This is one of those impolite, but necessary posts.
If we have established nothing else, we have established that Barack Obama is inexperienced. I would submit we have established that Barack Obama is a fool and quite ignorant in the ways of the non-academic world; one of those rare species of politicians, fooliis ignoramus, found frequently at the local level, but rarely able to survive the voters at the national level.
The Obama inexperience does not show itself often in domestic policy. More often than not he stays with the congressional pack. But as he exerts himself on the national stage expounding on foreign and military policy, we see more and more just how inexperienced and foolish he is.
Barack Obama refuses to acknowledge how serious a threat Iran is, despite the telling combination of dire warnings from throughout the international community and the genocidal rhetoric emanating almost daily from Tehran . He wants to preemptively invade Pakistan, a country which needs our help in combating al Qaeda and the threat of Islamofascist terror as much as we need theirs, without bothering to consider the repercussions of unleashing the firepower of a military he does not understand in as volatile an area as there is anywhere in the world. He has consistently refused to acknowledge success in Iraq and has likewise refused to acknowledge the terrorist enemy we've engaged in Iraq that we would no doubt be engaging domestically were it not for them flocking to Iraq. Instead, he parrots Nancy Pelosi, closing his eyes to the massive presence - now all-but defeated - of al Qaeda in Iraq, and insisting that "the real war on terror is in Afghanistan."
Yesterday we had another taste of Obama's inexperience and foolishness, when he said he'd oppose the surge again if given the chance to do so.
Despite the surge's recognized success, Obama has amazingly admitted that he would rather have seen us fail and lose than take steps to succeed, and, whether out of spite for President Bush, an utter lack of understanding of the most basic principles of national security, or simple self-absorbed naivete, he has said that he would again do everything in his power to block the U.S. from taking those steps to succeed, even now that he has seen how successful those steps were.
Oh, but at least this time he is willing to acknowledge "there has been enormous improvement." That, in my mind, makes it even worse. He'll acknowledge enormous improvement, but still cannot admit he was wrong to oppose that which brought us the enormous improvement -- and has said that he would oppose it again if given the chance.
Senator Richard Burr was right when he said that Obama will, undoubtedly because of his inexperience and foolishness, ignore General Petraeus. But more directly, Senator Burr told me, "Senator Obama potentially puts more U.S. soldiers in jeopardy than he takes out of harms way by blindly setting goals that, quite frankly, if he talked to the military, are not as easily achieved as he thinks."
More and more we see this would be the case. We know that when Bill Clinton failed to engage al Qaeda, they kept hitting harder and harder at the "paper tiger" the U.S. had become, and succeeded in killing more and more Americans until President Bush finally fought back.
I'm reminded that more of our soldiers and sailors died in the last year of Jimmy Carter's administration than in any one of the years we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan (cite?). With American civilians being in the sights of Islamofascists more and more since the 1980's, and now being even more widely targeted, the odds are it won't just be troops getting killed in the next four (or "eight to ten") years with Barack Obama at the helm.
An Obama administration and the mixed signals it would send through foolishness and inexperience will no doubt embolden an enemy we've had on the run for seven years.
And, just to be clear
Joe_Schmo July 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (link)
In case anyone hadn't noticed. Obama recongnizes that the surge was successful in lowering American military casualties but would still oppose it because he can't stand the thought of agreeing politically with George W. Bush.
American lives are less important to Obama than political stands.
Joe Schmo's blog
excellent point
Pentagon16 July 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (link)
No one has mentioned that fact yet-
that not only winning the war Obama has been against, but he is literally saying that even knowing what we know, he would STILL have voted against a surge which has reduced American KIA from 78 in July 2007 to 5 in July this year...
"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment"- Barack Carter Obama
Great writeup Erick -nt
Joe_Schmo July 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (link)
nt
Joe Schmo's blog
Would recommend if I could
Darin_H July 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (link)
Great job Erick.
The fact that he won't admit that he was completely wrong on the surge bothers me a great deal. He'd rather lose a war than lose an election.
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
Exactly, 100% correct
Jeff Emanuel July 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (link)
and the opposite of McCain.
Thanks to you all
Erick Erickson July 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (link)
Much appreciated. His remark yesterday really got under my skin.
Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?
Sobering post, Erick...
Carol_in_Austin July 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (link)
Obama is a dangerous combination of inexperience and arrogance, and your analysis highlights the possible consequences of an Obama presidency.
Excuse me while I go donate more money to McCain and other worthy Republican candidates.
NRO had an interesting piece on Obama
Jaded July 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (link)
and Erick this is the kind of arrogance and egotism that will sure many deaths...
"“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.
“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser…
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTUwNzdlMmZhZGZmMTY2MmNlOWMyZTc2YzNjOTAyY2U=
Please check the link for the non-answer on using al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades for security from his campaign.
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy & does not destroy him is his own enemy
I agree
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (link)
with you Erick.
I even doubt the sincerity of Al-Maliki in accepting the friendship of the President. These political gimmicks in the last 3 days are putting our long-term objectives in Middle East and mission in Iraq at the side line.
Now, the MSM has just handed to Maliki the confirmation that he can truly influence the result of this election. Instead of keeping him humble, MSM is teaching him some arrogance and that's dangerous. Soon he will use this knowledge against our very own government in the negotiations for forcing the US troops out of Iraq, and the main casualties shall be our long-term commitment for a stable Middle East and the control of muslim extremism.
I troubles me to think that it is possible for the Iraqis to betray our US troops still working in Baghdad and the neighboring areas. For me, this pandering to the Iraqis by Obama will compromise the safety of our troops. I fear for the lives of the US soldiers in Iraq.
Why can't Obama spare the troops from his wacko selfish ambitions?
heaven forbid
bbsci July 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (link)
That the Iraqis want us to leave and are playing politics to help make it happen. Iraqi opinion polls suggest that they have wanted us gone for years; so much for self-determination.
The premise of this piece, the success of the surge, is easily questioned as well. The surge started at the same time we began paying Sunnis to play along with us, and towards the end of a long period of ethnic cleansing that has seen the dislocation of some 20% of the population. These clearly had as much to do with the drop in violence as the extra 15% troop force.
Really?
Pentagon16 July 22nd, 2008 at 3 p.m. (link)
and what EVIDENCE do you have to back up these claims?!!
Your numerous combat deployments in Al Rashid, Rastimiyah, Fallujah, Mahmudiya, Sadr City, Maysan, Baquba and Mosul?!
Or your numerous briefings from Multi-National Corps Iraq? Your meetings with leading officers in Central Command?
Or would you know all these things by sitting at your computer in some leftist neighborhood in America reading talking points on Daily Kos?
Thanks, but I will take the analysis of a Four Star General who has travelled all over Iraq for the last two years over your own feverish utterances..
"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment"- Barack Carter Obama
meh
bbsci July 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (link)
Here's an article with a number of generals who served in Iraq speaking out against it.
The evidence for displacement within Iraq and refugees leaving Iraq is abundant, and it's common knowledge that we're paying Sunnis for their cooperation.
you couldn't find a link to CPA?
David Hinz July 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (link)
or better still from the IRNA?
The Minority Report -- The HinzSight Report -- TMRB.tv -- MFOB
Same rhetoric, different candidate
MournDemocracy July 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (link)
It's amusing to see this kind of criticism applied to Obama when the left has been complaining about the same quality in our current president. "Why can't he just admit going into Iraq was a colossal blunder?" they ask themselves.
Probably because it wasn't a blunder, MournDemocracy.
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (link)
The antiwar Left may think otherwise, but then they believe in so many other absurd things, [so] what's one more?
By the way, I'm sorry to hear that you're mourning the loss of democracy in your country. Have you contemplated moving to the USA, where we still have ours?
Moe Lane
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!And the truth may be somewhere in between
MournDemocracy July 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (link)
Invading Iraq may not lead to the downfall of America despite it's trillion dollar price tag and dubious justifications.
And after three and a half years of getting troop levels largely wrong with regard to what would be required to secure Iraq, maybe The Surge was a shift in the right direction toward a stable Iraq. Even if the Iraqis still don't have an oil revenue sharing agreement, at least they're mustering the pride necessary to invite the U.S. to leave.
Neither initiative appears to be a failure that will bring down Western civilization, but neither can be justifiably termed a unqualified success.
Hmm. No. We were right, the antiwar movement was wrong...
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (link)
...and thank God that their moral depravity was only matched by their utter political impotence, right? God forbid that anybody should actually listen to those people.
Well, anybody who likes sleeping at night.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!Which is just what the antiwar left would say
MournDemocracy July 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (link)
And the polarization continues.
I still find it amusing that Obama can be attacked for not wanting to admit he was wrong on The Surge when the same people refuse to criticize Bush for going into Iraq given all that we now know (and many knew in 2003) about WMDs and the absence of AQ-Saddam links.
Took you long enough for the insult direct, MournDemocracy.
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (link)
Sorry to tell you this, but the Obama campaign called. Apparently your time-and-money voluntary mandatory duty index - whatever the heck that means - has slipped below acceptable levels post-FISA, and they require you back on the line. They asked me to pass along the phrase "Don't make us use the belt:" I assume that means something to you.
Normally we'd think about offering sanctuary, but I gotta say: comparing me to the antiwar movement is no way to earn my sympathy. Besides: if you can't respect yourself, why should I bother?
Ta.
Moe Lane
PS: Not In Your Name.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!You got that right Mr. Lane
Janman July 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (link)
YOU have NOTHING in common with the anti war left. It's hard to believe that you have to even share the country with them
Sorry, kid, but projecting like that...
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (link)
...isn't really a long-term viable strategy for lasting on this website. But I'm glad to see that we got under your skin.
Now go give some more money to Obama, or something. Maybe if you do, he'll love you enough to maybe think about reversing his position on FISA.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!Why in the world would you mourn democracy?
tcgeol July 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (link)
We have a republic, by the grace of God, not a democracy. That is something that leftists can't seem to grasp, somehow. The idea that in a democracy, 50% +1 can remove my rights by a vote scares me to death.
Democracies cannot survive for long periods - republics can, sometimes.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
He's mourning
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (link)
for his Democracy because his "Democra(cy)tic Party principled has proved to be usurped by the Communist Party of USA and Democratic Socialists of America through their Anti-War pacifist propaganda.
You need to wake him up from his own nightmare.
He's mourning
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (link)
for his Democracy because his "Democra(cy)tic Party principles have proved been usurped by the Communist Party of USA and Democratic Socialists of America using their Anti-War pacifist propaganda.
You need to wake him up from his own nightmare.
A Nessissary Evil if you would...
tsquare July 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (link)
The Jimmy Carter of a new generation... a timely reminder of the failings of the left, a springboard to a new generation of rightwing thought and leadership.
Just as Carter gave us Reagan, so would Obama give us...Bobby Jindel? 1992, gave us Newt in 1994.
...and so it goes, one into the other. Yeah it bites to be one of those sacrificed, tens of thousands in Israel or millions in Iran, but I'm not so sure we can avoid it.
One more way he sets himself up to be played as a fool.
John E. July 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (link)
Via Terry Moran: "Obama said that in his meeting with Petraeus, the general discussed his "deep concerns" about "a timetable that doesn't take into account what they anticipate might be a change in conditions." "
Here's a clip in which they discuss that
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5421292
Well not quite, since General Petraeus now has command of Afghanistan as well. But regardless of that, there is a major flaw in the Senator's argument which is going to be recognized sooner or later (given the in-the-tank MSM I suppose it will be later). A firm plan to withdraw all of our combat troops in 16 months is not required in order to address Obama's concerns about Afghanistan. By next February the General will likely have -- based on execution of the present withdrawal plans-- two brigades available to send to Afghanistan.
Just one more way in which Obama has set himself up to be made a fool of.
Does Obama even realize Petraeus Commands Afghanistan?
buckeye July 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (link)
I'm not even sure Obama understands what CENTCOM is, or any combatant command for that matter. We're talking about the guy that thinks he's going to channel orders down through the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Someone better tell him to go read Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
How Many More?
JeffreyT21 July 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (link)
Shouldn't that be the real question? Then to determine that, we would have to start at something more than 7000 dead Americans. When you consider that W has killed more than 4000 American Soldiers, Sailor, Airmen and Marines and over seen the nearly 3000 killed during September 11, 2001, Obama can't be evaluated until he passes that number.
We don't know how many Americans will lose their lives during the Obama Presidency. We already know that Bush's numbers is more than 7000 and counting. We also know that Bush's number will end on January 21, 2009.
FDR "Killed" 400,000 Americans
Crowe July 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (link)
by your logic, anyhow.
"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)
And JFK killed 70,000 soldiers
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (link)
at an average rate of 20,000 per annum.
Yes, JeffreyT21, it *is* a judgment on you that you not only betrayed...
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (link)
...your beliefs; you didn't even win. That must be, like, painful to accept.
Naah. People like you never believed that Middle Easterners were real, anyway. I imagine that takes the sting out of it.
Ta.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!Moe, the full moon was last week. Yet the
janis July 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (link)
nutjobs are swarming out of the woodwork today. Are they on the defensive for some reason? ;>) Other than that their high priest of the church of ME is demonstrating magnificently just how inadequate he is.
Well nothing brings the "nutjobs"
Janman July 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (link)
Like speculating about how many people will die if their guy is elected. You gotta admit, it IS baiting them....
Afghanistan is Getting the Kooks Unhinged
buckeye July 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (link)
The looking like hawks on Afghanistan while condemning Iraq strategy worked great for the Democrats a few years ago when everyone was lured into believing Afghanistan was done and in the books. As with WWII, the Dems are great in supporting the politically popular war of the past that's done and won as the just war. The kooks on the left just sucked it up as necessary post 9/11 although most all of them don't support the Afghanistan mission anymore than the Iraq one.
Now that their savior is talking about putting more troops in Afghanistan, in large quantities, it's becoming painfully obvious to them regardless of who wins in November we'll at least be engaged in a conflict with the jihadists they sympathize with. It's causing them to come unhinged.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
Less than McCain most likely.
The_Producer July 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (link)
I'm just curious as to how you can think that less Americans will be dead underneath Obama? Won't more Americans die if we elect McCain because we're likely to go to war with Iran? At least Obama will get us out of that hell hole in Iraq, and maybe finish the business in Afghanistan.
Why don't we say screw them both and elect Barr? A real conservative.
Where have you been
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (link)
while we're conducting the republican primaries early this year?
Or: Haven't you heard that a series of primaries were conducted, that the republican and conservative people have spoken, and that they have chosen McCain as their Candidate?
What are you on? Self-proclaimed Maker of Conservative/Republican Candidate? Are you the Soros of Republican Party?
BTW, what kind of movie (you're from Hollywood) or crop (if you're a farmer) do you really produce?
Could a moderator get rid of the Barr trash?
Jaded July 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (link)
Please?
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy & does not destroy him is his own enemy
We're flesh and blood, Jaded. Besides, we had a diary to clean up.
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (link)
As found here.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!Look what you've done
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (link)
The trolls are coming because they all want to read the essays, comments and literary works of the Great Moe Lane of RS.
Good for you, Mr. Moe.
But I think it's an annoying job to keep an eye on unexpected troll's diaries.
Flesh and blood?....
Jaded July 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (link)
I suspect you are more Ironmen than human :-)
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy & does not destroy him is his own enemy
I agree. He's Ironman waging war against the trolls. <nt>
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (link)
I wish. :)
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (link)
No, sorry, just a vaguely out-of-shape, fairly geeky, not particularly magnificent guy here.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!Flesh and blood?....
Jaded July 22nd, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (link)
I suspect you are more Ironmen than human :-)
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy & does not destroy him is his own enemy
Go march in the SF gay parade with Barr
Neil Stevens July 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (link)
I think your hateful views are more welcome there.
HTML Help for Red Staters
Nobody can claim a "free speech" right to suck the fun out of our lives. Certainly not on a private board. – Steve Jackson
Also on the Petraeus topic...
The_Producer July 22nd, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (link)
Why should we listen to what Petraeus says? He is not a policy maker? I guess if you want to know how best to destroy a city you would ask for his advice. The purpose of the military is to take orders and serve the people, not set policy.
Follow the constitution.
Last time I looked
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (link)
No Iraq in US Constitution, because it's the main law of the land that sets the general policy of governance.
BTW, your Anti-War policies (be honest!) are not enshrined in the US Constitution.
As for Iraq, we want specific implementable actions, not just policies.
Haven't you heard that governance has two main elements: "specific" policies coming from the above (your constitution), and implementable program (based on the information on the ground).
They have to listen to Gen. Petraus to update "action plans".
I'd listen to Gen. Petraus any time of day than hearing anything from you, troll
It Takes Strategy to Accomplish Policy
buckeye July 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (link)
It's something generals learn in War College and you obviously know nothing about seeing as you can't tell the difference.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
Also on the Petraeus topic...
The_Producer July 22nd, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (link)
Why should we listen to what Petraeus says? He is not a policy maker. I guess if you want to know how best to destroy a city you would ask for his advice. The purpose of the military is to take orders and serve the people, not set policy.
Follow the constitution.
Wow, this now-deceased troll wins the award for...
bs July 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (link)
most stupid comments (and a diary to boot) per minute. What a whackjob.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ “You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
My mistake
bs July 22nd, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. (link)
He isn't gone, he's just resting.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ “You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I was in the moment with that diary edit job, bs.
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (link)
People like that give ordinary, decent paleoconservatives a bad name.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!I definitely agree, bs! But he's just right out there preparing for his next assault<nt>
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (link)
ummm..
exileoc July 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (link)
"fooliis ignoramus"
wow... buddy... fire your writer, that's pretty dry. =P
ps. this blog is pure speculation. BTW in response to the Bill Clinton part
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RLAKArfOe0
it gets good at about 5:50.
I thought that I told you not to pout, exileoc.
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 6 p.m. (link)
Again: it's not our fault that Obama picked the wrong moral side of this question. Whining to Erick because he - and I - didn't isn't going to change that.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!but the title begs the question...
exileoc July 22nd, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (link)
Yet the title states:
How Many Lives Lost and Americans Dead With Obama in the White House?
I'm going to continue to pout... and throw a fit when titles like this continue to bubble up. The title begs a quantitative sum but the feel of this, "If you vote for obama, like, a whole bunch of people are totally going to die." The man is over in the middle east right now trying to make sense of things on his own mind. So what do we do? We blast him for not going over there and not knowing anything. Then we blast him for making an effort to gather information. To this group, he can do no good.
Actually, no, you won't, exileoc.
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (link)
I'm done amusing myself at your expense, so let me explain how things will go on for you from now on.
First off, stop pretending "we." You're clearly an Obama supporter; try that trick again and you'll be shown the door.
Second, if you don't like our reminding you of the perfectly obvious fact that Obama picked the wrong moral position on the war... either suck it up and stew in impotent silence, or toodle on over to somewhere Obama supporters hang out and try to push that campaign into a better ethical position.
Do you understand? Please indicate in your next post that you understand.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!You must have have had NEA or AFT teachers
Neil Stevens July 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (link)
"Begging the question" doesn't mean what you think it means.
HTML Help for Red Staters
Nobody can claim a "free speech" right to suck the fun out of our lives. Certainly not on a private board. – Steve Jackson
On the Job Training as President Elect??
buckeye July 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (link)
The man is over in the middle east right now trying to make sense of things on his own mind.
Maybe he should have spent more than one hundred and forty some on days on the job in the Senate fresh off the state legislature gig doing that before deciding he needed to be the next Commander in Chief.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
On the Job Training as President Elect??
buckeye July 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 p.m. (link)
The man is over in the middle east right now trying to make sense of things on his own mind.
Maybe he should have spent more than one hundred and forty some on days on the job in the Senate fresh off the state legislature gig doing that before deciding he needed to be the next Commander in Chief.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
This reminds me of...
BillM July 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (link)
...the utterly repulsive, absolutely inexplicable, Israel-Hezbollah prisoner-corpse swap.
Link
Madness. They're even appalled at Slate (somewhat) : Link
Sorry for posting slightly OT, I've been stumbling around the new site trying to find a diary on this topic.
STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.
I've been so busy and distracted today
Erick Erickson July 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (link)
I haven't had time to jump in here and engage.
My apologies.
Kudos to Moe for handling the thread. Geez, the nuts came out.
Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?
Cite for Erick
Tomlinson Douthat July 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (link)
With reference to your penultimate paragraph, here's a pdf of military death rates since 1980. (This and similar charts can be found here.)
The figure for 1980 was 2,392. The deadliest year in the new millennium was last year, with 1,950 deaths.
Great post, by the way.
Partially agree
Everton July 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (link)
I agree the surge issue is a big loser for Obama, rightly so.
But your other arguemnts I think only work with the base (big hunks of red meat:-). From a swing voters perspective your line of arguments are somewhat contradictory so no clear line of argument emerges (e.g. too weak on Iran but too strong on Pakistan) and we have now been severely gimped by bush's new policy of sitting down in talks with Iran (the nuclear talks last week) plus the Maliki talk of withdraw of US troops doesnt at best muddies McCain's line of attack about withdrawl=defeat at worst completely under cuts him (McC).
Where's the Contradiction?
buckeye July 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (link)
Weak on Iran and "strong" on Pakistan means more deaths on both counts. Invading the country of an ally while playing weak with the gravest threat in the region and on the globe means more body bags in both contries. No contradiction there.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
Where's the Contradiction?
buckeye July 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (link)
Weak on Iran and "strong" on Pakistan means more deaths on both counts. Invading the country of an ally while playing weak with the gravest threat in the region and on the globe means more body bags in both countries. No contradiction there.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
Perhaps contradictory is wrong word.....
Everton July 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 p.m. (link)
I was refering to the need to build a common "theme" or " attack" line against obama (as in Kerry the flip flopper). We could go for "weak on national security", but we are undermining that by saying he would be too strong against terror in pakistan. Plus if there are terror groups in pakistan (or even Osama BL) and pakistan is not taking action then the US SHOULD be going in there - and i dont want the Republican party caught on the side that argues that we should not go into Pakistan with special forces to fight terrorists when the pakistan cant/wont!!