (he's apparently changing his tune now that he has the election in the bag and he can stop flattering the progressive dove base).

I don't think this is inconsistant with my earlier position in 2003. I did not support our invasion of Iraq because I was not convinced that it was warranted. If Rumsfield was right that we knew where the WMDs were and they posed an imediate threat that could not be solved through diplomatic means, we could have taken them out with bombing raids like Bill Clinton did in the 1990's. Nothing the Bush admin came out with convinced me that we needed to topple an entire government and occupy the country. Weapons can be destroyed with other weapons, re-building an entire country is much differnet. This is essentially how I feel about Iran today.

I don't want a trigger happy cowboy, but I don't want a love-bead wearing flower child either. On balance, I think McCain would find it politically easier to start nagotiations with Iran than Obama would find bombing them.

6/4/2008 11:18:42 PM

Wouldn't you also have to consider that bombing Iran, even for a "good reason" like pursuit of nuclear energy (or even nuclear weapons that we can feel pretty sure they won't use, because no semi-rational group wants to in any kind of exchange) would probably cause them to retaliate in the nearest nation where we have a presence? They're already interested in making it over in their own image, giving them an excuse to attack a threatening military presence next door isn't really a smart play.
Not that I'm saying we should let them do what they want, but at this point our options would sort of be to either let them have it if they tried or to blast them into oblivion, and neither one is a particularly good plan. I think dialogue and negotiation is a much better idea, if for no other reason than that they can make what's already a near-impossible situation that much harder.

6/4/2008 11:26:24 PM

"Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here. This stuff will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me"

6/4/2008 11:36:49 PM

JPater,

Agreed. But there is a chance diplomacy will fail. And if that happens, we simply can't allow a nation that already directly arms and assist our enemies to develop and build nuclear bombs--even if that means defending against conventional military retaliation in Iraq. That doesn't even take into account the potentially dangerous shift in the balance of power this would have in the region.

6/4/2008 11:48:15 PM

But that hasn't happened yet, and assuming it ever will, we'll likely have enough international support to achieve a political victory anyway. I don't think there are any countries in the world that really want to see Iran with a nuke.

6/4/2008 11:50:13 PM

I can respect that. I'm mildly surprised I even agree with it to an extent, even though obviously fighting Iran pretty much falls into our "nightmare situation" for the Middle East. The international coalition is key, though. This shit where we do things on our own is kind of hard to sustain.

6/4/2008 11:56:16 PM

^ Indeed. Iran could give us ridiculous amounts of trouble in Iraq.

6/5/2008 12:27:07 AM