Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Has Kucinich finally completely marginalized himself?
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, September 12, 2007

I should hope so:
Congress on Monday passed a resolution honoring the victims and heroes of Sept. 11 and ''reaffirming the commitment to defending the people of the United States against any and all future challenges.'' The vote was 334 to 1.

The sole ''nay'' was cast by Kucinich.

In a statement issued from his alternate universe, Kucinich insisted that he really honors them all and really supports the troops, but found it impossible to support the resolution because it fails to condemn President Bush for lies, lies, lies (in the squinty eyes of Kucinich).
Kucinich has become like many on the left, so debilitated by BDS he can't see the forest for the trees anymore. And if that nonsense wasn't enough, there was this:
Kucinich only saw reason to praise Assad and Syria for accepting refugees from the war in Iraq, where Assad's Iranian mentors have been supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to more-efficiently kill the American soldiers Kucinich really supports.

Kucinich even found time to go on television in the Mideast and denounce President Bush to our enemies in time of war for an ''illegal occupation'' of Iraq.

That used to be called treason back in the day before deluded moral gnats like Kucinch could get elected to Congress and run for president.
Obviously the editorial writer of this piece from a Cleveland area paper isn't particularly impressed with Kucinich as should be obvious. I can certainly understand why. The question is, why do Ohioans return this yahoo to Congress every two years?

Of course Kucinich is just another in a long line of politicians acting badly. In Kucinich's case it's just more obvious than some. Others act just as absurdly. Unfortunately, in the case of Kucinich, all the Syrians know about him is he's a presidential candidate.

But you know how bad it is when in a photo-op with Assad, it is Assad who comes off looking like the statesman.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
You disagree with him, so you feel compelled to insult him personally. Kucinich has a lot of people who agree with him, a very attractive wife, and he’s probably enjoying himself, speaking out for a lot of people very opposed to the militarist course of action taken by this President. I’m sure he’d just shake his head and chuckle at your attack, which is just as ridiculous and has the same moral status as those who call Petraeus ’betray us.’ You are simply the moral equivalent of the folks at moveon.org, but representing a different political perspective. You are no better than they are — the only difference is you can’t afford to put your venom in the New York Times.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So if he had an ugly wife, it would be different?

It’s comments like that Scotty, that make me absolutely sure you’re just having us on as a good joke
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Karl Rove writes all of Erbs posts, for our benefit.
 
Written By: jows
URL: http://
As you can see from Dr Erb’s posting, Dennis Kucinich can NOT marginalize himself with his supporters. He is "Speaking Truth to Power" by his votes and by his speeches to Bashir Assad, so as they are crazy as he his, no he did not marginalize himself. No more so than the tenants of the asylum are already marginalized.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Haha, well with all the talk about Bush’s lies, I guess Kucinich must admire Mr. Assad’s dad’s candor when it came to Hama. Man, you wanna talk about a guy that knew how to identify and then deal with terrorists...W got nothin’ on Hafez Assad.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
"Kucinich has a lot of people who agree with him, a very attractive wife, and he’s probably enjoying himself, speaking out for a lot of people very opposed to the militarist course of action taken by this President."
So what?!

I hear McQ’s wife is hot too. Your serve.



 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Kucinich shakes Assad’s hand. Meanwhile, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has strengthened Iran’s power in the region. Iran now has control over events in Iraq in a way that it could have only dreamed of prior to 2003.

The only thing worse than having an intense dislike of authority figures is to have intense adoration of them. One interesting question arising out Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is when, if ever, those who supported the invasion and continue to support the occcupation are going to come to the realization that the country that has benefitted most from our misadventure in Iraq is Iran. One can conlude only that it is their fawning admiration for Bush that causes them to not grasp the magnitude of the ongoing strategic blunder that is the War in Iraq. They love Bush too much to admit he handed the keys to Iraq to Iran.

I have yet to hear anything consituting even a smei-coherent rebuttal to this fact from the war’s supporters. If a Democrat had strengthened Iran’s hand in the way that Bush has, the right wing would have strung him up long ago.

Kucinich did not lose Iraq to Iran, Bush and the war’s supporters did.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Considering that the biggest threat to US security is from gulf Sunni Arab nations and their support of Sunni Salafist terrorist groups; and that Iranian resurgence is scaring the bejesus out of feckless Saudi sheiks, I’d say that’s not all bad. Certainly not all good, but Iran (much like Hussein-era Iraq before it) is more of a threat to local powers than to more distant nations.

Now, Mr. Reid chillin’ out with one of the region’s many atrocious dictatorship just so he can shoot some political free-throws, that’s just tacky.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Considering that the biggest threat to US security is from gulf Sunni Arab nations and their support of Sunni Salafist terrorist groups; and that Iranian resurgence is scaring the bejesus out of feckless Saudi sheiks, I’d say that’s not all bad. Certainly not all good, but Iran (much like Hussein-era Iraq before it) is more of a threat to local powers than to more distant nations.
So increasing Iranian influence is now a good thing?

It’s hard to keep up with you guys.

But then again, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Not that it’s especially easy to keep up with the anti-war crowd’s alternating cries of "leave Iraq" and "save Darfur."

In a tactical sense, Iranian influence isn’t so grand, because they’re supplying our immediate local enemies with arms. In a larger strategic sense, it presents an interesting situation in that it threatens our worst enemies, and could potentially rally international terror groups to a more immediate mission (stopping Iran instead of the USA.) External threats to the effete kingdoms of the Persian Gulf might get them to tone down their anti-American rhetoric and activies in light of the fact that a real, actual danger needs to be dealt with (that of rising Persian power.)

Now, naturally these "enemy of an enemy is my friend" arrangements have had mixed results in the past (think Afghanistan in the ’80s,) but it’s naive to simply assume Iranian influence must be either "all good" or "all bad." Like any other geopolitical development, whether it is a blessing or curse is up to how the US chooses to respond to it. For what it’s worth, my position on the Mideast can sometimes be described (when I’m in a cynical mood) as a forest in need of a conflagration to clear out the decaying, rotten flora.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
I agree with the comment made above in that it is not necessary to attack Presidential Candidate
Dennis Kucinich, personally, just because you disagree with some of his decisions.

I think reaching out to Syria, on the part of Dennis Kucinich, was exemplary, since diplomacy is so needed at this time. And, give credit where credit is due; thank Syria for accomodating the refugees.

Many thank-you’s to Dennis Kucinich for having the courage to reach out to the president and people of Syria.
 
Written By: Debra Poss
URL: http://
In a tactical sense, Iranian influence isn’t so grand, because they’re supplying our immediate local enemies with arms. In a larger strategic sense, it presents an interesting situation in that it threatens our worst enemies, and could potentially rally international terror groups to a more immediate mission (stopping Iran instead of the USA.) External threats to the effete kingdoms of the Persian Gulf might get them to tone down their anti-American rhetoric and activies in light of the fact that a real, actual danger needs to be dealt with (that of rising Persian power.)
International Sunni-associated terrorism will not be hurt by the rise of Iran. Iran is not going to hunt AQ down in Europe, or in North America. And given the spike in the price of oil, Sunni kingdoms and nations will have no problem funding these terrorist groups.

The more insane idea you describe is that Americans should die to empower Iran to help us fight the GWOT. That is insane, Strangelovian even.

Worse, strengthening Iran wins us zero points on the Sunni Arab street. None.

Staying in Iraq serves no purpose at all, and is counterproductive. Your characterization of the future is insane, simply insane.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I was told that "coddling" dictators from Baghdad to Beijing" was a bad thing back in 1992. 15 years later, you get an ovation for doing that!
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
mkultura,
One interesting question arising out Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is when, if ever, those who supported the invasion and continue to support the occcupation are going to come to the realization that the country that has benefitted most from our misadventure in Iraq is Iran.
As long as there is a large U.S. military presence in Iraq, what is the benefit to Iran? Yes it can interfere, it can cause problems, it can attempt to promote its factions inside Iraq, but it achieves no lasting results as long as the U.S. remains. When and if the U.S. departs, it is very unclear exactly what the situation will be. Whether or not Iran will benefit remains to be seen. Your views represent short-term thinking. And your arguments actually support the idea that the U.S. needs to stay longer rather than depart faster.
I have yet to hear anything consituting even a smei-coherent rebuttal to this fact from the war’s supporters.
You confuse your opinion with fact.
Kucinich did not lose Iraq to Iran, Bush and the war’s supporters did.
Despite your evident wish to declare defeat, Iraq is far from lost. In case you missed it. the U.S. is still in Iraq and the war is ongoing. Again, short-term thinking based on your own opinions which you wrongly consider facts.

Debra Poss,
I think reaching out to Syria, on the part of Dennis Kucinich, was exemplary, since diplomacy is so needed at this time. And, give credit where credit is due; thank Syria for accomodating the refugees.
Diplomacy is not automatically a good thing, and can serve good purposes or bad. Syria took Iraqi refugees for reasons of its own. Why do they deserve thanks from the U.S., particularly when most of their actions have been a hindrance to our efforts in the region? Because they’ve done one positive thing the U.S. should ignore everything else and thank them?
Many thank-you’s to Dennis Kucinich for having the courage to reach out to the president and people of Syria
No thanks to Kucinich for giving praise to an oppressive regime that is generally hostile to U.S. interests, and no thanks to the deluded who think that’s a good thing.
 
Written By: DavidC
URL: http://
You don’t get it, do you, Scott?

This has nothing to do with Kucinich’s political point of view. In fact, I know for a fact that McQ and everyone here welcomes it: it’s how this country works.

The problem here is Kucinich’s bad judgement. The United States Government already has a branch dedicated to speaking to foreign countries. It’s called ’the state department’. But lets ignore that fact for just a second. Regardless of party affiliation, you do NOT go to a country who is a known enemy of ours and start bad mouthing our President, our troops, and our country in their state-run media. If this would have occured in World War II, Kucinich would have been arrested were he dumb enough to come back here and sentenced to death. If this would have been in the Cold War, he’d still be in jail today, or also executed. The reason people react so strongly is because, if you read the constitution, Kucinich is giving ’aid and comfort’ to our enemies. That is the very definition of treason.

No one is saying he can’t disagree with the war: let him be as wrong as he wants to be. What people DO have a problem with is him doing this on foreign soil, specifically when it’s in an enemy country.

When the Dixie Chicks did this in Britain, our staunchest ally, they were shunned publicly. This deserves the strictest and most severe penalty. Denis Kucinich should be arrested immediately for Sedition.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Then attack Kucinich’s judgement and position, not him personally. Especially when people get into a self-righteous huff over a silly moveon.org ad, it looks hypocritical when they behave the same way towards their political opponents. It’s a "you can dish it out but you can’t take it" sort of thing.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
BS. The Ad was anything but ’silly’: it was highly offensive, juvenile, and an attempt at character assasination to an honorable man. By trivializing it you are rationalizing and even promoting the continuation of this kind of unacceptable behavior.

There’s a difference between calling out the treasonous actions of an absurd Congressman to attacking the character of a 4 Star General for political points, and if you cannot understand the difference, then you have a very serious problem.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
I call Kucinich a "congenital bellhop," so it’s no surprise to me to see him carrying Assad’s bags.

What does that make Boris Erb, by the way, when he carries Kucinich’s bags?

A bimmy?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
International Sunni-associated terrorism will not be hurt by the rise of Iran. Iran is not going to hunt AQ down in Europe, or in North America. And given the spike in the price of oil, Sunni kingdoms and nations will have no problem funding these terrorist groups.
Do you know what Shi’ite President Hafez Assad of Syria did when the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood tried to assassinate him and then rebel on a large scale? Mr. Assad used artillery to literally flatten the city of Hama, then bulldozed over it. Iran won’t be hunting groups internationally; but they will likely be equally merciless with threats locally. A stronger Iran would likely draw some of the international elements home to fight them, thus obviating the need for Iran to go out and find them.

The Sunni Kingdoms would have more money, but the local threat to their emirates would draw most of their attention and funding - USA might be a great satan, but in practice Arabs seem to find it more convenient to kill their neighbors.
The more insane idea you describe is that Americans should die to empower Iran to help us fight the GWOT. That is insane, Strangelovian even.
No, you’re deliberately misinterpreting. The point isn’t to empower Iran; that’s merely an unavoidable consequence of destroying their two regional enemies. Our goal should still be to create a stable Iraq that can serve as a counterweight to Iran (an Arab Shi’a state to balance the Persian Shi’a state of Iran.) I’m merely pointing out that rising Iranian influence has other consequences that America can take advantage of.
Worse, strengthening Iran wins us zero points on the Sunni Arab street. None.
That’s not a game the USA can win, ever; so cheer up! If they won’t join you, beat ’em!
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Haha, well with all the talk about Bush’s lies, I guess Kucinich must admire Mr. Assad’s dad’s candor when it came to Hama. Man, you wanna talk about a guy that knew how to identify and then deal with terrorists...W got nothin’ on Hafez Assad.
Assad’s attrocities are irrelevent to Kucinich; the only thing that matters is opposition to Bush.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

And those who support Kucinich agree with him on this point 100%.

None of which means they are traitors, of course. Oh no, can’t call them that . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The Ad was anything but ’silly’: it was highly offensive, juvenile, and an attempt at character assasination to an honorable man. By trivializing it you are rationalizing and even promoting the continuation of this kind of unacceptable behavior.
Now you’re being silly and overly emotional. It was a name game, and if someone gets offended by that, they are part of that new class of Americans: those far too easily offended and thus demand political correctness at all times.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Now you’re being silly and overly emotional. It was a name game, and if someone gets offended by that, they are part of that new class of Americans: those far too easily offended and thus demand political correctness at all times
Insulting the honor of a General commanding a theatre at war is hardly PC, Scott. And if it was a ’game’, then no one else was playing.

So, i have to ask: does it hurt you so much inside that you simply can’t utter the words ’they were wrong’ or are you apart of the ’my side can do no wrong’ crowd? Personally, I think it’s a bit of both, but psuedo-intellectuals amuse me, so please, whenever you have a chance.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Accusing General Petraeus of treason is pretty tacky, and is not based on fact. Criticizing Senator Reid for something he is actually doing (meeting with the Syrians) is a different animal. The former was character assassination; the latter, not so much (it’s more like character suicide for Mr. Reid.)

And, of course, there remains the difference between slandering someone in an advertisement in a large mainstream newspaper compared to insulting someone on the internet (and that is, naturally, that insulting someone on the internet is the gravest of all insults.)
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
You mean Kucinich, James
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Oh, hah...er, well I’m sure you’d agree it’s an understandable error :P

Haha, I even did that on another earlier post in this thread.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Now you’re being silly and overly emotional. It was a name game, and if someone gets offended by that, they are part of that new class of Americans: those far too easily offended and thus demand political correctness at all times.
Well, you get offended when people make similar remarks about Jimmy Carter. A bit of hypocracy, perhaps. The difference, of course, is that Carter is a vile, evil man and General Petraeus is a great American.

And, for the record, I’m not offended. I’m always happy when the left shows its true colors.

Now Gary, get in the limo!
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
btw, Professor Erb, the last line was a joke.

Also, Don, while i don’t agree with, well, practically anything President Carter has done, I don’t think he’s an evil man. Misguided: yes. But evil? In all honesty, I’m beginning to think President Carter is suffering from senility given his recent actions. I think Jimmy Carter is a good man with his heart in the right place, but the path to Hell is paved with good intentions, and nowhere can it be seen more apparant than in the history of the actions of Jimmy Carter.

So while I would agree that Jimmy Carter was an inept President, a terrible leader, and lately a senile old man going a bit daft, I wont say he’s evil.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
I don’t get offended by anything Don. I’m relatively un-offendable. I noted also that the attacks on Carter are just as bad — no better or worse — than that attack on Petraeus. Yeah, they are both public figures, so they can handle it (and the ’betray us’ bit still seems to me to be more a silly, misguided, word game than an attack on his character, but each person can interpret as they wish). Clearly, if you’re a controversial public figure, you’ll get people throwing pot shots at you. I don’t like it on the left or the right because I think it prevents real debate and discussion.

Oh, and Joel — I stated upfront I thought Petraeus was a good choice for the job and I thought moveon.org’s ad was wrong, I have no problem doing that. I just think some of you are over-reacting,
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Clearly, if you’re a controversial public figure, you’ll get people throwing pot shots at you.
Gen Petraeus is only controversial because what he is saying undercuts the Democat meme. The Democrats can’t abide success in Iraqi, and will stamp it out if at all possible.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Oh, and Joel — I stated upfront I thought Petraeus was a good choice for the job and I thought moveon.org’s ad was wrong, I have no problem doing that. I just think some of you are over-reacting,
Then fair play to you: you did the right thing there, just as I would have done where the tables turned, and just did concerning President Carter.

But Don hit the nail on the head: General Patraeus has only recently become controversial because of the news he’s bringing. Hell, even the House Whip Rep. Clyburn said that if the General were to bring good news from Iraq that it would be bad for the Democrats, and that’s a month before the report was due in.

The Democrats lauded Patraeus because they saw him as a critic of the President’s strategy when they appointed him. But now that he’s gone and done what they sent him to do, fix Iraq, they’re scared this will be a political bomb for them, and that’s from their own words.

Unfortunately (and I seriously hope I’m wrong here) the Democrats are not concerned with any conditions on the ground in Iraq. For them, it’s already a foregone conclusion: we need to get out, regardless of what’s going on. That’s why nothing short of happy bunnies hopping down the streets of Baghdad while children and carebears walk hand in hand on their way to school passing by the former insurgent handing out free kittens to the populace will they even reconsider their position.

It’s intellectually dishonest, and you know that.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
I doubt Republicans and Democrats are much different from each other in how they politicize issues and try to play for their advantage. Both sides have politicized the war, though I think Democrats and Republicans, for the most part, believe their arguments. I’d also note that many Republicans, including Senator Lugar, who is immensely respected, and Senator Hagel, have criticisms of the war similar to many Democrats. Senator Warner has also had misgivings. These all have come out recently (well, Hagel farther back) and I think they don’t believe changes on the ground have been significant enough to say there is real improvement because they all argue that the key is the political situation not what could be more short term tactical success followed by new violence and government bickering.

So, just as I won’t join the left in demonizing President Bush — in fact I’ve publicly praised him in my blog for making some needed changes both on the diplomatic front and in terms of the strategy in Iraq in the last year. Nonetheless, I’m absolutely convinced this policy has been a fiasco and has hurt the US national interests considerably. In that, I agree with Gen. Odom, who has years of experience in counter-terrorism since the Reagan years, and people like former counter-terrorist head at the CIA Paul Pillar. These aren’t leftist shrills or democratic political operatives! I also agree that how we leave is important, and a quick withdrawal may at this point not be our best option.

And, just to show you where I’m coming from, I had a letter to the editor appear in Time magazine back in 1999 severely criticizing Clinton over the war in Kosovo. I am an anti-interventionist out of foreign policy principle, based in large part on a distrust of centralized governmental power that makes me more libertarian than leftist (though I think American libertarians are often blind to the abuses of power by centralized business and financial institutions as they focus almost solely on government, but that’s another matter). So I’m not going to defend the Democrats or the Republicans, but try to figure out what the best course of action is, and discuss/debate as much as possible on evidence and principle.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
the key is the political situation not what could be more short term tactical success followed by new violence and government bickering.
which can only come with established security first. It’s kinda difficult to legislate when your constituents are dying off and you’re being shot at or blown up.
and a quick withdrawal may at this point not be our best option.
...or an option at all. We were badly hurt by what happened in Cambodia, and again in Rwanda and, it would appear, again in Darfur. If we pull another Cambodia, it will be ireperable.
I am an anti-interventionist out of foreign policy principle, based in large part on a distrust of centralized governmental power that makes me more libertarian than leftist
and yet we’re no longer in the isolationist period we were in 70 years ago. We can’t afford not to interven in certain regions, the Middle East being one of them. It’s easy to forget that while we sit here typing on our computers with our reliable power sources (unless you’re in the People’s Republic of California)while enjoying our air conditioned houses/offices. Without the ’black gold’ which is the lifeblood of our economy and way of life, we wouldn’t be able to function and would probably be in a state as bad if not worse than where my distant cousins are in Cuba. When the most important resource in the world lies under one of the most unstable regions in the world, you cannot afford not to intervene.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Boris Erb writes:
I don’t get offended by anything Don. I’m relatively un-offendable.
Actually, Erb, it’s not that you "don’t get offended by anything." It’s that you are not capable of being embarrassed by anything you do, when there is so much that you do that should embarrass you.

But McQ and the QandO gang should pay you for commenting here, because you are a bona fide Leftist museum piece. Not to mention a daily reminder of what an absolute lack of intellectual curiosity — which is an absolute necessity for being a solid citizen of the Left — sounds like when it’s pretending to be otherwise.

Of course, there’s no need for me to get into your daily dissembling and outright lying since that is taken as is by the posse on the regular schedule.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I doubt Republicans and Democrats are much different from each other in how they politicize issues and try to play for their advantage.
Well, I suspect some key differences.

One fact: Democrats and Republicans tend to raise money differently. Dems get fewer, but larger, contributions while Repubs get lots of little contributions. Consequently the Repubs tend to get votes from people very much like their typical voter, while the Dems are getting money from an elete class while they get their votes from a class that doesn’t show up to the polls when it rains.

Consequently, Kerry had to fet his stratagy and plans with big donors. Bush didn’t.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
One fact: Democrats and Republicans tend to raise money differently. Dems get fewer, but larger, contributions while Repubs get lots of little contributions. Consequently the Repubs tend to get votes from people very much like their typical voter, while the Dems are getting money from an elete class while they get their votes from a class that doesn’t show up to the polls when it rains.
Where are you getting your information for that claim?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
We can’t afford not to interven in certain regions, the Middle East being one of them. It’s easy to forget that while we sit here typing on our computers with our reliable power sources (unless you’re in the People’s Republic of California)while enjoying our air conditioned houses/offices. Without the ’black gold’ which is the lifeblood of our economy and way of life, we wouldn’t be able to function and would probably be in a state as bad if not worse than where my distant cousins are in Cuba. When the most important resource in the world lies under one of the most unstable regions in the world, you cannot afford not to intervene.
Well, I see you embrace the Carter doctrine :-)

Of course, it depends upon whether or not interventions actually help our situation or make it worse. And one has to weigh our convenience vs. innocent lives that get lost if we invade or attack. What’s worth more, having cheap energy or the lives of innocents in a distant land? Also, there are other options — cooperative arrangements, multilateral institutions, that can work to secure cooperation and protect oil flows.

We are nearing a peak in oil production (OPEC said they’d raise production, but most people doubt anyone but Saudi Arabia can, and even Saudi claims about oil reserves are questionable) and demand is rising. China and other emerging markets are dramatically increasing the demand for oil. Unless you want a series of oil wars and resource wars, there has to be a better way to deal with it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Where are you getting your information for that claim?


I simply remember reading it in several sources from the past. The data was out there and discussed during the last few election cycles. I haven’t seen data for the current election, but you should find sources on the internet for 2004, etc. Try Google. Even Rush had a link to some of the data.

The pattern was clear, with the Dems getting the big donations and the Repubs getting more small donations.

I find it interesting you are not aware of this, I guess it reflects where you get your information.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

I simply remember reading it in several sources from the past. The data was out there and discussed during the last few election cycles.
I don’t recall this being discussed, especially not your claims about an elite class supporting the Democrats more than the Republicans. I suspect both parties get most of their money from wealthy folk. I think Howard Dean last time and Barak Obama this time are an exception, they used the internet well to get smaller donations.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
In response to Don writing:
"One fact: Democrats and Republicans tend to raise money differently. Dems get fewer, but larger, contributions while Repubs get lots of little contributions."
Scott Erb asks:
"Where are you getting your information for that claim?"

I don’t know where Don got that information from, but you can look up trends in political donations at: http://www.opensecrets.org/

For example (pre McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform):

In the 2002 election cycle:
$200-999 Donations: 39% Dem, 61% Rep
$1,000+ Donations: 49% Dem, 51% Rep
$10,000+ Donations: 55% Dem, 45% Rep
$100,000+ Donations: 67% Dem, 33% Rep
$1,000,000+ Donations: 92% Dem, 8% Rep

In the 2000 election cycle:
$200-999 Donations: 38% Dem, 62% Rep
$1,000+ Donations: 45% Dem, 55% Rep
$10,000+ Donations: 50%Dem, 50% Rep
$100,000+ Donations: 52% Dem, 48% Rep
$1,000,000+ Donations: 93% Dem, 7% Rep

In the 1998 election cycle:
$200-999 Donations: 39% Dem, 61% Rep
$1,000+ Donations: 46% Dem, 54% Rep
$10,000+ Donations: 53%Dem, 47% Rep
$100,000+ Donations: 50% Dem, 50% Rep
$1,000,000+ Donations: 63% Dem, 37% Rep

In the 1996 election cycle:
$200-999 Donations: 35% Dem, 65% Rep
$1,000+ Donations: 43% Dem, 57% Rep
$10,000+ Donations: 52%Dem, 48% Rep
$100,000+ Donations: 58% Dem, 42% Rep
$1,000,000+ Donations: 0% Dem, 0% Rep

In the 1994 election cycle:
$200-999 Donations: 42% Dem, 58% Rep
$1,000+ Donations: 48% Dem, 52% Rep
$10,000+ Donations: 56%Dem, 44% Rep
$100,000+ Donations: 62% Dem, 38% Rep
$1,000,000+ Donations: 0% Dem, 0% Rep

In the 1992 election cycle:
$200-999 Donations: 53% Dem, 47% Rep
$1,000+ Donations: 49% Dem, 51% Rep
$10,000+ Donations: 50%Dem, 50% Rep
$100,000+ Donations: 55% Dem, 45% Rep
$1,000,000+ Donations: 0% Dem, 0% Rep

In the 1990 election cycle:
$200-999 Donations: 44% Dem, 56% Rep
$1,000+ Donations: 41% Dem, 59% Rep
$10,000+ Donations: 39%Dem, 61% Rep
$100,000+ Donations: 41% Dem, 59% Rep
$1,000,000+ Donations: 0% Dem, 0% Rep

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.asp?cycle=2002

Every cycle since (post) 1990 (that is as far back as CRP goes) through 2002 the Dems beat the Reps in big money donations. The Reps get smaller amounts from more donors.

It changes with the 2004 cycle, but that is post McCain-Feingold, and the donations change to the 527’s (which the Democrats win hands down in big money donations).
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Thanks for posting those figures. I went to the website. The count of $1 million + donations for 2002 appears to have been 23, which isn’t exactly a high number — though clearly it does raise money. Take away that and things seem pretty even, so I’m not sure what to draw from this data (I certainly can’t draw the interpretation that Don made). But Don’s basic claim about donations appears accurate, even if the number of donors is very few.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Well, I see you embrace the Carter doctrine :-)
statistically, it’s impossible for any President to be wrong 100% of the time. I’ll give Carter his credit here, though this has it’s roots with Johnson and Nixon.
Of course, it depends upon whether or not interventions actually help our situation or make it worse....Also, there are other options — cooperative arrangements, multilateral institutions, that can work to secure cooperation and protect oil flows.
Because multilateral institutions have proven to be such wonderful things from the onset of World War II on through the Cold War to our present situation today. I mean, golly wiz, if it weren’t for those Multanitional Institutions we could have had a holocaust; half of the world’s population could have been subjegated under communism; three cases of genocide would have occured; the Middle East would be in an uproar...

oh, yea. ooops.
We are nearing a peak in oil production (OPEC said they’d raise production, but most people doubt anyone but Saudi Arabia can, and even Saudi claims about oil reserves are questionable) and demand is rising. China and other emerging markets are dramatically increasing the demand for oil. Unless you want a series of oil wars and resource wars, there has to be a better way to deal with it.
which is a bigger reason as to why we need to stay in the Middle East. If we leave, China moves in, and I hear the ChiComs are such wonderfully nice and reasonable people /sarcasm

Unfortunately, I think the collision course is already set, and everyone knows it. Already Comrade Putin is trying to lay claims to the North Pole while Norway (or Finland...one of those guys), Canada, and the United States argue that we have as much of a claim to the Arctic as they do. Russia went so far as to plant a flag at the seabed of the North Pole recently, which reminds me of Eddie Izzard (Sir, the Russians sir. They’re here, and they brought a flag. Dash cunning of them!)

Whenever you have such an important resource that’s essential for the infrastructure of every industrialized nation, and that resource runs thing, war is inevitable.


That is, of course, unless we can find a replacement. At that point, let the Arabs choke on their oil.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
The time to start judging the efficacy of multilateral institutions is after WWII. And they allowed the West to develop intensive trade and internal cooperation, meaning that countries like France and Germany went from being mortal enemies to now sharing the same currency and having borders one can cross as easily as going from Maine to New Hampshire.

Moreover, if it wasn’t for the efficacy and tenacity of multilateral institutions, it’s unlikely the Cold War could have been won so easily and without the Soviet Union attempting to stay on top — the elite realized they could not compete economically and wanted to get a piece of the action. They weren’t afraid that giving up their empire would lead to Germany, the US and other states coming in and trying to carve up the country. Maybe it’s the only way to find a replacement to oil.

But you also need to think realistically about our ability to effectively use power in ways that bring advantage. In Iraq look at the cost in dollars, people, prestige, and internal solidarity on the homefront. And that’s just tiny Iraq with 20 million people, whose military was easily defeated. Could we take on the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and somehow come out on top in the Mideast when they border the region (Iran is in it) can do many things to hurt us economically? Do you seriously think it’s possible for the US to use military power to try to secure the oil, or that the American public will go along with it?

Practically, multilaterlalism is best because we need to work with others to have a chance to deal with these problems. Tough talk sounds nice, but a cold hard look at the reality of world conditions has to give one pause. Realists have long argued that unipolarity is an unstable system because the dominant unipolar power would be so tempted to use that power to shape the system to its advantage that it would cause other states to ally against it, and the power would overstretch, not recognizing its limits. Perhaps we see that happening here.

So yeah, you raise good points, but be careful of underestimating opponents and over-estimating our own power.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
multilateral institutions is after WWII. And they allowed the West to develop intensive trade and internal cooperation, meaning that countries like France and Germany went from being mortal enemies to now sharing the same currency and having borders one can cross as easily as going from Maine to New Hampshire.
BS. The Marshall Plan had more to do with that than anything else, and that was primarily a US endeavor, or ’interference’.

Also, you’re forgetting an underlying problem that’s always existed:

European disdain for all things Americans isn’t something new. Aside from the Brits, they’ve always had a bit of this snobbish attitude towards us ’colonials’. Only they had the Germans breathing down their necks and then the Russians to worry about.

But consider this: Multinationalist Organizations are precisely what led to the problems we’re seeing in the Middle East. Their inability to back up their own promises is why we’re ’unpopular’. Resolution 1441 gave us the legal backing to go into Iraq, and the reason the Germans, Russians, French and Chinese objected was because of an underlying and hitherto unknown scandal involving another multinational endeavor called ’oil for food’. The only reason we had objections going into Iraq was because of what our ’allies’ stood to loose monetarily from the removal of Huissain. It was corruption, not moral objection, that made us ’unpopular’, since we never were ’popular’.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
The Marshall plan didn’t really do a lot — it was only $17 billion, even accounting for inflation it wasn’t enough to rebuild Europe by any stretch of the imagination. But it did demand that Europeans cooperate with the newly formed multilateral institutions and be open to trade, so it was effectively in helping build the institutional structure that brought about an era of prosperity, trade, and peace within Europe and the industrialized West.

I don’t think the problems of the Mideast can be attributed to multilateral institutions, even if they haven’t yet been able to develop the cooperation and agreement necessary to solve those problems (and I think the US has a lot of the blame for that, not just China and Russia).

Also, France would have GAINED if they supported going to Iraq if it had been successful. As long as Saddam was in power they knew they weren’t going to get anything from their agreements. The US made it clear that France would, if it supported the effort, be on the ground floor. The Americans thought France would support the effort to oust Saddam out of self-interest, their only chance to protect and benefit from their agreements with Iraq. They knew if we did it on our own we’d undercut all their agreements and try to keep them out.

They doubted the WMD case, they argued for six more months for weapons inspectors, and warned that things could get very messy afterwards (and feared radicalization of Muslims in Europe). In all these, the French were proven correct, while the American thoughts of reconstruction through oil money, a quick move to a stable democracy, and a relatively cheap mission were proven wrong. So the US should have worked with the UN rather than say "our way or no way." That has hurt us badly, I think.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
They doubted the WMD case, they argued for six more months for weapons inspectors, and warned that things could get very messy afterwards (and feared radicalization of Muslims in Europe). In all these, the French were proven correct,
Hardly. It was with the backing of some French Intelligence that we went looking for WMD’s. In fact, the argument was never about WHETHER he had wmd’s or not, but rather the most effective method of getting rid of them. The unanimous 1441 Resolution is evidence enough on that front.

As for ’getting very messy’, we knew that back in 1992, but conveniently chose to ignore it thinking that our initial hero welcome would continue. We can only blame ourselves for not taking the initiative, siezing upon the heroe’s welcome and doing things right at first, but again, hindsight is 20/20.

Finally, radicalization of Muslims in Europe has been going on for some time now, and only after 9/11 was the issue brought to the forefront. The problems with France, in particular, have been going on for at least 15 years, and culminated in Paris burning for 2 weeks. The invasion of Iraq didn’t cause radicalization of Muslims in Europe: they were already there and quite radical.
So the US should have worked with the UN rather than say "our way or no way." That has hurt us badly, I think.
Oh? On what credentials?

What was the last succesful mission of this calibur does the UN have under it’s belt? We’re still in Korea, still in the Balkans, Rwanda was a disaster, Darfur is still genocidal, etc. The UN is a paper tiger and a black hole for funds, notoriously incompetent and corrupt. It’s simply laughable when you think that the IAEA can be presided over by a delegate from Iran or North Korea.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
March 10th 2003, Jacques Chirac, President of France,(see link for full context):
"In this context, we have from the outset found ourselves up against a problem, an Iraq which obviously possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were in the hands of an indisputably dangerous regime and consequently posed a definite threat to the world. So it was essential to disarm that regime, that country, to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2003/chirac_irak031003.asp
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://

What was the last succesful mission of this calibur does the UN have under it’s belt?
President Bush the Elder did a very impressive job working to build UN support and a multilateral coalition for Desert Storm.

Some of your other points deserve a response too, but that will have to wait — gotta help my wife clean the house for guests tomorrow.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
President Bush the Elder did a very impressive job working to build UN support and a multilateral coalition for Desert Storm.
Yes... President Bush the Elder, with most of the fighting done by the US, not the UN. And even then, many would argue we didn’t go all the way when we should have. Why? Because, if that were the plan, we would have had no coalition.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Bush was right not to go all the way. First, Iraq in 1991 was far more dangerous to the US than Iraq of 2003. Saddam had pulled his best forces back to defensive positions and trying to take Baghdad might have been very difficult. Iraq was far weaker in 2003 than in 1991, and the US had made massive technological advances.

But Bush cites in his memoirs the dangers — sectarian violence, Iran being able to benefit, chaos, and risks of regional war — Bush was smart to stop while he could keep his coalition together and stay within the confines of what the UN passed. Unfortunately, the fiasco of the last four and a half years shows that Bush the Elder was perhaps wiser than his son. Dick Cheney in 1994 was wiser than Dick Cheney in 2003.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
And yet what did we accomplish, except betraying our allies who were later murdered (the Kurds) and allow a despot to continue to be a thorn at our side? 18 UN Resolutions went widely ignored while Husain’s benefited and corrupted members of the Security Council.

Again, you’re ignoring what I keep bringing up: Resolution 1441
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Resolution 1441 certainly did not give the US legal right to go into Iraq. That’s the general consensus of most who study international law, and the explicit claim of states who voted for 1441 - they argued even at the time that another resolution would be required. Sure, the US came up with a lawyerly "interpretation" that was twisted to make it seem it allowed us to intervene. But that’s one of the reasons why this war really hurt our international prestige.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh?

Let’s see what the resolution says:
Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
Now, ’serious consequences’ where known, at the time of drafting, to be war. No one can argue that. It obviously wasn’t going to be sanctions: 17 previous Resolutions proved those to be worthless. In fact, Hans Blix going in KNEW it would mean war, which is why when he handed in his finding that Iraq was, in fact, in material breach of the Resolution, he handed in his resignation.

It isn’t a ’twisted interpretation’: we went in there telling them what would happen, and they knew very well what we were planning.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Boris Erb writes:
Resolution 1441 certainly did not give the US legal right to go into Iraq.
You’re half right, Boris, but in the wrong direction. Resolution 1441 reaffirmed and restated the previously existing authorization for the U.S., as a Member State of the UN, to enforce 1441 itself and the underlying resolutions on Iraq.
That’s the general consensus of most who study international law,
There "they" are again. Boris’s main source for his claims. Much like the famous "they" who "say," Boris cits "most who study international law," just as he often cites "most scholars," or "most in the field." "They say" is central to Boris’s method of scholarship. I’m willing to bet that "they" are his most frequently cited source in his classroom as well.

The funny thing about Boris, however, is that in the present case he never discusses what 1441 and the other UNSC resolutions on Iraq actually say.

He also never explains why in the first post-regime change resolution, 1483, the Security Council implicitly condones the regime change, never so much as hints that it was illegal, names the principal regime changers — the U.S. and the U.K. — as the occupying "authority" in Iraq, and asks all Member States of the UN to particpate in providing security and rebuilding Iraq.

In other words, the principal adjudicator of resolution 1441, the UN Security Council, implicitly endorses the regime change, never so much as suggesting in the farthest reaches of its next action on Iraq that the prior regime should be restored.

So everything (all the prior resolutions) leading up to 1441 are explicitly enforceable, 1441 is explicitly, by its language, enforceable, and 1483 accepts the enforcement.

Why is Boris Erb still lying about it?

I’ll answer that: Because he, just like his primary source "they," wants to hold the U.S. liable for a criminal act that it never committed, and imply that despite all the evidence to the contrary, the U.S. acted illegally. That is, as always, the bottom line for Erb: his anti-American commitment must be served.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider