Peace and Wisdom
Related Posts
Comments
-
I like it.
-
It has a distinct “flying off into the sunset” feel that seems apt, but I don’t know what the slogan has to do McCain.
-
I don’t know what the slogan has to do McCain.
I liked John Cole’s take on this: “Nothing says peace, prosperity, and optimism like fire-red skies and fighter planes.”
I agree that the slogan has nothing to do with McCain, since in true newspeak fashion he really stands for the opposite: war and stupidty. Still, it’s amusing to see this message packaged with John-boy as the great sky father.
-
Does anyone else feel like McCain is running for the office of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and that none of the other presidential functions matter much too him? I come away from this poster with two things on my mind - Voltaire’s quote about Prussia “Where many states have an army, the Prussian Army has a state” - and - narrowly avoiding a Godwin - with the heroic pose, sepia flags evoking the glory of the past and prominent military technology, propaganda from Fascist Italy. The faux-marble background is what keeps me from Godwinning.
I mean really, when is the last time any person in a Western democracy has featured military force so prominently in a campaign poster? -
Canuck: how about pretty much every election campaign in Israel? Ignoring Olmert as a nobody who got elected on Sharon’s coattails, we get that the only non-ex-General elected Prime Minister in the last twenty years is Netanyahu.
-
Alon - I stand corrected. I’ve never seen Israeli election posters. I still find it distasteful, though. Naked and unabashed militarism is something I thought went out of fashion with the last Soviet May Day parade.
-
Hey, what’s wrong with a little martial display? A few jets and you lefties get all upset. Relax, your pinko looks pretty good to win at this point.
My favorite quote from Germany’s past:
Prince Otto von Bismark “We Germans fear no one but God.”
Doesn’t sound as ominous to you heathen types but it has a nice overconfident ring.Hey, if McCain is just running for Comander in Chief and Obama is running for the EU Presidency does it mean we get Hillary by forfeit?
-
JTM,
I’m ok with jets and naked militarism from the Warrrior Prince. Too bad those jets were flying off to bomb Czechoslovakia, but overflew, bombed Sudan (instead of Somali, damn it), and should be just over the Iraq-Pakistan border now.
-
OK John, since you brought die deutschen up I’ll go canuckistani one better with the full Godwin.
Seriously, I don’t understand why you think Obama will not use military force in Afghanistan given his comments about the importance of the fight there. Is it that decades of Demos have convinced you they will never resort to force?
-
Hey, what’s wrong with a little martial display? A few jets and you lefties get all upset
.
Yeah, four jets in a picture now somehow equals militarism — pretty laughable. The poster looks ok, but too much like a movie ad. The slogan is ok also, but just a simple peace thru strength statement would probably be better.
Is it that decades of Demos have convinced you they will never resort to force?
Leaving aside the Democratic tendency to use military force only when no American interests are easily identified, there’s the standard naive belief that we can solve intractable foreign policy problems by talking and making concessions — and that the people we have to deal with will be reasonable if we just treat them respectfully and try to understand their concerns.
I have zero confidence that Obama would respond forcefully to an attack on the U.S., unless given no choice politically. Afghanistan is already ongoing, and Obama has repeatedly said he supports our efforts there, so I think he will continue the fight in that area.
-
Redhand, full Godwin eh, very nice.
Now moving right along.
Seriously, I don’t understand why you think Obama will not use military force in Afghanistan given his comments about the importance of the fight there. Is it that decades of Demos have convinced you they will never resort to force?
Not exactly, David C explains part of it. The Democrats have been the pinko party all my life and earlier (since McGovern). It isn’t that they won’t necessarily use force but their unquencable desire to make nice with every dispicable enemy we have. Weather it was being soft on the Soviets or today’s limp stance on foriegn policy illustrated by Obamas willingness to meet unconditionally with the likes of Chavez, Fidel or Ahmadinejad. I’m a Marine at heart and will never trust America’s security in the hands of Moveon’s darling. Sheesh, why don’t you just ask me to send a donation to Cindy Sheehan’s Congressional campaign while your at it.
Nope, I don’t like it but I’m going with Czechoslovakia’s favorite son McCain.
-
Stephen,
This had me laughing, thanks for the humor.I’m ok with jets and naked militarism from the Warrrior Prince.
and I love your illustrations of McCain’s Archie Bunker like understanding of modern geography.
However, on a more serious note Stephen when is Pakistan going to help us in the regions of the Iraq/Pakistan border? What is Barrack Osama going to do about it with his changy patty cake diplomacy? Those tribal types keep helping Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia!
-
The Democrats have been the pinko party all my life and earlier (since McGovern). It isn’t that they won’t necessarily use force but their unquencable desire to make nice with every dispicable enemy we have. Weather it was being soft on the Soviets or today’s limp stance on foriegn policy * * *
I come from an Air Force family and spent three years in the Navy from 1971-74. (Did it despite having a high draft number right out of college, BTW).
For most of my adult life I was uber conservative on national defense, and fanatical about the Soviet menace. Next to FDR, I believe Reagan was the greatest U.S. President of the 20th Century. The revisionism that he wasn’t responsible for winning the Cold war by accelerating the Soviets’ collapse is dog dirt, IMO.
That was then, this is now. To be sure, Bubba was a despicable President, who should have been removed from Office and not merely impeached (something of an accomplishment in and of itself).
However, Bush is incomparably worse. His corrupt abuse of Presidential power has done real harm to the structure of our institutions, and his adoption of torture as an instrument of national policy is an absolute disgrace. Last but not least, his Iraq adventure has been a costly disaster: it’s resulted in far more American deaths and casualties than 9/11 and cost us trillions of dollars, for “strategic” reasons that have proved illusory at best.
However much a “cold warrior” I was, I don’t see what’s happened in Iraq as improving our national security (nor does Petraeus, if you recall his testimony) at all. (Of course, I hope it ends well, but even if it does, it wasn’t worth it).
The reason I’ve become a Democrat now is because I’ve come to believe aggressive misuse of our military power by an imperial presidency is a far greater threat to our society and security than the “limp-wristed” Democratic response you imagine. As Stephen puts it: “Another conservative who’s been mugged by reality.”
P.S. Bin-Laden lives. Bush’s failed policies have long since made a mockery of Colin Powell’s post-9/11 claim that, “You don’t do this to the United States and get away with it.” We have a better chance of killing bin-Laden with Obama at the helm than trusting our luck to a candidate who’s forgotten we even started a war in Afghanistan.
-
Fareed Zakaria argues that Obama’s foreign policy will be in the mold of Bush Sr.’s; this is based on Obama’s realist rhetoric, which talks about American interests a lot more than about liberal internationalist ideas like human rights and democracy, and on Obama’s repeated positive references to GHWB’s foreign policy. GHWB wasn’t a popular President like Reagan or Clinton, nor is he considered a benchmark for foreign policy like Truman. When Obama says he’ll consult with him on issues of handling foreign policy, it’s substance-based rather than rhetorical.
-
However, Bush is incomparably worse
As much as I dislike Bush, I still have to answer way-over-the-top BDS. Bush has been a lousy president, but the primary harm has been to the Republican party, not to the country. The country is a lot more resilient than you seem to think. It will survive 4-8 years of Obama too.
His corrupt abuse of Presidential power has done real harm to the structure of our institutions
I doubt he’s done even a little bit of harm to our institutions. He hasn’t behaved much differently than other presidents in wartime. Even in peacetime presidents do everything possible to increase executive power.
and his adoption of torture as an instrument of national policy is an absolute disgrace.
Gross exaggeration. Torture has been used in the past by the U.S., and it will be in the future. All Bush did was look for legalistic ways to do it — in his usual clumsy fashion.
Last but not least, his Iraq adventure has been a costly disaster
“Disaster” is one of those words left-wing types throw around with no apparent understanding of its meaning. Bush bungled Iraq badly, but it’s no disaster in any historical sense, and it’s looking better all the time. Our military losses have been relatively minor in historical terms, and the money is more or less irrelevant. Had it not been spent in Iraq it would likely have been wasted on something else less important. The Bush admin + Congress has been a money-wasting machine.
The reason I’ve become a Democrat now is because I’ve come to believe aggressive misuse of our military power by an imperial presidency
Except that we don’t have an “imperial presidency.” Imperialism is another word left-wingers use far too loosely. We haven’t had an “aggressive misuse” of our military power either, although that’s debatable. And it’s debatable in the other direction too. In my opinion we have been far too passive with our military power since World War 2, using it only as a half-measure. The Bush administration has been no different in that regard, except right after 9/11. Bush’s best moment was when he delivered an ultimatum to Afghanistan instead of settling for a half-measure. Unfortunately he quickly returned to form.
P.S. Bin-Laden lives
Yes, and Democrats will do even less to combat Al Qaeda than Bush.
We have a better chance of killing bin-Laden with Obama at the helm
Highly unlikely, unless we get lucky. There’s no reason we’d have any better chance under Obama.
Bush’s failed policies have long since made a mockery of Colin Powell’s post-9/11 claim that, “You don’t do this to the United States and get away with it.”
Al Qaeda has paid heavily for its attack on the U.S., even with Osama remaining at large — so your statement is yet another exaggeration. But even granting it, the problem is that Democrats will do even less to go after our enemies. You and others are still whining about us removing an open enemy and claiming you can’t see how that improves our security. Most Democrats, including Obama, wanted to give up and pull out of Iraq, handing the enemy a huge victory. In contrast, McCain supported sending in more troops to stabilize the situation, even though doing so was horribly unpopular politically. I see no indication that Obama is willing to take an unpopular political position to advance our national security.
Fareed Zakaria argues that Obama’s foreign policy will be in the mold of Bush Sr.’s
Maybe, but I strongly doubt it.
this is based on Obama’s realist rhetoric, which talks about American interests a lot more than about liberal internationalist ideas like human rights and democracy
I see that merely as Obama moving to the center in order to get elected, and because “liberal internationalist ideas” have been tainted on the left by their association with Bush’s nation-building rhetoric on Iraq. I’ve seen no evidence that Obama is actually a realist. He seems like a typical “we can all get along if we just talk and work together” idealist.
When Obama says he’ll consult with him on issues of handling foreign policy, it’s substance-based rather than rhetorical.
I hope you are right, but I think it’s the opposite.
-
Except that we don’t have an “imperial presidency.”
This is where we will never agree. See, How to Get Away with Torture.
As an immigration lawyer who sometimes handles asylum claims for foreign victims of torture (second career, I used to be general counsel of a defense contractor) I can never forgive Bush for the perversion of law that enabled Americans to engage in these abhorrent practices under color of law.
A measure of how much damage the Bush Administration has done here is how effectively it’s neutered congressional oversight through stonewalling. Sadly, if you “doubt he’s done even a little bit of harm to our institutions” it’s only because of the Freedom of Freedon of Information Act and the likes of the ACLU. Try to read the Froomkin article I linked to earlier with an open mind.
I need hardly add that you can count me among the “small but growing constituency for the prosecution of torture memo author John Yoo; Jim Haynes, former general counsel at the Defense Department; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; David Addington, the vice president’s general counsel; and others. . . . “
-
This is where we will never agree.
True.
I can never forgive Bush for the perversion of law that enabled Americans to engage in these abhorrent practices under color of law. (
I see it as the administration using legalistic hair-splitting rather than perverting the law. And although I disagree with the way they went about things, I can’t get too worked up about the minor torture of individuals that we would have simply shot out of hand in previous wars. And I’m not worried at all about high-level known Al Qaeda figures being tortured.
A measure of how much damage the Bush Administration has done here is how effectively it’s neutered congressional oversight through stonewalling.
I don’t see how, or how that differs from previous administration stonewalling.
Try to read the Froomkin article I linked to earlier with an open mind.
I read it and it’s unconvincing — plus Froomkin damages his credibility by quoting left-wing hacks like Greenwald. It’s amusing that the very fact that the ACLU was able to get the memorandum destroys the argument Froomkin and others are making about the administration’s secrecy. They aren’t operating in secrecy if anyone can just request and receive their “secret” memos.
I need hardly add that you can count me among the “small but growing constituency for the prosecution of torture memo author John Yoo; Jim Haynes, former general counsel at the Defense Department; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; David Addington, the vice president’s general counsel; and others. . . . “
A really bad idea that would do far more damage to the country than anything Bush has supposedly done. We don’t need to criminalize policy differences.
-
Maybe the McCain Campaign got the inspiration from this.
-
It’s amusing that the very fact that the ACLU was able to get the memorandum destroys the argument Froomkin and others are making about the administration’s secrecy.
Not really when you consider how heavily redacted the memos are.
As to, “We don’t want to criminalize policy differences,” there’s a key difference between criminal conduct, and “policy differences” that you’re all too willing to overlook. But I realize no amount of argument will sway you from the Bush position that it’s OK to torture, so long as the subjects of it are “the worst of the worst.”
-
Redhand,
Just curious, but to what criminal conduct by Bush or others in his administration are you referring?
Try to keep your list brief, please
-
Pigilito:
I’ll be succinct: violation and conspiracy to violate the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2441 See also Bush, Rumsfeld could be indicted under US law
However, we’re just scratching the surface. See also Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody
-
Not really when you consider how heavily redacted the memos are.
That’s just normal procedure. And they still reveal the adminstration doing things that you and others think are criminal. So again, that kind of destroys the secrecy argument.
there’s a key difference between criminal conduct, and “policy differences” that you’re all too willing to overlook.
True, but I’m unconvinced there was actual criminal conduct. They were straddling the line, but I don’t think there was anything clearcut enough to justify what would obviously be a political prosecution.
I realize no amount of argument will sway you from the Bush position that it’s OK to torture, so long as the subjects of it are “the worst of the worst.”
That’s not the Bush administration position at all. Their position is that the techniques they are using/have used do not actually constitute torture, and that therefore they are legally acceptable. I think that they are wrong on waterboarding, which I view as torture, but they have a case on other techniques, which may or may not be torture depending on the severity, duration, and how often they are repeated.
However, I’m not in favor of their efforts to blur the line. In my opinion, Bush should have come right out and said something like: “I personally authorized the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. If necessary I will order additional harsher measures, and I will do so again should we capture more Al Qaeda leaders. These international terrorists are not entitled to the protection of our laws, and this administration will use whatever means necessary to extract information from them, in order to protect the U.S. If Congress disagrees with my policy in this regard, they can impeach me.”
Overall my position is far different than Bush’s. In my view:
1. The military should follow their own rules, treat prisoners correctly, and not use borderline techniques.
2. The CIA is an intelligence operation that by the very nature of its existence operates outside the bounds of normal law. The rules for the CIA should be different and its actions should be kept secret, except from the appropriate Congressional oversight committees.
3. Torture should be used only if it is the best method for getting a particular type of information from a particular individual, and it should only be used on clearly identifiable terrorists, preferably leaders, not on anyone that is merely a suspect.
4. Anyone using torture should face the appropriate legal penalties if they are later brought up on charges and can’t justify their actions as being truly necessary for national security.
5. Using torture and torture-like techniques, while trying to argue that they aren’t torture is stupid & counterproductive.
-
I see that merely as Obama moving to the center in order to get elected, and because “liberal internationalist ideas” have been tainted on the left by their association with Bush’s nation-building rhetoric on Iraq.
This goes back to the primary. For example, in the Pennsylvania debate, one of the moderators asked about using ex-Presidents, referencing Clinton’s talk about how she’d involve her husband. Obama said that he would get foreign policy advice from GHWB.
In one area it actually goes back way earlier: in his 2004 DNC speech, Obama talked about the danger of Iran and warned that Bush’s foreign policy inadvertently strengthened the Iranian government. Obama may not sing “Bomb bomb bomb,” but he’s viewed Iran as an enemy to be contained since before Ahmadinejad came to power.
-
Thanks, Redhand. Good luck with that. It will be interesting to see whether other nations indict Bush and perhaps try him - should they get while he’s traveling. If so, Obama will have to bend heaven and earth to secure his release, thus driving a key voting block crazy.
-
Alon, I will not defend Bush, David C has done a pretty good job of that and BTW I think he’s a little closer to reality than you on the substance of matters. Although I’m no fan of W replacing a fool with a lefty, but I repeat myself, is no solution.
-
That’s not the Bush administration position at all. Their position is that the techniques they are using/have used do not actually constitute torture, and that therefore they are legally acceptable.
And if you believe that, David C., there’s a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn built circa 1876 I’d like to sell you, real cheap.
You really ought to read The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Values by Jane Mayer. Perhaps–though I doubt it - you and JTM might actually be a little more open-minded about the extent of the damage Bush, Cheney et al have inflicted on our country, and a little less smug about your “defenses” of their conduct.
Pigilito, I think it’s an open question whether members of the Bush Administration will be prosecuted domestically for their crimes–the ones I want to see hauled into the dock most are the torture lawyers, Addington, Yoo, etc.– but I do think none of this gang will be travelling outside the USA come January 2009.
-
And if you believe that
I was responding to your mischaracterization of the Bush administration’s position and pointing our their actual position. I think I made it clear that I don’t share their position. I even laid out my own views.
perhaps–though I doubt it - you and JTM might actually be a little more open-minded about the extent of the damage Bush, Cheney et al have inflicted on our country, and a little less smug about your “defenses” of their conduct.
I have yet to hear anything convincing about any actual “damage” inflicted on the country by the Bush administration. You saying it over and over, and people writing books claiming it, doesn’t make it any more convincing. Even if the administration committed crimes, which I doubt, there would still be no damage to the country. None of Bush’s policies are irreversible and he only has several months left in office.
the ones I want to see hauled into the dock most are the torture lawyers, Addington, Yoo, etc
Yeah, we need to arrest people because they gave legal opinions you disagree with. There’s a case, albeit a really bad one, for going after senior administration members. There’s no case at all for prosecuting people for giving legal opinions. This is the extent that BDS has come to.
Also, as for the book… anything with something as obviously idiotic in the title as:
How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Values
is unlikely to be worth much.
-
David,
I’ve been thinking about “If Congress disagrees with my policy in this regard, they can impeach me.”
I disagree. The Pres swore to preserve and protect the Constitution. “I’m gonna break the law if I want to … come and get me, copper.” is irresponsible, at least. Government by double-dare is no way to go.
Think about your recommended approach, and the extent you’d accept that from 1) a Dem pres, or 2) one of the other branches.
I suppose you’ll say “if it’s national defense, it’s fine.” But’s that’s your hot button, your rationale. Can you see that a Dem pres might adopt the “So sue me” attitude on some other topic?
Overall, a very irresponsible recommendation.
-
Say Stephen,
Didn’t you pretty much call the commenter Grim a liar because he placed quotes around what he interpreted Obama’s position to be? I’ve since seen you do this to me and others you disagree with.
You might want to rethink your condemnation of him and his methods.
-
Pigilito,
My comments above to David are, IMHO, quite clear. The first quote was a direct quote of his. The next three were hypotheticals of what he or a Pres. might say in the future.
Please show me where I mis-quoted you. (I actually looked thru my comments on the admin panel back to May 24, and couldn’t find any comment of mine directed to you, or anyone else, that contained a quote where I was putting words in anyone’s mouth. What am I missing?)
As for Grim’s stunt, quoting Obama as saying: “Unilateral Disarmament … defense is not a priority … I’m against future combat systems for COIN;… against protecting our SAT comms from ASAT weapons; and in favor of setting our strategic weapons aside without replacement.” …
Well, that’s some “interpretation.”
-
I have yet to hear anything convincing about any actual “damage” inflicted on the country by the Bush administration. You saying it over and over, and people writing books claiming it, doesn’t make it any more convincing.
Especially when you don’t even have to read what people write because it’s earier to dismiss them with mindless ad hominem attacks: i.e., Glenn Greenwald is a “hack” and the title of Mayer’s book is “idiotic.”
Pretty sorry, I must say.
-
David, I think you attribute to BDS things that have nothing to do with it - even when the real cause of a shrill statement points to a deeper problem.
For example, take the calls for impeaching Bush. They’re not about BDS anymore. Before the 2006 election, there were only a few lone nuts calling for impeachment, and most of those voted Nader in 2000. After 2006, a lot of louder voices in the hyper-partisan left joined in an impeachment chorus, even though the Senate was hardly any closer to a two-thirds Democratic majority than in 2005. And even then, the calls for impeachment started only in the middle of 2007.
What happened is that after the Democrats won, they didn’t immediately pull out of Iraq. This caused a lot of resentment on the hard left. Cindy Sheehan’s call for impeachment was a way of one-upping the Democratic Party, of showing her commitment to being a fringe leftist. It’s the same with the constitutional lawyers, who cook up whatever explanations make their side look better (and that applies to Yoo more than to anyone else).
-
Stephen to me: “You’re right, Pigilito. My explanation is a distinction without a difference.”
Sorry, I can’t help you with the location of your transgression against me, as I don’t have the patience to look back through all your posts of the last month (I do recall you sought recast my argument in a satirical manner and used quotes to make it seem as if it came from me).
However, it wasn’t a big deal to me. I just remember thinking how you jumped on Grim for doing what you have also done. I guess there is some sort of quotation abuse threshold that must be passed before someone is a liar, eh? I’m pretty sure you chastised Grim based on the principle of willful misquoting, which doesn’t help your defense.
From your comments during your attack on Grim: ‘”Quotation marks mean “Obama said X.”
They don’t mean: “Here is my take, or interpretation, or my Fisking of what Obama said.”
Putting words in people’s mouths is lying.’Also: ‘That’s why it’s important to quote accurately, and not make up your own slanted interpretations and put them in someone’s mouth.’
Physician, heal thyself.
-
Stephen,
I disagree. The Pres swore to preserve and protect the Constitution. “I’m gonna break the law if I want to … come and get me, copper.” is irresponsible, at least. Government by double-dare is no way to go.
I think it would be more him saying that he doesn’t believe he’s breaking the law, and that if Congress disagrees they can impeach him. And even if it is as you say, it would be in the presidential tradition of Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”
Think about your recommended approach, and the extent you’d accept that from 1) a Dem pres, or 2) one of the other branches.
It would depend on the circumstances. In the situation we are talking about I would certainly accept it from a Democratic president. And in any event, he’d be putting himself out there for impeachment.
I suppose you’ll say “if it’s national defense, it’s fine.” But’s that’s your hot button, your rationale. Can you see that a Dem pres might adopt the “So sue me” attitude on some other topic?
Yes. But clashes between the branches over what powers each possess is normal.
Overall, a very irresponsible recommendation.
Exactly the opposite. It would be Bush showing actual leadership, taking personal responsibility for his decisions, and making his case openly, instead of using legalistic weaseling.
Redhand,
Especially when you don’t even have to read what people write because it’s earier to dismiss them with mindless ad hominem attacks:
I’m reading what you write. And I haven’t made any ad hominem attacks. Greenwald is well-known as a left-wing hack. The guy has zero credibility outside the left.
the title of Mayer’s book is “idiotic.”
Saying that the War on Terror is a war on American values is idiotic. It’s not an ad hominem attack, it’s a statement of my opinion based on the available evidence. Would you be likely to read a book entitled “Underrated Leadership: Why George Bush is really one of Americas Best Presidents” ? Or would you think that title was idiotic or at best indicated extreme bias?
Alon,
For example, take the calls for impeaching Bush. They’re not about BDS anymore.
I disagree. Bush is going to be gone soon. No one is actually interested in impeaching him now except for fringe types.
It’s the same with the constitutional lawyers, who cook up whatever explanations make their side look better (and that applies to Yoo more than to anyone else).
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this but I assume you are referring to my comment about extreme BDS being involved in wanted to prosecute administration lawyers. If it isn’t BDS I’m not sure what it is. Lawyers give legal opinions/counsel. Prosecuting them for giving opinions people don’t like is an extremely bad idea. There’s no rational basis for a witchhunt against administration lawyers.
BREAKING: ROVE INDICTMENT REMAINS IMMINENT
A Must Read at Protein Wisdom
Yell at a Republican
Eban’s Rule
More Iraqi rebel groups hint at peace