Good morning. What’s news to you today?
I found this interesting. I guess this is what they mean by “controlling the message”.
From National Review
“Conservative talk-show hosts who came to Charlotte to interview political figures are furious. For the first time in anyone’s memory, Radio Row — the designated set of booths available to visiting talk-show hosts — has seen restrictions placed on its use by Team Obama. DNC staffers at Radio Row will book leading Democrats for slots on conservative stations but then cancel the appearances an hour or so before broadcast “because you’re not our audience.”
Roger Hedgecock, a former mayor of San Diego now hosting a nationally syndicated talk show, decided to pack up and leave Charlotte early because “we were blocked from getting any guests that mattered. It was a complete freeze.” Larry O’Connor of Breitbart Radio told me, “It was the most bizarre act of censorship. These shows paid large fees and spent thousands on equipment setup and they couldn’t do their programs because of interference.”
Wandering Views 
That sounds more like communism to me.
LikeLike
There was no force involved; sounds like the free market to me. Politics is getting dirtier. This polarization is going to be the end of us if we’re not careful.
LikeLike
Controlling the message is what I was getting at. Not allowing a dissenting opinion…
LikeLike
Oh dear — so not talking to Brietbart is now censorship? And if you’ve looked at NRO lately, you might have noticed that it has become a rah, rah page for the Republican party — it’s not what it used to be.
Kim — Communism is an economic system based on state ownership of property and all industry. I think you mean authoritarian or totalitarian — those would be the political ideologies that accompanied the USSR.
LikeLike
Thanks for putting the right words with my post. It is early and I have two teenagers chattering in my ears. 😉
LikeLike
CB,
So you are OK with the DNC charging them large fees to get a spot, and then basicly shutting them out because they lean to the wrong side politically? I didn’t see R’s doing that with MSNBC and their ilk. Seems like another double standard from the tolerant only if you agree with them left. And Kim might have used the wrong term, but this tactic looks like something Putin would pull, where only Pravda is an exceptable news source. Same tactics.
LikeLike
Aj,
I didn’t say that. If the allegation is true (and given the source there’s a fair chance it isn’t) then the DNC may be guilty of breach of contract (I say may because I don’t know what’s in the contracts) and should refund what was paid, if contract was breached.
Now Putin wouldn’t have allowed them in the hall and certainly would supress their publishing – different tactic entirely.
LikeLike
Maybe they should have used part of the time to rant about the actions of the DNC. At least often mentioning that so-and-so was scheduled to appear at this time but the DNC pulled him because we are not liberal enough for them. (Maybe they did, I don’t listen to talk radio.)
I think Aj has it right, this act shows more negatively of the DNC than it does anything else.
LikeLike
Dirty tricks, but like Debra said, it’s a free market (country) and they can cancel if they want to.
LikeLike
OK,
But if you buy tickets to an event and it gets canceled, or you get shut out, do they not have an obligation to at least refund what you paid? They didn’t deliver what was promised, which was access to speakers for the media groups. In a free market, a refund is certainly fitting.
LikeLike
AJ,
Fair point.
LikeLike
If I’m reading this correctly, the fees were paid for the space to do their equipment set-ups which apparently they got. The gripes seems to be that dems refused to come to their booths. The example NRO gives is of a staffer saying no to an interview after asking about the program his or her boss would be on. On hearing he description the staffer seems to have decided that the show was neither fair nor balanced and declined the interview. So that’s censorship? Sounds more like sour grapes.
LikeLike
QOD: At this point, which is the more Christian nation: Russia or the US?
LikeLike
Ricky, none of the above.
LikeLike
Ricky, how do you define Christian? If you mean a government alliance with the church, then Putin and the Patriarch take the prize.
LikeLike
CB, I agree with you for the most part but scheduling and then cancelling a hour before air seems like a mean trick. I wonder how often that happened or if it was deliberate.
LikeLike
I share Debra’s concern about the country’s growing polarization.
Whoever wins in November, it won’t be pretty.
LikeLike
CB, I will try to flesh out the QOD:
A. To what extent are the citizens of the two nations practicing Christians?
B. To what extent do the major institutions of the two nations reflect and or promote Christian values?
LikeLike
Ricky,
I’m not trying to be obtuse; but can you also describe what you mean by Christian values – what you are including as indicators?
LikeLike
Ricky,
One bonus clarification – does a high rate of alcoholism factor?
Donna and Deborah – I worry about that too.
LikeLike
Let’s define Christian values as those taught by scripture as interpreted by the traditional orthodox position of the church. Yes, a high rate of alcoholism factors. If major institutions promote murder, alcohol abuse, drug addiction, sexual immorality, sloth, theft or other behavior inconsistent with Christian teachings, that also factors.
LikeLike
I’m an Independent, so theoretically both sides are courting me.
Frankly, both sides have been so over the top, neither is appealing at all.
Does it really need to be a circus? How do you ratchet it down? 😦
LikeLike
It won’t ratchet down anytime soon, Michelle. We’ve all gotta make a choice. I consider myself a conservative with some moderate (in some minds liberal) leanings on issues like immigration.
Fact is, most of us haven’t been thrilled with “any of the above” for a while (not since we’ve been out of our impressionable teens or 20s, anyway).
Still, it is a stark contrast in ’12, you’ve got to admit. And I probably won’t be hemming and hawing too much over this choice when I step into the booth in November.
LikeLike
Ricky,
Ok, so if I understand correctly the jailing of a sexually explicit punk rock band because of governmental displeasure with its lryics would count as adhering to christian values as would laws prohibiting freedom of association and assembly for LGBT groups because of their pervision. If you are counting such things as christian values then I would have to say no thanks, I’ll stick with American values that undergird liberty for all of its citizens.
LikeLike
Jobs numbers are out. And it’s not good. The unemployment rate dropped they tell us. But what dropped? Are jobs picking up steam? Housing and construction? No. But once again they dropped the labor force participation rates, and viola’, you get a lower rate. Smoke and mirrors, along with fuzzy math. Again. Look at the charts. Even if you disagree with the writer, the charts and numbers speak for themselves.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/07/white-house-that-jobs-report-shows-the-awesome-recovery-continues-or-something/
“Well, what else can they say? The Obama administration keeps pointing to the fact that we haven’t had a negative jobs report since early in his presidency, but that only means something if we have negative population growth. We’re not keeping up with that factor, not in 29 months, not in 39 months, and certainly not in the 44 months that Barack Obama has been in office. So, when the BLS hands you lemons month after month after month, what choice do you have but to make lemonade? The White House leads off its reaction to the August jobs report by insisting that we’re still moving, er, forward ”
“We aren’t digging our way out of holes. As the charts above show, we seem to be digging them deeper under the current set of policies. It wasn’t all that long ago, Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski reminds us, that a certain Democrat insisted that a jobs report showing more than three times as many added jobs was a disappointment and an indicator of bad economic policy:”
LikeLike
I’m begin to think none of the people in this admin can do math. More fuzzy numbers from Obama in his speech last night. His speech fails the fact checkers.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/07/fact-checking-obama-math-required/
“OBAMA: “I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges, schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.”
THE FACTS: The idea of taking war savings to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand, given that the wars were paid for with increased debt. Obama can essentially “pay down our debt,” as he said, by borrowing less now that war is ending. But he still must borrow to do the “extra nation-building” he envisions.
He made a similar statement in his State of the Union address, and it is no less misleading now than in January. And the savings appear to be based at least in part on inflated war spending estimates for future years.”
LikeLike
Michelle, I would have given your post a “thumbs up” if one would have been available. I would like to think that cultural Christianity is a moderating influence, but it doesn’t seem to be at this point as many Christians have become the chief stone throwers who have ratcheted up the partisanship.
As I say over and over again, you can’t fix a spiritual problem with a political solution.
LikeLike
Photoguy, were you on WMB? What was your name there?
LikeLike
CB, I agree with you that the US provides more freedom for its citizens than Russia. I understand that you would rather live here than Russia. Most Americans would. My question was aimed at Christians: Which is the more Christian nation? It is shocking and troubling for many that the answer is not clear.
LikeLike
Kevin, I posted as In His Shadow on WMB.
LikeLike
Ricky,
If protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms is a western value born of judeo-christian values then there shouldn’t be a question … even liberals would get that. 🙂
Aj,
On their own neither party seems capable of arithemetic. They are going to have to work together and are going to have to compromise.
LikeLike
CB, But which human rights and which fundamental freedoms? The case of the girl rock band that disrupted services at the large church in Russia is interesting. It made me ask what would have been done to someone who disrupted (with obscene and or blasphemous behavior) a worship service at Washington’s church in Alexandria in the 1790s. Is the popular media of the US or Russia more favorably inclined toward Christianity? I would argue that the movies and TV shows of the US are as anti-Christian as any nation, although I am not an expert on Iranian TV. Is higher education and public education in the US or Russia more favorably inclined toward Christianity and Christian values as defined above? I honestly don’t know.
LikeLike
Ricky,
Here’s the difference
LikeLike
Oops, ok. Freedom of expression and religion are compatible. The solution forthe punk rockers here would have been a civil suit or a trespassing suit. The law applies equally to Westboro baptist and girls behaving badly. This is the difference between tyranny and freedom. If God gives us free will, then we must also be able to choose. State imposed faith is no faith at all, imo. Instead it is power wrapped in the cross.
LikeLike
CB, It is a liberal myth that something is wrong with the Ryan budget proposal. Botton line it is, according to CBO, a moderate proposal that balances the budget in ten years and reduces the overall budget deficit from the present 70% to 4% of GDP in about thirty years and places the present bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid programs on a sustainable basis.
One may question some of the details of the Ryan budget, though it seriously addresses the fiscal crisis. Obama’s solution of taxing the wealthy is a joke. The fellow suffers the delusion that a president may govern with mere rhetoric instead of careful thinking and courageous rhetoric.
You are apparently ensconced within the bowels of the monstrous Leviathan of government without a clue as to it’s danger to a truly free nation. A revolution is forming among the people that will surely over time take this leviathan down.
LikeLike
The weird thing is that there are very few “Christians Nations” left because it is in predominantly Christian cultures where you are most likely to have religious freedom.
LikeLike
CB, I agree that state-imposed faith is not faith, but is unrestricted freedom of expression a Christian value? It may be a modern American value, but I don’t believe it is a Christian value. I believe your Westboro/Russian singers analogy is a good one. In pre-14th amendment America, I believe both groups would have been punished in most states in a manner similar to the punishment dealt out by the Russians to the girls.
KBells, You are correct. Which nation is now the most Christian nation on earth? Is it Poland, Chile or another Latin American country, South Korea, an African country? I don’t believe it is an English-speaking country.
LikeLike
Sails, take a good look in the mirror and then read from more than partisan sources.
LikeLike
CB, thanks for such a rational response to my post.
LikeLike
Sails
With a sentence that includes the bowels of a monsterous levithan, you’re dinging me on rational? Ironic.
Since you did not take the challenge, let me try to help. Perusing the Economist would inform you that the CBO numbers were based on underlying budget assumptions supplied by Cong. Ryan’s staff. The mainstay of debate is a discussion of the assumptions made in the budget proposal. Analyses do agree that the budget would shift medicare costs to the states or the individual.
LikeLike
So, CB, among the assumptions of the Ryan budget analysis, which do you disagree with? The truth is that Ryan and his staff, working with some outside economists, put together a carefully considered budget including underlying assumptions.
The Ryan plan continues federal payment of Medicare costs by the federal government through an insurance premium support arrangement. Medicaid costs are paid for by block grants to states that are better situated to rein in costs. Your view that these costs are shifted to the individuals and states is mistaken.
The only two serious analyses of the federal budget that deal with the fiscal crisis are the Ryan and Bowles Simpson one. The Republican party has adopted most of the Ryan budget plan; the Democratic party has rejected both of these plans and is dealing with the fiscal issue with divisive rhetoric about taxing the wealthy.
If you don’t regard the federal government as a monstrous leviathan, then your head is in the sand.
LikeLike
The similarities between the Ryan plan and Simpson Bowles are much greater than their differences. Why is that? Ryan was on the commission, has studied the issue more than any other Member of Congress and has the guts to propose a solution.
LikeLike
Sails
Every budget submission contains carefully weighed budget assumptions — that’s standard fare.
So, the assumptions:
– unrealistically low unemployment assumptions. (to 4% by 2015 – the U.S. average when the economy is doing well is between 5 and 6 percent)
— Tax revenues — the assumed figure does not account for cuts in taxation also presented in the budget.
— unspecified budget cuts that would trim discretionary spending to levels not done post 1939.
— continued increases in the defense budget are sustainable.
On Block grants — once again every analysis I have read that is not moored in the conservative think tanks agrees that the Ryan proposal cuts medicare and with the block grants shifts to States all increases thereafter in health care — there is nothing, zero, nada, zilch in the Ryan plan that would reign in health care costs, except this beaut that you repeat — the States will do it. Bravo Ryan plan way to move the problem to someone else’s plate. Of course if the goal is merely to trim the feds and has nothing to actually do with reigning in health care costs, then the Ryan plan succeeds.
In some ways Sails your post bears similarity in its use of assumptions. You have no idea what my views are on the Obama budget submissions. The one sentence I wrote above states that neither party seems capable of arithmetic on its own. Yet you assume based on my disagreement with a number of Republican positions means I must support big government. There is no basis for this assumption. Yet you blithely make it because I have dared to be critical of a plan that deserves a critical eye.
LikeLike
Well, CB, the point is that the Ryan budget and Bowles Simpson are the only serious proposals that deal with the federal budget fiscal crisis.
One may question the five% unemployment assumption, though, according to the Heritage Foundation analysis this follows CBA unemployment assumptions in a normal economy. For a discussion of this see: http://www.frumforum.com/ryans-rosy-job-numbers-fact-or-fantasy/
Under the Ryan plan Defense budget are quite reasonably assumed to be 5% of GDP.
Tax revenues under the Ryan plan are most probably understated, as in the past tax revenues increase when rates are decreased. This happened in spades after the Bush tax cut.
If you disagree with Obama’s budget assumptions, then let us know. You have to more than just sling arrows at the Ryan budget, given that on on the present path the entitlement programs and the federal government are headed for bankruptcy, something that Ryan understands better than most politicians in Washington. Saying that both parties need to reform their budget assumptions is merely a useless platitude.
LikeLike
Pardon, the hastily written typographical errors in the above.
LikeLike
Obama’s budget assumptions fail also on growth estimations, revenues and cuts and also yes on defense spending outlays that are too high. The only way either Obama’s budget or Ryan’s budget can be remotely taken seriously is as an opening bid for a real negotiation and real compromise. Clinton could do that because he had an opposition party that was willing to discuss and meet in the middle. Obama is hampered by an opposition party that believes compromise strengthens the opponent.
From The Economist:
“That sounds unbelievably good, and for good reason—the figures in the Heritage analysis are simply outlandish. According to the study cited above, Mr Ryan’s plan will bring the unemployment rate down to 6.4% next year, 4.0% in 2015, and 2.8% in 2021. When the Obama administration projected a 5.9% unemployment rate in 2015 falling to 5.3% by the end of the decade, the Congressional Budget Office chided it for excessive optimism.”
The Frum article has a pretty incisive first post on what the article was convey regarding the veracity of Ryan’s assumptions (though it was much more colorfully phrased…)
LikeLike
Sails
You know I am trying to reasonably discuss this issue. You might attempt to emulate that rather than end your posts with some remark or another that amounts to nothing more than an ad homenin aside. It’s isn’t helpful and certainly doesn’t promote confidence in the ability to maintain a conversation.
If you want to know what I think about Obama’s budgets or what could be cut etc, the most efficient way to learn that would be a simple question without the frill of adding your opinion of what is or isn’t platitudinous or ostrich-like.
Typos, don’t worry about typos in this format, at least not with me. This isn’t work product so I don’t proof read my own work let alone others — though I will seek to clarify if I think the terminology was not quite right or don’t understand what I read.
LikeLike
CB, Speaking of ad hominem attacks, Frum is a pinko. I disagreed with him when he coined, “The Axis of evil.” I have really disagreed with him in the last few years as he has turned into a liberal weenie.
LikeLike
LOL Ricky. Axis of evil was one of the simultaneously most clever ways to make people think about the struggles of WW2 and one of the most ridiculous descriptions of three countries ever coined. I give Frum props for the imagery though. Frum, Bruce Bartlett, Wick Anderson, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Rod Dreher, Daniel Larison, Andrew Sullivan are all formerly of the conservative commentariat. They would argue that they still are the Burkean conservatives and that the Reps have moved to the right and off the scale of conservatism. Their point on foreign policy and social policy is that the present republican party is just as big government as the dems, they just want government involved in a host of different things. I would agree with them.
LikeLike
CB, At one point Boehner had reached a major compromise with Obama on the budget, whereupon Obama insisted on an an additional 400 $billion in tax increases. Also, Ryan came to a compromise agreement with Sen. Wyden on Medicare. The notion that the Republicans have become inflexible is a myth.
LikeLike
CB, in my view, terming Iraq, Iran, and North Korea evil in 2002 was reasonable, however much it offended liberals and isolationists.
I do agree with you that Frum has become a rather incoherent and squishy conservative.
LikeLike
The second part of the above was addressed to Ricky.
LikeLike
In fact all of that post was addressed to Ricky.
LikeLike
CB, You know the modern cast of characters better than I do. Frum always struck me as the type of person who would have supported Big Bush vs Reagan in 1980. That year the differences between Reagan and Big Bush were large. The differences between Big Bush and Carter were microscopic.
Clinton is basically Carter reborn as a competent politician and a sexual predator. Apart from Clinton’s sexual misbehavior and amazing ability to lie, how does he differ from Frum?
The Tea Party does not believe in just another flavor of Big Government. If he were alive, Reagan would be the Tea Party candidate. The Tea Party is the future of the Republican Party, if it has a future.
LikeLike
Sails, The Axis was an actual historical alliance of three countries that declared war on us. At the time little Bush said the phrase, “Axis of Evil”, neither Iran, Iraq nor North Korea were allies or had attacked us, and Iraq and Iran were historic enemies who had only recently been involved in a huge war. After 9/11 almost every country in the world supported our efforts against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Even Iran offered us intelligence on Al Qaeda. By letting a lightweight speechwriter like Frum set the tone of our foreign policy, little Bush gave the world a clue that he didn’t know what our real strategic interests were and he was just mouthing off. Iran thanks Bush and Frum every day for: a. Its new ally, Iraq; and b. making America look stupid to the entire world, thereby weakening American influence around the world to this day.
LikeLike
Sails, The Axis was an alliance of three countries that were allies and declared war on us. When Bush uttered the phrase, “Axis of Evil”, Iran, Iraq and North Korea were not allies and had not attacked us. Iran and Iraq had only recently fought a huge war and we had backed Iraq for good reasons as Iran has been a supporter of terrorism.
After 9/11, Bush got off to a good start in Afghanistan. Almost the entire world sympathized with us and supported our efforts against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Even Iran offered us intel on the Taliban. By letting a lightweight speechwriter like Frum set the tone of our foreign policy, Bush gave the world a signal that he didn’t understand our actual strategic interests and was just mouthing off.
Today, I am certain Iran is thankful that Bush and Frum turned their old rival, Iraq, into an ally while making the US look foolish to the entire world.
LikeLike
Sails
Boehner had a deal but could not sell it to his caucus and that was the major issue.
Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies when Saddam was alive. Terming them together in a group was not a particularly descriptive of the issue W was trying to get at — terrorism and the possibility of a dirty bomb getting into the hands of terrorists. The DPRK does not belong in that same group unless you are counting their tech transfers to Pakistan and Iran (which are States not terrorist groups). So the phrasing, while clever breaks down in the explanation. Each of those States presented separate challenges as well – not so easily grouped into one little sound bite.
The major error with the phrase (but not with W’s policy as he did not treat these three States in the same manner) was that they were not working together and ergo not an axis.
If you want to debate on foreign policy, bring it, but you best bring you A game to that. And it would be useful once again to understand that criticizing a policy or phrase uttered by W or Heritage does not a liberal or isolationist make. Though I am concluding that you may not actually understand the meaning of those particular words so I should be kinder to you.
Ricky
The problem with Tea Party is that it also is big government in some areas. And the TP has been somewhat subsumed by the GOP establishment. Interesting to see which faction wins that in the end. I do think the reps are transforming into something else — if we are lucky they’ll come out as a libertarian alternative but with a sane foreign and monetary policy. That could interest me if they can get there.
LikeLike
Sails, I basically agree with CB’s analysis of the use of The Axis of Evil. After 9/11, most of the world supported our efforts against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. By using a phrase developed by a lightweight speechwriter like Frum, Bush gave the world a clue that he didn’t understand our strategic interests. By invading Iraq, he confirmed that.
CB disagrees with me on this but I think Rice was in over her head. Bush needed a seasoned old hand like Scowcroft to guide him.
CB, I see the Tea Party as the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
LikeLike
Ricky
I was ambivalent about W’s reasoning in invading Iraq, but willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The handling of the invasion and the aftermath was terrible. Rummy was fired for cause. What I most disagreed with post 9-11 was the handling of the invasion of Afghanistan (right to go in but not done well as W’s administration wasted al the good will in an amazingly short period of time).
On the tea party – as long as the social policy relies on heavy gov’t intervention, its hard for me to think of it as libertarian.
LikeLike
CB, Boehner was willing to take on the Tea Party and possibly lose his Speaker position until Obama, after coming to a final deal reneged and upped the tax ante by 400 $billion.
Ricky, Bush understood the differences between Iran and Iraq, though he correctly regarded both as part of an axis of evil in the Middle East. In my view Bush was correct to defeat Iraq, though he made a serious error by appointing Bremer as the leader of Iraq and not supporting the Iraqi military. He finally recovered well by authorizing the surge under Petraeus. Unfortunately, the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, largely due to the lethal combination of heartland isolationists and coastal leftists. We, also, lost the Vietnam War due to this combination.
LikeLike
CB, I think the good will was wasted in Iraq. Given Iraq’s demographics (majority Shia) and the fact we were going to install a democracy, the invasion was bound to turn Iraq into an Iranian ally. Disbanding the army and the police only made a bad decision worse. Nonetheless, I supported the surge and give credit to Bush for pulling that off. So I think Hillary and Kerry were wrong before they were wrong again.
Afghanistan is such a tough nut, I give Bush and Obama a lot of slack there. In hindsight, Bush’s initial technique of massive bribes to the tribal chiefs looks like a pretty good solution.
LikeLike
Sails
I know it’s the NYT, but this story seems a pretty fair accounting and casts responsibility for the failed deal in both directions. That seems right to me as it’s rare to have a negotiation fail because of one side.
Ricky and Sails
On Iraq: The decision to de-Baath Iraq was not limited to the military but rather encompassed the whole of gov’t employees — including teachers at grade schools (to have a gov’t job, you had to be a Baath party member). It was a grave error but Bremer was not the only individual responsible for this particular screw-up. Bremer as the head of the CPA implemented it, but an order like this is not one that would be made completely from the field — it would have clearance from headquarters both the Pentagon and State and then finally through the NSC. That’s the way these things are done.
In my view, W waited far too long before putting more boots on ground in Iraq — this was because of Rummy. Petreaus did a few things exactly right in Iraq — it was he who finally stepped up and made clear in the Army Field Manual that torture was not permissible. He commissioned a study from a Harvard academic that became COIN and COIN has worked fairly well. He realized that AQI was not the same as the al Qaida that attacked us but rather a cell and an off shoot and that it was making critical errors in dealing with the Sunni populace.
The situation in Iraq did not deteriorate because of isolationists or left wingers. It deteriorated because the Administration failed in the mid-phase (the invasion was a spectacular success — but the CPA was dismal).
On Afghanistan — The USG had offers of assistance coming in from NATO, the OAS — every country with which we had a defense pact was offering to help. We turned them all down and instead went for CIA ops with suitcases of cash buying off tribal warlords. Bad tactics, bad move. In the end we lost bin Laden — the grander coalition would have put pressure on the Pakistanis to stop support for the Taliban (Pakis like having the Taliban because the Talis are not friendly to India, which is all the Pak military really cares about with respect to Afghanistan). To add insult to injury, W then walked away from Afghanistan to pursue Iraq. That, the walking away, I thought and still think was an error. But attacking Iraq, like I said ambivalent. I believed the Secretary’s testimony to the UN and trusted his judgment.
LikeLike
Sails,
One last thing, then I need to get busy with some other stuff.
Axis from the American Heritage Dictionary:
10.
a. An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies.
Iran and Iraq were not an alliance of powers. Saddam, being Sunni hated them. And the Ayotollahs hated him. They fought a bloody war in the 80s. We, the USG supplied Iraq. They were a balance against each other geopolitically. Thinking of them together as an axis in the Middle East helping each other as an alliance is not what W meant when he used the phrase and that is why the phrase does not work from a simple definitional viewpoint. And that is why most foreign policy experts thought the phrase was silly.
LikeLike
Sails, Sorry for the repeat posts at 3:19 and 3:32. Those posts weren’t showing up on my screen, and I couldn’t tell if I was getting through.
LikeLike
Ricky, admittedly, Bush redefined “axis”, though in my view reasonably. From a broad American perspective these nations at the time were an axis of evil in relation to vital American interests. North Korea and Iran remain so.
CB, I’m delighted that you at least understand now that Boehner and the Republicans were not one sided villains in the breakup of the budget deal. The Times article is far from the last word on this matter that will in the long run be decided by more dispassionate historians.
You have a decent grasp of Iraq realities, though you underestimate the influence of heartland isolationists and quasi-pacifist liberals on the domestic side of the matter. Too bad that Obama essentially abandoned Iraq after Bush’s finally successful effort.
LikeLike
Sails, The American experience in Germany and Japan post-World War II was unusual. We did a great job establishing democracy among totally defeated peoples who much preferred us as their occupiers instead of the Russians. The Iraq experience is more normative. Despite the fact that we liberated them from their dictator, most wanted us out. Most peoples don’t react well to invasion. It is inevitable that conquerors are going to rub locals the wrong way. Southerners may understand this phenomenon better than other Americans. Seventy years after the end of the Civil War all of my ancestors were still angry. As Dad told me, “They hated Yankees and with good reason.”
This is why I have come to respect Bush’s Afghan plan to bribe the warlords and put very few Americans in that terrible place. The sooner we return to that plan the better.
LikeLike
Sails
And with luck you also have an understanding that Obama and the Dems are not the one sided villains.
Back to Iraq — The Obama Administration kept to the time table and SOFA negotiated by the Bush Administration. The US will still have some 16,000 civilians in Iraq and assistance coming in around 6 billion dollars. In addition the US supports and urges the assistance to Iraq from the United Nations and other donor states. That’s hardly abandonment.
On the mid-phase failures of the Bush Administration in Iraq — neither isolationists nor quasi-pacifist liberals were designing the policies and at the time the Administration had the writ to pretty much do what it wanted. Bush finally stepped up after the mid-term defeat in Congress and the departure of his SecDef.
LikeLike
Now for something completely different: I will come at CB from the left. How could the invasion of Iraq and creation of a democracy there have ended any other way than a Shia-dominated state allied with Iran?
LikeLike
Hmm. That’s a tough one Ricky. You have to start with the tribal divisions in Iraq — not every Shia in Iraq likes the Iranians. And not every Shia tribal group likes them. So the way to do it would be to convince the Shia who are not friends of Iran to ally with the Sunni in a coalition. And you have to eliminate trouble making threats from AQI and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Then you have to do all in your power to stabilize the country and repair tribal loyalties that were ripped when Saddam was killed. That’s how I’d try it — but it would be no easy feat.
LikeLike
An honest answer. What would have been much easier would have been not to invade Iraq.
I always thought 9/11 offered us a chance to restart relations with Iraq. We could have told Saddam this was his chance to rejoin the international community as we knew he had not been helping Bin Laden and was in fact hated by Bin Laden. We could have phased out sanctions contingent on good behavior.
Many reasons were given for invading Iraq. None come close to justifying the fact that we were likely to be spending many lives and much money in order to produce a result that was most likely going to help Iran. Dick Armey told Bush that. Robert Novak believed that. More conservatives should have spoken up. What I learned is that when a democratic government suffers a traumatic attack, it may respond irrationally for a period of time.
LikeLike
CB, Obama was actually involved in negotiations to keep about 20,000 troops in Iraq, something that his military advisors regarded as the least number to keep Iraq stable and Iran from infiltrating the country. Most analysts thought this matter could have been successfully negotiated had not Obama decided to give up negotiating due to pressure from the left and isolationists. Those 16,000 bureaucrats remaining are no substitute for 20, 000 warriors. As Kissinger remarked in his book on diplomacy, America has a distressing tendency to win the war and lose the peace.
LikeLike
Sails,
What’s your source? The breakdown in negotiation had to do with immunity for US troops but with the political realities in Iraq, that was not a possibility. Can you imagine the outcry if a US soldier were jailed by Iraqis? I saw at the time a few calls on the Hill to put the soldiers on the diplomatic list and that was a truly unwise idea. I’ve seen others say that negotiations should have been done more broadly, but that would not have changed the equation on immunity. Long story short, it is their country.
Ricky,
Hard to disagree and in hindsight I do think invading was a mistake.
LikeLike
CB, my sources would be, passim at the time, Fred Kagan, Max Boot, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman, all of whom viewed Obama’s troop withdrawal as a retreat in large part explained by his need to pacify his leftist base with the added attraction of consoling the heartland isolationists.
Had Bush or McCain been president, they would have used America’s considerable leverage over Maliki to make sure remaining troops would not br subject to the vagary of Iraqi law.
LikeLike
Sails, Both you and the sun rise early on the East Coast!
I give Kagan a great deal of credit for The Surge. Thanks to his AEI report which was made as an alternative to the Baker/Hamilton report, Bush was given another option. It was Bush’s finest hour and the finest hour of Democrats like Lieberman who stood with him. It was the lowest hour for Democrats like Kerry and Clinton who voted for the War and then pushed for us to leave with Iraq in complete chaos.
Nevertheless, I don’t think 20,000 Americans would make much difference in a nation whose leadership is clearly allied with Iran. I believe McCain, Lieberman and Boot may be too invested in The Iraq War to be willing to accept the results of a democratic Iraq. That’s the thing about democracy. Maliki had to answer to his people, and they wanted no immunity for our troops.
The same dynamic is at work in our Budget debate. The two groups of citizens are even further apart than our leaders. Ryan is the only one to make a serious proposal. CB generally doesn’t like policy proposals that are cynically made for political purposes. Let’s see if she will admit that Obama’s Buffet Rule was just that. That proposal would have raised only a tiny amount of revenue. Compare that proposal with Reagan’s 1986 Tax Reform that raised taxes on many of his supporters, but set us on the path to prosperity.
LikeLike
Ricky, you’re right that Iran and Iraq have a certain natural tie as Shiite nations, though they, also, have a long history of conflicting interests and at times enmity.
The 20,000 troops were needed primarily in an advisory role to help develop the Iraq armed forces. I happen to agree with Kagan et al that those troops would be in the long run valuable to American interests in developing a strong democratic Iraq..
I certainly understand your view that fighting Iraq in the first place was a mistake, though that issue won’t be settled for many years to come, mainly having to do whether Iraq succeeds as a democracy and influences other nations in the region.
Personally, I tend to agree with Eisenhower that America should be wary about going to war, especially for the interests of second and third-rate nations. He was the only post WWII president to avoid going to war. Further, he scared the Hell out of Stalin, Khruschev, and Mao with his warning that should they start a major war in Europe and Asia he would unflinchingly fight them with nuclear weapons. Eisenhower abhorred the sort of limited war we fought in Korea and Vietnam. He, also despised both naive heartland isolationism and weak leftist pacifism.
LikeLike
Sails, I share your admiration for Eisenhower’s military and foreign policies. He and Reagan both rebuilt a weakened military, but both were reluctant to use that military.
We must now consider two new factors in making foreign policy decisions:
1. Our looming bankruptcy should constrain our adventurism; and
2. The growing moral depravity of our culture is going to make our presence in many nations increasingly offensive.
LikeLike
Ricky
I believe I said at the top that both parties could not do arithmetic by themselves. While I do think that the Buffet rule makes sense from a fairness standpoint — it is an oddity that as a percentage of income Buffett pay less than his secretary (BTW the flat tax has a similar ethos behind it), I don’t think that the Buffett rule would be a panacea. Real cuts will need to happen and government inefficiencies need to be eliminated. In that vein, I liked the President’s proposal to eliminate the Commerce Dept and the USTR and move the functions that are not duplicative into Treasury. I don’t mind policy proposals made as an opening bid in a real negotiation, but I don’t like cynically pretending that an opening bid is the bestest proposal ever.
I would agree that Reagan’s proposal in 1986 was much more realistic and that President Reagan did do what needed to be done — he was not a Grover Norquist republican. Likewise HW had the courage to do what needed to be done to handle the budget. I miss Republicans like them and do not believe Ryan represent their legacy.
Sails
It may be hard to swallow, but Iraq is a sovereign nation. While the USG can negotiate hard, forcing our will on them does not serve long term interests — we could not (and should not) keep our military forces there as long as we have in Europe and Japan. We simply cannot afford to do so as a fiscal matter. And since the war was an elective war not a war in self-defense, the war itself damaged U.S. diplomatic standing — Ricky is right about that. It isn’t isolationist or pacifist to respect the national sovereignty of another nation.
One thing that we need to do better in a place like Iraq is work with local law enforcement and with civil society if we want the country to be a functioning democracy. The Iraqi military should not be the nation’s go to for internal terrorism issues as that will simply make the military have an outsize role in the governing of the country. This has been a problem in other countries in the region (see Egypt, Libya, Syria et. al.)
I did also want to comment on your 16,000 bureaucrats line. Usually when I see folks on the right use the word bureaucrat, they don’t seem to mean it kindly. Those civil servants in Iraq working in the hinterlands and Baghdad, bleed just as red as our soldiers. And yes, they have put their lives in danger (the ones outside the capital city) for the mission. And if they are killed while posted abroad serving this nation, their family is just as hurt and cries just as much as those who cry for the sacrifice of our soldiers. So I hope, as an American who understands that it is not only soldiers who can be called on to sacrifice for their country, that you were not sneering at them.
LikeLike
Ricky, our looming bankruptcy is caused mainly by unsustainable entitlements. Military expenses at 5% of GDP, which is the Romney/Ryan policy would affect the budget only at the margins. We have a vital interest to deter war and protect our allies by a strong military than can credibly deter such nations as Iran, China, and North Korea.
As to our increasing moral decadence as a nation, that’s no excuse to avoid our responsibility as the leading world power.
The truth is that both the heartland isolationists and leftist pacifists are claiming financial and moral matters as a convenient cover for their nefarious purposes.
LikeLike
Sails,
Levithan, nefarious purposes? Do you normally write with such phrasing?
LikeLike
CB, The reality is that the federal government may be fairly called a Leviathan in danger of bankrupting the country. Also, in my view isolationists and pacifists are involved in nefarious activity. They came close to preventing America from becoming involved in WWII. I have no problem using strong and frank words in describing realities.
LikeLike
CB, I have closely followed and/or been involved in Republican politics since 1968. Ryan is the closest thing to Reagan since Reagan. As Sails pointed out several weeks ago, when his initial Medicare proposal failed to draw adequate support, Ryan tweaked it and got liberal Democrat Wyden to sponsor it in the Senate.
Sails, People from rural Texas have always been over-represented in our wartime military. I have a nephew now in Eastern Afghanistan. A young man from my Sunday school class lost a hand in Iraq. However, I don’t believe it was isolationist to oppose a war that was almost certain to harm US interests.
Reagan and Ike built strong militaries that were able to deter foes. Johnson and Little Bush misused and weakened our military. Neverending wars sap morale and preparedness. Right now, our military needs to rest and refit.
LikeLike
Ricky, I don’t regard you as an isolationist. From what I gather you follow your father in respecting the military and have principled reasons to oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
LikeLike
Thanks, Sails. Dad and I both supported the Afghan War as something had to be done after the Taliban would not give up Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was only the Iraq War that we opposed. I think the question now in Afghanistan is both strategy and tactics. I was initially concerned when Bush moved assets from Afghanistan to Iraq. This led me to support Obama’s plan for an Afghan surge. Our experience in Afghanistan during the last couple of years has given me pause. I support Obama’s increased use of drones to kill Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but I now wonder if US troops are as effective as US bribes or “contributions” to the warlords. We’re counting the days until my nephew gets home again.
LikeLike
Sails
I do say this in a friendly spirit – words like nefarious and levithan sound rather more overwrought than strong.
LikeLike