onegoodmove

Joe Wilson, as an appeal to authority, is pretty poor. He's not exactly known for his balanced and well reasoned arguements.

For example:

Obama's long and close relationship with the anti-American hate-monger Wright

Guilt by association, and incorrect. Does Joe wilson now subscribe to the "you cannot speak anything bad about america's past" class of jingoism?

he has done little to act on his asserted anti-war position,

Yeah, and Hillary hasn't either. Is Joe arguing that hillary was pro-war?.. Oh wait, his answer

That decision (to go to war) and power was (bush's) alone -- not the Congress' and certainly not Hillary Clinton's.

So, she's blameless, because she was tricked! So any support of the war she had (or lack of anti-war position since, like obama) is bush's fault?

..and his careless approach to Iraq all suggest that he would benefit from more experience.

So, how was Hillary clinton's vote on the Iraq war MORE experienced based? She voted for the war because of experience? I don't follow.

Hillary Clinton holds hands with Utah Republican Robert Bennet in introducing a bill that would make flag burning illegal.

Hillary Clinton voted against Senate Amendment No. 4882, which would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

And Hillary Clinton voted aye on the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".

And now she has this mailer on Obama re Gun Control.

She sounds to me like she is running as a Republican.

Obama didn't just give "a speech". He gave a well-thought-out speech which demonstrated his understanding of the situation, and an understanding which Hillary Clinton did not understand.

And there were many senators and members of congress who also understood what Obama understood. Why didn't Hillary understand? Perhaps because she was pandering to the right, just as she is pandering to the right on gun control and just as she is pandering on the gas-tax holiday and says that she disagrees with vast majority of economists except for Steve Elmendorf, a lobbyist from Shell Oil.

Hell, even Republican Lincoln Chaffee understood that voting for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was an authorization to go to war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton could have voted for Senator Levin’s amendment which would have required approval from the United Nations before authorizing force in Iraq, but she chose not to. She says that she wouldn't have voted aye if she knew then what she knows now, and then she turns around and votes aye on the Kyle-Lieberman ammendment.

And once again. Obama didn't just "give a speech". His speech demonstrated that he understood the issues at the time. Why didn't Hillary Clinton understand what Barack Obama understood, what the majority of House democrats understood and what the following senators understood?

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

What Obama said in his speech that Hillary supporters want to dismiss:

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

So, how was Hillary clinton's vote on the Iraq war MORE experienced based?

Good question. And if this is what "experience" gives us, then to hell with "experience".

His foreign policy experience is limited to having lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, and having traveled overseas briefly as a college student.

Funny how I remember the Clinton campaign circulating this picture of Obama on a diplomatic trip across Africa. Oops, must of forgot.

Funny how Obama has more then a speech now

SADDAM WAS A SERIAL VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS, had started two wars in the region in the previous decade, continued to threaten his neighbors, including Israel, which he once said he would destroy with weapons of mass destruction. We may not have fully understood how little remained of his WMD arsenal, but were we really willing in the aftermath of 9/11 to give him a free pass

Here is a well informed Clinton supporter, a man I used to respect, giving a pro-war argument. Where is my vomit bucket, and my checkbook? People willing to repeat these lies need to go away forever. Get a condo in Fl, leave my government the fuck alone. https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/main

The betrayal occurred not when the president was given the tools he needed to secure international support for inspections, but rather when Bush refused to allow the inspectors to complete their work and decided preemptively to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

A decision and betrayal everybody with two good brain cells to rub together had realized Bush had made before the vote in Congress. Oops, must of forgot.

Obama's long and close relationship with the anti-American hate-monger Wright

WTF, Is Joe going to be the head of CLinton's new anti-american activities Committee.

Is everybody that is angry about oppression now an enemy of the state and persona non grata with any politician that might alleviate that oppression?

I want to know why listening to Wright is somehow worse then paying for and taking the advice of Dick Morris.

Obama said:

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support

We know now that this was a brilliant statement made by Barack Obama. And yet Hillary Clinton did not support Senator Levin's ammendment.

Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.

And I'm proud of my own Democratic senator from New Mexico, Jeff Bingaman, who voted against the athorization for George Bush to attack Iraq. He voted against this idiot authorization and he has endorsed Barack Obama as well as my governor, Bill Richardson.

WTF, Is Joe going to be the head of CLinton's new anti-american activities Committee.

It seems that Hillary Democrats are becoming more and more partisans of the right-wing talking points.

His foreign policy experience is limited to having lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, and having traveled overseas briefly as a college student

And HIllary's foreign policy "experience" leads us to some fabulous tale and delusion about ducking sniper fire and voting to wage war on Iraq.

Speaking of Oppression, how about some suppression

1.1 million voters purged from the polls in Indiana, in majority african american counties.

I'd keep an eye on this for some "clues"

It seems that Hillary Democrats are becoming more and more partisans of the right-wing talking points.

Even right-wing neo-cons have only thrown out fascist phrases like anti-American on the rarest of occasions.

and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.

The majority of Democratic senators, and the minority of Democratic House members decided to give up their authority and relegate their authority to George Bush.

Hillary Clinton, along with too many other democrats decided to give authority to George Bush, and then afterwards they attempt to wash their hands and say that it was the fault of George Bush.

But why did so many intelligent people understand back in 2002/ early 2003 that the argument that George Bush and company was making was a fallacious argument?

And why are so many Democrats willing to vote into office a person who didn't fully understand what was going on then when we have a candidate who did understand what was going on? I don't get it..

Guilt by association, and incorrect

I'm not going to address all the arguments made here, but I will take exception to the characterization that Wilson is making the case of guilt by association. He's rather making an argument of judgment. That Barack's judgment in continuing an association with someone who held such views, not the views themselves. So the argument that Wilson is making a guilt by association argument is simply not true. Hell some of you will condemn Hillary for appearing on O'Reilly, but not Barrack for his Fox News appearance. You condemn Hillary for granting an interview to Richard Mellon Schafe, but that's not guilt by association. Now we hear that Barack may appear on the O'Reilly show. Will you all abandon him as a candidate if that happens. Will you condemn him here like you 'did' for his previous Fox appearance.

Even right-wing neo-cons have only thrown out fascist phrases like anti-American on the rarest of occasions.

Welcome to the new fascist America where outlawing flag burning is okay, where not wearing a flag pin means you're not a patriot, where attempting to get control of crazy people having guns is anti-American, and where having a pastor who has views which don't conform to most people's views is considered being anti-American.

exception to the characterization that Wilson is making the case of guilt by association

So rather then saying that because he associates he is guilty of having the same views

He is saying that because he associates he is guilty of bad judgment.

I guess you win the hair splitting competition.

Now we hear that Barack may appear on the O'Reilly show. Will you all abandon him as a candidate if that happens. Will you condemn him here like you 'did' for his previous Fox appearance.

If Barack appears on O'Reilly an makes right-wing talking points, yes, I'll condemn him.

What urks me about HIllary is that she is presenting herself as some gun-toting Iran-Obliterating good-ole gal conservative since she's been attempting to win votes in the conservative states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana.

If that latest contests had been held in more liberal states, she wouldn't have been pandering so much to the right.

Hillary sounds more and more like a conservative good-ole-gal these days.

And of course with someone that has such bad judgment we would have to be concerned that...

He would not run screaming from the room when he comes across other people that he doesn't share the views of?

It's Hillary Clinton who has been moving the Democrats more and more to the right. The longer that this primary continues with more conservative states in the lime light, the more that Hillary moves us the to right.

I can't wait to see what Hillary has to say about gun control and obliterating Iran when she gets to Oregon.

I'm not going to address all the arguments made here

Why not?

McCain running his mouth again on his 100 years in Iraq..

"... it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties, We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II."

oh..... OOPS. That's CLINTON speaking.

Judgement vs. association:

Ok, i'll submit to that. But it is more than disengenuous to say that Obama's judgement is flawed due to Wright, and Hillary's isn't on to the Iraq vote.

That's blind partisan hackary.

Also, I've never attacked hillary for any of the things you mention. I am sad that the democrats are going on fox, but I don't disown them for it, it's understandable in some spheres of thought.

I tried to only point out her failures on Policy Judgement: Gas Tax cuts, Vote to allow the use of force in Iraq, vote to say the Iranian gaurd is a terrorist group, Agreeing with McCain on his 100 years statement, "obliterate them".

If Rev. Wright is all Joe Wilson can scrounge up on Obama's Judgement...

Why not?

We can only hope he doesn't need to defend it because he doesn't agree with most of it.

The Wilson article is one of the most disheartening peace of tripe I have seen from a Clinton supporter since I stopped paying attention to Charles.

In other news, Norm also posted an article and praised Obama for saying a change in ethanol policy might be prudent.

Some other excellent links today.

The majority of Democratic senators, and the minority of Democratic House members decided to give up their authority and relegate their authority to George Bush.

That highlights one of the questions I need to ask my state/district rep. "Will you defend the power of the Congress?"

I guess you win the hair splitting competition.

Why JoAnn asks:

Because in response I get inane comments like the one above. If I believed that Red really thinks the distinction is not an important one, I'd put him on my list of fucking idiots, but I assume it is nothing more than that he enjoys his snark at the expense of a reasonable conversation and so I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I know you all enjoy talking about the Wright drama and other nonsense but how about addressing a real question that Wilson brought up about what Barack has done or not done with the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs which he chairs.

Does he think he already knows it all therefore doesn't need to hold hearings? What's the spin on that issue?

IMO running for president isn't an excuse for not doing your job BTW.

Why does something like that matter? A good article about it

Red really thinks the distinction is not an important one

I think in most arguments the distinction is very important.

I this particular instance I fail to see the case that his relationship with wright says anything about his judgment if one accepts the assumption that he does not share any of the radical views.

They only judgment issue it brings up for me, is does Obama think politically enough about his church? Considering Norm et al have accused him of thinking too politically about his church I think the whole argument reaches yet another oxymoronic impasse.

So if Wilson is not implying that Obamas association with Wright means he shares his views and is therefore complicit in his insults towards America, then what is he saying?

Why is it bad judgement to associate with people with whom you disagree with on a number of issues?

Does he think he already knows it all therefore doesn't need to hold hearings? What's the spin on that issue?

It doesn't end the discussion, but the committee has met since the article you link to.

Also Kerry made a statement about this particular sub-committee, in which he said that traditionally many of its duties are dealt with by the full committee during times when NATO and American troops are in combat, such as they are now in Afghanistan.

I am going from memory on this but I believe that was the spin.

Well you know Joe Wilson and I have one thing in common, we're both former diplomats and so I think quite frankly our knowledge about international affairs somehow is relevant. And there's a reason that two former Joint Chief of Staffs have endorsed Hillary Clinton along with 35 other top brass from the US military. Hillary understands the world as it is, the real dangers it represents and how to contain them. To Obama's supporters, all that matters is that one vote in 2003 and a speech. And yet that Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill is dismissed, that on 84 out 85 votes since coming to the Senate Obama has voted with Clinton on matters regarding Iraq. If he is so opposed to the war then why has he funded it so? He's a hypocrite. And with Afghanistan faltering, not one meeting from Obama's committee. He's a fraud. And on Iran you seem to forget that deterrence worksand that Obama once threatened to attack Pakistan, an ally, without provocation. Short memories?

Doesn't matter, he's unelectable come November. 30% of Clinton's base won't vote for him. He wins just 3 groups: African-Americans, those under 30 and those who earn more than $150,000. How out of touch can you be?

one vote in 2003

2002

forget that deterrence works

Diplomacy does too

Obama once threatened to attack Pakistan

Al Qaeda in Pakistan, not obliterate the country itself

He wins just 3 groups: African-Americans, those under 30 and those who earn more than $150,000

In primaries, in certain states. In others he wins almost every demographic group.

The "clear rationale" was WMD's. If Obama knew Iraq had no WMD'S, why didn't he say as much in his speech? We Know Saddam had gassed his own people (a genuine WMD). The CIA and National Intelligence Estimate said Iraq was thought to have the capability to use unmanned aircraft to deliver an attack. And yet Obama says Saddam posed no threat. The man's fucking omnicient! He probably has all the powerball numbers written down and is using them to fund his campaign. He probably knows I'm going to type the word "bullshit" right here! Whoa! who put those quotes around "bullshit"? (he did it again!!)

who put those quotes around "bullshit"?

Uhh, It was generally well known that Sadam likely didn't have the WMD's.

Hans Blix and other inspectors had said as much and acknowledged that inspectors were kicked out because they were being used to track Sadams movements so that he could be assassinated.

The reason Obama didn't say so is because it was possible that he had some stashed in a hidden bunker somewhere. It was just virtually impossible that he had any ready to use or could have transported them easily. Therefore there was no imminent threat.

"bullshit" "bullshit" "bullshit" "bullshit" "bullshit" "bullshit"

judgement is flawed due to Wright, and Hillary's isn't on to the Iraq vote.

I don't recall ever saying that Hillary's judgment was a good one, but it's a stretch to say all those who voted for it are war-mongering fools. What was it 29 senate democrats that voted against the war. How many of those voted against Senator Byrd's amendment, I seem to recall that only 14 senators voted for it. Obviously some of the 29 had some doubts. They made a judgment good on the Authorization not so good on the Byrd amendment. No they both have flawed judgment, and if you want you can cherry pick but that's hardly intellectually honest.

Considering Norm et al have accused him of thinking too politically about his church I think the whole argument reaches yet another oxymoronic impasse.

Red steps in it again. The issues of using the church to attract voters because well he's Saint Obama, and considering the political implications of choosing a Pastor who someone who anyone with "good judgment" would realize could become a liability are two separate issues. That Red conflates the two is disappointing though not surprising. Snark rules at the expense of a reasonable argument.

He's a fraud. And on Iran you seem to forget that deterrence worksand that Obama once threatened to attack Pakistan, an ally, without provocation. Short memories?

1. Like red said. Al Qaeda in Pakistan, who I do believe provoked us, and according to recent estimates, could do so again, and are perhaps even more capable than they were before.

2. He never said he would use nukes on them, I cannot say the same for hillary. Sabre rattle all you want about rogue countries, but jesus, why would you threaten to nuke a country based off speculation:

IF they had nukes, and IF they had the capability to deliver those nukes, and IF they used them on Israel, and IF israel couldn't defend themselves, would you launch an attack on Iran?

30% of Clinton's base won't vote for him.

They must be cultists..

He wins just 3 groups: African-Americans, those under 30 and those who earn more than $150,000. How out of touch can you be?

Wow... I didn't know Obama was the people who were voting for him..self? How do you not give yourself a brain hemmorage doing these mental backflips?

I don't recall ever saying that Hillary's judgment was a good one...

So she had bad judgement, which somehow wasn't as bad as...

choosing a Pastor who someone who anyone with "good judgment" would realize could become a liability

I respectfully disagree.

That Red conflates the two is disappointing though not surprising. Snark rules at the expense of a reasonable argument.

I do love my snark, but I wasn't attempting to Conflate them rather point them out as opposite insults.

One he uses his religion to get votes , which is bad and two he doesn't ditch his religion to keep from losing votes apparently also bad.

So the insult lobed is that his politically calculating in his use of religion and the he is also not calculating enough in his use of religion.

You want your candidate to be a vote whore willing to sacrifice their beliefs, friends, and community for votes but that doesn't use his/her religion to get votes?

What if the guy simply picked a church he liked because of the people that went there and didn't mind that he didn't agree with the pastor on everything.

Then when asked about his religion, he responds, and when in front of religios crowds, shares his expereince and uses religion to sell ideas like equal rights for GLBT to them.

Wow, what terrible judgment.

Well I got the response I expected. I guess one hearing on nominations is good enough for some.

It seems people are more interested in nonsense. (sniper fire, Rev. Wright, etc.)

What I'm not quite sure of is how Obama has incurred such ire for his religiosity from an atheist standpoint (I don't think God exists and therefore shouldn't have any more influence on policy than Gandalf or Peter Pan), yet Clinton has gotten off scott-free despite her affiliations with her breakfast-club of Illuminati-esque Christians.

The only conclusion I can draw is that we (the collective we) are irked by the Obama-Wright relationship not because it shows his religiosity and thus flawed reasoning, but because he made a bad choice in which pulpit to sit in front of, given that a religious test is required in the US. Considering the circumstances from my point of view, I might choose to listen to a crazy pastor over a rational one, because then you know what to look out for from religious crazies, and how to deal with them. Plus I think rational preachers are much more insidious than the obviously crazy ones (sort of an "uncanny valley" on the plane of rationality).

Anyhow, that's how I see this issue, could someone please clarify this for me? For which reason should I dislike the Obama-Wright situation? As an atheist, I think I prefer Rev. Wright, the irate, over-the-top, but well intentioned black preacher to "The Fellowship", which really creeps me out.

Also, in response to Dar, I think Wilson shot himself in the foot by bringing up Wright, since all his other points got lost when he resuscitated that dead horse, necessitating it get beat to death again. And frankly, the use of the term "anti-American" discredits him a lot.

Dar, you asked for the spin, so there it is. I really have no Idea how often that subcommittee should meet. It is a much better topic of discussion then folks trying desperately to make something out of the wright garbage or those that seem to want to become pro war to defend their candidate.

I would challenge you on this...

IMO running for president isn't an excuse for not doing your job BTW.

On principle its right, but in reality I don't want all my choices to be unemployed people, nor do I want every progressive I support to have to resign from office to even consider a run. All candidates have to be neglecting their Jobs to be able to win.

Most any candidate you can remember has lived in IA on NH for months.

Hillary sounds more and more like a conservative good-ole-gal these days

Hmm...let's see...she gave a huge "fuck you" to MoveOn.org, her minions are admitting they are "worried" that Obama is too far left, and the Weekly Standard just embraced her warmly as "one of their own".

She's "Nixonian", they cooed, they cheer that the "right groups" (i.e. the latte-sipping, arugula eaters) hate her now, they compared her favourably to Joe Lieberman, and they predicted that if she won the nomination, there was a chance she would campaign to the right of McCain.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/063kvafy.asp

I would just like to interrupt this lively political discussion to say that the "What's Special About This Number?" link was fantastic! Thanks Norm!

Carry on.

Can I just say that the more I find out about both candidates the more depressed I get.

Now I read Hillary is a member of "The Family" which makes Obama's church look rational and positive. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich

Hillary of course voted for the war. Only ignorant and/or vengeful war-happy people didn't see that there was a mad rush to invade Iraq that the resolution was helping provide the opportunity for. I mean, I'm an art school drop out and still had access to numerous publications by foreign and American academics, political think tanks and the likes that not only explained how the resolution gave Bush the authorization to do what he wanted, but also called exactly what would happen if we did invade. If an idiot like me had access to this information then I'm pretty damn sure Hillary did too. I didn't protest the war because I had nothing better to do (I run my own business so time is not cheap for me), I protested because I was sure that we were being lied into a catastrophy. Millions of Americans knew this and not all of 'em were peacenik hippies who feel the world would be a better place if we were all stoned. In fact, most I know were very educated professionals.

I don't buy Wilson's rational for the war, and I don't buy Hillary's excuses for authorizing it. If she truly was "fooled" into voting for the resolution then she is a moron.

On the other hand, while Obama may have given a wonderful speech (his best quality as far as I've found) he's done almost nothing to help stop this war and has said little to make anyone think he will if elected president. In fact, he seems just as willing to start new wars as Hillary and almost as much as McCain. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

How anyone here is passionate about either candidate baffles me. If McCain wasn't such a frightening option I'd be abstaining on principle alone. But in fear of a McCain president I'll happily vote for the least of all evils in whatever middle of the road Democratic candidate we get. Though, a small piece of me will die while doing so.

Oh, and while Hillary might be for banning flag burning and gave a big ol' FU to MoveOn.or, at least she didn't vote to condemn MoveOn for the "Betrayus" ad as Obama did.

OK, he abstained from the main vote but he did vote to condemn them in a similar bill the same day.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another contender for the Democratic nomination, did not vote, although he voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. That resolution condemned the MoveOn ad as an "unwarranted personal attack," http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RPBHO80&show_article=1

I would challenge you on this... IMO running for president isn't an excuse for not doing your job BTW. On principle its right, but in reality I don't want all my choices to be unemployed people, nor do I want every progressive I support to have to resign from office to even consider a run. All candidates have to be neglecting their Jobs to be able to win.

Then he should step down instead of keeping the position to pad his resume. As for having to neglect their jobs in order to win; I don't buy it, he found time to attend the Petraeus testimony hearing yet can't schedule hearings for the committee he actually chairs?

yet can't schedule hearings for the committee he actually chairs?

Have we seen anyone in the know say that the committee should have met and there has been work that has not been done.

All I have seen is folks bringing it up on the campaign trail.

Snark rules at the expense of a reasonable argument.

If I believed that Red really thinks the distinction is not an important one, I'd put him on my list of fucking idiots

I get inane comments like the one above.

Can we tone it down? Please? These characterizations are uncalled for.

Erich Friedman's webpage is fantastic. The best content (IMO) is his Puzzle Palace.

Ya you're right Red nothing really that important

Ya you're right Red nothing really that important

Not what I said.