Reasoned Argument Needed
Desperately, as Hillary and Obama dicker over who was more clueless five years ago, and who is more clueless today. It’s a race to abandon America’s obligations and vital national security interests, in a race some people think will end up being about national security after all. We’ll start with the Times of London:
Mrs Clinton was challenged on her vote in 2002 authorising President Bush to take military action against Saddam Hussein. She said her intention had been to bolster efforts to send weapons inspectors into Iraq and suggested Mr Bush had pursued a reckless course.
“There were legitimate concerns about what [Saddam] might do. So I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not,” she said.
The focus now should be on what to do “going forward”, she added, citing the apparent determination of John McCain – the frontrunner for the Republican nomination – to keep troops in Iraq.
“It will be important, however, that our nominee be able to present both a reasoned argument against continuing our presence in Iraq and the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander-in-chief,” said Mrs Clinton.
Mr Obama replied: “I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain… I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don’t just want to end the war, I want to end the mindset that got us there in the first place,” he said.
“Senator Clinton mentioned the issue of gravitas and judgment. I think it is much easier for us to have the argument when we have a nominee who says, ‘I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy’.
The best Democratic minds have yet to come up with a reasoned argument or anything resembling a strategy on abandonment, so this should be interesting. In the absence of a strategy, Obama, to his credit, is determined to be the bad strategy candidate. By the way, in case you thought his plan to treat with the enemy was just something he blurted out, JPost:
In an interview with France’s Paris Match on Thursday, Obama said: “I want to have direct talks with countries like Iran and Syria because I don’t believe we can stabilize the region unless not just our friends but also our enemies are involved in these discussions.”
He was also quoted as saying he would also hold a summit with leaders of Muslim states to address the growing gap between the West and the world of Islam.
The Illinois senator added that to repair the image of the United States in the world, he would “put an end to the war in Iraq.”
“Occupying the country has put the odds against us with the world,” Obama said.
Well, asking Iran, Syria and the leaders of Muslim states how we can do better should go a long way to setting that right.
But I thought we were all done with the Iraq war as a campaign issue. Now it’s popped up on the Republican side as well … who’s more against withdrawal.
WSJ’s Kimberly Strassel thinks the election will be fought on national security and McCain takes that issue:
In a race that will be fought on national security, Mr. McCain is one of the few public figures with the potential to convince Americans to stick with Iraq, and in turn neutralize the war. This would also boost congressional Republicans. On the broader question of security, he’d cut Hillary Clinton’s “experience” down to size. He’d arguably run national security rings around the Illinois rookie, and that’s before Barack Obama got a chance to make another foreign policy gaffe.
…
As Mr. Romney has walked a tightrope, unsure whether to embrace or decry an unpopular president, Mr. McCain has simply pointed to his own record. Voters loyal to President Bush see in Mr. McCain a man who stood firm on the Iraq war. Voters who dislike Mr. Bush see a man who criticized the president on the conduct of that war. This is useful.
Ha’aretz U.S. correspondent Shmuel Rosner suggests its a bigger issue than anyone’s been willing to admit lately, and amid the mushy numbers — a lot mushier than the anti-war faction has ever been willing to admit — he sees an advantage for the war camp:
Those who wish to find out what Americans want in the public opinion polls may run into a few surprises. Who seeks withdrawal? The majority. Who thinks the war was worth it? Most people don’t. The number of people who believe a Republican president would do a better job in Iraq (28 percent) is not dramatically lower than those who believe a Democrat (34 percent) would handle the situation better. The same number (20 percent) believe both parties have a similar chance of succeeding or failing - that is, they are still indecisive.
Almost 40 percent are already convinced that bolstering the troops in Iraq is helpful - less than those who believe it has made no difference (42 percent). But not that much less.
These figures enabled McCain to dig his way up from the grave. He believes they will also help him in the remaining months to sway public opinion a little more, and win the general elections. As amazing as this may sound: If it happens, it will be not despite Iraq but because of Iraq.
Well, that’s what McCain thinks. Here’s his senior policy advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, opeding at WSJ today: Security is Job One.
I’ve got a question. Quick Internet search didn’t answer it. Which way are the security moms going to break? Are they going to be comfortable in gruff old war hero dad’s embrace or hoping for change, thinking its over and letting themselves get moony over Obama? In solidarity with sisterhood or liking the cut of Mitt’s business suit?
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:04 am on Friday, February 1, 2008
10 Responses to “Reasoned Argument Needed”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
[...] Jules Crittenden looks at the new politics of the Iraq war. [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 10:52 am
I don’t exactly qualify as a security mom, but my feeling is that McCain will win the nomination, and if he does, I’ve decided to vote for him instead of writing in a vote. He’s firm on Iraq (and what about Afghanistan in all this?). He’s not fond of earmarks. And if he turns out to be a disaster, he’ll only last four years, whereas Hillary is ruthless enough and has the resources to last eight years. That just doesn’t bear thinking about.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am
It’s amazing that 42% still think the troop surge has made no difference. I expect that number to decline, though, as we get closer to the election and people actually start paying attention to things outside their immediate day to day living again. The combination of mass media and entertainment (TV, movies, music, etc.) holds an enormous sway over people’s opinions of what’s happening in the world, opinions which are, when you get down to it, really just vague impressions based on little bits and pieces of things they’ve seen and read here and there. Every once in a while they really start paying attention (such as during a presidential election) and this can cause dramatic shifts in public opinion in a short amount of time. Sadly, it’s usually right back to normal shortly afterwards.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:41 am
Douglas Holtz-Eakin (described as McCain’s sr. policy adviser) makes it sound like his candidate walks on water.
I would think the security moms (and dads) would break for McCain.
(o’course I just read that “piece”…)
February 1st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Web Reconnaissance for 02/01/2008 ACTUAL
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“Obama said: ‘I want to have direct talks with countries like Iran and Syria because I don’t believe we can stabilize the region unless not just our friends but also our enemies are involved in these discussions.’ “
Humility has never met arrogance in the field and vanquished it. The supplicant who comes before his enemy with a bowed head cannot see the sword raised above him. The ground and the shadow of his own disgrace on it may be the last things he will see before the sword whistles in the air and descends on his neck.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Obama would spend a couple of years getting rolled like a Bowery drunk. I think he might smarten up after that and become hardass.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 am
Purple,
I think a President Obama would be the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. Once was too many.
I figure that I can live with a President McCain, although between the two I prefer Romney. Conservatives will have to watch him like hawks, and be ready to protest against bad Supreme Court selections or attempts at amnesty for illegal aliens. Well, we had to do that with Dubya too, as it turned out.
Hi Saltydog, I hope you’re feeling better.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:20 am
[...] Remember, you read it here first. Mercury News: WASHINGTON - The Iraq war, conventional wisdom goes, has been eclipsed as [...]
February 4th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Web Reconnaissance for 02/04/2008
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.