See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Anti-War Conservatives for Obama
Source:
The Maverick Conservative
URL Source: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/whalen/ ... ar-conservatives-for-obam.html
Published: Apr 4, 2008
Author: Richard Whalen
Post Date: 2008-04-06 12:05:07 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 730
Comments: 52
Anti-war conservatives are rallying around ultra-liberal Barack Obama. He promises to “get out of Iraq as carefully as we went in carelessly,” and that’s enough for Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University. Bacevich, writing in The American Conservative, says: “Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives—and the state of the conservative movement—they could do worse. “Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the following: “Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives—especially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire—have prospered. But conservatism as such has not.” Bacevich, a Vietnam vet and a gold star father, whose beloved son and namesake was killed in Iraq is our generation’s Charles Beard. The Obama movement swells daily with traditional political figures of the first rank. Kevin Phillips, an old rightist, says he expects to vote for Obama. Another likely Obama supporter may be retired General Bill Odom, the leading anti-war strategist. In 2005, General Odom, former head of the National Security Agency under Reagan, called the Iraq War “the greatest single strategic mistake in our nation’s history.” A younger Reagan-era colleague, Doug Bandow and many of The American Conservative’s writers and editors are also leaning toward Obama. Are anti-war conservatives “disloyal” to the good old GOP? I think the endless War Party deserted them long ago. The conservative cause was the life’s work of the late Bill Buckley. And he, too, at the end, concluded that Iraq would destroy it all. Anti-war conservatives feel John McCain is the eternal warrior incarnate. Bacevich writes: “Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush’s misadventures is irrevocable. McCain is determined to remain in Iraq as long as it takes. He is the candidate of the War Party. The election of John McCain would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of liberation.” At the opposite moral pole of prophecy stands Osama bin Laden. He is confirmed in his belief that Iraq will become the open grave of America’s tottering financial economy. Iraq is the three trillion dollar war and we are still counting and borrowing from our nation’s rivals and enemies. Bacevich concludes: “But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation’s heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them. “So why consider Obama?” Bacevich asks. “For one reason only: because the liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative renewal.” I believe that for the U.S., the Iraq war has no attainable political or strategic objective and our combat role should cease within a year of the 2008 election.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-6) not displayed.
.
.
.
#7. To: mirage (#6)
Well no, he has been very explicit since 2002. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. He voted monies for our troops that were in Iraq, which I find difficult to criticize. Judgment You Can Trust As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq. * In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail; Bringing Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
I support Obama as the best choice to end this illegal and immoral war, and he has the best record for opposing it. If I waited for the system to give me the choice I personally want as POTUS, I would never vote again. I like Obama and worked at Saturday Market at the booth we had there promoting him for most of the day yesterday. I am a skilled grass roots worker, and am going to work for him, the next nominee for president from the Democratic Party.
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. A position statement titled "Bring them home" with the phrase "He will keep some troops in Iraq and elsewhere" right at the end. Bit of a contradiction. Throw in more money for NATO, the US military, and Israel and it's obvious why some people might think his anti-war stance is mere lip service. Most of him time table withdrawl plans contain enough "if, or, and buts" that if an Iraqi so much farts cross-ways the entire drawdown is suspended until the "temporary" crisis has passed. At which point a new crisis will be found to justify not leaving. Obama also thinks that Iran is the greatest threat to world peace and will punish them accordingly if they don't stop looking out for their own best interests. I'm sure Iranians will be much happier knowing that he thought long and hard before ordering their economy strangled on the world stage.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
The attack on Iran that Bush, Cheney, McCain, Hillary, and the neocons want will kill the economy real fast.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Wait until oil shipments through the Persian Gulf are cut off, and see what that does to the economy.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=77460 A timeline of Obama wavering Here is a convenient timeline of his changing positions (in his own words): October 2, 2002, Chicago Wearing a war is not an option pin, he thrilled the anti-war rally by disparaging the Iraq war as a "dumb war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." The Audacity of Hope When America was obtaining clear victories on the ground in Iraq, Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, "I began to suspect that I might have been wrong [about the war]" March 28, 2003, on CNN, Obama claimed that he, "Absolutely want to make sure that the troops have sufficient support to be able to win." He was invested in winning at that point. Democratic National Convention July 2004 His only mention of the war was, "There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it." The day after his speech, Senator Obama told reporters that the United States had an "absolute obligation " to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. He stated that failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster and would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective". (This history is beginning to get more attention -- see below). Same month He was no longer certain how he would have voted. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." (The New York Times on July 26.) 2004 election To keep in line with his party's candidates Kerry and Edwards, who had voted for the Iraq War, he told The New York Times, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought [the war] was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," After the election Obama regained his certainty on the Charlie Rose Show. When Rose asked him if he would have voted against the Iraq War resolution had he been in Congress, Obama's answer was a simple, "Yes." July 2004 Obama told the Chicago Tribune "[t] here's not that much difference between my position [on the war] and George Bush's position at this stage." As for the troop withdrawal, November 2005 speech He called for a gradual withdrawal of forces. "Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw'" December 2005 He told the Chicago Tribune, "It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear, succinct message: 'Let's bring our troops home...But whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is." January 2007 (just before announcing his run for the Presidency), for example, he outlined a plan to begin "redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007" and "remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008." Today, he vows to "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." The AP reported it this way in July 2007: "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." . Obama and obligations The following is a statement startling in its implications, and gives us insight into Barack Obama's reliability. In 2004, according to the Boston Globe, he stated: ...that the United States had an "absolute obligation " to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. He stated that failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster and would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective. That was a commitment to the Iraqi people -- an "absolute" promise that we would hold paramount our obligation to provide them security, to protect them from the ravages that would flow from a failed state. Yet a mere three years later he was ready to throw them to the wolves, genocide be damned. This willingness of Senator Obama to turn his back on something he proclaimed an "absolute obligation" should be particular concern to the millions of supporters of Israel in America. When campaigning, Senator Obama has made similar promises regarding the safety and security of Israel? How long will those promises last? Until January, 2009?
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Who is to say that the local dictators in the area won't do that anyhow? One of the problems in trying to work things out are the unknowns. Assume Iran gets hacked off and shuts down the Straits of Hormuz. Assume Iraq ends up in the hands of a dictator and does similarly. Assume Saudi Arabia ends up in a coup (which isn't that hard to imagine) and does similarly. What then? Same situation, different method of getting there. So...who is going to open it up again? The USA? Russia? Israel? Therein lies one of the problems we have in trying to analyze this mess.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
In Oregon, electing the Democrat is a given unless a Ronald Reagan pops up. Personally, I don't trust him. I get a very shaky feeling about him, mostly from reading his books and seeing how confused about his own identity he is. In a decade or so, once he has a chance to shake things out, sure, I'll consider him. Until then, I'm assigning him to the "underqualified" stack. You support who you think is best; I'll do similarly, and at this point, it is "none of the frontrunners".
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." John Kennedy, Friday, January 20, 1961 I agree with Kennedy's sentiments in his inaugural address. And if he were alive today he would be opposed to the fascist poison that the neocons are. We need to fight them and purge them from the body of politics in this country and elsewhere, and this should be done with no quarter given or compromise granted that in anyway gives aid and comfort to neocon agendas and goals.
Actually, the last election Bush had a chance to take Oregon, it was one of the short list of states that could go either way last election. Which is why I in my own check out the political landscape myself way of doing things discovered the serious fraud and flaws of the Nader attempt to get on the ballot being paid for by Republican monies to cause Kerry to either lose Oregon, or have to spend extra time and money securing it from going Republican and acted on it. I found the contract company doing it hired mostly junkies and homeless to petition, and used street ethics to make a fraudulent product. I was very much indeed the person who kept Nader off the ballot the last time around here in Oregon. And though Kerry was a horrible choice for the Democratic nomination, I still know he would of at least been a competent POTUS, something Bush could never do in a million years. It is to bad he lost. I say this knowing I would of been one of many setting his feet on fire pressuring him to end this foolish war. And I feel good about what I accomplished the last election here in my state. I will be here this time around doing much the same sort of ferreting around the Oregon political landscape this year too.
flipflip flipflop flipflop..typical politician. good post, peppa.
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than vote for any of the three vermin in contention.
Rebates for Ron - Ron Paul For Dummies - New R3volution
Ain't it so.
Let's throw a pin sticking party.
Sounds kinky to me.
Rebates for Ron - Ron Paul For Dummies - New R3volution
Well you know me...
Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in this situation over and over again as the clock runs out on the Republic?
FOFLOL!
I agree. I'm an anti-war conservative and I won't vote for Obama. Because I checked his web site where he says that he wants to leave 'enough' troops in Iraq to keep it and to stage attacks on neighboring countries from Iraq. thanks for telling me of his tax ambitions. We've seen so many lies among our top politicians. we've grown accustomed to it.
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
You're not really going to make us look at that for the next 7 months, are you?
Rebates for Ron - Ron Paul For Dummies - New R3volution
Let's replace Neocons with Neocommies and pretend like there's an ultimate difference for our nation. Sheer BullShit.
I'm going to start BOZOing the 4umCommies so that my head does not explode.
Sounds kinky to me. We should be throwing a lip-sticking party instead.
As you wish my dear.
It just makes so much more sense.
I'm looking for someone who wants to make $30 an hour planting tulips.
Rebates for Ron - Ron Paul For Dummies - New R3volution
Thanks. Elites 'play war' without consequence.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
I'm in. I'll even throw in some side benefits.
Sheer BullShit. Kissinger, Zbig = bookends. They prop up the Globalists on 'both' sides.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Sheer BullShit. Kissinger, Zbig = bookends. They prop up the Globalists on 'both' sides. Exactly. And we in the middle just get squeezed tighter and tighter.
That sells me. I have no reason not to trust a politician.
Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
Tell me you're fucking locked up somewhere with other slobbering psychos, puleeeze !!! Hahahahaha !
Guns don't kill people ... the Governments we finance thru taxes do
On this we agree completely ... I just don't think Obama is the gun. He's one of them !
Guns don't kill people ... the Governments we finance thru taxes do
Kerry's major mistake was thinking that "anyone but Bush" was a winning strategy. In doing that, he failed to differentiate himself from Bush and left the electorate with this choice: Bush or Bush Lite? Its no wonder that people preferred the original over the "I'll do everything he will do but I have better hair" carbon-copy. With Hillary and Obama, there isn't a gnat's eyebrow's worth of difference between them in terms of policy. Even Obama opines that is the case in the debates. I think Mencken was correct. America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Until everything inbetween, is eliminated.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Be sure that everyone has something with which to 'squeeze' back - many, many times.
sigh...
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Peppa, you have a propensity for the devastatingly obvious yet unspoken. Well done. I would like to state to our 4umResident Marxist-Communist that I admire that the poster has the courage of his-her convictions, unlike these other sleepers.
Well, I read the term 'bookends' elsewhere, and it helped click the pieces into place for me. When you step back, you can see it. The 'game' is to pretend that the left bookend has a different purpose that the right bookend...
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
I sense that they see it. They see it alright.
No, I always change that eventually. I was thinking of using ir next to support a stop to the legal lynching of Mumia Abu Jamal, but we'll see.
Comments (48 - 52) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
#8. To: mirage (#6)
Obama for president 2008
#9. To: robin (#7)
Bringing Our Troops Home
#10. To: mirage (#1)
Way to go, right-wingers. Kill the economy and destroy jobs.
#11. To: mirage (#3)
No offense intended, but 100 years of warfare would at least keep Americans employed and fed while 60% marginal *Federal* tax rates (not counting state, county, and other) would bring the unemployment rate to something stratospheric.
#12. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#9)
Most of him time table withdrawl plans contain enough "if, or, and buts" that if an Iraqi so much farts cross-ways the entire drawdown is suspended until the "temporary" crisis has passed. At which point a new crisis will be found to justify not leaving.
#13. To: aristeides (#11)
Wait until oil shipments through the Persian Gulf are cut off, and see what that does to the economy.
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
I am a skilled grass roots worker, and am going to work for him, the next nominee for president from the Democratic Party.
#15. To: aristeides (#10)
"The attack on Iran that Bush, Cheney, McCain, Hillary, and the neocons want will kill the economy real fast."
"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. 24 And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
Obama for president 2008
#16. To: mirage (#14)
"In Oregon, electing the Democrat is a given unless a Ronald Reagan pops up."
Obama for president 2008
#17. To: Peppa, Jethro Tull (#12)
#18. To: christine (#17)
(Edited)
#19. To: Critter. resistors here (#18)
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than vote for any of the three vermin in contention.
#20. To: lodwick, Critter (#19)
Vote Republicrat or Democin, it doesn't matter, you still get McHillobama
#21. To: farmfriend, lodwick (#20)
Let's throw a pin sticking party.
#22. To: Critter, lodwick (#21)
Sounds kinky to me.
Vote Republicrat or Democin, it doesn't matter, you still get McHillobama
#23. To: robin (#0)
#24. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
Obama for president 2008
#25. To: mirage (#1)
Not this one
#26. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
Obama for president 2008
#27. To: Peppa (#12)
#28. To: Critter (#26)
#29. To: Critter. FF. all (#21)
Let's throw a pin sticking party.
#30. To: lodwick, Critter (#29)
Vote Republicrat or Democin, it doesn't matter, you still get McHillobama
#31. To: farmfriend (#30)
#32. To: farmfriend (#30)
#33. To: christine (#17)
flipflip flipflop flipflop..typical politician. good post, peppa.
#34. To: Critter (#32)
I'm looking for someone who wants to make $30 an hour planting tulips.
Vote Republicrat or Democin, it doesn't matter, you still get McHillobama
#35. To: _______ (#27)
Let's replace Neocons with Neocommies and pretend like there's an ultimate difference for our nation.
#36. To: Peppa. resistors here (#35)
Let's replace Neocons with Neocommies and pretend like there's an ultimate difference for our nation.
#37. To: all (#0)
“So why consider Obama?” Bacevich asks. “For one reason only: because the liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq.
#38. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
And though Kerry was a horrible choice for the Democratic nomination, I still know he would of at least been a competent POTUS,
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#15)
We need to fight them and purge them from the body of politics in this country and elsewhere, and this should be done with no quarter given or compromise granted that in anyway gives aid and comfort to neocon agendas and goals.
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
And though Kerry was a horrible choice for the Democratic nomination, I still know he would of at least been a competent POTUS, something Bush could never do in a million years. It is to bad he lost.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
#41. To: lodwick (#36)
And we in the middle just get squeezed tighter and tighter.
#42. To: Peppa (#41)
#43. To: lodwick (#42)
Be sure that everyone has something with which to 'squeeze' back - many, many times.
#44. To: Peppa, DrStrange (#35)
Kissinger, Zbig = bookends. They prop up the Globalists on 'both' sides.
#45. To: _______ (#44)
Kissinger, Zbig = bookends. They prop up the Globalists on 'both' sides. Peppa, you have a propensity for the devastatingly obvious yet unspoken.
#46. To: Peppa (#45)
When you step back, you can see it.
#47. To: Critter (#26)
Obama for president 2008
.
.
.