RSS Feed MenuReviews of the president’s speech vary from Republican tepid to Democratic anxious.
I disagree.
President Obama’s speech at West Point was not eloquent. Good. What’s needed now are not oratorical flights, but clear plans that give assurance of success. The president presented the details of both plans and purpose, mission and strategy.
In a blogpost last night, I criticized the president for setting a time limit. In the morning, I realized that I made the mistake against which I always warn others: Never listen to an Obama speech until after you have read it first. The man never quite says what you think you just heard. He did not say that the troops would come home after 18 months. He said
After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.
BEGIN to come home. They will COMPLETE their return home, presumably, either when the job is done – or the war is deemed futile. That decision will be made later.
But here’s a decision that must be made now and renewed continually:
Having urged the president to honor his commitment to the Afghan war, we Republicans must honor our commitment to support him as he fights it. Given the public unenthusiasm for the conflict, there will be political temptations to “go rogue” on the president, if not now, then in the summer of 2010. That will be our test, for us to pass as the president has passed his. I know many Republicans and conservatives will say: “Hey – the Democrats did not give President Bush support when he most needed it.” Correct. They didn’t. And the country suffered for it. The right way to react to that dereliction of duty is not by emulating it, but by repudiating it. “For it before I was against it” has deservedly become an epithet for shameful wavering. Let’s not inflict it upon ourselves.
Politics would not be politics if Republicans did not exact some price for their support. For sure Republican leaders are entitled to close consultation on war policy and the larger national security strategy – and to more attention and respect generally than they have received from this administration to date, and not only Senate leaders, but House leaders too.
At the same time, demanding an extortionate price for support is tantamount to withdrawing support. The war is the war, healthcare is healthcare. Republicans should not take the first policy hostage to gain points on the second. We have to ensure that the political vulnerabilities exposed by this intensified Afghan commitment are protected, not exploited. We’ve said: All in, or all out. The president has gone all in. So now must we – and for the duration.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:51 am
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:40 am
“We have no way to bound the harm that al-Qaeda can cause us.”
………We also have no way to bound the likely harm caused by a national Cholera outbreak, a 100 foot Atlantic tsunami, or an asteroid hitting the planet……..we face many threats and you have to produce a balanced strategy for dealing with them…….the chicken little “what if” so dear to your heart isn’t particularly constructive in that process
balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:13 am
Sinz: Secondly, the fact that al-Qaeda attacked America and got away with it has meant a real and lasting diminution of U.S. power and prestige and nfluence in the world. Allies and potential allies now see the U.S. as a nation that can’t win, even after it’s been attacked on its home soil. Why should they be allied with a loser?
Funny enough, had we simply stopped after the invasion and initial stabilization of Afghanistan … Al Qaeda’s bases destroyed, their Taliban hosts driven from power, a huge multinational coalition including even Iran, participating with the US to force Bin Laden to resort to hiding in caves and sending out the occassional videotape … we would have been viewed as a victor. The operations would have cost far less than 100 billion, we’d have sent a message, and any nation would be on alert that harboring terrorists put their government and military on risk of destruction.
What military leader in the world would allow his government to put his forces at such existential risks for the sake of some fundamentalist crazies?
The Taliban did so probably because they didn’t even know the extent of the terror that Bin Laden was planning (it’s a pretty big leap from embassies and the USS Cole to New York and the Pentagon). There’s no evidence they were in on the planning. Hell – there’s decent evidence that even many of the 9/11 hijackers didn’t know that they were actually involved in a suicide mission, rather than a traditional hijacking.
Nonetheless, after our invasion of Afghanistan, the message was sent clearly to everyone around the world … the US would not limit ourselves to little tactical strikes and surgical commando missions if our homeland was struck. And that message was victory.
Miring ourselves in nation building is where we sowed the seeds of the US being a loser. We were too stupid to cash in when we were way ahead, instead deciding that success in the easier game presaged success in the more difficult one.
MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:17 am
AutomaticBS’er chimes into the echo chamber: “balconesfault……you carry sweet reason to a fault……this guy is clearly off his rocker…..best to ignore him apart from maybe the odd poke with a pointed stick if you want some mild amusement from his antics”.
Not at all, Otto.
You’ve just gotten tired of being out-thought, out-debated, and out-smarted.
You and the highly dishonest balconesfault were allowed unchecked freedom here to Bash Bush and spread the Great Left Lies willy-nilly. Now that people are holding you accountable and you have no valid refute, you fall back to the ol’ Saul Alinsky rhetoric and playbook: “work to isolate your opponent”, “seek to discredit them by the use of belittling humor”, “find forced agreement with others to make the debate appear to support your position” and so forth.
In the end, informed opinions like those advanced by my side win the day. Trollish dishonesty like yours and balconesfault ruins your credibility.
You can still post. You can even try to use the echo chamber and make it look like the flow of conversation is going your way. Or, like balconesfault and his pals, you can even try multiple named postings to make the thread’s discussion appear to support your corrupted view.
In the end, it doesn’t of course. You know it. The rest of us know it. And you’re reduced to snide, little petty comments that expose you for the irritant and annoyance you’ve tried to be throughout.
At least balconsefault has admitted, like rbottoms, that he’s here to irritate and annoy –first and foremost. For both, it’s like sport. I think it bring drama to their otherwise pitful lives.
balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Or, like balconesfault and his pals, you can even try multiple named postings to make the thread’s discussion appear to support your corrupted view.
Really? You’re going to keep on this specious allegation?
Are you too gutless to demand that Frum ban multiple postings from the same ISP?
Or have you already done so, and been told that you’re delusional, and decided to continue the charade anyway?
I suspect the latter is true, but await your answer.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:09 pm
MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:17 am
” You’ve just gotten tired of being out-thought, out-debated, and out-smarted. ”
…..in your dreams you deranged little man…….you’re the blog joke ……everyone site has one and you’re it
Lavaux // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:17 pm
258 ottovbvs // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“……..perhaps that’s why I spent 40 years in business and ended up running a company with nearly 4000 people in it”
So the 4000 people in the company you ran is a world? Let me guess: You ran Disneyland! Logic is not your strong suit, is it?
Now to your second error.
“……it would take rather a lot of talent to repeat the series of mistakes made by the previous conservative Republican admin that resulted in the near collapse of the US financial system and the worst recession since the war……you might also want to take a look at who has presided over the largest increases in public debt since the war…..Reagan and Bush 2”
Who writes the laws, Congress or the president? Who wrote the CRA, and to which party did they belong? Who signed the CRA into law, and to which party did he belong? Who founded ACORN, and which party do they serve? Which president impeached Congress to jack up the regulations on Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and to which party did he belong? Which congressmen told this president to take a long walk off a short pier, and to which party did they belong?
Please tell me you don’t really believe that Democrats are blameless in causing the financial crisis. If you do, then you really are completely detached from reality and not worth talking to.
Take this with you when you go: Most Americans, including me, blame the federal government, both parties and the financial sector for the financial crisis. Pres. Bush retired almost a year ago. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the sorry state the economy is in, and heads must roll. Democrat heads are on the chopping block because they’re in charge and they’ve done little to create jobs while unemployment climbed over 10%. Let the axes swing, baby!
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:45 pm
281 Lavaux // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:17 pm
258 ottovbvs // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“So the 4000 people in the company you ran is a world? Let me guess: You ran Disneyland! Logic is not your strong suit, is it?’
…..the superficially dumb remark seems to be your speciality(Sweden has more social problems than the US ……or Sweden cooks the books when the US has been running two wars off the books for seven years!) …….the 4000 folks I’m talking about had to exist in the real world not Disneyworld
“Who writes the laws,”
……The Republicans apart from a brief interlude in the senate had control of both houses of congress from 1994 to 2006 when most of the relevant legislation was written and from 2001 to 2008 they had control of the white house…..thus for at least six years when the crash was incubated and hatched they were in complete control of the executive and legislative machinery of the country…….trying to spread the blame around aint going to play in Peoria however you squirm around buddy…..any more than your predictions of a double dip recession
SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Sinz wrote: “What liberals like you fail to understand is that a central tenet of human civilization is that of all the ways to die, premeditated murder is the most morally heinous.”
Really? And the you base this on the fact that you and I disagree on whether the country can afford to write a blank check (both in lives and money) in order to stabilize a backwater like Afghanistan?
Tell me, what does it feel like to have a burst of stupid like that?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Sinz also wrote: “We have no way to bound the harm that al-Qaeda can cause us.”
We have no way to bound the harm from any of the threats we face. So how do we pay any price to prevent all of these unbounded harms?
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:04 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“Tell me, what does it feel like to have a burst of stupid like that?”
…….How would he know?
sinz54 // Dec 7, 2009 at 9:56 am
balconesfault: Miring ourselves in nation building is where we sowed the seeds of the US being a loser.
On that point, you and I are in total agreement.
Bush’s theory was that exporting “democracy” (as measured by the number of elections, no matter how corrupt and ineffectual) at the point of a gun is going to deter further terrorism. I think we can now say that Bush’s theory has been refuted by actual evidence.
Though I doubt that the Muslim world would have considered our action in Afghanistan to be a real “victory” as long as the chief plotters of 9-11, including Osama bin Laden, escaped. As I said, what they saw is that you can plot an attack that devastates whole square blocks of an American city and kills thousands of Americans–and then escape to plot more attacks another day. Still, they would have been impressed with the speed and effectiveness of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan, as you said.
I can assure you that if some anti-Muslim terrorists blew up Mecca, the Muslims would pursue those terrorists to the ends of the earth, destroying anyone and anything that got in their way until those terrorists were destroyed.