2008 Primaries Thread

Mikulski, Feingold, etc.

(x-post)

yah he prob wouldve voted for it wtf is this based on besides "centrist instincts"

I'm just going by what he says about national security now. He's willing to keep the use of force on the table for dealing with Pakistan - so why wouldn't he have wanted to keep it on the table for dealing with Saddam?

gee, I dunno cuz we have ACTUAL ENEMIES in Pakistan? and Saddam posed no threat (as any non-idiot in 2002 could've told you?)

the context of obama's statement that he did not know how he would have voted on the war resolution comes from an interview at the DNC by a reporter trying to find inconsistency with his endorsement of john kerry and their differing stances on the war, in case anyone forgot

I mean lolz @ muslim countries they're all the same, lets bomb 'em amirite

WAHT THE DIF BETWEEN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ ITS ALL ALQUEDA RIGHT DUUUUUHH

"I said then that I certainly do not oppose all wars, but dumb wars -- rash wars."

the 'use of force in pakistan' issue looks dangerous on its face but it's of a piece with criticizing the bush approach to foreign policy, where every decision is warped around the black hole of iraq: scrimp on afghanistan, talk shit about iran, effectively ignore al qaeda everywhere outside of baghdad, and make a devil's bargain with musharraf (who we then have to babysit no matter what)

lol xps

gee, I dunno cuz we have ACTUAL ENEMIES in Pakistan? and Saddam posed no threat (as any non-idiot in 2002 could've told you?)

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:41 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

um what the fuck. this is some roadrunner amnesia shit.

So you're saying that the difference at Obama vs. Hillary is not that he's more reluctant to use force in general, or that he has a better appreciation for the virtues of diplomacy versus military action - but just that he is better at reading intelligence reports and deciding who the real enemies are?

GO WAY

sorry o nate that's bullshit

"i bet if he were hillary, he would have voted for it"

the possible difference between obama and hillary is that he's more skeptical (it would probably be sexist to say he has better instincts or is smarter) than she is. like a lot of us, but perhaps unlike many senators, it just smelled wrong to him.

the context of obama's statement that he did not know how he would have voted on the war resolution comes from an interview at the DNC by a reporter trying to find inconsistency with his endorsement of john kerry and their differing stances on the war, in case anyone forgot

he's explained, as was obvious anyway, that his statement was intended to protect the nominee, but there isn't really any question how he would have voted

there isn't really any question how he would have voted

would he be in the position he's in now if he'd been a senator then and voted against?

I'm sayin it looks to me like Obama has better judgment and is less likely to be complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of political expediency or because of incredible gullibility

x-post

well his claim is that he'll do what's right on the merits, rather than deciding based on GOP talking points domestic political calculus.

whether that will be true, yeah who knows. HRC's record in this regard is not good... the whole country's was not good in 02! 80% bush approval, remember that? seems like a billion years ago

would he be in the position he's in now if he'd been a senator then and voted against?

number of senators voted out of office cuz they voted against the war = 0

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012874.php

Apparently Obama has also voiced support for missile strikes against Iran if necessary to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons:

Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush's Next War

hillary'd have this thing locked if she'd voted no - of course she wouldnt be hillery then

contrary-to-fact hypothetical situations are really the worst, least revealing questions a reporter could ask. anyway, as far as i know, hillary hasn't been very vocal expressing any regret about her vote authorizing force.

Dick Durbin voted against the iraq resolution, and Obama's sort of followed in his footsteps as a liberal illinois senator so its easy to see him voting against it in office

no, that's not what he said, o. nate. this is what he said...

He added, "launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

i.e. he opposes missile strikes on Iran. he's for military strikes "on Pakistan" if, say, the Taliban gain control.

this is really the worst thread ever

"b-b-but gabbneb, isn't that just the bush doctrine???"

"radical Muslim theocracy" = "Iran", no?

"I LOVE YOU THIIIIIIS MUCH!"

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/08/us/campaign14-600.jpg

obama on iran: not very reassuring. iran having nuclear weapons is 'worse than' US launching attack on iran? it's all fun and games till somebody gets hurt.

It's not written well, but I read it such that "radicul Muslim theocracy" = "Pakistan." Even if it does = "Iran," I don't think you can automatically read it to suggest that he's saying that the current regime = "radical Muslim theocracy."

ie, no, I think you're reading it wrong

all he saying yes there is a situation in which id use military force

OMG HES SAME AS HILARY OMG

especially given that it's generally estimated that they're years away from the capability

He added, "launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

"on the other hand" = still talking about iran
"went on to" = moved on to pakistan

iran is a radical muslim theocracy yo.

and it doesn't possess nuclear weapons

ie, no, I think you're reading it wrong

I don't think so, because it appears that the reference to a "radical Muslim theocracy" was in the context to the discussion about Iran, and that he then changed the subject to Pakistan.

It makes no sense to read that second sentence as a reference to Pakistan, because Pakistan already has nukes - the whole point of the missile strikes is to prevent that scenario.

at o nate's defense, i'm not quite sure he was saying "OMG HES SAME AS HILARY OMG" but rather that obama isn't quite as anti-war as some seem to paint him compared to hillary.

and i think that o nate is quite right in saying that opposing the war in '02 as a state politician is quite different from opposing the war on the national stage as a senator in '02. sure there were a few senators that opposed the war, but i'm not totally sure that he would've been one of those. and i like obama. i just don't think o nate's point was as ludicrous as some here are making it out to be, even if it's not a totally relevant point to make.

wrong, Pakistan is not a radical Muslim theocracy

(sorry to o nate if i'm screwing around what your point actually was)

obama has made a bigger deal of the need to start negotiating with iran directly, which hillary dinged him for early on (the experience/naievete question, remember?)

Pakistan is definitely NOT a radical Muslim theocracy. Its a military junta, the army is in charge, not a cadre of priests.

wrong, Pakistan is not a radical Muslim theocracy

So the missile strikes are to prevent it from becoming a theocracy? How would that work?

shakey is correct, thanks

Iran is way more capable of being dealt with diplomatically than Pakistan is for a whole host of reasons - they have a more stable, nominally representative government; they are interested solely in jockeying for power in the region (ie, upstaging Saudi Arabia); they don't have the bomb; etc.

Pakistan, by contrast, is wildly unstable, DOES have the bomb, has radical Muslim extremists deeply embedded in its intelligence community, etc. Its more unpredictable, and unreliable as an ally.

there are all kinds of plausible scenarios in Pakistan where it is totally conceivable that Musharraf would get knocked off, the Muslim loonies in the intelligence community take over and install a theocracy, and start waving their nuclear dick around

ugh sorry for the horrible grammar

Pakistan is definitely NOT a radical Muslim theocracy. Its a military junta, the army is in charge, not a cadre of priests.

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:07 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

YES WHICH MAKES HIS COMMENT RE PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE ABOUT IRAN, YOU FUCK.

glad gabbneb is confident that no-one in the US now believes iran to be working on nuclear weapons, but one 'actionable' intelligence report from the unreconstructed intelligence services could turn that round pretty fast, so obama's comments are worrying.