[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger

Skateboarding Dog


(s)Elections
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: 708
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

#1. To: robin (#0)

Anti-war conservatives are rallying around ultra-liberal Barack Obama.

Not this one. Especially not after reading through Obama's tax policy on Small Business where entrepreneurs will be paying a marginal tax rate of 60%.

Way to go, right-wingers. Kill the economy and destroy jobs. Hope you like paying for more welfare.

mirage  posted on  2008-04-06   13:35:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: mirage (#1)

You would rather pay for McCain's 100 years of warfare?

robin  posted on  2008-04-06   13:37:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: robin (#2)

You would rather pay for McCain's 100 years of warfare?

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.

Do we want to see Obamavilles popping up?

Looking at things from a *purely financial* side, we buy weapons from ourselves and our military guys spend the money here in the US. We also employ our own people.

Besides, so long as an opposition Congress is in place, McCain cannot pull off 100 years of warfare. He can only have two terms after all. That's eight years. The man is 72 years old. Unless someone has invented the Immortality Pill, there won't be 100 years of war.

Even Obama has said he'll keep 60k+ troops in Iraq indefinitely.

Are people so sure they understand what the Obama has up his sleeve? Like rolling over Pakistan if they don't hand over Bin Laden?

Let's face facts. NONE of the front-runners are acceptable.

mirage  posted on  2008-04-06   13:49:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: mirage (#3)

Are people so sure they understand what the Obama has up his sleeve?

No. But Hillary and especially McCain have made it very clear that they are not leaving Iraq.

robin  posted on  2008-04-06   13:55:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: robin (#5)

But Hillary and especially McCain have made it very clear that they are not leaving Iraq.

Obama is not likely to leave Iraq either.

Note that he uses very nuanced language when talking about it. He talks about drawdowns. He talks about withdrawing troops.

He never says flat-out that he wishes to evacuate Iraq fully.

Watch what Obama says VERY carefully. He is a Harvard-trained lawyer, after all.

mirage  posted on  2008-04-06   14:13:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

From Obama website:

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;
* 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.

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.

robin  posted on  2008-04-06   14:20:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: robin (#7)

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.

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.

Pissed Off Janitor  posted on  2008-04-06   14:31:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 9.

#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.

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?

Peppa  posted on  2008-04-06 14:45:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]