RSS Feed MenuDavid Corn asks a good question: Why is the president speaking tonight?
[P]olitically there’s little or no payoff for an Iraq war address. Obama can’t brag, “Mission accomplished.” (In fact, on Monday, press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would not be using those words.) He can’t declare victory. He can only declare a murky end to a murky war.
Just guessing, but here’s why:
The president’s biggest political problem is the disillusionment of his liberal voters. Contra Fox News, they do not see a liberal president doing liberal things. They see a consensus president rescuing Wall Street. The job situation remains dismal, the administration is deporting illegal immigrants, and where are the gays in the military?
What Obama needs to do between now and November is pound home the message: I have kept faith with my voters on their big concerns, healthcare and the Iraq war. Now those voters must keep faith with me.
Ronald Reagan could count on a cadre of conservatives to defend his actions against any and all critics. A friend once teased Bill Rusher, then publisher of National Review: “Whenever Reagan does something awful, you defend it on one of two grounds: either that Reagan had no choice, or that the full wisdom of his action will be disclosed to lesser mortals in God’s good time.” According to legend, Rusher answered, “May I point out that the two positions are not necessarily incompatible?”
Nobody seems willing to do for Obama what Rusher did for Reagan. So Obama must do the job himself. Tonight’s speech is part of that job. Message: I ended George Bush’s war. Vote Democratic.
The trouble is: This message seems unlikely to work in the way Democrats need. Obama’s speech is much more likely to alienate marginal voters than to galvanize alienated liberals, and for this reason:
Obama’s liberal voters will not abide any whiff of triumphalism in the president’s speech. For them, Iraq was at best a disaster, at worst a colonialist war crime. (Elsewhere on the Politics Daily site, David Corn’s colleague Jill Lawrence specifies what she’d like to hear the president say: “Never again.”)
But most Americans want and expect triumphs. “Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser.” So said George Patton on the eve of D-Day, and he was right. And if President Obama declines to declare himself a winner, guess what alternative remains? Exactly.
sinz54 // Sep 1, 2010 at 9:07 am
anniemargaret: Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial state. And he was right.
Oh, brother.
That ship sailed long ago (pun intended), though liberals refuse to accept it.
When Eisenhower spoke, military spending was 14% of U.S. GDP, quite a high figure for a peacetime environment.
Today it’s no more than 4% of GDP –dwarfed by how much we spend on Medicare. And that’s despite the fact that we’ve been fighting two major wars. (In World War II, the U.S. spend 40% of its GDP on national defense.)
And 4% is less than the average of military spending over the last 40 years. Take a look at this chart.
http://i54.tinypic.com/dbnzhu.jpg
4% of a country’s GDP is hardly the burden you liberals make it out to be.
If Eisenhower were alive today, he would be speaking on how the “medical-industrial complex” threatens to bankrupt the country. Because while defense spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen, medical spending as a percentage of GDP has risen sharply as the population ages and lives longer. It’s estimated that in 20 or 25 years, we’ll be spending more than 20% of our GDP on health care–five times more than we do on military spending.
The reasons why liberals hate military spending are just ideological and emotional. They think the military is icky.
anniemargret // Sep 1, 2010 at 9:19 am
sinz: Of course we don’t hate military spending. But if you guys are going to talk about budget cuts, then why exclude the military spending? Is it sacrosanct? Why are we building F-22’s when we really don’t need them? We are sending our troops into the hills and mtns of Afghanistan. Why do we need thousands of military bases all over the known world?
Are you really saying that there should be no military cuts at all? Why not take some of the unnecessary budgeting for inconsequential military spending and put it into the VA? Our troops are coming back and not getting the attention they need, both physically and mentally. There is waste in the military too.
But all you guys talk about are eliminating social safety net programs for the Americans that need them the most.
As for ‘icky’ – please…stop that silliness. So you met a few far leftists who don’t like the military. I don’t hate the military – my family and extended family were all in the military and proud of their service.
Most liberals today are against insane unnecessary wars that hype up terrorism and weaken our military resources, not to mention the tremendous loss of life. It would be wiser in the future if we thought out what we’re doing instead of going off half-cocked in a rage of militarism or impossible goals.
Wars that are unnecessary to our national security or defense. Iraq was a grab bag and Bush took his eye of OBL in Afghanistan and diverted funds to Iraq. There is plenty to criticize there.
Big difference between ‘icky’ and that.
WillyP // Sep 1, 2010 at 11:15 am
“Why are we building F-22’s when we really don’t need them?”
We are no longer building F-22’s. Why do you keep bringing this up? The program has been dead for months.
http://www.defensereview.com/f-22-raptor-program-cancellation-defensereview-weighs-in/
JeninCT // Sep 1, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Annie wrote:
“Here’s some of his twisted (and ugly) comments:…”
Nice try, Annie. What did you do, google ‘offensive Glenn Beck comments’? Seriously. I heard him say most of those comments and they were either sarcastic or taken out of context. And he aplogized for the one regarding Obama’s kids.
If you’re going to criticize and insult Beck over and over again, ad nauseum, at least understand that he is on the air for 4 hours a day, five days a week, and often uses humor and sarcasm to make his points so he is going to have loads of quotes available for those who wish to paint him as a kook. It doesn’t make him a kook.
WillyP // Sep 1, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Jen,
No, but the fact that he’s gone from an alcoholic, to a Mormon, to a Conservative, to a far-out Libertarian, to a conspiracy theorist, to a religious leader of sorts… does make him a kook.
…and I’m a dedicated, on-the-streets, Tea Party and Palin supporting conservative.
JeninCT // Sep 1, 2010 at 12:29 pm
WillyP wrote:
“No, but the fact that he’s gone from an alcoholic, to a Mormon, to a Conservative, to a far-out Libertarian, to a conspiracy theorist, to a religious leader of sorts… does make him a kook.”
I don’t think so, and neither do millions of others. I think he loves this country and he’s following his gut as to what topics to cover and which direction to take. I think he’s a good guy.
WillyP // Sep 1, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Don’t get me wrong – I support the guy (mostly) and his cause (wholeheartedly).
But I just question his, err, pedigree? Compared to, let’s say, Mark Levin – with decades of experience, legal knowledge, political activism, leadership ability, Reagan-esque vision – Beck’s just kind of embarrassing.
Anyhow, this is not the time to quibble. We need to throw the bums out and anyone who supports this goal should be considered an ally.
JeninCT // Sep 1, 2010 at 1:13 pm
willyp wrote:
“But I just question his, err, pedigree? Compared to, let’s say, Mark Levin – with decades of experience, legal knowledge, political activism, leadership ability, Reagan-esque vision – he’s just kind of embarrassing.”
I think his lack of pedigree is part of his appeal. He’s a regular guy. He’s a recovering alcoholic who discovered his passion for his country after 9/11 and had an awakening. He’s like alot of his fans. We (I) can relate to him and find him entertaining as well as educational. Love him or hate him, he’s done alot to energize the conservative base and educate the masses about what is really going on with the progressives.
sinz54 // Sep 1, 2010 at 1:41 pm
anniemargaret: Why do we need thousands of military bases all over the known world? Are you really saying that there should be no military cuts at all?
I’m not saying that.
I said that we should withdraw all remaining troops from Europe. If Europe can’t deal with Serbian ethnic cleansing on its own doorstep, so much the worse for them. We bailed them out–again–with our blood and treasure on a situation that didn’t directly threaten U.S. security.
Our main vital interests are in the Middle East and in the Pacific. We need forces that can deal with any eventuality in either theater. That’s all.
For all his eloquence, Obama seems unwilling to give us his foreign policy vision. Just what does he think America’s vital interests are? Defending those interests is the job of our military. No more than that.
Finally, recall that SecDef Gates canceled the F-22 fighter.
Carney // Sep 1, 2010 at 1:54 pm
anniemargaret asked, “Why are we building F-22’s when we really don’t need them?”
We aren’t building F-22’s any more, and we do really need them.
The aging F-15 is no longer a dominatingly superior fighter over what Russia and China are building (the Su-27 and its descendants), and what other powers such as France may well heedlessly export.
Rockerbabe // Sep 1, 2010 at 2:24 pm
“The president’s biggest political problem is the disillusionment of his liberal supporters”. No we are not his biggest problem. We aren’t the problem, period The right winger nutjobs in this country are the real problem. They foament hate, squabble without end; lie about everything and anything, are promoting gross selfishness and are determined to undermind the social fabric that makes the USA different from the third world countries.
What Obama needs to do between now and November is pound home the message: I have kept faith with my voters on their big concerns, healthcare and the Iraq war. Now those voters must keep faith with me. That I agree with that.
Ronald Reagan could count on a cadre of conservatives to defend his actions against any and all critics. Maybe that is why we had such a large deficit, so many disillusioned working people, myself included. The truth, it seems, is only applicable for the left, not the right? I can’t stand Reagin and I am happy he has gone to whatever reward awaits him and his “lovely” wife. That type of deception is not excusable.
Vote Democratic. People should vote Democratic if they want a more just society; a more caring society, less war, respect for women in general and the ability to see the difference between winning at all cost and telling the truth. Maybe we could even get a balanced budget? President Clinton left a projected operating surplus of $250 billion; maybe when the wars end, President Obama can do the same! Cost cutting is what we Dems know how to do, since so many of us actually live on a budget that is much less than the 6 figure salary the GOP’er are used to.
“But most Americans want and expect triumphs. ” Well that maybe true in some circles, but since the great vast majority of Americans have spent the last ten years squabbling, texting and going to the mall, a great triumph in war seems well, irrelevant to most. Did anyone in YOUR family go to either of the wars started by Dubya? None in his family went and I’ll bet none of you did either. One of my brothers went, 3 times to Iraqi. I’m just happy the combat mission is over and he will not have to go again. I don’t want to loose him due to a set of lies that got us deliberately into two unnecessary and immoral wars.
I think President Obama’s speech Tuesday night was somber, respectful and appreciative of those who actually made a great sacrifice rather than go to the mall. Considering that so many of us, including then Senator Obama were dead set against both wars, he was quite restrained in his comments. He could have taken imense glee in this success, but chose to be respectful of all involved. All, in all, he did a respectful job of informing Americans about the status of the Iraqi war. Maybe, at some point in the near future, we will actually see some reductions in the budget for the military and consequently the overall deficit.
President Obama is NEVER going to catch a break from you right wingers and so why should he even try to please the unpleaseable and the unreasonable. He rose to the occasion and for that, I am quite pleased. That speech should be been well received, but from what I heard on the radio this am going to work, all you nutjubs just can’t stand how adult and mature he was in his words and deeds, when he could have done otherwise. Now to get us out of Afghanistan asap.
WillyP // Sep 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm
rockerbabe,
“Vote Democratic. People should vote Democratic if they want a more just society; a more caring society, less war, respect for women in general and the ability to see the difference between winning at all cost and telling the truth.”
Look around you, just for a minute. Since 2007 Democrats have had control of Congress. For almost 2 years they have had the presidency. That makes 4 years of legislative control and 2 years of nearly unchecked control.
And the country, in case you haven’t figured it out (where do you live? what do you read/watch? what do you do?) is a disaster – broke, angry, divided, on the verge of losing 2 wars, and unemployed. Yet incredible hacks like YOU continue to blame Republicans. Bush is gone…
I’ve got some news for ya – ain’t nobody buying it anymore.
“He could have taken imense glee in this success”
Why? He was against the war, and more, against the successful surge!
sinz54 // Sep 1, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Rockerbabe: I don’t want to loose him due to a set of lies that got us deliberately into two unnecessary and immoral wars.
Two, huh?
What did YOU want the U.S. to do after al-Qaeda terrorists massacred 3,000 Americans in cold blood on 11 September 2001?
Did you see any peaceful means by which we could get al-Qaeda to surrender without a fight?
rockerbabe: Considering that so many of us, including then Senator Obama were dead set against both wars
How many?
Senator Obama never said he was against military action in Afghanistan. Never.
And since you used the usual left-wing phrase “immoral and unnecessary wars,” tell me something: Which wars in U.S. history did you consider to be moral and necessary?
I mean seriously: Are you against all U.S. military actions on principle, or would you like to give us your criteria for judging wars as moral or immoral, necessary or unnecessary?
Rockerbabe // Sep 1, 2010 at 6:08 pm
WillyP and sinz54:
You didn’t really read my post did you? You didn’t even bother to think about what was said.
I took Dubya eight years to leave the mess we now have and you think President Obama can fix all of this in under two years? If he could, there would be no need for the notion of God or even the need to ask for help or what should be done. It took President Clinton eight years of hard work to leave a $250 billion projected operating surplus along with eight years of relative peace and prosperity and you think President Obama can “fix” all of this mess in under two years? On what plant do you reside? Can you not do the math?
Face it, the Congress is at a standstill and the President has to conjole for every little thing he wants – no blank check for him and no smooth sailing as it was for Dubya. When the GOP and Dubya start taking responsibility for what THEY have done, and they haven’t, then maybe the rest of us will stop blaming them for the mess. A mess that is going to take at least five to eight years to fix, assuming Congress doesn’t get in the way and you know, they always do. The GOP’er have done an excellent job of side-stepping any and all responsibility for this current mess. It is so sad when one moves into a new home and has to clean up the crap from the previous occupant; and, I hope that is not all he gets to do while in the WH.
War and more war. . .going to war on a lie [WMD in Iraqi] is still a big fat lie. That is what really makes the war immoral and unnecessary. Why lie? Why bankrupt this country for a lie? The GOP c/o deficits and probably so do you; then why did the Congress not pay for the wars as opposed to screaming “charge it”?
Vietnam, War of 1812, Korea, although I do not think that was technically a “real war”.
If the wars were so moral and so necessary, then why didn’t the Bush clan enlist and fight in those wars? If the wars were so moral and so necessary, why is it, that most of the children of those in Congress or our Governors didn’t send their children or enlist themselves? No, only a few brave people, my careerist sailor brother went! Everyone was at the mall. Surge did you say, who cares about the effects of the surge? We shouldn’t have been in Iraqi to begin with and then there would not have been the need for a “surge” at all. In fact, if Dubya would have listened to General Shenenquia, [instead of retiring him as Rumsfeld did], the correct amount of personnel would have been sent originally, not 2/3 way into the war!
War should be a last resport kind of thing. We didn’t do the necessary diplomacy to get a different result and one that was far less expensive and that is why there was so much difficulty in getting our “allies” to commit to the effort. Dubya just had to “finish” what his daddy didn’t; unfornately, it wasn’t the Bush family that suffered – it was everyone else. We should have been attacked directly by Afghanistan or Iraqi; we were not. Al Quedia is not a country and Iraqi with Sadam did not tolerate Al Quedia. Al Quedia is in Saudia Abrabia and also in Pakistan, but there was not “war” against these folks. There were lots of thing we could have done, but that is not what Dubya wanted, hence the lie, the deceit. YOU need to start taking responsibility for what YOU supported and continue to support; then I will be happy to claim my share of the responsibility for what OUR President Obama does. I’m not the issue, never was. . .I don’t to lie, steal, cheat or fake my way into or out of anything.
I don’t like the Taliban or Al Quedia, but going to war against such a nebulous entity is folly and we will be paying the price for years to come.
sinz54 // Sep 1, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Rockerbabe: War should be a last resport kind of thing. We didn’t do the necessary diplomacy to get a different result and one that was far less expensive
The moment that the enemy starts crossing borders and invading your territory, diplomacy is over.
The 9-11 attack constituted a genuine invasion. Foreign terrorists, trained in Afghan training camps, slaughtered 3,000 helpless American men, women and children. The moment that the first hijacked jetliner hit the World Trade Center, the time for diplomacy was over.
I agree with those who say that the Iraq War was misbegotten. It was undertaken by the Bush Administration on the basis of a mistaken theory that Saddam had something to do with the terrorist threat we were now facing.
But in the 1990s, while President Clinton was dawdling, trying out diplomacy and a few sporadic covert operations, Osama bin Laden had trained some 30,000–yes, 30,000–fanatical combatants and terrorists in camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That’s a bigger force than that of some member states of the U.N. Given the havoc that only 19 of those terrorists caused on 9-11, 30,000 represented a severe threat to the country. And these were fanatics. They weren’t interested in negotiating, but in killing Americans.
For that threat, there was no alternative to the use of force.
But I wouldn’t have gone about it the same way Bush did.
I’m not a “compassionate conservative.” I’m the other kind of right-winger.
I would have given the Taliban regime in Afghanistan exactly one week to turn Osama bin Laden and all his henchmen over to us. After that, I would give the order to turn all of Afghanistan into a free-fire zone and destroy Osama that way.
It sure worked with Japan in World War II.
And American casualties would have been close to zero.
JeninCT // Sep 1, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Amen Sinz! Well said.
anniemargret // Sep 1, 2010 at 11:06 pm
sinz: “….mistaken theory that Saddam had something to do with the terrorist threat we were now facing.”
“Mistaken? Are you kidding?”
The neocons had designs on invading Iraq a decade earlier – delineated from the PNAC. They knew Bush had grievances and angst with his Dad, a revenge wish to get Saddam for personal reasons, etc… He was a useful tool for the neocons. They wanted nothing more than to install a Pax Americana on the Middle East, starting with Iraq. They used the abject fear and terror and fury from the attack on 9/11 to manipulate the public into believing Saddam and those 19 terrorists (15 of which were Saudis) were all inter-related.
That was utterly egregious.
Like Rockerbabe I didn’t drink the Kool-Aid that Cheney, Bush and Condi Rice was selling. Suddenly after 9/11, instead of going after Bin Laden, they were into hyping Iraq. Within *days* after the 9/11 attack.
Does it signify anything to you?
Yes, they lied. Through their teeth. They will have to live with the consequences of that decision after their blanket-media lying (“nuclear bombs over Cleveland”) – that is, if they have any consciences.
Half this country years afterward – even the young soldiers sent there to sacrifice their lives – STILL believed Iraq and 9/11 and Saddam were all interlinked, when the evidence proved otherwise. That’s how powerful their propaganda was.
The Iraq war was not just badly planned and executed – it was immoral. We sacrificed many human lives for what??? take out Saddam? Make Iraq a democracy? For oil? Which was it? They kept moving the goalposts on Americans why we were there.
And please…spare me the fall-back Clinton excuse in all this.
It was Condi Rice who ignored the memo, remember? Both Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill testified to the irresponsibility.
Can you imagine if that were Obama and Biden and Hillary Clinton? The right wing would be screaming with outrage. But from Republicans or ‘conservatives’ like yourself? Aw…just a slap on the wrist.
I agree with Rockerbabe. (btw, Rockerbabe – that was a powerfully true commentary you wrote today – thank you for it).
The Republicans didn’t do the job. They didn’t get Bin Laden; he’s still on the lam. They diverted funds from Afghanistan and into Iraq. They lied to the American people. They lied to the soldiers. What a terrible thing they did.
“After that, I would give the order to turn all of Afghanistan into a free-fire zone and destroy Osama that way.”
Total war?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/graham-d1.1.1.html
Nary a blink? Just bomb the living hell out of them? Women, babies, children and old folks too?
Wow.
anniemargret // Sep 1, 2010 at 11:12 pm
jenin: “Nice try, Annie. What did you do, google ‘offensive Glenn Beck comments’? ”
Yep. I did. Why not?
If he has over 87,000+ people coming to hear him, why don’t we read and hear what this man has to say?
And what he says reveals the true Glenn Beck.
Offensive. Mean-spirited. Hateful. Nasty.
And all that Christianity posing won’t undo the above.
David Frum: Obama’s unfinished Iraq message | National Post // Sep 1, 2010 at 11:13 pm
[...] Earlier from David Frum: [...]
JeninCT // Sep 2, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Annie wrote:
“If he has over 87,000+ people coming to hear him, why don’t we read and hear what this man has to say? ”
That’s a good question. The answer is that you’d rather google “offensive comments” than ‘text of Glenn Beck 8/28 speech” because you have already pre-judged him and certainly don’t want any facts to get in the way.
Rockerbabe // Sep 2, 2010 at 1:18 pm
sinz54: Thank God, you are not the President! With that type of thinking, we will be engaged in endless war and NO one needs that under any circumstance. Reactionaries like you need to get an attitude adjustment and fast!
JeninCT // Sep 2, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Sinz wrote: “I would have given the Taliban regime in Afghanistan exactly one week to turn Osama bin Laden and all his henchmen over to us. After that, I would give the order to turn all of Afghanistan into a free-fire zone and destroy Osama that way.”
Annie wrote: “Total war?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/graham-d1.1.1.html
Nary a blink? Just bomb the living hell out of them? Women, babies, children and old folks too?”
We’re all familiar with Total War, but that’s not exactly what Sinz was advocating. I think Sinz’s idea is more about motivation for the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden rather than have their people decimated. It probably would’ve worked.
anniemargret // Sep 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm
jenin: The Taliban could care less about innocent human beings. I certainly can’t get into someone else’s heart and mind, but it certainly sounded like he was advocating wiping the country clean to get results . That is, in effect, Total War.
Perhaps he would like to explain that last statement? It troubles me .
Also, Jenin. We’ll put the Glenn Beck debate to rest. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion of him; you obviously like him. I do not like him. I do not like him because of the comments he has made, now in the public domain that proves to me that he has a nasty sneering side to him, plus my overall opinion that he uses whatever the latest hot potato is in culture wars to fan the flames of resentment.
I personally detest talking heads like that, be they Republican or Democrat or anyone else. We can debate how best to get out of the messes we are in as Americans, since it affects all of us, but character assassinations shouldn’t be part of it. He can malign Obama’s character, then apologize, then the next day go back to maligning him again.
He just talked about Obama’s ‘liberation theology’…what the??? Who cares what Obama’s beliefs are about God, and who will have the nerve to get up as Beck did to proclaim his God beliefs are better?
This is culture war . And why I intensely dislike Beck and Palin and Bachmann and Limbaugh, Coulter, etc… Instead of using their considerable talents to work on issues and bring Americans together to solve them, they spend more time insulting people’s character.
Not admirable in m opinion. Best wishes.
JeninCT // Sep 2, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Annie, you CAN’T put the Beck debate to rest and then for the next four paragraphs totally disparage him. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Time and again you have proven to me that you don’t care to learn anything new about him you only wish to rant and rave about him. Your loss.
anniemargret // Sep 2, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Jenin: He disparages himself. OK, I’m done. (Until the next Beck debate!)