Matthew Yglesias (July 29, 2007) - Others? (Foreign Policy)

You know, it's getting kind of comical. Hillary has been pretty straightforward - I mean, for partisan reasons she would never put it quite this way, but her foreign policy views are pretty much "like Bush, only more competent." Why do people still have trouble acknowledging this? I mean, I guess some people are so invested in her that they are still in denial, but SO MANY people? I mean, it is as inexplicable to me as Bush's remaining 25%. No, more inexplicable - I honestly can understand some of the motives for continued Bush report, as deplorable as they may be, but I can't really understand why anyone who describes themselves as anti-war could possible support her. At this point her foreign policy positions are indistinguishable from the neocons. The only thing that separates her from even Lieberman at this point is willingness to criticize Bush.

I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I will vote for Thompson or Romney over her; I won't vote for Guilliani or McCain, but I'd either stay home or register a protest vote.

And it's not about personality, or really 90% of the stuff that people dislike about Hillary at all. But even in a a political world that tilts crazy hawkish to begin with, where reasonable moderate voices are consigned to the fringe, she is one of our most hawkish politicians. Why can't people see that? It's not like she is HIDING that?

Posted by LarryM | July 29, 2007 2:27 PM

Why can't people see that?

I'd like to see a study done that shows the correlation between Hillary Clinton supporters and fans of post 9/11 "West Wing". I think they might line up nicely and they know exactly what they are getting. It also makes me think in 2009 I might be getting wistful about Bush.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 3:07 PM

Now I'm curious as to which "other terrorist organizations in the region" she thinks our troops need to be fighting. Hamas? Hezbollah? Or is that just a throwaway line to cover all the semantic bases?

How about al-Qaeda in Iraq? That seems to fit the criteria quite well. Unless, of course, you're conflating al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda in Iraq for some reason.

Posted by Steve | July 29, 2007 3:20 PM

Romney and Thompson belong to a party all of whose candidates favor torture--except for the one who has himself been tortured. Romney is on record favoring doubling the size of Guantanamo.

Why would anyone who opposes torture and the ready use of force in the Middle East vote Republican? If you doubt the candidate's words, look to her constituency and her advisers, who are worlds away from "preemption" and doubling Gitmo.

Further, why have both leading Democratic candidates been careful not to assume Richardson's get-them-all-out now position? Are they maybe looking ahead to winning in November? But then some who profess to find the excursus into Iraq ill-advised still favor the continuance in office of the party that led the way there.

Posted by Flabbergasted | July 29, 2007 3:47 PM

Hillary has my support, and it looks like she needs it.

Posted by Cosmo | July 29, 2007 3:58 PM

Romney and Thompson belong to a party all of whose candidates favor torture

The problem is so does Hillary.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 4:00 PM

The invasion of Iraq was an absolute disaster - and I don't just mean the execution of it, but the original decision to go in. In addition, some of the negative consequences being bruited about for the Richardson position - just leaving - are probably overstated. This is particularly so for the argument that if we leave Iraq will become an Al Qaeda haven; in reality a Shia-dominated Iraq will have zero tolerance for a Sunni terrorist organization in its midst. Similarly, it's far from clear that "genocide" will follow if we're not around to stop it; though the Sunnis are in a minority, they have friends in the region and are capable of defending themselves and creating havoc if some effort isn't made to reach an accommodation with them. We may in fact be postponing such an accommodation with our presence, which enables the Malaki government and others to delay making the hard choices an agreement among the warring parties would require.

I state all this upfront so there's no misunderstanding the point I am about to make: and that is that there may be legitimate arguments for maintaining some presence in Iraq, just as Clinton is suggesting. There are people working there who need our protection; dividing the country into autonomous regions, as more and more people are suggesting, will require our presence, so we don't see the kind of mass slaughter that took place in, say India and Pakistan when population transfers of Hindus and Muslims took place there; the Kurds deserve to have a chance to develop their region of the country; and, yes, having some military presence in the region may make it easier to deal with some of the terrorists who really are there. We invaded Iraq and pretty much destroyed that country, and it seems to me we have at least SOME responsibility for assessing what might happen if we just get up and leave. I'm perfectly prepared to say I could be wrong about any or all of this; but I think the arguments should be evaluated on their merits. In other words, the antiwar position is that we should just go, and that therefore those, like Clinton, who suggest this may not be the right thing to do are "neoconservatives light." What I am suggesting is that instead of this all or nothing view, some effort should be made by those who are sickened by this war and this administration (as I am) to assess and deal with her comments and argue with them, and not just through a reflexive assumption that if she doesn't see it Richardson's way she's a warmonger.

Posted by czapniks | July 29, 2007 4:02 PM

"We invaded Iraq and pretty much destroyed that country, and it seems to me we have at least SOME responsibility for assessing what might happen if we just get up and leave."

Yes; let's have more destruction. I'm down with destruction, but I detest this idiocy. We need to leave Iraq at once and completely, and I will simply not vote for any canidate who does not vow to leave iraq completely.

Posted by Jennifer | July 29, 2007 4:14 PM

I wrote the piece because the residual forces issue hasn't gotten as much play as it really deserves. I mean, you've done yeoman's work focusing on it, but neither the Great Orange Satan nor his Little Light Blue Cousin (Atrios) have mentioned it much. Indeed, Markos himself has gone out of the way to front nice things about Clinton on the front page, stating that she "burnished her 'anti-war' credentials after a Pentagon official takes a page out of the 2003 playbook ..." in an essentially meaningless spat. FDL has spent a bit of time on it, but their Iraq coverage tends to get drowned out by their legal live-blogging. I only read Americablog sporadically. Ezra has his hands full blogging about domestic policy.

As for "others", maybe it depends on what the definition of "region" is. Perhaps she thinks we'll need forces in Iraq to project force against terrorist training camps in the Horn of Africa or Chechnya.

I think I'm roughly 70% joking and 30% serious. Alternatively, she could mean that the US forces will be involved in combat operations against "other terrorist organizations" within Iraq that may or may not have the desire and/or capacity to strike American targets.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 29, 2007 4:16 PM

Jennifer, thanks for proving my point about reflexive instead of reflective positions.

Posted by czapniks | July 29, 2007 4:21 PM

Why would anyone who opposes torture and the ready use of force in the Middle East vote Republican?

Well, because Senator Clinton is as bad or worse than President Bush. After voting for the Iraq War, and refusing to renounce that vote, she called for an 80,000-person increase in US armed forces, has said that troops should stay in Iraq another decade and as an avid member of Israel's amen corner has cheered the rape of Lebanon and the use of military force, including nukes, against Iran. "We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

Obama says Clinton has a foreign policy like Bush's (she refuses to talk to rogue regimes), which brought faint praise for Clinton from right-wing commentators for a candidate that one Republican strategist hope prevails: "Hillary Clinton is our best shot to win the White House. That's pretty much consensus by Republican insiders. It's a really crappy environment for us right now. What she does, and what Obama doesn't do yet, is single-handedly solving our base problems. Because of who she is."

So Clinton is the worst of both worlds--bad for progressives and good for repubs.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 4:31 PM

Ed Marshall: Please provide a Hillary-is-pro-torture citation. Thanks.

Posted by Andruw | July 29, 2007 4:32 PM

I would also add that the most useful function of the blogosphere is to shape mainstream press coverage, which reaches one or two orders of magnitude more voters than blog coverage. So, raising the profile of the "residual forces" issue, for those who oppose the presence of a large residual force, is still very important, since the press largely gives candidates a pass on this issue.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 29, 2007 4:37 PM

Jennifer, thanks for proving my point about reflexive instead of reflective positions.--czapniks

czapniks, reflect on this:

"The United States upset the regional balance in the Mideast when it invaded Iraq. Restoring it requires bold initiatives, but 'cutting and running' must precede them all. Only a withdrawal of all U.S. troops - within six months and with no preconditions - can break the paralysis that enfeebles our diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public."--William E. Odom, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1119-24.htm

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 4:41 PM

She added, "I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that ... there has to be some check and balance, some reporting ... in those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe there is something imminent."

http://nightlight.typepad.com/nightlight/2006/10/the_immoral_mod.html

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 4:42 PM

Yes, can't wait for that Turk-US showdown over Kurdish terrorists. Or maybe they will be freedom fighters? Damn it, call back Negropante!

Posted by Rob | July 29, 2007 4:48 PM

Wouldn't you call the practice of inserting a cigar into female genitalia a form of torture?

Posted by Jeremy Bentham | July 29, 2007 4:55 PM

Only if it was lit, Jeremy. Now, deliberately blowing the wings off large numbers of quail immediately after they're released from cages -- THAT'S torture.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 29, 2007 5:02 PM

Don, I'm aware of Odom's position (and his willingness to accede to Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons, another issue that I wonder if those of us who are liberal - I still like that word - are assessing correctly). Many of those inside and outside the military who opposed the war agree with him, and many do not. My point is that there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and that these need to be assessed on their merits. That's all.

Posted by czapniks | July 29, 2007 5:05 PM

A lot could be said in response here - from my perspective, a lot of the pro Hillery comments just prove my point - but, if it wasn't abundantly clear, I'm no great fan of Thompson and Romney by any means, but I see them as no worse than Hillary on issues like torture, due process and civil liberties (i.e, they are appallingly bad, but so is Hillery), and I see them as significantly less likely to start World War 3 than she is.

In fact, of all of the major candidates, yes, including McCain and Guilliani, she may be the MOST likely to start WW 3/

Posted by LarryM | July 29, 2007 5:06 PM

Ed Marshall: Quite a link, can't imagine why the most prominent words from Clinton in that piece seems to be "...."

And I especially enjoyed, "she said (according to the News' Ben Smith) " ... there is a place for what she called 'severity,' in a conversation that included mentioning waterboarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture."

In a conversation, nice phrase.

By the way, do you think any of the Dem candidates would disagree with that (admittedly) weasel-word 'severity'?

Posted by Andruw | July 29, 2007 5:12 PM

"We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater."

Richard Nixon, November 3, 1969

Over 8,000 troops died and over 46,000 were injured in Vietnam after this speech.

"As President, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting within the first 60 days of my Administration. We should do this as quickly as we can, consistent with preserving our security and protecting our troops. . . I will focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq."

Hillary Clinton, July 10, 2007

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"--George Santayana

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 5:15 PM

I hope so.

It's also worth remembering her husband's administration started "rendition" in the first place.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 5:17 PM

My point is that there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and that these need to be assessed on their merits.

It's remarkably arrogant to assume that anyone who advocates withdrawal hasn't considered the arguments you reference, just because they're not interested in going through a public hand-wringing exercise for your benefit.

Posted by Steve | July 29, 2007 5:23 PM

czapniks,

If a marauding gang of criminals were invading a neighboring town killing, raping and torturing the inhabitants I'm sure that you might find someone who would say: "Hey, let 'em go on, I didn't like those people anyhow." It doesn't take much reflection to say, dismissing the pro-gang crowd: This is wrong. Stop it.

There is no 'equal time' provision to questions of right and wrong, is there? So Jennifer was completely justified in writing, without much "reflection", and I applaud her for it: "We need to leave Iraq at once and completely, and I will simply not vote for any candidate who does not vow to leave Iraq completely."

MY point, and I want to emphasize it, is that there are NOT two legitimate arguments. Besides war being morally and legally wrong it is clearly counter-productive in the case of Iraq, as General Odom describes. The Iraqis want us out, sending troops to their death to prop up an Iran-allied Islamic Republic makes no sense, and the only reason to stay is oil and profits.

As Cindy Sheehan wrote: "How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?" We need to leave Iraq at once, and that will determine my actions and my vote also.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 5:37 PM

I think I'm roughly 70% joking and 30% serious. Alternatively, she could mean that the US forces will be involved in combat operations against "other terrorist organizations" within Iraq that may or may not have the desire and/or capacity to strike American targets.

Clinton knows that the US and Israel are using Iraqi Kurdistan, particularly the PKK and PEKAK, in order launch covert proxy operations in northern Iran, as part of a broader effort to stress, harass and perhaps eventually topple the Iranian government. She is also likely anticipating a dirty war in parts of Iraq with Iranians who "cross the border", and fighting that dirty war will be one of the employments for the "specialized units". She has also spoken pointedly of protecting our embassies in the area, which one may take to include protecting the listening posts and other covert and espionage functions run out of those embassies.

Finally, there were reports in May that the US is building three large military bases in Qaradagh, Zakho, and Arbil, and there has even been some talk of relocating the US operations at Turkey's Incirlik airbase to Iraqi Kurdistan.

The original neocon plan for Iraq was to replace the Saddam Hussein regime with a stable US-friendly and Israel-friendly friendly government, and then use a heavily fortified Iraq as the forward base for further regional transformation, including stage two: Iran. That original plan has been dashed, but plan B seems to be to do now with Kurdistan what was once planned for all of Iraq. The US will withdraw from major fighting in the rest of Iraq, retrench in the Kurdish north, and leave the Iraqis to hash that civil war out for themselves, intervening only in the event of major successes by either jihadist or pro-Iranian forces. As far as I can HRC is fully on board with this agenda, which is why people like Krauthammer are starting to gush.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 29, 2007 6:30 PM

Don Bacon, thank you for the fine argument which I completely agree with. When someone writes:

"Don, I'm aware of Odom's position (and his willingness to accede to Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons, another issue that I wonder if those of us who are liberal - I still like that word - are assessing correctly)."

all I find is another reason for another insane needless war. First iraq, now Iran; and always the liberal this and that garbage.

"I wonder if those of us who are liberal ... " What garbage. Wonder for yourself.

"I wonder if those of us who are Martian ... "

Posted by Jennifer | July 29, 2007 6:34 PM

If a marauding gang of criminals were invading a neighboring town killing, raping and torturing the inhabitants I'm sure that you might find someone who would say: "Hey, let 'em go on, I didn't like those people anyhow." It doesn't take much reflection to say, dismissing the pro-gang crowd: This is wrong. Stop it.

An excellent analogy for the hispanification of the American Southwest. Good boy.

Posted by Jimboy | July 29, 2007 6:36 PM

"I wonder if those of us who are liberal - I still like that word - are assessing correctly."

When I read this sort of passage, I know all is fakery.

"I wonder if those of us who are liberal - I still like that word - are assessing correctly."

All this liberal cares about is war war war war war. In Iraq for 4 1/2 years, let's try for 9 years, being liberals (I still like that word) as us all are.

Posted by Jennifer | July 29, 2007 6:39 PM

particularly the PKK and PEKAK

Do you mean PEJAK or is there some other player out there I don't know about?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 6:41 PM

"Hispanification" - another idiot troll.

Posted by Jennifer | July 29, 2007 6:42 PM

Sorry Ed, I typed the alphabet soup too fast. Yes - PEJAK.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 29, 2007 6:47 PM

Curiously enough, my last comment that I posted to this thread was suddenly met with the message that my post was awaiting moderation.

I'm truly touched that I should receive such special consideration. Some might call it a fascistic liberal excercise in censorship, but not me. But I understand that Yglesias is upset that I called him a no-talent hack.

Fortunately, I have IP switching software that can bypass such draconian methods.

Posted by Jimboy | July 29, 2007 7:11 PM

Re Jennifer, Larry M. and Ed Marshall

I must say that I find the comments of these folks rather disconcerting, especially Mr. Larry M. who says he would vote for Romney or Thompson over Hilary. Apparently, these folks think that there is only one issue here, namely Iraq policy. I have some news for them, Supreme Court nominations are just as important. The two assholes, Roberts and Alito who were appointed by the current incumbent will be damaging this country long after the Iraq war is a distant memory, like Vietnam. Election of any Rethuglican will lead to more such such appointments. Any of the Democrats currently in the race, including Hilary (remember her husband appointed Ginsburg and Breyer, certainly far superior to Roberts and Alito from a liberal point of view) would not appoint such thugs.

Posted by SLC | July 29, 2007 7:14 PM

Ed Marshall: this whole "extraordinary rendition" thing has too many meanings. In the Clinton era, they did approve "snatches" of high-valued targets. Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies documents this well.

The Bush era has taken "extraordinary rendition" to a new level with the black sites, deportation to countries that practice torture, etc.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 29, 2007 7:16 PM

"I would also consider, as I have said before, leaving some forces in the Kurdish area to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that has developed there."

Margin notes: I will personally travel to Kurdistan and help or at least watch as they stone young girls to death if it will help me to win the suburbs of Detroit.

Posted by Linus | July 29, 2007 7:21 PM

SLC,

If you bothered to carefully re-read my posts, you would see that Iraq is not my only concern (or even main concern, though that isn't as clear from my post). I'm also concerned about Iran, other foreign policy issues, and ancillary issues such as Habeas and civil liberties generally.

But in a larger sense you are correct, at this point the issues described above do indeed IMO trump ALL other issues. As for the Supreme court, obviously all else being equal, I'd like to see better picks than we have had. But I'm not going to elect an insane warmonger like Hillary to get that.

To put it another way, explicitly: yes, I'd trade social security and abortion rights, and much, much more, in a heartbeat, for a more sane foreign policy.

It makes me vomit that so many so-called progressives are willing to countenance (by inadequate and half-hearted opposition) murdering innocent people in the middle east, and elsewhere, for their domestic concerns.

Posted by LarryM | July 29, 2007 7:23 PM

Hey, Yglesias, my comments get censored, sorry, moderated, whilst comments calling two Supreme Court justices 'assholes' go unmolested.

Anyway, returning to the subject of the hispanification of the American Southwest, it's interesting that none of the Bush-bashers here seem to be celebrating his inglorious and humiliating defeat on the immigration bill.

Posted by Gyula | July 29, 2007 7:23 PM

Gyula,

You know, it's bad enough that fucking racist pigs like you are allowed to live, let alone post here, but since it's still (just barely) a free country, could you at least post your filth on a relevant thread?

Posted by patriot | July 29, 2007 7:27 PM

Dan Kervick,

Let's not forget northern Iraq's proximity to the nearby oil-and-gas rich Caspian Basin, and the huge recently-completed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline passing through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.

Incidentally, Condoleezza Rice directed Chevron's board while it invested in the Caspian Basin. They were so grateful they named a ship after her.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 7:35 PM

Jimboy,

Not being a student of history you might be surprised to learn that the "Hispanification" of the Southwest began centuries ago--it's only relatively recently that the "Angloification" (whew) has occurred. Furthermore, as a resident of the Southwest, I can report that contrary what you racists spout it's actually quite peaceful here. While the huevos rancheros are to die for it's not usually a requirement, I'm happy to report.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 7:45 PM

It is good if people begin to realize now that HRC will not get the U.S. out of Iraq. At this point she seems to be the most likely next president and we had better get ready for an historic case of buyer's remorse.

Still time to go another direction, but people need to be clear-eyed about this.

Posted by JJF | July 29, 2007 7:50 PM

In the Clinton era, they did approve "snatches" of high-valued targets. Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies documents this well.

Yeah, and shipped them off to Egypt and Syria to get tortured in violation of a number of treaties signed by the U.S.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 7:50 PM

totally off-topic but...

could someone tell me how to get quoted text to show up in that blue box??

thx

Posted by james hogan | July 29, 2007 7:54 PM

MR. RUSSERT: But let’s go through the resume a little bit. First, there’s governor of New Mexico. As you well know, they rank states in a whole variety of categories from one being the best, 50th being the worst. This is New Mexico’s scorecard, and you are the governor. Percent of people living below the poverty line, you’re 48. Percent of children below, 48. Median family income, 47. People without health insurance, 49. Children without health insurance, 46. Teen high school dropouts, 47. Death rate due to firearms, 48. Violent crime rate, 46. You’re the very bottom of all those statistics of all 50 states, and you’re the governor for five years.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, Tim, let me just say that we’ve made enormous progress in all of those areas.

Anecdote vs evidence.

And, by the way, patriot, I know that's you, Klein's left nut, or whatever your name is. I realise you're still smarting from the pasting I gave you over in that other thread. Relax, don't take it so personally. You can't beat me, nobody can.

Posted by Jimboy | July 29, 2007 8:14 PM

Re LarryM

Mr. LarryMs' characterization of Hilary as an "insane warmonger" indicates that he has been partaking of the nose candy of late. May I remind Mr. LarryM that it was Mitt Romney who wants to double the size of Guantanamo. And who the hell knows where Fred Thompson stands on anything. Mr. LarryMs' dissatisfaction with Hilary eerily recalls the complaints heard against Al Gore in 2000 and the schmucks in New Hampshire and Florida who voted for Mr. Nader. Those Nader voters put the coke snorting, pot smoking, draft dodging, lying, drunk in the White House and are responsible for Iraq, Alito, Roberts, the Patriot Act, the war on science and all the other abominations that have occurred in the last 6 years. A vote for any of the current or proposed Rethuglican candidates is a vote to continue those abominations. The notion that Hilary, or any of the other Democratic candidates is worse then that is total crap.

Posted by SLC | July 29, 2007 8:30 PM

Well, I left for a few hours and return to find that now I'm a fake liberal and a warmonger as well. Don, my post began with a statement that the war in Iraq was a catastrophe from its inception. I don't know you, and you don't know me, but I very much doubt that you're more outraged by it than I am. Nor am I certain that Clinton is right - and I said that as well. Perhaps there was nothing to Colin Powell's statement that "you broke it, you fix it," and leaving outright may well be the best and even most moral of bad options, but if we leave forthwith and as a result the Kurds are slaughtered once again, won't we bear some responsibility for that? Or is leaving the primary imperative, no matter what? That might be exactly right. But I'm just not prepared to demonize Clinton on this basis alone, though I totally understand why many of you feel otherwise.

Posted by czapniks | July 29, 2007 8:44 PM

Re Gyula

Since apparently Mr. Gyulas' comment was removed, I can't comment on it as to its content, although from the comments of Ms. Jennifer and Mr. Patriot it must have been pretty bad. I would just say to Mr. Gyula that my experience here has been that Mr. Yglesias is quite loath to remove comments and generally permits the use of strong language and strong personal attacks, of which I have been both the giver and receiver. From the tone of the aforementioned comments of Ms. Jennifer and Mr. Patriot, it would appear that Mr. Gyulas' comment was racist in character and directed towards Hispanics. I would remind Mr. Gyula that Mr. Yglesias is partly Hispanic in ancestry and I think it is quite understandable why he might take offense and remove them.

Posted by SLC | July 29, 2007 8:46 PM

Yeah, and shipped them off to Egypt and Syria to get tortured in violation of a number of treaties signed by the U.S.

Ed,

I'd appreciate a cite for the proposition that this specific practice began in the Clinton era.

Posted by Steve | July 29, 2007 9:03 PM

I wonder what the Iraq conversation would sound like if there was a requirement that the war be 100% financed with either one or both of increased taxes or expenditure cuts, as opposed to simply borrowing more money. Borrowed money has always created the illusion that the marginal cost of the war is zero. It isn't just on Wall Street where cheap credit has produced some very, very bad investments.

Posted by kafka | July 29, 2007 9:37 PM

"In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. "What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian," Scheuer said. "It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated."

That was from a New Yorker article with Scheuer who came up with the program at the time.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 9:45 PM

"...but if we leave forthwith and as a result the Kurds are slaughtered once again, won't we bear some responsibility for that?"

This is of course nuts; which is the problem with nutty reasons to stay in Iraq. Stop thinking like a fool, and really try to think for a change, forthwith. Am I being forthwith enough? Forthwith, the Kurds are going to be "slaughtered." This is beyond nutty.

Posted by Jennifer | July 29, 2007 9:49 PM

"...but if we leave forthwith and as a result the Kurds are slaughtered once again, won't we bear some responsibility for that?"

"...but if we leave forthwith and as a result Canadians invade New Hampshire once again, won't we bear some responsibility for that?"

Any other nutty reasons for continuing the insanity of occupying Iraq? Forthwith.

Posted by Jennifer | July 29, 2007 9:56 PM

There is no evidence that either the US government or the average American cares one iota about the lives of Iraqis--quite the opposite.

Narrowing the scope of this discussion, it might be true that czapniks really cares about Iraqi lives, that czapniks hasn't gotten a decent night's sleep grieving over the half-million or so lives that have been lost, and possibly the high rates of child cancer and grotesque births due to our introduction of depleted uranium (at 300,000 rounds per Iraqi death) causes czapniks terrible nightmares, and that if the US leaves and the Kurds are "slaughtered once again" it would only add to this terrible burden that czapniks bears, and only sending young Americans to this hellhole for the third or fourth time, possibly to die at the age of 23 or 24, can ease this pain--but it's okay, we'll tell these young cannon-fodder kids: "you broke it, you fix it" and they'll feel so much better making this sacrifice for czapniks.

Let's hear it for chickenhawks everywhere.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 11:49 PM

SLC,

Re "partaking of the nose candy of late" - oh, come on, you can do better than that. I mean, what's kind of interesting here is that no one (including you) is really defending Hillary specifically, with facts, in this thread.

Now, if you happen to think that the current "centrist" foreign policy consensus in the United States is reasonable, then perhaps "insane warmonger" is going to sound a little harsh. But for some of us, the current foreign policy consensus is obscene to begin with, with Hillary significantly to the right of that consensus, I think "insane warmonger" is pretty accurate. She has made it pretty clear that she is ready and willing to start an aggressive war against Iran (not her characterization of it, but that's what it would be. Oh, yeah, she'll negotiate first - but it's more clear than every that her idea of negotiating is pretty close to the current administration's - unwilling to make concessions, and use the subsequent failure in negotiations to justify going to war.

As for the Nader thing, man that hurts. But only a little. The simplist response is that the Naderites were wrong about Gore, but people like myself are right about Hillary. And I think that their divergent reactions to the Iraq fiasco bear that out. While it's true that the Naderites didn't have that knowledge before hand, most of us realized at the time that, while hawkish in some respects, Gore was a sane an cautious imperialist, as opposed to Hillary, who is, if one is to trust her own words, as I think we should ...

an insane warmongerer.

Posted by LarryM | July 30, 2007 1:04 AM

"Hillary, who is, if one is to trust her own words, as I think we should ...

an insane warmongerer."

How in the world does LarryM come to that conclusion? Let's trust his own words, as I think we should: "I am ... insane".

Posted by rilkefan | July 30, 2007 3:22 AM

Re LarryM

Mr. LarryM apparently likes being in bed with Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Shawn Hannity, three of the leading Hilary bashers on the whackjob right. Quite frankly, I don't particularly care for Hilary either and she would be far down on my list of preferred Democratic candidates. However, she is still heads and shoulders above any of the Rethuglican candidates. I would admit though that if she were the Democratic candidate and Mayor Bloomberg were running as an independent, I would seriously consider voting for him, particularly as Hilary has little chance to carry the State of Virginia.

Posted by SLC | July 30, 2007 8:09 AM

SLC apparently likes killing innocent Iraqi and Iranian children. Hope you sleep well at night with blood on your hands, you murderous freek.

Posted by LarryM | July 30, 2007 8:32 AM

Speaking of Iraq, here's a related op-ed from the NY Times: A War We Just Might Win.

Posted by Fred | July 30, 2007 8:34 AM

8 million Iraqis need urgent aid

Let's talk about this instead.

Posted by novakant | July 30, 2007 8:52 AM

Novakant,

Why should we talk about that "instead"? Why can't we talk about both?

Posted by Fred | July 30, 2007 9:03 AM

Since apparently Mr. Gyulas' comment was removed, I can't comment on it as to its content, although from the comments of Ms. Jennifer and Mr. Patriot it must have been pretty bad.

No comment was removed, so your second supposition is a baseless smear. The actual problem was the attempt at censorship by means of introducing moderation for yours truly. In vain, of course, since I easily circumvented it. Now, it appears I am again free to post, unhindered, in my usual brilliant style.

But thanks for the concern. I'm deeply touched.

Posted by Gyula | July 30, 2007 9:10 AM

Republicans care as much for dead Iraqis as Democrats do for aborted American babies. So let's call it quits and save the crocodile tears.

Posted by Frempington McCloud III | July 30, 2007 9:14 AM

Re Gyula

Gee, Mr. Gyula has discovered that unplugging his modem for a short time will change his internet address. Anybody who downloads files from Rapidshare knows that. I guess that means that Mr. Gyulas' IQ is in the lower double digits rather then in the single digits.

Re LarryM

Mr. LarryM apparently is suffering under the delusion that Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney are more apt to remove troops from Iraq then Hilary is. I would like to see some evidence in that regard, other then Mr. LarryMs' personal opinion which seems to be rather prejudiced by his evident dislike for Hilary.

Posted by SLC | July 30, 2007 9:27 AM

Does poor SLC still only have a dial-up modem? And as if I would know or care what Rapidshare is. Peasant.

Ours is professional software. Something to do with proxies. I'm no tech geek so don't expect the details.

And the double/single digit IQ thing - so lame, it died a natural death.

Posted by Julp | July 30, 2007 9:41 AM

Why should we talk about that "instead"?

Because it's urgent and yet nobody gives a flying fuck.

Posted by novakant | July 30, 2007 10:15 AM

Re Julp

1. Dr. SLC has a DSL modem. However, the same strategy would work with a cable modem.

2. For the information of Mr. Julp, Rapidshare is a file sharing system in which users can post files for downloading. There are a number of such systems, such as Megaupload, Zshare, Sendspace, badongo, gigisize, etc. Most of these systems only support limited free downloads (generally 100 Meg every two hours). This limitation can be circumvented by the unpluging/repluging strategy which usually changes the IPA, which is what these systems key on.

Re novakant

How about the millions of Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria? They are threatening the stability of both those countries.

Posted by SLC | July 30, 2007 11:28 AM

Okay, bored with this, but let me make a point somewhat orthagonal to the rest of the thread. I made it pretty clear that Iraq was not my primary concern by any means, yet we still have SLC sating deep in the thread the following: "Mr. LarryM apparently is suffering under the delusion that Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney are more apt to remove troops from Iraq then Hilary is." Now I frankly don't give a damn that SLC fails reading comprehension, but I think that his error is a symptomatic of a huge problem on the anti war center left, such as it is. All this focus on Iraq - yeah, Iraq is important, I want the troops out too, but really Iran is more important by an order of magnitude. People just seem to assume that, because attacking Iran would be so obviously irrational, that it won't happen. And here is where people just aren't listening. Even aside from the fact that it seems likely that Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office, with little or no real opposition from congress, just about all of the condidates, Dems included, and the entirety of the foriegn policy establishment, has made it pretty damn clear that a nuclear armed Iran is "unacceptable." Since Iran is, quite reasonably, developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent against US aggression, and would be crazy to abandon that program, war with Iran, given the batch of candidates we have, is highly likely in the next few years. My opposition to Hillary is focused primarily on the likelyhood that she will start a war with Iran. And that issue, for some reason does not appear to be on most people's radar.

War with Iran IMO will, depending upon the level of escalation, result in between 10 million and 1 billion deaths. Israel, of course, will be one of the casualties, which makes it rather odd that defenders of Israel want to start that apocalyptic nightmare.

Posted by LarryM | July 30, 2007 1:36 PM

Re LarryM

1. We are now getting to where the rubber hits the road relative to Mr. LarryM. What he is really afraid of is the Hilary would attack Iran if elected. So I will rephrase my question as follows. Does Mr. LarryM think that Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, who he says he will vote for instead of Hilary, are less likely to attack Iran then she is? I would appreciate it if Mr. LarryM would provide some information as to how he arrived at this conclusion.

2. Apparently, Mr. LarryM is perfectly sanguine relative to Iran acquiring a nuclear capability. Unfortunately, I am afraid we will have to disagree on this matter as I am not confident that the mullahs running Iran are sane men who will be deterred from using that nuclear capability, or at least brandishing it to blackmail the other Middle East oil producing states into going along with Iranian pretensions of grandeur.

Posted by SLC | July 30, 2007 2:47 PM

I wasn't going to respond to the bizarre, self-righteous vituperation and irrational ad hominem attacks I got from Jennifer et al., but if you want to see what I hoped for but didn't get, note Matt's thoughtful response today to precisely the same arguments from Will Marshall. That's a civilized, addressing-the-issue way to argue. But he's Matt, and the rest of you are, well, you. Don't bother responding, as I'm not visiting this string of posts again.

Posted by czapniks | July 30, 2007 4:02 PM

SLC,

As for your first question, the format of a blog comment, combined with laziness, prevents me from giving a full response. The short answer, ironically, is that in one sense I find Hillary more honorable than Thompson or Romney. I'm convinced that she is totally sincere in her extreme hawkishness, whereas Romney and Thompson may well be merely pandering for hawkish Republican votes. It's at least possible that they may return to sanity after being elected, while Hillary is going to govern as the sincere hawk that she is. There's more to it than that, though.

As for your second question, I am slightly more sanguine about the leaders of Iran than you are, but frankly not much. Where we likely differ is this: I think that the United States is by far the biggest threat to peace in the world, and, given our history, ANY intervention in foreign affairs by us, even in a "good" cause such as (arguably) stopping Iran from getting the bomb, is an obscenity. I want us out of the middle east, 100%, no troops, no military aid, no foreign aid. That includes Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the whole lot. I know it isn't going to happen, but, bottom line ... its not that I think much of the Iranian government, and it's not like I don't care about their intentions, I just don't think that the United States has any business doing anything about it.

czapniks - not that you're reading this, but the key here is that Matthew has a very different role than his commenters do. The fact is that we are tired of engaging the same arguments over and over. We've considered arguments like yours, and rejected them, and don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel in every comment thread. I bet Matthew is sick of them too, but he doesn't have the same freedom we do to simply say fuck off.

Posted by LarryM | July 30, 2007 6:41 PM

Re LarryM

Mr. LarryMs' is apparently an isolationist, at least relative to the Middle East. I can't say as I blame him; I'd like ignore it too. Unfortunately, perhaps, the US cannot afford to wash its hands of the Middle East because the great bulk of the worlds oil reserves are there, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. I would be willing to entertain Mr. LarryMs' suggestion if he could provide a blueprint as to how the Western World would get along without Middle East oil, a cutoff of which would be a distinct possibility if the US washed its hands of the mess. IMHO, nobody would give a tinkers damn about the Middle East if it were not for the oil reserves therein.

Posted by SLC | July 30, 2007 7:34 PM

SLC,

QED.

could respond on many levels (for one, I DON'T think that leaving the middle east would result in the oil getting cut off, but even if I am wrong, it wouldn't change my position at all), but in essence I'd say this: your last argument supports the isolationist position, at least for those people who aren't moral monsters. It is obscenely immoral to kill people (i.e., go to war) over oil - especially someone else's oil. We are, in essence, the precise moral equivalent of the thug who murders old ladies to steal their purses. Except we do it wholesale.

Hmmm, let's see, I guess I could, in defense of the old lady murdering thug, ask the prosecutor what his suggestion for a blueprint as to how the thug is going to support his drug habit without killing old ladies?

Posted by LarryM | July 30, 2007 8:01 PM

Re LarryM

Sadly, Mr. LarryM is apparently living in a dreamworld where righteousness triumphs. In the real world, sadly, as the philosopher Voltaire once said, god marches with the big battalions.

Posted by SLC | July 31, 2007 8:02 AM

It's really interesting to see the masks come off of even self-described progressives. The frightening thing is that, with arguments such as yours, literally anything can be justified. Welcome to Cheney's world, monster. Which is why this nation has lost its soul, and why we are headed to Armageddon. Just hope that there isn't a just God, because if there is, this nation and its people will reap the whirlwind.

Posted by LarryM | July 31, 2007 8:36 AM

Others?

Comments (75)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories