In a column in the Seattle Times today, the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer explains exactly how to appease al-Qaeda and then excoriates President Obama for not doing it:
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face.
This is so far beyond false, I don’t even know where to begin. Obama has not only expanded the war in Afghanistan, he’s also broadened the scope of our international fight against terrorism to Pakistan and Yemen. His approach to terrorism has been just as bellicose as his predecessor’s.
Obama reassured the nation that this “suspect” had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaida in Yemen.
Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.
What? When Abdulmutallab was arrested, he did spill the beans on the connections he had to al-Qaeda in Yemen. He didn’t need to be waterboarded or denied due process. And giving him a lawyer didn’t all-of-a-sudden cause him to clam up and refuse to cooperate.
There are a few more inaccuracies and examples of bad logic, but I want to cut to the heart of Krauthammer’s fallacy:
The president said that this incident highlights “the nature of those who threaten our homeland.” But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as “extremist(s).”
A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.
This is a distinction without a difference. In fact, it may not even be a distinction at all, considering that environmental extremism exists throughout the world. A jihadist is an extremist, just a particular flavor of extremist. And there’s no rationale for treating them – and their movement – any differently than we treat eco-terrorists or the way we treated Timothy McVeigh and his movement.
Al-Qaeda is not a single organization with a heirarchy. It’s a movement based upon extreme views about America’s power in the world. And it thrives whenever America’s actions play into certain paranoid stereotypes about us. But Krauthammer argues that we should be doing exactly the kinds of things that play into those stereotypes. It’s hard to imagine a worse way to deal with the problem of jihadism.
The root of what makes people like Abdulmuttalab into willing jihadists is a feeling of powerlessness. To overinflate the reality of their own potency is to appease that desire. In the past, we’ve dealt with Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui by trying them in criminal court, treating them just like any other criminal, and that properly squashed their desires to be seen as some special kind of threat that America needs to treat differently.
The goal of radical Islamic extremists is to have a war between the Muslim world and the United States. It’s not a rational goal by any stretch, but that’s what makes them extremists. The worst thing we can do is to convince ourselves that these small groups of nutjobs are sufficiently powerful enough to force us to change our own way of life and our own customs. But Krauthammer is arguing just that. He’s asking us to change the way we handle criminals simply because he’s as afraid of them as they want all of us to be. His attempts to overinflate their importance is nothing more than appeasing them, making them into the powerful people they aspire to be.
Krauthammer’s words aren’t worth the guano that collects upon them.
The fascist cheerleader Krauthammer has always written as if he had inside info. That was believable during the Cheney Presidency, but now he definitely is just making shit up. He has as much of a grasp of reality as the Larouche douches at first and Pike downtown.
Chuckie Krautnutz is, and always has been, a lying shill for wingmaniacs. Why is his latest swill any surprise?
The real issue here — the one the rightwing-biased media refuses to cover — is the relentless conservative campaign to divide our country in the face of continuing enemy attacks.
At the same time, GOP obstructionists in Congress play politics by holding up the appointment of a Homeland Security Secretary … why isn’t Krautnutz criticizing that?
Republicans are traitors, plain and simple.
Hard to tell which is worse, Islamic jihadism or Wingnut jingoism. They’ve both damaged America.
Krauthammer is a propagandist, not a journalist, or even a pundit. He doesn’t belong on the opinion page of a family newspaper; his proper place is in political pamphlets and blogs. The fact Seattle Times runs his diatribes is further evidence of Fairview Fannie’s low journalistic standards.
I posted this, in the latest open thread, about the symbiotic relationship between terrorism and right-wing politics. Whenever our resident trolls rant and rave about how bad Democrats are, it ought not take anyone longer than a second to realize that Republicans are, and likely always will remain, orders of magnitude worse.
Krauthammer’s ravings are nothing more than rightwing jingoism in its most dishonest form.
If it weren’t for that damned First Amendment, Krauthammer should be getting prosecuted for anti-American activities. What happened to the Aliens and Sedition Act when we need it?
“In the past, we’ve dealt with Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui by trying them in criminal court, treating them just like any other criminal, and that properly squashed their desires to be seen as some special kind of threat that America needs to treat differently.”
Well, we did throw them into Supermax, along with Sheikh what’s-his-face, which does a good job of neutralizing them. How often do we hear from the likes of Kaczinski, Nichols, Rudolph, Reid, Moussaoui, and the other denizens of Bombers Row? Those guys will never get out, and they’re cut off from the world; they’re effectively dead.
As usual the silly rabbit isn’t worth responding to. His rabid droolings lack any perspective other than the pointless partisan one.
But Don Joe, you’re usually better than this. In my opinion you’re wrong about your view of what constitutes a healthy relationship between the government and the people. But you’re usually logical and rational about it.
And I give you the credit you refuse to give Republicans. I really believe that no matter how wrong in voting most Democrats truly love the country and want the best for it.
And here you join the demented bunny in the same kind of one sided ranting he vomits. It’s beneath you.
STFU Goebbels Rabbit…..your partisan propaganda doesnt mean shit and is worth about as much.
@9 Yup!
I think we’ve moved beyond distinctions of right and left. The early adopter- middle adopter- late adopter model fits what’s going on much better. Krauthammer, Beck, Malkin and Co. represent the tail end of the late adopter crowd. They are people that in the words of Tom Friedman “have failed at modernity.”
@ 10
But Don Joe, you’re usually better than this. In my opinion you’re wrong about your view of what constitutes a healthy relationship between the government and the people. But you’re usually logical and rational about it.
I’ve cited factual evidence showing that there is a symbiotic relationship between terrorist activities and the fortunes of right-wing political parties. You might not like the fact that such evidence exists, but you cannot make it go away merely by suggesting that there’s some sort of higher road I could have taken.
Show us that higher road, Lost. Propose alternative policy solutions to the problem. Show us that folks on your end of the political spectrum have a reasonable grasp of the real problems we face. You can’t do that by regurgitating sound-bite talking points from Fox News. Bring something to the table.
@13..so “modernity” is defined by socialism?
I guess Charles kinda missed our cruise missile and air strikes that have been going on in Yemen. He also seems to forget the success of locking up Richard Reid who’s failed attack almost mirrored this one. As a good water carrier for the Bush administration he did no condemn them (the Bushies) for trying Reid as a common criminal and in fact they crowed on TV about how well the system worked to put him away. Well if if was good enough for the neocons back then it certainly must be good now.
@15
Late adopter is defined by not being able to understand and function in the world around them. You seem to fit the description.
Your chance of being killed by a drunk driver, or dying of lung cancer from tobacco, for that matter, is way, way higher than being killed by a terrorist. In fact, when you measure against all other very real possibilities of violent death, being killed by an act of terrorism is way down the list, probably virtually unmeasurable compared to all the other real threats.
Our Future:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho.....z0bW7xATT3
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/t.....-21937662/
http://www.americanthinker.com.....urope.html
With all due respect Don Joe, your ‘data point’ shows only what anyone could have predicted. When countries are threatened by terrorists defense oriented conservative parties do better in elections. I read it and it makes no claim that they stimulate or encourage the
This may be because of messages conservatives send giving encouragement and hope to people who feel insecure in defense matters. This may be because voters instinctively understand that apologizing for being targeted (as your president does) never stops the aggressors.
I could probably ‘prove’ that progressives do better in poor economic times. Voters may (incorrectly) feel that progressives offer a better future when they feel most vulnerable. That is the only reason Obama is president after all. But I make no claim that he wrecked the economy to get elected. Just that he is driving the stake through its’ heart with stupid policies.
What your study in no way showed was the libelous link you claim between terrorists and Republicans/conservatives. Don’t claim your ‘evidence’ goes where it doesn’t.
Lost @ 20
First, I should point out that you began by saying, “With all due respect,” and ended by putting words in my mouth. At no point have I even hinted that Republicans are in cahoots with terrorists. I have said that referring to Republicans as “terrorists” is no longer hyperbole, but I have also been very clear that I base that on the way Republicans use the threat of terrorism for partisan political gain. And there is no way you can deny that Republicans have done this.
With all due respect Don Joe, your ‘data point’ shows only what anyone could have predicted. When countries are threatened by terrorists defense oriented conservative parties do better in elections.
Are you claiming that conservative parties are more “defense oriented” than liberal parties? If so, then please provide some citations that back up this assertion, because, as far as I can tell, it’s patently false. (Read the links that Lee has provided in this post for a start at dispelling that myth.)
Were conservatives truly “defense oriented,” I wouldn’t be so outraged. It’s the blatant fear-mongering (which, by the way, would include perpetuating the myth that conservative parties are more “defense oriented” than liberal parties) that I find so utterly reprehensible.
It’s Tom Ridge, when he was the Secretary of Homeland Security, saying the he was proud of the way the Bush Administration handling the shoe bomber case, while Tom Ridge the conservative pundit is now criticizing the Obama Administration for handling the underwear bomber case in exactly the same way the Bush Administration handled the shoe bomber case.
It’s Pat Buchanon saying that we should subject the underwear bomber to torture by withholding pain medication. Ostensibly this is in order to extract information from him, but the man has already cooperated with authorities. What more information could we possibly obtain?
It’s you, when challenged to come to the table with real policy suggestions, ducking that challenge only to piss and moan about something I’ve never said.
These are the things that disgust me. Now, do you have real policy suggestions, or don’t you? If you have no real policy suggestions, then I suggest you sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and let the adults run this country for a while.
@ 19
Our Future
What do you mean “Future”?
“The future is a time period commonly understood to contain all events that have yet to occur. It is the opposite of the past, and is the time after the present.”
I am pessimistic about how well Christian and Muslim people are going to exist with each other over time so that is one of the events that has yet to occur!
@ 23
Why provide the definition of the word “future”? That strikes me as rather gratuitous.
I am pessimistic about how well Christian and Muslim people are going to exist with each other over time so that is one of the events that has yet to occur!
First of all, we’ve had the DC sniper, Timothy McVeigh, the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, and several incidents involving ambushes on police officers. Seems to me that “future” is entirely the wrong word.
Secondly, Christians and Muslim’s have coexisted on this planet for more than a millennium. It’s not at all obvious that hostilities now are any more significant than they have been in the past.
Which brings me to the more important question, do you have any ideas for reducing hostilities, or are you merely hoping to evoke a knee-jerk response?
Don Joe,
When lost (and he is indeed lost) says such as this: “When countries are threatened by terrorists [,] defense oriented conservative parties do better in elections,” don’t alarm bells ring? Such parties, of course, actually only do better when they can convince an electorate that such electorate is “threatened by terrorists.” There is no objective standard by which to measure such threat. Frankly, I feel more threatened by the prospect of running out of toilet paper than I do by terrorists. The bottom line of what lost is saying is that Republicans and “defense oriented conservative parties” can only win elections by generating fear, most of which is entirely baseless. Is there a real threat from terrorists? Surely. But, it isn’t the threat that Cheney proclaims it to be. Obama is dealing with it in the manner that Cheney could not–at its roots. People like lost don’t get that.
Lee
Isn’t Krauthammer rather easy puckens? Come to think about in the right wingfers alternative reality world, thyere3 seem to be very few folks who ever have anything rational to say.
The reason that terrorists are not cutting the mustard gas as bogeymen is that they can’t hold a candle to our own senators, congressmen, and supreme court justices when it comes to consigning thousands upon thousands of American citzens to death every year.
An American court decided just a few days ago that it’s legal for Blackwater Gestapo to kill innocent civilians and not pay a price for it.
HL @ 28
That decision was correct, under the circumstances. Sometimes, adherence to the rule of law requires results that make you want to vomit. This would be one of those occasions. Still, the judge’s 90-page decision did suggest how those Blackwater murderers might still be prosecuted. Republicans don’t understand the difference between the rule of law and partisan politics. That is why they are headed the way of the Whigs.
@28,
That Constitution is a hinderance sometimes. All of those “rights” and stuff.
I believe somebody in the previous administration referred to it as “just a goddam piece of paper”.
re 29: Did the judge cite any precedents? If so, what were they?
31
He did, indeed. You find the link. Prosecutors fucked up once again, is that surprising? I’d have loved to see those Blackwater bastards get hung. But, the judge made the right decision here. (Puddy and Cynical, surely you must agree with me here.)
Don Joe,
The original post had nothing to do with policy. When your post or your cite has to do with policy I’ll talk about it.
As it is I’m merely pointing out the general hyperbolic response on both sides of the political divide to anything from a chance comment to an international incident. This makes demons of those with whom we simply disagree and is in no way helpful to finding a way forward for the whole country, not just Republicans or Democrats. I’d have thought that you might have caught that nuance. I even thoght that you might have noticed that it wasn’t directed at the left or the right but at blind partisan rancor of whatever party affiliation.
If you like, though, a good policy for dealing with terrorism might be a modern variant of the good Roosevelts’ ‘speak softly but carry a big stick.’ Using the military and intelligence communities of the US and our foreign allies, such as they are, find the bastards. Once located work with international and US law enforcement to detain and bring them to fair trial. And for Gods’ sake stop apologizing for everything the US has ever done since the Articles of Confederation, as your president does.
Before you bring it up this is NOT what Bush did, more to his shame. He squandered a golden opportunity in the immediate aftermath of 911. He could have used the rare international commity as a means to push this kind of policy. He didn’t.
Re 25
Try reading the post before responding to it, Proud.
Obama is the president of the US (God help us) because of a coincidentally timely recession. He is unqualified, unprepared and incapable of performing his office whether he gives himself a “good solid B+” for his year in office or not. He is the president because voters scared about the economy tradionally perceive tax and spend liberals as the cure for economic hard times. Or at least they’ll vote for the handouts such candidates promise.
To throw around baseless and scurilous allegations that Republicans falsely elevate threats to win elections was beneath some of the more thoughtful posters on this blog. I thought you and Don Joe were people with whom I vehemently disagreed while respecting the sincerity and intellectual rigor that went into your positions. Apparently I was wrong and you’ve both decided drinking the kool-aid is more important than objective thought. Good luck with that.
Wait, what am I saying?
Forget everything I wrote. Your side hasn’t pulled us out of Iraq, and has expanded the war in Afganistan. (Neither of these are bad on their face, but they do represent campaign promises openly broken.) Your side promised that if the stimilus bill passed unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%. Your side is racking up record deficits that put the future of the country at severe risk with government handouts to everyone. Your side is trying to pass a health care reform that simply gifts insurance companies with 40 million new customers, while making a decision not to buy insurance a crime.
In 2010 you’re in a for a severe beating at the polls. But the tone deaf nature of progressives to the real heart of America means you don’t see the warning signs. Far be it from me to remind you. Hell, I’m looking forward to getting real Americans back into positions of elective authority.
@34: “Forget everything I wrote.”
No problemo.
@9 Until they get a lawyer like Lynne Stewart.
Communist, anti-American, traitorous bitch that she is…
And darling of the left.
Plot on a map the Islamic world, then add to the plot a red X for every conflict and small scale war. You’ll see a huge correlation between the border of Islam and conflict. I understand correlation is not causation, but my conjecture is that these two items ARE positively related.
The proper response when an Islamic fanatic is trying to kill you, is NOT, “Can we talk about why you want to kill me?” The proper response is two in the chest and one to the head.
It is not America’s fault the Islamic world sucks.
Lost @ 33
To throw around baseless and scurilous allegations that Republicans falsely elevate threats to win elections was beneath some of the more thoughtful posters on this blog.
Tom Ridge admitted to doing exactly that very thing as Secretary of Homeland Security. You’ve also ignored my very short list of the ways Republicans have used the threat of terrorism for partisan political advantage.
Using the military and intelligence communities of the US and our foreign allies, such as they are, find the bastards. Once located work with international and US law enforcement to detain and bring them to fair trial.
Well, that’s not a particularly bad strategy. Indeed, it’s very much the same strategy that liberals have been advocating for a very long time. But, that simplified statement of strategy belies a very poor understanding of the nature of the problem, and fails to address the fundamental policy issue.
I posted a link to this editorial in the open thread. It is, for the WSJ, an unusually intelligent editorial. While it speaks directly to the issues if airport security, there are insights to the broader problem:
According to the South Asia Analysis Group, the combined strength of the International Islamic Front (which includes al Qaeda) is estimated at around 60,000. The entire Muslim population is 1.65 billion.
If we had some magical machine that was 99.9% effective at detecting Islamic terrorists, that machine would still generate millions of false positives.
Given these numbers, the fundamental policy question is, exactly how many resources do we want to devote to this effort to detect, locate, detain and bring to justice those jihadis who have actually taken actions that have threatened the lives of American citizens?
The political problem is the Republicans’ refusal to engage in even a simplified discussion of these policy particulars. Have you heard any Republican talk about the actual risks we face? No. Indeed, you can count on any Republican to amplify that risk beyond any reasonable recognition whatsoever.
And for Gods’ sake stop apologizing for everything the US has ever done since the Articles of Confederation, as your president does.
Why the hell not apologize? What, on earth, is the matter with admitting that we fucked up? Any why have you placed this at the end of your policy suggestions? It’s as if you think this is more important than figuring out what we actually should be doing to fight terrorism. I don’t think questions about apologies even belong on the policy table. It’s a distraction.
The root of what makes people like Abdulmuttalab into willing jihadists is a feeling of powerlessness.
This is BS. Abdulmuttalab was from one of the wealthiest, most powerful families in Nigeria. Bin Laden is a millionnaire many times over. You lefties keep playing that same old eight-track tape over and over again trying to rationalize Islamic extremism.
Krauthammer is 100% right.
@39
This is BS. Abdulmuttalab was from one of the wealthiest, most powerful families in Nigeria. Bin Laden is a millionnaire many times over.
That does not mean that they can’t convince themselves that they are powerless. In fact, it can often make their feelings of powerlessness more related to world politics, as many people who have that amount of money have generally seen much of the world.
You’ll often notice that many of those who turn to terrorism also have serious issues with women and relationships. This also fuels their feelings of powerlessness.
There have been multi-millionaires who have committed suicide in this world. The idea that one can’t have a feeling of powerlessness if they’re rich is absurd.
You lefties keep playing that same old eight-track tape over and over again trying to rationalize Islamic extremism.
No one’s trying to rationalize it. In fact, I explicitly pointed out in the post that their extremism is irrational. Can you read?
@ 39
Can you read?
Clearly he refuses to read anything that contradicts his foregone conclusions, but that, in essence, is the problem. By casting any liberal attempt to engage in a rational policy discussion as “trying to rationalize Islamic extremism,” they avoid having to deal with the inherent messiness that such a policy discussion implies.
The right-wing doesn’t have any substantive insights that they can bring to the policy table, and, as the Rand study to which I linked shows, they have an incentive not to bring anything substantive to the policy table.
@34
Combat troops will be out of Iraq in August & Obama campaigned on stepping up the war in Afghanistan. ;-)
22 and 24. Don Joe spews:
“What do you mean “Future”?”
“Why provide the definition of the word “future”? That strikes me as rather gratuitous.”
You asked a dumb question and received the answer!
“First of all, we’ve had the DC sniper, Timothy McVeigh, the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, and several incidents involving ambushes on police officers. Seems to me that “future” is entirely the wrong word.”
The past problems of 9/11 and other Muslim terrorist attacks around the world only indicate that our future is in jeopardy!! Spewing minor examples as you did with McVeigh is not germane to this discussion. Do a Google on “Muslim Terrorist attack list” and you will get the link http://www.google.com/search?c.....gle+Search.
“Secondly, Christians and Muslim’s have coexisted on this planet for more than a millennium. It’s not at all obvious that hostilities now are any more significant than they have been in the past.”
You are wrong – We have not coexisted peacefully! Check out your history. The Muslims radicals are orthodox Islamists who are bent on forcing their religion on others as they have done in the past in Spain and other places. So do you want to pay taxes to Muslims at some point to just exist?
“Which brings me to the more important question, do you have any ideas for reducing hostilities, or are you merely hoping to evoke a knee-jerk response?”
You provided the ‘Knee-Jerk Response. As you say, we do need to reduce hostilities. The Muslim process is to occupy and procreate so at some point they ‘own’ the Countries they are occupying!! There are over 1.5 Billion Muslims!!
What would you do?
Think Progress has another take-down of this same article by Krauthammer.
Krauthammer, in typical right-wing fashion, refuses to address with the Obama Administration has actually said. Instead, Krauthammer prefers to attack a caricature if his own construction by taking the banishment of the meaningless phrase “war on terror” to mean that there is no longer any war whatsoever.
This topical avoidance of any form of honest debate is exactly the kind of thing that leads me to conclude that referring to Republicans as terrorists is no longer hyperbole.
When will Republicans start engaging on honest debate? Given their track record, likely never. After all, as evidence very clearly shows, engaging in an honest debate would be political suicide for Republicans.
@ 43
You asked a dumb question and received the answer!
No, you gratuitously assumed that I didn’t know the meaning of the word “future,” rather than take the more obvious interpretation in which I was questioning your use of the word. If you’re going to start out by assuming I’m an idiot, I’m going to kick your ass all over the place. That’s not a threat. That’s simply fair warning.
The past problems of 9/11 and other Muslim terrorist attacks around the world only indicate that our future is in jeopardy!!
See, now, I merely think that we have some rather difficult work to do and that you’re ratcheting up the nature of the threat solely for political reasons.
Some 40 – 45 thousand people die in traffic accidents each year. On a monthly basis, about as many people died on the highway during the month of September 2001 as died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Clearly, driving cars is, by your argument, a threat to our future! Let’s ban automobiles!
You are wrong – We have not coexisted peacefully!
I’ve never said that Christians and Muslims have coexisted peacefully. I’ve merely noted that we’ve coexisted.
Since the rest of your diatribe depends on this horribly errant reading of what I actually wrote, I hardly need to address it, but I’ll answer this:
What would you do?
Frankly, I see no reason to significantly alter what the Obama Administration is doing right now. I might tweak it around the edges, but I remain rather strongly convinced that one does not significantly reduce Islamic extremism by cranking up the level of Christian extremism. The only possible outcome of cranking up the level of extremism is an increase in hostilities, not a decrease.
Don Joe – You asked a dumb question about the future. My original post and reply were quite obvious!- duh!!!
Your rational of automobile deaths as related to Terrorism deaths is totally misappropriate as a discussion point!
“Cranking up the level Christian extremism” – What does that mean? Protecting ourselves is not part of that!!
So you are again wrong as a leftist and progressive with no sense of our future!!
Please enjoy the rest of the weekend and look forward to our childrens’ FUTURE fifty years from now!!
And, Yes! I am personally pessimistic about our future as I stated in post #23 and that is not related to any Democratic or Republican ideas.
On the subject of fanatics: there’s a lot of fanatical global warming deniers who claim the earth is now cooling.
If that’s true, how could this have happened?
http://www.time.com/time/world.....10,00.html
Wingnuts are insane reality haters.
@ 46
You asked a dumb question about the future.
No. Your assumption about the nature of my question was that it as “dumb”. Try making better assumptions. You’ll find that your arguments will improve substantially.
Your rational of automobile deaths as related to Terrorism deaths is totally misappropriate as a discussion point!
The word you’re looking for is “rationale,” and even that’s the wrong word. It’s an observation, and it should be obvious that I think it’s more than appropriate. So, rather than simply arguing by contradiction, why not tell us why you think it’s inappropriate?
“Cranking up the level Christian extremism” – What does that mean? Protecting ourselves is not part of that!!
I agree that protecting ourselves does not require cranking up the level of Christian extremism, which is why I suggest that cranking up Christian extremism isn’t the wisest thing to do.
As for what I mean by “cranking up the level of Christian extremism,” I think that’s exactly what Republicans are doing now by engaging in an honest policy debate. Given all of what I’ve said in this thread, it’s difficult for me to believe that you don’t understand what I mean.
Moreover, your contribution to the discussion is on par with the rest of the stuff we’re seeing from the right. Not a well-reasoned policy solution in sight. If you’re not offering policy solutions, then how is it not accurate to characterize your behavior as cranking up Christian extremism?
So you are again wrong as a leftist and progressive with no sense of our future!!
Now you’re simply being incoherent. First you claim to not understand what I mean, and not you claim that I’m just flat out wrong. You can’t have it both ways. Pick one or the other.
Also, your reference to “leftist and progressive” is little more than an ad-hominem argument–one that is increasingly losing any teeth and will likely to continue to lose any bite until such time as we start seeing realistic policy solutions from your side of the aisle.
This post and thread, as in the larger American political realm is exemplary proof of the Left’s hang-dog, clinical need to be defined by the Right. It’s an epidemic mass psychosis and inferiority complex gone viral. Peruse any leftwing website or give a listen to Air America. You’ll find reams of content devoted to how the awful righties (the usual suspects) have one-upped themselves from what they one-upped themselves from the day before. Obama’s abandonement of the base makes no sense until you see it through this prism; it seems he and his staff base their decisions on how it’ll go down in the right wing echo chamber during the 24 hour news cycle. As a liberal and progressive, this shit gets real old, real quick.
Krauthammer is the General-journalist of the Project for a New American Century. He’s a handler who’s been shown to be a failure (see Iraq). His aim here is clear; herd Obama and his foreign policy to the right.
re 37: An even better response is to keep Muslim states small and at each others’ throats.
Jihadists are attempting to unite Muslims under one banner. Picking on all Muslims in an attempt to suppress the Jihadist minotity is a way to help the Jihadists achieve their aim.
Re 47
Off topic, but so egregiously wrong that it needs comment.
First, the article you cite shows no scientific evidence. It uses anecdotal evidence, like most of the followers of the Church of Al Gore. The recipe appears to be take one or two studies out of context or commision them from scientists unworthy of the name. Add a raft of anecdotal incidents to taste. Voila, you have a climate catastrophe.
Second, any comment on the emails that prove your scientists to be liars in public? Any comment on the American scientist who is embarrased that no evidence of global warming exists for the past decade and wants to know how to fiddle the numbers to make it look better?
I freely admit that I’m no climatologist. But I know BS when I smell it, and you’re side seems to have their noses plugged.
Final note on the climate hoax. Gore was publicly taken to task for two things you didn’t see reported.
First he claimed that ‘green’ energy could be tapped from the heat of the Earths’ core, which was “millions of degrees.” It isn’t, and this form of green energy, like all the others combined, wouldn’t begin to meet the energy needs of the planet. This is true whether you look at it from a quantitative or a cost effectiveness perspective.
Second, he claimed the Arctic would be open for shipping based on a study he ‘misinterpreted,’ not to say lied about. The scientist who performed the real work talked to him and told him the conclusions weren’t warranted by his work. Funny, didn’t see that on Obamas pet media.
Don Joe
Ok! You are just flat out wrong!!
Enjoy the day!!
@ 53
You are just flat out wrong!!
It certainly would have been nice if you’d taken the time to come up with something other than bald assertions in support of that conclusion. I’m not questioning the honesty of your claim, but it really does lack any form of “debate” that could be recognized as such.
@33
As much as you may feel this way the GOP didn’t exactly offer a better alternative in McCain/Palin. I’m quite grateful we don’t have someone as erratic as McCain in charge with someone as clueless as Palin only a “hearbeat away”
@34
I think the GOP is a bit overconfident about their prospects in 2010. The party out of power typically has some gains in off year elections, but I suspect those gains won’t be spectacular.
At least in this state the 3rd CD is the only seat with a real chance of changing hands. Chris Vance may talk a tough game about Sen. Murray, but none of the candidates has even a slim chance.
C’mon! It’s a FACT that a pair of german ships successfully navigated the Northeast passage to transport cargo with only token assistance from Russian icebreakers.. A dream of mariners for centuries!
Not to mention it’s a FACT that the right wing climate denial mass delusion has been shrieking about global cooling due to sunspots or “it’s cold outside”..
Next year I can see even more ships making that passage until it’s a billion dollar plus business for the Russians and and the Canadians MAYBE only then will wingnuts shake their heads and realize that something is happening.. Then they’ll rationalize that it’s good for business..
Re Chris-
Regarding Washington State you’re likely correct. Eastern Washington gets no representation of their interests or politics. Western Washington swings this state and it’s just slightly to the left of Marx by and large.
Regarding the nation I think you’re wrong. Obama won due to a lot of swing voters and young first time voters believing his spiel. In 2010 these voters will have a chance to reject his veer to the left, and I bet they do. That this results in a swing to Republican majority in either House or Senate is unlikely, but the kind of bully pulpit Reid and Pelosi command is on its’ way out.
YLB
A single voyage does not a climate model make. And it’s a fact that global temperatures have stayed steady or decreased the past decade. This was admitted by the ‘scientist’ together with a plaintive concern for how to spin this non-event as a catastrophe. Hardly robust and fearless science at work.
Does the climate of the globe change over time? Sure. Does this make it good policy to destroy viable industries and the livelihood they bring? Only in light of compelling and overwhelming evidence that that would be the only logical course to pursue. And this is precisely what the Church of Gore doesn’t provide.
@58 lostinaseaofblue 01/03/2010 at 3:47 pm,
“That this results in a swing to Republican majority in either House or Senate is unlikely”
Understatement much?
“but the kind of bully pulpit Reid and Pelosi command is on its’ way out.”
You really have no idea what the Bully pulpit is or why the previous independent clause of your sentence makes the second absurd.
“
Obama won due to a lot of swing voters and young first time voters believing his spiel.”
And in no way could it have been that the spiel of McCain and the Republicans had become unbelievable after the utter disintegration of the financial system.
Yet, in 2010 you think tax cuts and deregulation and shouts of ‘Socialism!’ will be a better and more palatable set of policies from Republicans than they were in 2008. Spiel indeed.
Wow Mike, little bit of unresolved anger there?
Blaming the recession on Bush is partly fair. But the bank problems went back into Clintons’ terms as well. And I don’t remember Barney Frank doing too much preemptive work with his role on the Banking Committee. There’s plenty of blame to go around between politicians, bankers, the Fed and foolish homeowners. At least try to be objective within your partisan blinders.
And you’re completely right. Obama had a disciplined and upbeat message that sold well to people worried and wanting reassurance. McCain didn’t, he chose a running mate who didn’t and he lost. No matter that most of the campaign promises Obama made are already broken. That’s just politics, right?
If the democrats do poorly in 2010 it will be for 3 reasons. The jobs situation will not likely be markedly better by the time of the polls. Obama promised if we hurried through his disastrous stimulus package unemployment would not rise above 8%. Job seekers will remember this whether partisan democrats do or not. Obama has also betrayed his leftist base on a number of key issues. Lying on the campaign trail works if you’re Clinton. No-one expected honesty from him. But Obama is supposed to be an honest agent, and swing voters fooled by him will likely take it on Democrat candidates to some degree. The hardcore base will vote for him, who else comes close to their progressive agenda? But the young voters and swing voters may give you folks a nasty surprise come November.
But please, please, stay complacent. It’s the best way to beat back the tide of Obama policy with a really American Congress.
@60 lostinaseaofblue 01/03/2010 at 5:44 pm,
No unresolved anger lost, simply calling them as I see ’em.
You see, if you don’t have a clue to what you are talking about, your predictive analysis is really not worth much.
Another example: “The hardcore base will vote for him,” You see, lost, this statement in context of the 2010 congressional elections is beyond ridiculous. Obama is not running in 2010.
So, lost, try and do the math. Identify the districts and the senate races where you foresee “a nasty surprise come November.“.
If you can, then you can talk about partisan blinders with a modicum of sincerity.
But you won’t identify the races, so you can’t.
You just spew.
Or how about this, how many congressional WA seats will be lost to the Republicans?
@ 60
Blaming the recession on Bush is partly fair.
More than partly fair. Not only does Bush get part of the blame for causing the current crisis, his deficits have hamstrung the current Congress and Administration in terms of the mitigating measures that can be implemented.
But the bank problems went back into Clintons’ terms as well.
You failed to mention A) that the key piece of legislation from Clinton’s term was authored primary by Republicans; and B) the core of that legislation was the standard Republican policy of deregulation.
You can keep invoking Clinton, but that won’t change the fact that Republicans are proscribing much of the same medicine–tax cuts that favor the wealthy and more deregulation–that caused the mess we’re in now.
@62 Don Joe, the reason the Republicans will under perform in 2010 is because the Republican solution to the problems of this nation are the same policies that brought the problems. Reagan/Bush economic policies were EPIC FAILures.
And if the obamapocalypse doesn’t happen after all the teabagging hullabaloo, then WTF is the point of further hamstringing the party trying to clean up the mess?
There is none.
@60 lostinaseaofblue 01/03/2010 at 5:44 pm,
“And I don’t remember Barney Frank doing too much preemptive work with his role on the Banking Committee.”
Of course you don’t remember. You most probably never knew to forget. But maybe what is more hilarious, is that you don’t seem to know how to find out whether or not the Democrats did anything in 2007 after 12 years of Republican inaction on financial regulatory reforms.
Why don’t you go look up HR 3221 introduced in July 2007?? Too little, too late? Sure, but the Dems had only been in office for 6 months, and the Republicans had failed for 12 years by that point to do anything.
Don’t remember indeed.
Hey Mike,
Good luck in the anger management course. Take care.
Don Joe,
You’re a hoot. Bush deficits and Clinton deficits together don’t equal Obama deficits for the next 2 years.
Thanks for voting for that sophomoric idiot who doesn’t even realize how far out his depth he is.
Yes, enough so that ships carrying valuable cargo can navigate the northeast passage with hardly any trouble for like the first time in recorded history.
Even while right wing “global cooling” was supposedly going on.
Deny, deny, deny..
@66 lostinaseaofblue 01/03/2010 at 7:25 pm,
Who doesn’t even realize how far out his depth he is?
Any wonder why lost can’t provide us a list of congressional and/or senate seats which will prove a nasty surprise come November?
LOL!
@ 66
You’re a hoot. Bush deficits and Clinton deficits together don’t equal Obama deficits for the next 2 years.
Well, at least I’m not a “Hoot-Smalley” (ask Michele Bachman if you don’t get the reference).
I have to say, I really don’t understand your preoccupation with deficits and government debt. In you, that preoccupation has reached a truly irrational level.
In the present crisis, deficits are the symptom, not the cause. The causes, as I’ve outlined several times before, were tax cuts that led to a capital asset price bubble combined with excessive deregulation of the financial industry (which amplified the effects when the capital asset price bubble burst).
Nevertheless, since you seem to be so preoccupied with deficits, at least allow your preoccupation to be informed with facts:
If you really do care about deficits, then the one thing you should be advocating for the most would be to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Funny, but I don’t recall you even mentioning those tax cuts, let alone advocating their expiration.
@69….your ignorance of how devastating the deficit and national debt are is frightening – and that ignorance something at those in our govt(both R and D) rely upon.
The national debt(and those nations carrying that debt) is the single most important thing in front of this nation.
Ask yourself who is buying up our debt – then ask yourself why we cant negotiate a decent trade deal with them. The more we go into debt, the MORE it hurts the American worker.
Washington DC has had its balls cut off because of the debt – and its their own fault. And that is only one of the various downfalls of operating at a debt the way this nation does.
Even a self absorbed, blustering poser like yourself should be able to see what is coming…and its not good.
@ 70
your ignorance of how devastating the deficit and national debt are is frightening
No. The truly ignorant are those who look at the size of both the current debt and deficits and start mimicking Chicken Little.
The national debt(and those nations carrying that debt) is the single most important thing in front of this nation.
I would disagree. Unemployment is at least, if not more, important than the national debt–at least for now.
Ask yourself who is buying up our debt
For the most part, the Chinese Government. And, while you’re asking yourself all of the questions above, ask yourself what could the Chinese Government possibly gain by using that debt to significantly harm the US economy?
And, no, it’s not the debt that makes it so difficult to negotiate a trade deal with the Chinese. Rather, it’s the interdependence between the two economies. We both dance with each other, because the alternative to dancing is worse than the cramps and muscle pains we suffer from the dance.
The Economist’s Stephanie Kelton provides a good summary of the current situation here. The Japanese experience over the past decade is instructive.
‘Course, you clearly didn’t follow the link I posted earlier, so I have little doubt you’ll follow this link (and you accuse me of being “ignorant”), but I have at least done one thing you haven’t done: provided links where you can find information that supports my position.
Keep burying your head in the sand if helps you sleep better at night…..
@ 72
Keep burying your head in the sand if helps you sleep better at night
Ah, yes. The favorite tool of the rhetorically inept: proof by repeated assertion.
@71 No. The truly ignorant are those who look at the size of both the current debt and deficits and start mimicking Chicken Little.
Barack Obama:
calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
Stephanie Kelton:
Increases in the federal deficit tend to decrease, rather than increase, interest rates.
Leave it to Don Joe the Blowharder to pick an economist who totally missed the housing and credit bubble for a reference. But, she did have one thing going for her – she fit his narrative!
Stick with you what you hopefully do better – if you are to be believed, JoeBlow – programming at an also ran software company.
Bwahahahahaha!
@ 74
Interesting. So saying that the current level of deficits is unsustainable is, to you, tantamount to mimicking Chicken Little? Can you find a statement from President Obama in which he argues that we have to start reducing the deficit now?
Your first quote:
Your second quote:
If you’re going to slam me on Economics, you might want to be careful about confusing the difference between the amount of interest one has to pay and interest rates.
Leave it to Don Joe the Blowharder to pick an economist who totally missed the housing and credit bubble for a reference.
A) There’s no evidence that Prof. Kelton “totally missed the housing and credit bubble,” unless you take as your primary point of evidence the fact that the archives of the blog to which she contributes only goes back to June of 2009.
B) Yours is an entirely ad-hominem argument, which means you have no response to Prof. Kelton’s actual argument in the piece I cited.