National security is never this black and white… (Unfortunately!)

I was thinking about this the other day, and then I saw this re-posted.

Why would we need something like this? Russia? Religious fanatics? These are arguably the biggest threats to the U.S. in the visible future, and we don't need the level of tech to act as a deterrent for those folks. We can take Russia with a couple of F-18s and the religious fanatics? Well, I don't think these bad boys would have led to a different result in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So why? Of course, there is always the propping up of the military-industrial complex, but even that does not feel right. We've scrapped some systems in the last few years which tells me that this is not the main reason why we're moving ahead on this...

So that leaves, who? China.

Yes, right now we have each other right where we want each other, but they are a growing economic and technological superpower, and we may eventually end up in a cold war with them. These sorts of investments in military technology are not necessarily about meeting current threats, but about preparing for future threats, and we don't want to end up in a position where we don't have the best hardware in the world.

So, is this the time to be throwing that sort of money at a weapons system like this? Could it be better spent elsewhere? Probably. But we still live in a dangerous world and I, for one, know our relationship with the only real superpower left goes a lot better down the road if they know they can't take us militarily without one hell of a fight.

Hopefully we are moving towards a world where superpowers can co-exist without living in fear of each other, and we may be there all ready. But are we willing to bet our children or grandchildren's freedom on this?

It's a tough call and one that I am glad I do not have to make.

2012 Vice Presidential Debate Results, Predictions for Tuesday & November

I threw a lot of good links up on the Facebook page tonight, but here is my wrap up of tonight’s debate.

First of all, I think the most overlooked moment of the debate, so far, was when Paul Ryan responded to the question about what he would say to a war vet dismayed by the ugly nature of the political attack ads this year by launching into a four minute bash on everything he saw as flawed about the Obama administration. 

Secondly, Bill Maher won the interwebs tonight with the tweet on the right here…

As for who won and who lost, shortly after the debate, I posted the following…

Overall, I think Biden gave a lot for people to talk about.

While they may say he was too intense, I think he did a good job of waving the bullsh... er, "malarky" flag when Ryan started confusing talking points with facts and I think this will serve the campaign well.

I think this was the only real mistake in the first debate. Team Obama figured the press would do their job and call out Romney on his factual errors and flip flops but, instead, the press got so hot and bothered at the idea that the race might end up narrowing that the facts and flip flops never really received much attention at all.

Watching the ABC coverage tonight, though, I was left thinking... If the infamous "eye roll" Gore/Bush debate was held this year, I think Gore's performance would have gone over much better than it did in 2000. Our views of what behavior is considered "Presidential" seems to have changed a bit in 12 years.

I haven’t seen anyone other than the one CNN poll and Fox declaring this a victory for Paul Ryan, and even Fox only gives it to Ryan on a technicality, saying that Biden was mean and scary.  A few networks and publications are calling this a draw, but most seem to be leaning towards or declaring this a Biden victory.

I think that Biden winning will be the consensus by tomorrow morning, and for the late night comics, and as I wrote the other day, they are the ones who really count. I know the Democrats on FB are pumped up. Much more noise and chest thumping than after the first debate.

Hell, even I was getting burned out on all the Muppets.  And I freaking love pissed off Muppets!

If a Biden victory is the consensus, it really doesn’t matter much what actually happened in the debate, people will be hearing that Biden won, which is good for the Obama campaign.

Of course there will be discussions on whether or not Biden was too over the top, but like I wrote earlier, I this this will just serve to draw more attention the Ryan’s factual inaccuracies and to the Romney / Ryan campaign flip flopping on issues, which is a plus for Obama.

So what does this victory mean in the long run? 

While Vice Presidential debates have, arguably, never changed the course of a Presidential campaign, I do see the final battle lines being drawn out tonight, the laying out of the strategies the two campaigns will be following into Election Day, and those are pretty revealing.

The first thing I really notice is that the Romney / Ryan campaign is spending a lot of time and treasure on their big foreign policy “October Surprise.” 

The GOP’s big theme heading into the final stretch is using the Libyan incident as a centerpiece to focus on what they are calling Obama’s Unraveling Foreign Policy.  Ryan was all over this tonight.  And it seemed to lack traction.  This really seems like a losing attack for them.

One area I feel that most people are pretty happy with Obama is his foreign policy, and for all the noise Ryan made tonight, the few little pieces he had to back up his rhetoric with seemed small and nit picky.  I think one area where Biden had a clear win tonight was leveling him on these attacks.

Continuing to attack the President, who got Osama bin Laden and who is ending two unpopular wars, on his foreign policy feels like a losing strategy to me. 

On each attack point tonight, the result was Ryan essentially conceding that Romney wouldn’t be handling the situations any differently.  And when Ryan went after Obama’s relationship with Israel, well, again, he was flattened.  Badly. 

In the end, I do not think anyone except for some, not even all, Fox News viewers feel like American foreign policy is in any way “unraveling” right now.  This whole argument, let alone making it a centerpiece of the campaign in October, makes me feel like the Romney campaign is very out of touch with the public right now.

So, that probably leaves them running back to the economy, the deficit and tax reform, and “Obamacare.”

The economy is still tough for them, which is why they gave the foreign policy attacks a whirl in the first place.  People are willing to listen to their ideas on the economy, hell, I want to hear them.  But other than slogans and their vague “Five Point Plan,” they offer no real details.  Until they offer details, Obama wins on the economy.

Even tonight, Ryan was spending more time talking about how Obama promised a stronger recovery and let people down, but not denying that there has been recovery.  Until the GOP offers something more than vague tax breaks as a strategy for putting more people to work, Obama wins the issue.  Barely.

As far as deficit reduction and tax reform goes…  Well, vagueness is again killing Romney and Ryan.  When asked specific questions, they shuffle, weave and dart.  Without specifics, Obama wins again, though, again, barely.  And after the 47% comment, I don’t think there’s much trust out there for Romney on his promises not to raise taxes on low and middle income families.

Obamacare?  This is a bad issue for the GOP since it is based on Romneycare.  People’s eyes glaze over when Romney darts back with, well, it’s great for states, just not at the federal level.  And, overall, most people like most of it.  For all the talk of panels, I think most people do just hear the old, silly, losing rhetoric of Death Panels from 2008.  We’re going to keep everything that most people like except for the parts that the tea party doesn’t like seems to be Romney’s alternative to the current reforms.  I don’t think people want to rebuild the wheel if it is going to look pretty much the same as before.  So, Obama wins the issue.  Again.

So where does this leave us.

Right now, Obama is still looking pretty strong in the electoral vote.  National popular vote polls can bite me, they mean nothing. 

There are some indicators coming out over the last 48 hours that Romney’s bump in the polls from the first debate may be fading.  And being continually fact checked by his own campaign is going to start killing him again.  The only thing that saved his tail on that this week was the fact that most of the news coverage was breathlessly heaving about the fact that the race seemed to be heating up and wondering if they could get away with awarding Romney the front runner status (Answer? No, due to that pesky, state by state way we elect our presidents).  His continued battle with foot-in-the-mouth-syndrome was largely overlooked, but it won’t be for much longer.

Another thing to consider is that the polls for the last week were all over the place.  It is tough to form a clear view from them, because there was a lot of noise and chaos last week mucking up the machinery.

Momentum is also a word being used a lot.  Too much right now.  Momentum is built over time.  One win, even if the first debate was a big win for Romney, does not really change momentum. 

A disastrous September, one debate win, and then a likely debate loss tonight leading, four day later, into a debate that Obama is almost certain to win (if only for the same reasons that Romney was certain to win the first one)… Well, this time next week it may be very difficult to talk about momentum in the Romney campaign with a straight face, let alone without a snicker.

The fact that the next debate is only four days away is also a win for Obama, and I do predict that he will win this one with about the same confidence that I predicted that Romney would win the last one.  The pummeling that the President received after the first debate has lowered the expectations on him to the point where he will likely win if he just stays awake through the whole thing.

But this time, my prediction is not just based on expectations going in.  Expectations are only the first key. 

The second key to the next debate is its format: Town Hall.  Romney has never been good with the one on one sessions with regular folks and now he is bringing the 47% comment into the room with him. 

The third key is two debates worth of shaky truths and flip flops from the previous debates.  Now I do not expect Obama to go after Romney like Biden went after Ryan tonight, but I do expect to see him using the next two debates as his platform to address some of these issues.  Probably more gently on Tuesday and, unless the race has broken out one way or the other by the third debate, slightly more aggressively in the final debate, away from the town hall audience. 

However, unless Romney is pulling away in the key states by the third debate, I would not expect to see Obama throwing up a hail mary and really bashing on Mitt.  I still think the plan will be, for the most part, to let the Romney campaign hang itself by flip flopping everywhichway on every issue, under the national spotlights of the debate platforms, until the last remaining undecided voters are just sick of it.

Still, I do expect to see more engagement from the president on Tuesday.  From the beginning I think the strategy was to stand back and to let Romney have the night the first time around and to just not make many mistakes while looking presidential and above it all.  He may have missed the mark by a bit on that, but I am sure that was the plan. 

Obama is playing rochambeau with Romney and he let Mitt kick first.  Tuesday is Obama’s turn. He will step it up. And I think it will go well for him.

Finally, predictions for November... 

Obama should have this one barring a real collapse in either of the final two debates.  I think he takes it even if he does in the next two what he did in the first.  Because even if he does exactly what he did in the first debate in the next debate, he will get better press.  Victory in November might be by exactly the margins we are seeing right now, and he may even lose the popular vote, but he should win the electoral college and a second term.

Slight improvement in at least one of the next two debates?  Then I think he wins solidly.  It won’t be a landslide, it won’t even be by the margins he was running up a couple weeks ago, but we shouldn’t be having that late of a night on Election Day.

On a side note, I wanted to throw this up here… 

On CNN’s poll results ("CNN/ORC poll: 48% of registered voters watching debate say Ryan won. 44% say Biden won. Sampling error is +/- 5%." – CNN), I posted this in response to a comment that the poll results reflected CNN’s viewers these days:

Over the last few years, I don't think CNN is drifting to the right, I think it is drifting to the stupid.

I used to rely on them as being somewhat centrist and fairly well balanced between MSNBC and FOX, but still "Mainstream" enough to rely on as a reasonable sample of what "typical" Americans were watching.

These days I get most of my news from NPR and, watching CNN's post debate "analysis" after the first debate, well, my head hurt a lot. Not because I disagreed with what they were saying, but because what they were saying was just meaningless drivel that really didn't have much to do with anything.

On the first debate, CNN went from draw, to Romney might have had an edge, to Romney destroyed Obama, to Romney has regained the edge and the front runner status in about five minutes and then built the rest of their analyses around this headline without any facts to support it, since it takes days for the poll numbers to roll in.

Unfortunately, most of the major news outlets did this, so people who did not actually watch the debate ended up with a pretty skewered version of what happened during the first debate.

And I will head to bed on this…

Related Posts

from tag Polls

• Democracy In Distress: It’s a Trap! Thoughts on the 1st Obama / Romney Debate
• Democracy In Distress: What do I believe in? The political world according to A. F. Litt
• Democracy In Distress: Chart: Barack Obama & Ronald Reagan... Separated at birth?

from tag Politics

• Democracy In Distress: GOP: Selling the American Dream and Winning Elections
• Democracy In Distress: Christian persecution in America?
• Democracy In Distress: Marriage Equality: President Obama & North Carolina
• Democracy In Distress: Putin, Clinton, & Bush… Oh my! The current, dynastic period of American history
• Democracy In Distress: Code Speak: Politics, bigotry, & the problem with Santorum
• Democracy In Distress: Conservative voters: Poorly informed with low IQs & voting against their own best interests?
• Democracy In Distress: A dysfunctional system goes Super… And fails.

from tag Romney

• Democracy In Distress: The war on women & Santorum’s choice
• Democracy In Distress: GOP & 2012: A grab bag of headlines from everyone's favorite dysfunctional family

(more..)

KONY 2012: Gresham, OR

I was surprised to see a couple signs posted out in my neck of the woods earlier this week…

Related Posts

from tag Oregon

• Democracy In Distress: Occupy Portland: F29 – Occupy the Corporations Grab-Bag
• Democracy In Distress
• Rubble: The Final Cut: June 2009
• Rubble: Photo of the Day by A. F. Litt: January 2, 2012, Gresham-Fairview Trail
• Rubble: Photo of the Day by A. F. Litt: January 1, 2012, Springwater Trail
• Rubble: Photo of the Day by A. F. Litt: December 15, 2011, Cobwebs & Fog
• Democracy In Distress: New Product: “Will Work For Democracy” Mug
• Democracy In Distress: Occupy Portland: Laundry list of parks “damage”
• Democracy In Distress: The Final Cut - Occupy Portland - October 6, 2011: Photographs

from tag Picture

• Retrovirus Lab: Punk isn't dead. It just goes to bed at a more reasonable hour.
• Democracy In Distress: An Occupy Wall Street / Occupy Together / Occupy Portland Grab-bag
• Democracy In Distress: On SNL (with Video): Rick Santorum fantasizing about gay shower sex (because I just can't say that enough...)

(more..)

What do I believe in? The political world according to A. F. Litt

Prelude

On my personal website I have been building a library of my academic papers from my school days.  Tonight, I found one that I thought I would share here.

It was a quick response paper for a cultural anthropology class at Seattle Central Community College some sixteen years ago.  Not my best writing ever, for a class or otherwise, but, clunky writing aside, in many ways I think this little piece sums up my political views better than anything I’ve written before or since.

It does not detail where I am on the left or right spectrum, conservative or liberal.  On that scale, I am far from static and can usually manage to upset people on both sides of that particular divide.  It does, however, explain my opinion on how the American political system operates.

After the massive political failures in Washington D.C. over the last decade, I suspect that more and more people have come around to seeing things from my perspective.  Back in 1996, though, my ideas on government and the media were dismissed as naive by many from both the right and the left.

The popular view was that great, unseen political machinations were pulling the strings of power.  Everything was a borderline conspiracy, or an actual conspiracy. 

After watching both parties shattering like glass against the rocks of their own incompetency the last few years, however, I feel that my views on the system are a bit more mainstream now.  Reading this essay for the first time in about 12 years today, it actually felt fresher than it did in the days of the Clinton Impeachment Trial and the WTO controversies, before the 2000 Election, eight years of George W. Bush, endless wars in the Mid-East, Hurricane Katrina, the Great Recession, and whatever sort of tragicomic train wreck the last six plus years of Congress will be labeled as by future historians.

Enough from me today, onwards to me from years past…  This is warts and all, copied and pasted from the original Word document.

ANT 202, Fall 1996, Seattle Central Community College

Until recently, I had never read anything by Noam Chomsky, or heard him speak before, but I have run into many people who have and are rather worked up by his ideas. Many of these people, however, tended to have a very paranoid streak in them, and have used Chomksy’s words to confirm their own fears and suspicions about conspiracies and such. They use his ideas as proof that their fears about direct manipulations between corporations, government officials and agencies, the media, and the financial institutions are true. Instead of understanding the subtle and indirect influences these institutions, by nature, have upon one another; they just take these concepts in their bluntest, broadest forms, picturing some sort of wild X-Files type of conspiracy. They believe, in a very literal way, that all politics are nothing but a sham, that the corporations directly control everything, making phone calls and e-mails, ruling directly a puppet government, themselves taking their orders from the global financial institutions. I always ask them where the aliens fit into these schemes, and not all of them realize that I am joking. Because of these people, I have always been a bit weary of Chomsky, but knowing these people’s mind sets, I figured they were just laying their own fears over his ideas, and I’ve always wanted to find out if I was right.

My own view of government and its relationship with the private power structures has always been more of a chaos theory, rather than a conspiracy theory, seeing each individual and group being too caught up in their own special interests, and too busy covering their own asses, to ever work together at a level that such a complex conspiracy would require. There are just too many egos involved. My own view, it turns out, seems very similar to Chomsky’s. So, when listening to the conspiracy theorists talking about the power structures, about the relationships between industry, government, and the media, I’ve never been able to totally disagree. I’ve always ended up with sort of a “Yes, but…” and a “Well, I wouldn’t necessarily go that far” response. I can’t follow them all the way into the conspiracies. For these to actually be occurring, the politicians, CEOs, and journalists would all have to be a lot less self serving, and a hell of a lot smarter, than they ever seemed to be, to me, at least. In 1991, while attending a National Press Club conference in D.C., for example, I had an opportunity to meet briefly with former Rep. Rod Chandler and former Sen. Brock Adams. To be honest, these two were so preoccupied with themselves and with their own personal career goals (Adams, understandable, more so at this point – still vowing to run again, still certain that he could win), that I don’t see them plotting anything with anyone, unless they got to be in charge. When talking about legislation, bills they sponsored, bills where they offered up key support, they never talked with enthusiasm about the laws they were making, or about how they were good for their constituencies, but they were very jazzed up about how powerful they were personally, being able to make that big of a splash on the national issues. Chandler, being groggy from getting back from a fact finding mission to Kuwait, came across as a complete fool and managing to drop in a couple of racist comments, thinking that he’d made a funny, certainly didn’t help his case any. If this guy was ever involved in anything serious, I’d be willing to bet that he’d accidentally expose it. Of course, my paranoid friends all reassure me that these cases were all just acts, that they were ploys to lower our expectations of elected officials, and to lower our defenses.

Still, I feel that these politicians do try to do their best to stand up for and to fight for what they feel needs to be done, but it is no mystery to me how things like aid to the Guatemalan military gets passed by these people, as well. They see the word communist in the early 1980s, and communists are bad. If they don’t vote against the communists, they will endanger their re-election. In these circumstances, why should they even worry if the guerillas are even really communist insurgents or not, why should they waste any effort trying to dig deeper into this issue? It would just be a bother because they already know how they must vote, and so they probably never realize that they were aiding in the suppression of the Guatemalan public, and not in the suppression of the “Evil Empire’s” backing of Soviet-style communism in the Americas.

Likewise, the media. Journalists, like politicians, feel that they and not their possible replacements are the best for their jobs, that they will fight the good fight in a way that they are uniquely qualified for, in a way that their potential successors are not. On top of this, or in place of this, let’s face it: unemployment sucks. In the media, votes count as much towards job security as they do in politics. Here, however, the votes are cast through ratings and circulation figures instead of elections. Using the Guatemalan example again, in the early 80’s the American public was largely uninterested in Central American political struggles, just writing it all off as those damn Cubans working with the Soviets to expand communism closer to the States, and being bored with anything deeper than that. A minute or two here, a few column inches there. The sort of publicity needed to truly educate the public about these freedom fighters, the time and attention needed to explain that these repressed Indians were not really communists, and definitely not backed by any communist nations, would have sent, let’s say, the evening news ratings into the trash. Maybe some journalists knew about the situation down there, and they felt strongly about the need to bring the details to the public’s attention, but often they will sacrifice that story for another one they also feel strongly about, one that the public is more interested in, one with a higher ratings potential. The instinct for self-survival wins again.

This is how I see these two institutions working. It’s not that they are working together, it’s that the very nature of our society forces them both to work in ways that, in this case, serve each other well. Real issues become fuzzy sound bites that end up largely dictating American policies. And it is definitely not Sen. Doe calling up Jack Blowdry, having the network nix the story so Congress can get away with something. Most journalists I’ve met would run screaming to the showers seeking purification at just hearing such a suggestion.

So, getting back to the Chomsky interview, it was very refreshing to hear him say pretty much these same things, confirming my suspicions that he wasn’t a conspiracy theorist, and in fact, hearing him bluntly deny it. My paranoid friends, it seems, weren’t only misunderstanding his message, but completely missing the most important part of it all, that we do live in a free society, and that these institutions don’t have the strength that they would have if such a conspiracy was taking place. (Totalitarianism, anyone?) It’s the capitalistic democracy we live in that creates the appearances of a conspiracy, but it’s also this system that gives the public’s opinions so much strength. It’s the public’s voice, expressed through votes, and sales, and ratings, and such that fuels this system. It’s the fear of a negative opinion that brings out the negative aspects of this system. The idea, as Chomsky put it, that while in a totalitarian system, backed by violence and fear tactics, it doesn’t matter what the public thinks, only what it does, and that the powerful don’t need the support of the public when they decide policy, but in a capitalistic democracy the thoughts of the public are very powerful and potentially dangerous to those in charge while being the hardest part of the system to control, and the support, or ignorance, of the public mandates the policies of the powerful. Therefore, the fear of a negative opinion, of being perceived as another Mondale instead of another Reagan, of selling Pintos instead of Cadillacs, creates a situation where the truth is something to be feared in case it is taken wrong by the consumers. Image become more important than reality, and the truth, or at least the details of the truth, are avoided when possible by anyone selling themselves to the public.  The truth is only investigated and reported by the media if it is exciting, importance or relevance becoming only a secondary consideration.

For example, when the Watergate scandal was being uncovered by the Washington Post, the idea of corruption on that level in the executive branch was big news, but after Nixon and 12 years of Regan/Bush, it’s going to take Clinton being caught at something a lot more clear-cut and scandalous than Whitewater to capture the public’s attention in the way it was by his predecessor’s misdeeds, 23 years ago. [I will interject here in order to point out that this essay was written before Monica Lewinski and the Impeachment] These days, however, O. J. Simpson managed to catch the public’s attention quite nicely in a way that Whitewater hasn’t been able to in post Watergate times.

So Chomsky’s most important message is that if we educate ourselves about how the system works, and why, if we can rekindle our interest in politics and government, we can make our voices even louder, and we will be able to more adroitly wield the power over the system that too many people believe we currently lack. Then we can make the interest of the public more important than just its opinion. It’s hard to inspire interest in the system, though, when 99% of what happens in D.C. does not effect our day-to-day lives, when the practices and attitudes of corporations do not affect us, as long as their products fulfill the use promised, and as long as the news media acts primarily as a form of entertainment, not education. How do the O. J. Simpson trials affect us at all? Even in times of war, the choices are made, or at least ratified, by our pre-elected representatives, and the only news that usually affects the public directly is delivered via mail in the form of selective service notices, notes from friends and loved ones at the front, and letters of consolation. So interest in these institutions is understandably low, but still, it is very necessary. Just because we are not directly affected by them most of the time doesn’t mean that we can’t be.

We need to be vigilant for the times when our lives could be very much changed by these institutions. It is important for the public to remain vigilant, and the power we have over the system needs to be maintained, or it could be lost, whittled away slowly with the public not even realizing that it has been lost, or that they ever even had it at all.

Related Posts

from tag Congress

• Democracy In Distress: Very Cool: Response from Rep. Earl Blumenauer on SOPA
• Democracy In Distress: Protest SOPA… Do it for the jet skis!
• Democracy In Distress: A dysfunctional system goes Super… And fails.

from tag History

• Democracy In Distress: Eisenhower warning about the Military-Industrial Complex (including the complete Farewell Address)
• Retrovirus Lab: The #1 Song on the Day I was Born: “Me & Mrs. Jones” by Billy Paul
• Retrovirus Lab: “Show Me the Place” by Leonard Cohen & A lost Leonard Cohen album?
• Retrovirus Lab: Listen to the first recording of human voices…
• Retrovirus Lab: Alternative meaninglessness…
• Democracy In Distress: Council of Elders express solidarity with Occupy Wall Street
• Democracy In Distress: Rick Santorum Fanasizes About Gay Soldiers Who 'Shower With People'
• Retrovirus Lab: An ancient artifact washed ashore, remnants of lost times...
• Retrovirus Lab: What I Am Listening To Now: "The Fly," "Zoo Station," & "Where Did It All Go Wrong?" by U2
• Retrovirus Lab: Punk isn't dead. It just goes to bed at a more reasonable hour.
• Retrovirus Lab: 100th Post! What I am Listening To Now: "Sub Pop Rock City" by Soundgarden
• Retrovirus Lab: 100th Post! What I am Listening To Now: "Sub Pop Rock City" by Soundgarden

(more..)

Well, that’s that… Stick a fork in the Iraq war

From 2011-12 (Dec)

Well, not that it was a “war.”  We haven’t fought a “war” since WWII. 

But yeah, it was a war.  It always seemed silly to me when I was a kid that a lot of people made a big deal about Vietnam not being a war.  Sure looked like a war to me.

And the Iraq conflict, apparently, for now, has entered a new phase where we have no boots on the ground except for those tied to the embassy in Baghdad.  Does that mean it is over?  God knows.  I suspect it is not over for the Iraqis but we can all hope for the best.

I wonder how this will go down in the win/loss/tie column?  The Ba’ath Regime definitely lost.  However, when you hear American military personnel talking about the logistical nightmare of pulling out the forces while still under fire from enemy combatants, it seems problematic to call it one in the win column for the United States.

Obama mail in my inbox this A.M…

Friend --

Early this morning, the last of our troops left Iraq.

As we honor and reflect on the sacrifices that millions of men and women made for this war, I wanted to make sure you heard the news.

Bringing this war to a responsible end was a cause that sparked many Americans to get involved in the political process for the first time. Today's outcome is a reminder that we all have a stake in our country's future, and a say in the direction we choose.

Thank you.

Barack

Nine years, nearly a trillion dollars later, with perhaps an additional trillion to go over the next 30 years when it comes to taking care of the veterans (figures from NPR), and, well, I just do not know….

It all just leaves me feeling pretty hollow at this point. 

Last U.S. Troops Make Quiet Exit Out Of Iraq : NPR:

Gen. Lloyd Austin, who commanded all U.S. troops in Iraq, says he was also worried about roadside attacks as the troops pulled out. He flew down to COB Adder for the last casing of the colors, when the army division's flag is put into its case and sent back home to the U.S.

This war is not like other wars that have ended with the signing of treaties or an exit from friendly territory, Austin says. One American base not far from COB Adder recently had 47 rocket attacks in a single day. Pulling tens of thousands of troops out in this kind of environment is a logistical marvel, he says.

"You're reposturing while people are still trying to cause you harm," Austin says. "That means that every element that moves has to be protected. It is the most difficult undertaking in our lifetime, in our military career."

Deadly Iraq war ends with exit of last U.S. troops - CNN.com:

Early Sunday, as the sun ascended to the winter sky, the very last American convoy made its way down the main highway that connects Iraq and Kuwait.

The military called it its final "tactical road march." A series of 110 heavily armored, hulking trucks and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles carrying about 500 soldiers streamed slowly but steadily out of the combat zone.

A few minutes before 8 a.m., the metal gate behind the last MRAP closed. With it came to an end a deadly and divisive war that lasted almost nine years, its enormous cost calculated in blood and billions.

Iraq, lost in the fog of war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English:

War draws combatants, their societies and politics, into its vortex and forever changes them. It does so not just once, but over and over again, until people forget who they were before the guns started firing.

War has a tendency to generate uncertainties and ambiguities of the most fundamental kind, about who is winning, about what has happened, and about just who we are.

At a moment of supreme - if relative - world power, the US invaded Iraq in March 2003 to prevent Saddam Hussein from rising from the ashes of the sanctions regime of the 1990s. The US sought also to supplant a hostile Iraq with a friendly American client. Iraq would be a base from which to exercise US influence and a replacement for the pliant Gulf monarchies, whose stability in the face of al-Qaeda was then far from assured.

For political consumption, and for gullible idealists, these goals were packaged as the threat of WMD and the spread of democracy.

A mere three years later, the most powerful armed forces in human history were facing defeat at the hands of a many-sided ragtag insurgency. Each pinprick attack in Iraq bled popular support from the war in the US, and made the dream of a stable, democratic Iraq seem fantastical. Meanwhile, around the world, US legitimacy lay in tatters: stained with the WMD that never were, the chains of Abu Ghraib and the blood of Fallujah.

Most of all, the US' reputation as the unquestioned superpower was destroyed. The war in Iraq brought an end to the American century.

The goals shifted. Now the problem was to find some way for the US to exit Iraq "with honour". This was the same problem that the US faced in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968.

Huntsman outlines foreign policy views - AP

Just because I've decided to web log everything I see on Huntsman...

Associated Press - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper:

Republican presidential contender Jon Huntsman says the United States cannot show its strength on the international stage when it is weak domestically.

The former diplomat and Utah governor on Monday told a New Hampshire audience that the United States needs to scale back its role in Afghanistan and to focus on rebuilding the U.S. economy. He is highlighting his foreign policy experience that, so far, hasn't been a deciding factor in the race.

The campaign has been dominated by domestic issues, especially jobs and the economy. Huntsman says a shifted U.S. foreign policy could help put Americans back to work.

...

In a speech planned for Monday in this early nominating state, he called for a scaled-back U.S. role in international engagements, such as Afghanistan, and called for spending cuts at the Pentagon.

"Simply put, we are risking American blood and treasure in parts of the world where our strategy needs to be rethought," Huntsman said in remarks prepared for delivery.

'via Blog this'

Obama v. W., Dems v. Republicans: Some post-bin Laden commentary from The Young Turks

Two good videos...

Obama and Osama

Saw this on Facebook today...

Osama bin Laden killed by U.S. Special Forces: A new conspiracy theory for the masses

Got him.  Heard the news last night while at a great show.  A good evening.  But, I am wondering, with them dumping his body into the sea, how many wackos will start saying that it is all a lie made up by the Obama administration?  They surely will not trust the DNA, will they?

Still, the more I think about it, this was probably a good solution.  You wouldn't want to leave the body.  And bringing it back to the U.S. could have had many grisly consesequences, plus you'd have millitant Muslims howling over fears that proper Islamic burial rites were possible not observed.  Best choice, I suppose, out of a lot of bad choices.  Our wackos are, on average, much less deadly than their wackos.

All in a front page: Newspapers cover the death of Osama bin Laden




What Ghost Will Emerge from Bin Laden's Watery Grave? (Posted by Ishaan Tharoor Monday, May 2, 2011 at 5:07 am)

From the article:
While the U.S. indulges in its fit of euphoria over the killing Osama Bin Laden, attention is rightly falling on how the death of the world's most wanted terrorist will play out in countries where he once enjoyed a modicum of sympathy, if not outright support. His alleged "burial" at sea seems a rather desperate, blatant attempt to ensure that the Bin Laden legend finds no real resting place, no potential martyr's shrine for wannabe jihadis to rally around and venerate.

That might have been an unnecessary precaution.

Live blogging the Texas Debate...

Originally posted elsewhere, Feb 21, 08


Okay, so I've got the CNN up on the computer. I've got the peppermint mocha ready for consumption.I am ready to fill up the screen with a hundred typos and dangling participles...

The word is the Hillary is going to go hard and ugly on Obama. The sense is that this could backfire, that she should leave this to McCain, who seems more than willing to blast away at him, and to primarily focus on being likable, on being competent, and on fleshing out her policy issues.

Obama really just needs to hang in there. He needs to look presidential and not look like an idiot. This is his to lose. This is not the time for him to try and focus on policy and to try to look like a hard core policy wonk, Hillary will crush him if he tries this.

Instead, he needs to look pretty, have a couple sharp comebacks ready to fire of if needed, and just look confident.

This one should be a beauty contest, and if it is, it will be boring. They both need boring here. If it is interesting, someone is in trouble. Probably both of them dragging each other down.

My two-cents.

5:07-
Hil. Talking. Talking. Sometimes when she talks, I feel like I am one if the kids in a Peanuts cartoon listening to a grown-up…

At least she did not talk about the three months she lived in Austin. Yesterday she said that, it sounded weak, desperate and awful. She did point out the work she was doing here at the time, which is much better.

5:11-
Obama throws out the real life stories, showing that he is in touch with the common folks problems. I hate this tactic. Bill Clinton was the master at this. Everyone since looks like they are trying to be Bill Clinton.

5:12-
Obama - "Washington is a place where good ideas go to die" because of the lobbyists. Take that McCain.

5:14-
Clinton will "stand ready to work with" with the new president of Cuba, if they refocus on democracy... Kind of dodged the sit down with the new president question. Well, on challenge, she said no, not right away.

Obama would meet "without preconditions," but there must be "preparation," including the release of political prisoners. So, is this really... Well, Hillary is "No, until..." Obama is "Yes, but..." They are really pretty much trying to tow a similar line but trying to sound a little different as they outline it.

Hillary agrees absolutely with negotiations with anyone, but she is pointing out that she differs with Obama on when presidential level meetings should happen, especially with nations we do not currently have diplomatic relations with.

She actually is clarifying Obama's words for him. Nice touch, Hil. And throwing in some nice bashing of Bush foreign policy too. I've got the "real-time reaction" graph running and she was up in the 80s for this, the highest so far of the evening.

5:23-
Let's talk about the "recession..."

Obama- the economy is in trouble. People know this, he says. Restore fairness and balance to the economy, stop the tax breaks for companies outsourcing American jobs, and killing the Bush tax cuts. Killing the Bush tax cuts got him up into the 80s for the first time tonight.

Notice how to get the positive reaction? Don't talk about yourself. Bash Bush.

He's talking about economic hope, staying in the 70s.

Clinton- Agrees alot with what Obama just said. Get the tax code adjusted to be fair for middle class. Bash Bush. 80s, briefly.

We need to enforce trade agreements. Enfoce safety standards. Foreclosures: crack down on abusive practices of lenders. Throwing statistics and real life stories around fast and furious. 90 day moratorium on foreclosures. Five year freeze on interest rates. 70s. Clean green jobs. Invest in infrastructure. rebuild america and put people to work. End Bush's war on science. Spike into 80s. We need to be the innovation Nation. That was a great School House Rock song, wasn't it?

Immigration Issues:
Clinton- Deportation is against American values and an admission of defeat of current policies. Hovering just below 70. Need to help Mexico create more jobs. Would introduce path to legalization in first 100 days.

Obama- Has worked on this in the past, but it was "used as a political football" and "died in the house." Agrees with Clinton, but adds that "we need to tone down the rhetoric." Calls for comprehensive reform, cracking down on abusive employers without discriminating against legal citizens. Pay back taxes, pay fine on the way to legalization. Need to fix legal immigration as well as work on illegal immigration, making it easier to immigrate legally. I like. Hovering around 70, just like Hillary. Need to work with Mexico, echoing Hil, calling for investment in Mexican economy, creating jobs there. Bashing Bush policies, calling Iraq the distraction, but he didn't break 70 here.

Finishing the border fence:

Clinton- "there is a smart way to protect our borders and there is a dumb way to protect our borders," examples of absurd actions of current administration. Wants to review the need for physical barrier and where they are appropriate, saying that the Bush administration has "gone off the deep end" on this issure. Near 80.

Technology and "smart fencing"? "Deploying more technology and personel" Clinton won't defend her past voting on this issue.

Obama- Says that he "almost entirely agrees" with Hillary. Echo. Echo. "people want fairness, want justice..." Deporting everyone is "ridiculous..." we need "order in the process" Getting people out of shadows. He is trying to say the same thing, but trying to use pretty words.

5:45 - What I am noticing here, it is not good when he follows Hillary for him. He does sound like he is saying me to with prettier words. It's also not great when she follows him, she crams 14 policy points in per breath and doesn't even break a sweat. He needs to stay out of these debates with this woman.

He does come across as the pretty talker, but it almost feels like he is struggling to make his pretty words fit the situation where Hillary has, like I said, 14 policy points to match each situation.

I need a smoke. BRB (How modern of me!)


5:50-
I came back in and the screen was dark? Did Hil jump up and chair Obama? No. Just a commercial. I guess I didn't miss much.

Its being pointed out that they are being much more polite together than when they are talking about each other seperately. They have been very polite. John King is trying to get them going.

Hillary is not taking the bait, and turning it against Bush, pointing out they her and Obama both have a lot in common. Exactly. She is trying to find differences, but honestly, very few are coming out tonight. She is talking about offering soultions, but if Obama is not offering solutions, but is essentially offering the same ideas as she is, does this mean that she is not offering solutions either?

She is saying it really is about experience and record and resume. Small spike around 65.

Obama - Pointing out some of his record, some his work in the Senate. He's "engaged not just in talk, but in action." Fundamental difference between them in how they want to bring change about. Pretty flat, no spikes. Pointing out that he has been endorsed by every major paper in Texas. He's going for the idea that his approach will be less confrontational and will be more likely to actually bring about change. Flat. Flat. Hillary is smirking. Can she see the line too? Small bump up to 70 at the end.

Campbell Brown is bringing up the Obama plagairism accusations.

Pointing out that the line was given to him. This is an example of "the silly season in politics." People want issues, not distractions, he is saying. Patting himself on the back for making good speeches, people like the joke.

I still say it was a silly mistake on his part that he didn't throw a few sylables into that speech attributing the line, no biggie. Either way. He is turning away from the question and throwing out a few policy points.

Clinton - "If your campaign is going to be about words then they should be your own words." A good line about Xeroxing... Plunging approval, down towards 30. Boos in the live audience. Turns towards health care, and attacking him on the gaps in his plan, not covering everyone. She is saying that he, essentially, does not have the imagination to go the distance with his plans to do what really needs to be done. She even threw in a bit where she claimed that even Bush could see what he couldn't see.

These are the lines we'll be seeing for a week. Hillary looked like a bitch and may have gone a bit too far on the attack. You know she has been dying to say it. She shouldn't have, at least not like this. She was pulling it off. She may have just lost it. Everything. Those 30 seconds may have just cost her the presidency.

Obama is talking- I agree. Health care stuff I was writing about. People do not have insurance because they do not want it, but because they cannot afford it. Trying to point out that he is more in tune with the people than she is. Patting her on the back for her old plan as first lady in 93. Saying she went about it in the wrong way, behind closed doors, and alienated her party, congress, and everyone. Really, that old debacle is one of her weak points, and I am surprised that it does not come up among the Democrats more often, though the Republicans act as though it is the only thing she has ever done. Probably why.

6:11-
Back from commercial. Back from my smoke...
Univision guy bringing up Hil's comments that Obama is not ready for CinC job, she drags it back to health care, upset that she did not have a chance to respond. She feels that there are substatitive differences in their plans. Swinging John Edwards words at him, saying that they have real differences. Pretty flat. Campbell Brown trying to move it on, Hil's breaking the rules, so is Obama in responding. He's pointing out that she is going to force people to buy insurance, comparing it to Mass. where people are fined, so they not only lack health insurance, but also are saddled with fines. An evil plan. I do not know if she has the same details in her plan. Hil won't let go, small bumps over 50 when Obama was talking, long droop down into the 40s when Hil started. Pointing out that she wants real Universal Health Care, up into the mid-50s.

That was a bad sign for her. When she started talking, the approval line dropped. When she said the magic words that all of us liberal types love, the words got the approval, not her.

Again, back to Obama not being ready to lead the country in the world, lacking the foreign policy experience.

Hillary is rattling off her experience and a couple of the current foreign policy issues (Cuba, Kosovo, Embassy riot in Serbia, etc...) Rapid fire of points showing her ease with and grasp of the issues, line hovering a little over 50. Drops a little when she is talking about being ready for the job.

Obama starts talking, it rises before he says anything real. Up near 70. Dropping back down a bit. Talking about overextension of US forces. Hitting Hillary on the old war vote. Afghanastan versus Iraq. I like him here, he is right. One is the war we need to win, the other is the war we never needed to fight. "Who is going to show the judgment to lead?" Awsome way for him to rephrase this debate, being the least experienced in the ring. Judgment versus experience.

John King is taking us on a little tour of Iraq- "Is Iraq today better off ... because of the surge?"

Interesting, it used to be if America was better off today than we were four years ago, not it is if Iraq is better off than it was four years ago.

Hillary- Formulate plan to start drawing down troops within 60 day, one to two brigades a month, probably. Approval up near 70.

Obama- Violence has been reduced in Iraq, and this is due to the efforts of our soldier and "we honor their service" Pointing out the surge is a fix to "a huge strategic blunder." Saying that we'll pound McCain on the war. Approval hovering up near 70. He is moving on into the economic cost of the war, and pointing out that Iran has benefitted from the war more than any other nation. Again, "the incredible burden placed on the American people," not doing right by our veterans , over 70 on the line.

Point to Obama. He is getting the better response on the war, because he is making it an issue about American, not about Iraq. Remember this.

Commercial break. Smoke break... Strange sounds coming out of the dark and into my earphones... Back in a moment.

More coffee, no smoke, Obama is talking about "Google for Government" to help track government budgets, etc. Arguing for more transperancy, more disclosure. Projects funded through earmarks are not inherantly bad, but that there needs to be transparancy.

I was distracted by email. Hil was saying something that got her spiked up to 70, staying pretty high. Tax cuts for the middle class. Ah. It's a good thing. Some Bush bashing too. Give people money, bash Bush, that approval line stays high.

I love it, she is ready to fight McCain on "the fisical irresponsibility of the Republican Party." I love it.

Talk about super delegates. Approval for unified party moving into the general. Hillary threw out some pretty words and got the approval spike, Obama is over talking this and hovering around 60, significantly lower than Hillary here.

Final question-
Describe when your judgment was tested under the pressure of a crisis?

Obama- My personal life was a trainwreck in my youth. Learning responsibility for his actions and how to work with others. Choosing to work for principles over cash in law. Giving the people "a government worthy of their decency and generosity."

Hil - Veiled nod towards her past public turmoils (spike in approval). Her challenges have been nothing compared to the challenges faced by so many regular American folk these days... Good. Nicely done. But it does kind of indicate that Obama remembers what it was like out there, she may not. But I like her humility here. This is one of the area she needed to work on tonight, humility, and this is a great moment for her here, and her approval line is way up towards 80. She is "absolutely honored to be here with Barak Obama... What ever happens we'll be fine." Big hand shake for Obama. Standing ovation.

She closed huge, if this is it. Thanks, thanks, standing clapping... I am smoking.

Stick a fork in it, it's done.

Pasted from <http://aflitt.livejournal.com/40220.html>