US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[mheslep]

Generally, the experience considered best as a prerequisite for being President is experience running the executive branch of a government. Ie, a governorship.

Or at least executive responsibility of some kind of large organization.

 

[mheslep]

While the "experienced" politicians fell for cheap tricks by Saddam intended to convince his neighbors that he had wmds, Obama saw through it all. So much for experience.

Ridiculous. The Senator spoke against Iraq mainly on the basis that he thought it was poor judgment and a 'rash war' (2003 speech) Please cite anything, anywhere alluding to how he 'saw through' Hussein's internal manipulations of his own command chain to pretend he had WMD.

BTW, now that he recently stated he'd consider military force against AQ if they attempt to set up a base in Iraq, and given that AQI attempting exactly that now, it appears he's all for military action in Iraq.

BARACK OBAMA: As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.

 

[Astronuc]

Al Qaida is a name that anyone can use. AQI is not necessarily the same as bin Laden's AQ, a distinction that the current administration (and others) is unable to make. I think Obama was referring to bin Laden's group, not AQI.

AQI was apparently organized Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and lead by him until he was killed by US airstrike in 2006. The AQI pledged allegiance to AQ, and apparently AQ is enouraging AQI, and perhaps providing material and financial support.

It will take some time to extricate the US from Iraq. But then the Bush administration seems none to eager.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ridiculous. The Senator spoke against Iraq mainly on the basis that he thought it was poor judgment and a 'rash war' (2003 speech) Please cite anything, anywhere alluding to how he 'saw through' Hussein's internal manipulations of his own command chain to pretend he had WMD.

BTW, now that he recently stated he'd consider military force against AQ if they attempt to set up a base in Iraq, and given that AQI attempting exactly that now, it appears he's all for military action in Iraq.

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

 

[mheslep]

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Yes of course I read the '03 speech. It's still a nonsensical extrapolation from that speech to say Obama 'saw through' 'cheap tricks by Saddam intended to convince his neighbors that he had wmds'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He clearly state that Saddam was not a threat in spite of the fear mongering. Also, that is from 2002, not 2003, so he was far ahead of the pack. Cheney still hasn't figured it out and he had the most experience of anyone.

Wmds were allegedly the reason for the attack and the reason that Saddam was perceived as an imminent threat.

 

[mheslep]

Al Qaida is a name that anyone can use.

I don't agree but if true then Sen Obama's statement is meaningless.

AQI is not necessarily the same as bin Laden's AQ, a distinction that the current administration (and others) is unable to make. ..

AQI was apparently organized Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and lead by him until he was killed by US airstrike in 2006. The AQI pledged allegiance to AQ, and apparently AQ is enouraging AQI, and perhaps providing material and financial support.

A distinction without a practical difference, as the 2nd paragraph starts to show. Add to it that Z. ran camps in Afghanistan starting in '99, fought in Afghanistan w/ the Taliban and AQ in '03, got his startup money for AQI directly from bin Laden, and Z. in Iraq and AQ communicated frequently.

...I think Obama was referring to bin Laden's group, not AQI...

Based on what possible statements?

 

[mheslep]

He clearly state that Saddam was not a threat in spite of the fear mongering.

As that is a completely different statement from the 'cheap tricks' statement, Ill take it as a retraction.

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like we're headed for the first President with no executive experience since Kennedy.

Obama, HRC and MCain have some executive experience. Obama was Director of the Developing Communities Project and President of the Harvard Law Review. Hillary was Chairwoman of the Legal Services Corporation and the Children's Defense Fund. McCain was VP, Public Relations for an Annheuser-Busch distributor.

Ridiculous. The Senator spoke against Iraq mainly on the basis that he thought it was poor judgment and a 'rash war' (2003 speech) Please cite anything, anywhere alluding to how he 'saw through' Hussein's internal manipulations of his own command chain to pretend he had WMD.

In his 2002 speech, Obama did not explicitly state anything about internal manipulations by Saddam, but did state that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US or to the Middle East. He also mentions that Saddam only "coveted" nuclear capability.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

BTW, now that he recently stated he'd consider military force against AQ if they attempt to set up a base in Iraq, and given that AQI attempting exactly that now, it appears he's all for military action in Iraq.

Obama's plan calls for a phased withdrawal of major combat forces over a period of 16 months. He has also said, dozens of times now, that he will leave behind a residual force, primarily composed of Spec Ops teams, to continue targeted strikes against AQ. Since we know that AQ-I accounts for only about 10% of the violence in Iraq, a significant drawdown in US force presence is not contradictory to maintaining the ability to strike at Al Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html

See also Congressional Research Services reports RL32217 and RL 31339.

 

[mheslep]

Obama's plan calls for a phased withdrawal of major combat forces over a period of 16 months.

Indeed it does. That's roughly two brigades a month, which is also the current rate of withdrawal through this summer.

He has also said, dozens of times now, that he will leave behind a residual force, primarily composed of Spec Ops teams, to continue targeted strikes against AQ.

Saying it repeatedly does not make it reasonable. There's many things wrong with this:
1. Spec Ops teams are not meant to be 'left behind' as the don't have the logistics trail to sustain themselves, that's why they're lightweight. They're meant to go in ahead of or along side major forces. Somalia is an tragic example of what can happen when Spec Ops are ill used - and for much the same reason - a political authority that wanted it both ways - to pretend it was addressing the problem without committing the forces to do so (armor requests refused, etc).
2. Spec Ops depend on good intelligence to be effective. They can't scour the countryside. In the last year Spec Ops have been http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/general-barry-r-mccaffrey-report.htm" [see 1b] coming from civilians now co-located w/ take and hold surge troops.
3. A plan to leave behind SO forces doesn't address the issue of a major invasion by Iran or other neighbors fearful of Iraqi disintegration.

I'll give Sen O. this much: his draw down and token leave behind plan is much more plausible now given the up trend of the last 6-8 months. A year or two ago such and idea was just pander.

Since we know that AQ-I accounts for only about 10% of the violence in Iraq, a significant drawdown in US force presence is not contradictory to maintaining the ability to strike at Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Its fair to say AQI is responsible for only 10% of the direct violence, and currently the figure is probably even less as the Sunnis have turned on AQI. However, planning against this figure linearly is unwise as AQ has had vastly larger indirect impact on the violence, as demonstrated by the 'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022200454.html" which really ignited the shia-sunni struggles, and AQ's greater propensity for indiscriminate civilian massacres in general. The point being here, that the goal of US should be to withdraw when Iraq is capable of governing and securing itself, as McCain has stated many times.

 

[Gokul43201]

It seems you are addressing the broader question of what to do with the troops rather than the specific charge you made earlier:

BTW, now that he recently stated he'd consider military force against AQ if they attempt to set up a base in Iraq, and given that AQI attempting exactly that now, it appears he's all for military action in Iraq.

So, in answer, yes, he is for military action against AQ in Iraq. I don't think he has said otherwise. What he has said is that the US ought not to be policing the civil conflict between the Sunnis, Shiites and subsects within them. Presently the bulk of military resources is being spent in such activity, not in fighting AQ (even if you don't count the violence fomented by AQ but not perpetuated directly by them). I've seen recent estimates of 4 - 8% of the violence directly attributed to AQ. Their numbers are also a similar fraction of the total participation among the insurgency. Their indirect influence is not huge. Sometimes, AQ even has the effect of reducing violence. In Anbar, for instance, it was AQ going too far and pi$$ing off the local clerics that facilitated the vast improvement there.

The wisdom behind such a decision (to let the S&S duke it out amongst themselves) is another matter altogether. All I'm saying here is that there is no internal contradiction between Obama's response in the debate and what he has said all along.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As that is a completely different statement from the 'cheap tricks' statement, Ill take it as a retraction.

Well, don't. You are simply denying the facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

However, I will assume [for now] that you weren't intentionally misstating the date even after I posted a link showing the correct date.

 

[mheslep]

So, in answer, yes, he is for military action against AQ in Iraq. I don't think he has said otherwise. What he has said is that the US ought not to be policing the civil conflict between the Sunnis, Shiites and subsects within them. Presently the bulk of military resources is being spent in such activity, not in fighting AQ (even if you don't count the violence fomented by AQ but not perpetuated directly by them).

Yes, thus the point of the prior post - addressing AQ alone and not the rest of the issues is unworkable.

I've seen recent estimates of 4 - 8% of the violence directly attributed to AQ. Their numbers are also a similar fraction of the total participation among the insurgency. Their indirect influence is not huge.

Disagree. The current influence is small and waning, but that's w/ 150k troops; recent history shows it can be quite different. Most insurgency histories show the '06 golden dome bombing and related events attributed to AQ as responsible for a large escalation in the insurgency, and the http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx" .

Sometimes, AQ even has the effect of reducing violence. In Anbar, for instance, it was AQ going too far and pi$$ing off the local clerics that facilitated the vast improvement there.

Certainly, but stated that way confuses cause and consequence.

The wisdom behind such a decision (to let the S&S duke it out amongst themselves) is another matter altogether. All I'm saying here is that there is no internal contradiction between Obama's response in the debate and what he has said all along.

I take the point but this latest sounds different to me. Previously he had said Iraq is not the place to fight AQ. The last debate comment had a clearly different tone IMO ; as 'commander in chief' if AQ "is forming a base in Iraq" he'd "act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests ".

 

[Gokul43201]

Previously he had said Iraq is not the place to fight AQ.

Here's a paraphrase: Iraq is not the place one should have chosen to fight AQ at. I suspect this is what he may have been saying.

 

[BobG]

So, in answer, yes, he is for military action against AQ in Iraq. I don't think he has said otherwise. What he has said is that the US ought not to be policing the civil conflict between the Sunnis, Shiites and subsects within them. Presently the bulk of military resources is being spent in such activity, not in fighting AQ (even if you don't count the violence fomented by AQ but not perpetuated directly by them). I've seen recent estimates of 4 - 8% of the violence directly attributed to AQ. Their numbers are also a similar fraction of the total participation among the insurgency. Their indirect influence is not huge. Sometimes, AQ even has the effect of reducing violence. In Anbar, for instance, it was AQ going too far and pi$$ing off the local clerics that facilitated the vast improvement there.

Disagree. The current influence is small and waning, but that's w/ 150k troops; recent history shows it can be quite different. Most insurgency histories show the '06 golden dome bombing and related events attributed to AQ as responsible for a large escalation in the insurgency, and the http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx" .

Terrorism itself never has much effect (other than maybe psychological). Terrorists in stable countries with law and order are simply caught and executed or imprisoned. The groups can only survive where you already have unstable, volatile conditions.

It's no coincidence that Al-Qaeda was first in Sudan, then Afghanistan, and now Iraq. You had to have a volatile Sunni-Shiite-Kurd situation in order for Al-Qaeda to have any meaningful presence in Iraq.

Which is what I think Obama is getting at. Instead of trying to finish off what's left of Al-Qaeda along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, we've tied up 130,000 to 160,000 troops fighting a second front, as well.

Or, better yet (or perhaps just isolationist), fight neither fronts. It's cheaper to reaccomplish the Afghanistan invasion as punishment for harboring terrorists when it's needed than to try to hammer a civil war into a stable democracy. At the very least, if the government isn't capable of preventing terrorist groups from taking up residence in their country, they adopt the attitude the US and Iraq have towards Turkey's invasion of Kurdish territory. They either help or at least stay out of the way.

 

[mheslep]

Terrorism itself never has much effect (other than maybe psychological). Terrorists in stable countries with law and order are simply caught and executed or imprisoned. The groups can only survive where you already have unstable, volatile conditions.

Surely that must be qualified to something like 'never has much effect in deciding final outcomes' since as is the statement is tripped up by many events such as Archduke Ferdinand's assassination and WWI, and Iraq as cited above w/ the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201760_pf.html" :

"The explosion of the holy shrine pushed the country into blind violence, in which tens of thousands of innocents were killed," said Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric

[I'm mindful these AQ posts are straying far from the topic of a popular thread so feel free to move this out of thread]

 

[Gokul43201]

While assassination ought not to be grouped under terrorism (unless you also hold that most every Intelligence Agency is a terrorist organization), it is ironic that you picked 2 examples that made Bob's case. Both pre-WWI "Yugoslavia" and Iraq in '06 were highly fractured and unstable regions (and both under essentially foreign occupation). A better example would have been 9/11. Even a stable democracy can react irrationally to terrorism, particularly (but not necessarily) if it is of foreign origin, and cause a great escalation of violence.

In any case, this discussion should probably be excised from this thread and appended to the Progress in Iraq thread.

 

[BobG]

While assassination ought not to be grouped under terrorism (unless you also hold that most every Intelligence Agency is a terrorist organization), it is ironic that you picked 2 examples that made Bob's case. Both pre-WWI "Yugoslavia" and Iraq in '06 were highly fractured and unstable regions (and both under essentially foreign occupation). A better example would have been 9/11. Even a stable democracy can react irrationally to terrorism, particularly (but not necessarily) if it is of foreign origin, and cause a great escalation of violence.

In any case, this discussion should probably be excised from this thread and appended to the Progress in Iraq thread.

9/11 didn't create a large escalation of violence inside the United States. The London bombings and the Madrid bombings didn't result in an escalation of violence in either of those countries.

 

[Astronuc]

9/11 didn't create a large escalation of violence inside the United States. The London bombings and the Madrid bombings didn't result in an escalation of violence in either of those countries.

I think Gokul's comment "Even a stable democracy can react irrationally to terrorism, particularly (but not necessarily) if it is of foreign origin, and cause a great escalation of violence." was a reference to Bush's invasion of Iraq using inferences of 9/11 and al-Qaida as justification to attack a sovereign nation which was not shown to be an immediate threat to the US. Al Qaida attacked the US, Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not.

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton trails in Texas, deadlocked in Ohio

What a change over 10 months.

Ohio primaries
Dem
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Rep
1. McCain
2. Huckabee

Rhode Island primaries
Dem
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Rep
1. McCain
2. Huckabee

Texas primaries
Dem
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Rep
1. McCain
2. Huckabee

Vermont primaries
Dem
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Rep
1. McCain
2. Huckabee

New Vermont poll puts McCain, Obama well ahead of rivals
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/NEWS01/802270313/1009/NEWS05

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain have big leads over their rivals in Vermont with six days to go before the state's presidential primary, according to a new statewide poll.

Obama had the support of 57 percent of likely Democratic primary voters and Hillary Clinton had 33 percent, the poll found. Among likely Republican primary voters, McCain led with 69 percent, while Mike Huckabee had 17 percent and Ron Paul had 5 percent.

I think the March 4 races will be close, but I'll go with Obama. He's got momentum and I think Clinton has failed to make a compelling case as to why she and not Obama should be the nominee. Obama is favored over McCain, whereas as McCain is favored over Clinton, particularly among independents.

 

[Gokul43201]

9/11 didn't create a large escalation of violence inside the United States. The London bombings and the Madrid bombings didn't result in an escalation of violence in either of those countries.

Point taken.

There's a whole bunch of scores to update, ain't there? Any takers?

 

[Gokul43201]

Scores (not including NM):

         Prev. Total    WI(R,D)+HI(D)      New total

BobG        127             06               133
Gokul       134             06               140
Ivan        134             06               140
Astronuc    127             06               133
Evo         99              --               99
lisab       64              06               70

I'm not making any predictions until monday night...

For Texas, should we include the results of caucuses that are announced tuesday night or restrict ourselves to only the primary results?

 

[Gokul43201]

The Columbus Dispatch, with the largest poll conducted in Ohio, gives Clinton a whopping 16% lead.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/02/POLL02.ART_ART_03-02-08_A1_599GNRO.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Whom will you vote for?

Clinton: 56%

Obama: 40%

Other: 4%

I'm giving this more credibility than I would have since they did not ask "Who will you vote for?" but less than I would have had they asked "For whom will you vote?"

 

[Astronuc]

The Columbus Dispatch, with the largest poll conducted in Ohio, gives Clinton a whopping 16% lead.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/02/POLL02.ART_ART_03-02-08_A1_599GNRO.html?adsec=politics&sid=101



I'm giving this more credibility than I would have since they did not ask "Who will you vote for?" but less than I would have had they asked "For whom will you vote?"

How old is that poll? Today, reports indicate a very close race - closer than 16 points.

 

[BobG]

Ohio primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Rhode Island primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Texas primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain

Vermont primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain

I agree Ohio and Texas could both be tough to predict. I'm not sure whether Obama's momentum will allow him to catch Clinton in Ohio, whether she barely hangs on, or whether she pulls out both Texas and Ohio.

There's no way she pulls out the margin of victory she really needs in those two states. At best, she does well enough to keep hopes for a comeback alive.

 

[Gokul43201]

Unless I see some real movement from Obama in Ohio over the next couple of days, I'll be making the same predictions as Bob.

 

[Gokul43201]

How old is that poll? Today, reports indicate a very close race - closer than 16 points.

Feb 21 through 29. It's the only poll I've seen with such a large lead for Clinton. Most others are in the 3-6% range.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Unless I see some real movement from Obama in Ohio over the next couple of days, I'll be making the same predictions as Bob.

Same here. There are some eyebrows raised over RI but I'm not sure why. It may be worth watching though.

 

[Art]

From what I've seen I thought with the demographics from recent primaries it was thought Obama has a better chance of winning Ohio than Texas?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A funny excerpt from MTP.

MR. RUSSERT: Here's the interesting thing about politics and why we love to cover campaigns. This year's being now described as fear vs. hope. The phone represents fear, and Obama is trying to suggest hope. Back in 2004, your man, William Jefferson Clinton, campaigning for John Kerry, framed Clinton's political law this way. Let's watch.

(Videotape, October 25, 2004)

FMR. PRES. CLINTON: Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23434169/page/4/

This is all in response to Hillary's latest commercial

Narrator: It's 3 AM, and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3 AM, and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For Texas, should we include the results of caucuses that are announced tuesday night or restrict ourselves to only the primary results?

How is the winner declared officially; or does anyone know?

 

[lisab]

A funny excerpt from MTP.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23434169/page/4/

This is all in response to Hillary's latest commercial

Sounds like Point - Counterpoint!

 

[Gokul43201]

How is the winner declared officially; or does anyone know?

There really is nothing more than symbolic value to the term 'winner' in these races. There will be primaries and a part of the caucus happening on tuesday, the results of both being announced that night. The rest of the caucusing happens over the next month or two and their results will be announced when the Texas Dems sit down for their Convention (sometime in June?).

The reason Hillary's camp is kicking up a fuss about the Texas caucus and asking that the caucus results not be announced immediately is because they believe she has a better shot at coming out winner on tuesday if the caucus votes are tallied later (Obama always thrashes her in caucuses).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There really is nothing more than symbolic value to the term 'winner' in these races. There will be primaries and a part of the caucus happening on tuesday, the results of both being announced that night. The rest of the caucusing happens over the next month or two and their results will be announced when the Texas Dems sit down for their Convention (sometime in June?).

The reason Hillary's camp is kicking up a fuss about the Texas caucus and asking that the caucus results not be announced immediately is because they believe she has a better shot at coming out winner on tuesday if the caucus votes are tallied later (Obama always thrashes her in caucuses).

Which gets back to the idea that a winner is declared, so we could use that, but then we could get caught up in Hillary's little game. So if we try to avoid that, there is the question of whether we count the popular vote or the number of pledged delegates as a legitimate win.

Pledged delegates are what count so I say go with that. Of course if Hillary manages to block the release of the caucus results then it won't matter.