Moustache of Understanding

Due to a timing error, I didn't realize when the Democratic debate was on, and wound up only catching the post-game spin. I hadn't realized until this very segment with Chris Matthews that David Axelrod sports that preposterous moustache -- he should consider a shave. That said, on the merits Hillary Clinton's notion that it's inappropriate to debate Pakistan policy in public doesn't really make sense to me. Just deciding that we can trust our overlords to do the right thing -- even if they're Democratic Party overlords -- hasn't worked out extremely well for us in the past. That's how we got into Iraq.

Um . . . consider this an open thread?

Comments

Bingo. Her fight against hypotheticals seems silly to me. Her response is "trust her judgment." What in her career has led us to believe that we should trust her judgment? The healthcare debacle? The Iraq war vote. Senator Clinton, we want answers.

Posted by Ryno | August 7, 2007 8:58 PM

Look, obviously I support Obama. But I have to admit that Edwards did very, very well in this debate. He seriously differentiated himself from Hillary Clinton. However, I still say that Obama won. Because I got a crush on Obama.

Posted by i got a crush on obama | August 7, 2007 8:58 PM

I haven't seen any clips of Edwards yet.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | August 7, 2007 9:03 PM

Thanks, Crush. I was pretty happy with Edwards' performance myself -- in particular the response to the old steelman with the white beard. And I was also happy with his support of public financing, which I didn't think he was going to bring up.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 7, 2007 9:05 PM

If anyone feels the urge, they can Vote in the Daily Kos poll.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 7, 2007 9:13 PM

I was pretty happy with Edwards' performance myself -- in particular the response to the old steelman with the white beard.

That was a very, very moving moment. It is always really good to have debates in general in which ordinary Americans are asking (at least some of) the questions rather than some self-important pundit. That was the time in the debate where you really felt how much a lot of people in this country are suffering. He was a surrogate for many other Americans whom we don't often get to hear from but who are bearing the brunt of this Administration's neglect of its own constituents.

Posted by i got a crush on obama | August 7, 2007 9:16 PM

I agree with the need for Hillary to get over her "trust me" appeals. It's about time for the other candidates to call her on it. Where's her healthcare plan, for instance?

I caught the debate towards the end and from what I saw thought Edwards did okay, but the first post-debate analysis with Matthews & co. was about Edwards doing poorly. I'm guessing based on the comments here that wasn't really the case. And the one clip of him responding to a man in the audience about a healthcare issue was rather powerful.

Posted by JJF | August 7, 2007 9:25 PM

I presume there is a certain element to our policy with Pakistan that, for good or ill, ends up locked behind classified channels. It isn't presumptuous on its face to say that such a thing is necessary, particularly considering that Pakistan has nukes and a wobbly regime. So if Hillary is saying: "Look, I'd like to tell you about what I'd do in Pakistan, but there are certain facts that I cannot reveal to you for national security reasons, and so cannot adequately explain in public why my policies would be the way they were," then there is some sense to that. Who knows what we're doing now to prop Musharraf up. It wouldn' surprise me, for instance, to hear that the Pentagon has already laid out a plan in case the jihadis take over the country that involves a quick and instant nuclear arms reduction in that country. Of course, to do that, we'd have to know for sure where the nukes are, but it isn't out of the question to suppose that Musharraf, who would prefer a conventional strike to a nuclear bombardment of his country, has even given up that little tid bit of data. At any rate, this sort of talk probably shouldn't be popping up in Charles Krauthammer's next column.

There is an added foreign political element that also complicates a free dialog of the various policy options at our disposal in our relationship with Pakistan. There is a concern that evidence of our support for any organization in the Middle East has a way if creating certain political consequences that have a direct effect on the stability of the governments we support. I don't know how important this is, since it really seems to me that the people in Pakistan know the score, and know that the US is supporting Musharraf. We've been pretty public about it. But you can imagine a scenario that could have some real blow back-where we report that we sold Musharraf weapon type X, and weapon type X was used, perhaps accidentally, to blow up an orphanage or something. Then you could get news headlines that say something like: Musharraf Kills Babies With US Weapons, you know, a real public relations nightmare that might push Musharraf's government over the edge end erode our own standing in the region further. So there is a case to be made that even the disclosure of routine information about our dealings with Pakistan can have actual foreign policy questions in the brave new world of lightning fast communication.

At the same time, Hillary might not be thinking any of this at all. She could just be parroting a conservative attitude in an attempt to differentiate herself from Obama. I have become, even when they sound reasonable, suspicious of claims made by would be leaders about how national security considerations require the silencing of dialog. After George W Bush, a little deference to the notion of transparency would go a long way with me. If Hillary wants to maneuver herself into position as the "Serious" candidate, then she has to find a way to reassure me that her insistence on secrecy in certain matters isn't just a veiled manifestation of her interest in assuming an Executive Branch as unaccountable as ever. Executive privilege needs to be rolled back in the next term, not obsessively reinforced.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 7, 2007 9:34 PM

My instinct tells me that none of the trio Edwards, Obama and Clinton can win the general election (which unfortunately means that none of the Democratic canddates can win). It is foolhardy to think that a woman or black or someone already swiftboated so well can actually win.

Although the field of Republican candidates is much more unattractive, the Republican nominee will not have any innate (by which I mean that a certain percentage of voters will never vote for a black or a woman etc.) disadvantage except Republicanness.

I just hope that I am wrong. I am not ready for eight more years of another GOP administration, be it headed by Rudy or Mitt or Thmoson.

Posted by gregor | August 7, 2007 9:49 PM

I got just the opposite impression, Gregor. In fact, I was thinking how much better any of them -- even Hilary -- seem on our side than the Republican circus.

Other notes: Kucinich was pretty funny, as well as right on a lot of stuff (though not sure re: NAFTA);

Biden came across pretty well, his experience actually did him some good stead.

Chris Dodd was not impressive rhetorically -- maybe his speaking style; too declamatory, too much of the Senate.

As for the big Three, I'd say slight Obama win. Hilary was okay, and both managed to squeeze Edwards a bit more out of the spotlight than might have otherwise been the case with this labor audience.

Posted by Diogenes | August 7, 2007 9:57 PM

Kucinich's best debate and Hillary's worst.

I'd say both Edwards and Obama did well, although Obama backed off his comments on Pakistan. "If Musharraf doesn't act, we will" became "if Musharraf can't act, we will" and the threat to disregard Pakistan's sovereignty became we will "work with" Musharraf.

Posted by david mizner | August 7, 2007 9:57 PM

As a founding member of Unoffical edwards Central, I also think he did very well. I do think Obama did better than he has in previous debates, and that Hillary really got stuck both with the Pakistan question and the lobbyist question.

To those of us with an intravenous connection to our RSS feeds, much of edwards material sounds like it's on repeat, but to the TV audience it's often times very new.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | August 7, 2007 9:59 PM

I think this is the first time Matt's ever launched an open thread.

Posted by julian | August 7, 2007 10:01 PM

I am honestly baffled by the complaints about Clinton's refusal to engage in hypotheticals. There are a lot of policy positions of hers that I think are ripe for discussion, but this seems like an awful lot over nothing.

She has not said she would not discuss Pakistan generally or her approach to foreign policy in the area. Indeed, like Obama, she has specifically said she'd go after bin Laden if she got the intelligence. The only difference is she hasn't added on the gratuitous swipe at the Pakistani government that Obama did - "with or without" the government's help.

There's simply no benefit in Obama adding this swipe other than to try to look tough. I don't think it's a coincidence it came after he had listed a lot of softer kinds of aid for Pakistan. The problem is - as the official complaints and flag burning in Pakistan indicate - he's not just saying this to us and others, say the Pakistanis, might not like hearing that he won't have any more respect for international law than Bush does. Moreover, he's provoking Pakistan over a situation that might not actually ever occur - it's a very specific hypothetical. For all we know, the government might allow us to strike bin Laden.

I like Obama, but it's not exactly a new approach to foreign policy to talk shit about a Muslim country, and what you're willing to do to that country, to look tough.

Posted by BDB | August 7, 2007 10:04 PM

Here's the clip of John Edwards responding to the old white-bearded steelman. As jjf said, rather powerful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Di7-tuPrUc

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 7, 2007 10:04 PM

I don't know what it means to say that a candidate "won" a debate. It seems like you can make more sense out of "losing" one though-maybe someone says something so disgraceful or embarrassing that it terminates his candidacy. You can say "I liked candidate X's performance the most," but I find there really isn't a lot of consistency in the formation of these opinions. Polling might be useful, but I don't know that a person's opinion about how well a debate went has a decisive impact on who he might vote for. You might decide, for instance, that you thought Kucinich was the sharpest rapier on display today, without seriously considering voting for him. So I am at a loss at how best to determine what constitutes victory here. I will say, and perhaps I am just biased, but I think the Democratic candidates are a smarter, more sensible seeming crew than the Republicans. It will be really interesting to see how the the nominees match up, when that finally happens.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 7, 2007 10:08 PM

I listened to the debate on C-Span radio (so I can't comment on the imagery), but I thought Obama really hit it out of the park with the Pakistan stuff. I will be interested to see if the media agrees.

Posted by David | August 7, 2007 10:10 PM

I was in attendance at the debate today. Hillary, in fact, got booed rather loudly on her Pakistan response. Kucinich was far and away the crowd favorite. Shockingly, an unequiviocal promise to withdraw from NAFTA goes over really well with an audience full of union members.

I have not yet seen the debate on TV, though I understand that MSNBC is rebroadcasting it at midnight eastern. The crowd was very lively. Olbermann kept trying to quiet it down at the beginning but eventually just gave up. This may explain why the candidates are shouting a lot of their answers.

Posted by Shochu John | August 7, 2007 10:12 PM

"... inappropriate to debate Pakistan policy in public..."

If not Pakistan, then why not exclude Saudi Arabia and Syria and hey why not Israel from public discussion? And why even France or Germany or Mexico or Japan? There are national security issues with them, too.

Look, there is some law forbidding conducting diplomacy unless you are the President. So if you can't conduct diplomacy what gives you the right to even talk about it? Eh Hillary?

Posted by DMS | August 7, 2007 10:21 PM

Also, RE: Edwards, I kept thinking this was his crowd and that he was going to hit a grand slam, and he never really did. Even the clip Neil linked to, while good, is more of a solid triple--and that after being thrown a softball. And his use of the story of the guy who couldn't talk until he was 50 sounded desperate this time--whereas in the Youtube debate it worked really well. I think this is partially because the Pakistan debate became a major focus and took some of the oxygen out of the healthcare debate.

Posted by David | August 7, 2007 10:23 PM

In a democracy, don't trust anyone but the people.

That's essentially what Senator Wayne Morse (video) said back in the 60's.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 7, 2007 10:23 PM

Obama's answers to the Pakistani question were well thought out and outstanding Whether you agree with him or not I though he come out very strong with that exchange. he did well on the bonds question

Edwards did well on the healthcare but he seems to take a back seat to the others in term of foreign policy. I don't think he helped himself too much overall

Clinton was Clinton - another solid performance though not as good as her others: seemed to me that she was shouting too much by the end of the debate. It may have come off better live then it did on TV

Posted by Pioneer10 | August 7, 2007 10:35 PM

I think that Hillary is on the path to locking this up early and winning the election in 2008. Many Republicans and Independents have looked over the 15-20 people running for President and she is the one they see as most ready, steady and skilled.
The more liberal folks are not happy with her and have other choices and we should push her hard toward firming up her commitments all the way through the process. She will be skilled at defusing criticism of her from the left, as well as from the right.
Her administration could be a period of significant reform,or it could be a middling mush of minor things. The difference will be in the strength of the Democrats in Congress and the depth and independence of popular movements for universal health care, green investment, infrastructure investment, pension reform, etc. etc.
Hillary in 2009 could be looking at a very different political environment than Bill did in 1993.

Posted by Tom | August 7, 2007 11:02 PM

I kinda like Dodd. Whether it's practiced or innate, his particular brand of anger about the Bush Era seems devoid of the condescension and superiority of Hillary and Biden. The kind of anger I want to see in would-be leaders is not the sighing, cynical "Just vote for us next year and we'll clean up George's mess" variety. I want these guys pounding the dais and angrily lamenting what Bush and these scoundrels have been doing. Hillary seems to be sold on being calm, cool, and collected, as though it's borne of experience rather than an act. Well, I don't buy it, but more importantly I'm not inspired by it. And I have a feeling that voters would rather feel inspired than comforted by the idea of a return to the centrist salad days of the Nineties. Simply being sane and unBushy will be good enough to beat any of the Republicans, I think, but the Democratic race will require a lot more.

Posted by tinisoli | August 7, 2007 11:25 PM

It's the policy of the US to kill those responsible for 9/11 and Sens. Clinton, Dodd, Biden, and Edwards all voted for the AUMF/terrorism, as did that noted hawk Dennis Kucinich. To make Obama's remarks about killing those responsible for 9/11 out to be a controversy is pure idiocy.

Al-Qaeda has far less power in Pakistan than Liberal Democrats have in the UK which is to say they are not going to be governing the country at any point. The US could do MUCH better in Pakistan than Musharraf with somebody like former PM Benazir Bhutto or Chief Justice Chaudhry who coincidentally would be better for the people of Pakistan than a military dictator. It's ridiculous to suggest that Al-Qaeda is the chief politcal rival to Musharraf in Pakistan. That's just false.

Al-Qaeda is trying to kill Musharraf in assassination attempts which is not the same thing as trying to form a government. Al-Qaeda HAS a government already -- in the tribal areas where they live untouched by the Musharraf government in an uneasy truce. Apparently it's worse form to talk about this than it is to allow Bin Laden and Zawahiri to laugh at us from relative safety.

Posted by joejoejoe | August 7, 2007 11:28 PM

"I'd say both Edwards and Obama did well, although Obama backed off his comments on Pakistan. "If Musharraf doesn't act, we will" became "if Musharraf can't act, we will" and the threat to disregard Pakistan's sovereignty became we will "work with" Musharraf."

It's not a backing off. It's patently silly to suggest that Obama was going to send cruise missiles into Pakistan without working hard to get Pakistani support first. But if there's specific actionable intelligence, and Pakistan won't/can't act to get Bin Laden, then Obama will go in. He's been consistent on this.

By the way, I say this as someone who did not and does not like Obama's political posturing on Pakistan, and actually agree with your position in spirit. If even Bush/Cheney thought such an unilateral operation was too unwieldy and dangerous, then basically it will never happen under a Democratic Administration, which makes any noises to the opposite effect purely political theater. On the whole, I thought Obama's recent counterterrorism speech was very good, but he surely could have got his main point across--that we need to refocus on Al-Qaeda--without constructing unfortunate and unnecessary hypotheticals that are causing protesters to burn American flags in Karachi.

Posted by Korha | August 7, 2007 11:34 PM

China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales

The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a.xml

Posted by Don Bacon | August 7, 2007 11:41 PM

I don't know what the real situation in the tribal areas of Pakistan is.
This article suggests Pakistan isn't justing sitting with it's thumb up it's ass on the matter, but I don't know how much of what he's saying is accurate. Still, I doubt that the conventional wisdom, that there is this vast, impenetrable land in Pakistan filled with enclaves of mysterious Arabian tribes sympathetic to Bin Laden is accurate either.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 7, 2007 11:49 PM

Tom, if you think Hillary's going to move forward on green infrastructure, universal healthcare, persion reform, or much of anything other than BigCo Politics reprise, you're smoking cheap bacon-flavored kitty litter.

Posted by justinb | August 7, 2007 11:54 PM

That's funny. Why are we trying to force a yuan revaluation, anyway? I guess the real question is, why do we think it's okay for us to even try something like that? I wonder whether the Chinese accumulation of US debt was done with the intention of providing just this kind of leverage. It's a smart move, really-we threaten to mess with their economy, and they threaten to mess with ours. Now have a real life example of a national security reason to be careful about selling off public debt to foreign countries.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 8, 2007 12:00 AM

That China story is a plant by the venerable Ambros Evans-Pritchard, an important player in the Clinton wars. He typed up the worst sort of muck, It was dutifully printed in the Telegraph, then shipped back here the next day all prettified and made respectable by that oh so proper English name. .

I can think of a couple of motivations for planting this silly story. The first is to lure the stupid into shorting the dollar so the big boys can fleace them with a big engineered rally later. The other is stir anti Chinese sentiment for tons or reasons or none at all save to keep peoples eyes anywhere but here or Iraq.

Now some stupid low level Party members in China might have said such a thing but if they did they are going to regret it. Such a statement is a tactical and strategic indiocy.

Posted by rapier | August 8, 2007 12:04 AM

I am honestly baffled by the complaints about Clinton's refusal to engage in hypotheticals. There are a lot of policy positions of hers that I think are ripe for discussion, but this seems like an awful lot over nothing.

In the area of foreign policy, I have developed some very specific ideas of my own over the past several years about things I want to see done, and things I don't want to see done. If a candidate won't tell me their intentions, I have no way of knowing whether they are entitled to my vote. I'm willing to trust some of them to some degree in some areas, but I don't trust any of them fully, especially not where my red lines are concerned.

Yes, I understand that discussing various plans and hypotheticals in public can pose a challenge for our foreign policy, since people and their leaders around the world hear these public discussions. Tough. That is one of the drawbacks of democracy; but it is a drawback that is heavily outweighed by the benefits of commitment to the ideals of openness and full, accurate and specific voter information. I also wonder how often these proferred reasons for not discussing certain matters in public are just convenient excuses for for slick and slippery campaigners to decline to commit themselves.

In Clinton particularly, the reticence is symptomatic of her dominant personality traits. She shows the same temperamental dispositions toward secrecy, control and the aggregation of power that have characterized the Bush/Cheney approach to the Presidency. While she would no doubt use that power somewhat differently than the Bush administration, toward different ends, I suspect a Clinton presidency would see a continuation of the depressing overall pattern of the 20th and 21st centuries toward the consolidation of power in the executive branch, and the continuing debilitation of the legislative branch. In the case of Clinton, I emphatically do not trust her.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 8, 2007 12:14 AM

joejoejoe - It is hardly as simple as Musharaff vs. the small tip of the spear group called Al Qaeda.
Jammu al-Kashmir and Jammu al-Lakshi are larger, deadlier Pak radical Islamist operations. (Just because they killed non-Americans you never heard of, does not make them non-entities.)
There are 5-6 more terrorist groups in Pakistan and over half the population of Pakistan are radical Muslims that believe in solutions through Jihad.

Which brings us to Obama again, through his "brain", David Axelrod declaring that Pakistan will be his future "battlefield". Marvelous. Obama is in agreement with a small contingent on the Left that there is no broad movement of radical Islam with some 60 active terror groups. Only the Great White Whale, the CEO of all Global Terror...whose death or handing over to his ACLU lawyers after capture is somehow thought, like Ahab thought...to be an act that will bring balance and harmony to the Universe...make every thing all better for Captain Ahab, Lefties, Obama, and Nutrooters...

For this, the Obama people appear to be obsessing on the remnant AQ leadership like Bush obsessed on Saddam Hussein - now seeking tob declare Pakistan "the real battlefield".

The real battlefield, for anyone who has gone past September 10 or September 12th knowledge - is ideological and goes from Muslim communities in the West and Latin America all the way to the farthest island of Indonesia. It is a battle fueled by Saudi oil money to push intolerant Salfist Islam, a battle pushed by Iran.

As of now, radical Islam is the new, the revolutionary reformation of traditional Sunni or Shiite Islam that has been growing since the early 70s. One only has to look at "old pictures" of crowds and modern ones of the Islamic nations - women from Casblancas to Jakarta going from modern attire and swimsuits to almost completely becoming a mass of small tents with eyes. Pics of Egyptian and Turkish workers having a beer after work now replaced by "Saudification" of bearded men arguing which infidels must die first and which of the two branches - Shia or Sunni - are the true heretics that must die as well.

Bad times for the world as radical, Salafist Islam has been ascendent since the 70s. But the emenations of radical Islam start, and the real "battlefield" against it will be in the traditional centers of Islamic scholarship - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (the place of the future Caliphate), and Iran - not Obama's "battlefield" of distant, Pakistan - which has traditionally followed the Saudi lead in spiritual matters since becoming independent.

President Obama, in invading his "battlefield" to get 4-5 men in AQ, or a wider war against the Waziri and Baluchi tribes in their mountain redoubts to chase and find 20,000 Taliban has to ask the questions Bush failed to in invading Iraq.

1. What if Pakistan cuts off all our supply lines into Afghanistan. Are you ready for a major war to defeat all Pakistan to clear the 1500 mile supply lines?

2. Pakistan has 185 million men and can mobilize 7-11 million effective ground combatants. More than the Nazis could. If they oppose us, will Prez Obama restart the Draft to get his 4-5 "Evildoers?"

3. President Obama's invasion might trigger regime change. Is he ready to lauch a preemptive nuclear strike on Pakistans nuclear bomb and nuclear weapons depots?

4. It took 7 months to find Saddam and 85% of the Deck of Cards of Other Evildoers after we used 230,000 troops to seize control of a nation of 22 million, and not effectively, because Bush miscalculated the resistance and failed to put in the 500,000 troops he needed because it would have necessitated a Draft. Military planners say we will need at least 450,000 to subdue the Pak NW Tribal lands (not counting a half million more and possible use of nukes if all of Pakistan resists), with heavy bombing - just so Obama can get and hand over 4-5 "Real Bad Evildoers" for trial IF he ever finds them. (Remember 80% of Iraqis were looking for Saddam's ass besides us - in Pakistans Pashtun lands, an Obama invasion would lead to near-unanimous Pashtun agreement that they would fight to the death, not cooperate with us.)

Of course, we all know the goofy Left has no intent of ever making Pakistan "The Main Battlefield". Obama and his Axelrod "brain" just say it to sound tough and claim that the 10s of thousands of Islamist terrorists being whacked by us and the Iraqis are "not the Central Front" - Pakistan is!!! No way will the Lefties jump into a true major war and Draft if things go sour. So no "surgical attack" on Pakistan will happen by Obama without Pak permission. Fortunately - Barack has hopefully more brains than balls - because Obama taken at his word is naive and dangerous.

Barack Hussein Obama's strategy is simply Bush's strategy applied to another wrong country. The centers of gravity of radical Islam, and "tip of the spear" terrorism that springs from it - are KSA, Iran, and - to a much lesser extent - Egypt. And 90% of the effort should not be military.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 8, 2007 12:42 AM

Glad to see joejoejoe agrees with me that, at least, Pakistan is not likely to be overtaken by AQ or their ilk any time soon. I wish more folks, including the candidates, would bother to find out about the countries they so blithely categorize.

I also agree with Dan Kervick about the creeping feeling that HRC would love to take over an already expanded executive power, and would likely try to expand it further....her main contention for voting for the war to begin with was to give GWB the power that she felt any prez (no matter how messed up) should have. I don't trust her a lick...

That said, it is completely refreshing to be talking about which candidate would be the best as opposed to which is the lesser of all evils....nice crop to choose from and I will support any of them if the majority chooses to not see the great wisdom of the young, fresh, new thinking Obama... ;)

Posted by G Davis | August 8, 2007 1:08 AM

So I was looking at Andy Kaufman videos on youtube, when I came upon this one, in which Andy introduces his wife-to-be, a born-again Christian who sings religious songs on Lawrence Welk, who had inspired him to become a Christian, too. Whereupon they sing a duet. All very convincing. But the real surprise was the following comment: " I wonder why Kathie Sullivan went along with this. Everything Andy said about her was true (except for their engagement.) She had been on Lawrence Welk and she was a born again Christian. The born again Christians I've met wouldn't approve of this." It's a good question. Anybody have any ideas?

Posted by godoggo | August 8, 2007 2:02 AM

While I agree with Matt's philosophy overall, I'm willing to make some exception in this case because Pakistan is such a terrifyingly precariously balanced nuclear powderkeg -- we don't want to do anything to set it off. However, Hillary's refusal to at least publicly RULE OUT the use of nukes to kill conventionally armed al-Qaeda guerrillas in Pakistan is utterly insane for precisely that same reason.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 8, 2007 2:55 AM

Evidently I agree with Chris Ford more than i originally thought: it really was dumb and irresponsible of Obama to shoot off his mouth on that one. But it was infinitely more irreponsible of Hillary to double down with a NUCLEAR threat against Pakistan, for God's sake.

Posted by BruceMoomaw | August 8, 2007 2:59 AM

Chris Ford - Obama's terrorism strategy isn't predicated on bigoted notions of Islam and 'the other' -- it's the same strategy as Gordon Brown which is to deny lunatic zealots (whatever their stripe) who commit criminal acts the legitimacy that the Right gives them every day by talking about them as though they were the equivalent of the Soviet Union circa 1960. Terrorists are simply thugs, not ideological leaders with any global power. The first thing Hamas did when they took over the Gaza Strip was help free a British journalist to try and get a public relations victory, not launch a sneak attack on Cheyenne, Wyoming. If people looked at the reality of the situation instead of the cartoon they would see conflating all these groups is a mistake. Hezbollah is allied with the Maronite Christians in Lebanon which doesn't quite make things out to be the clash of civilizations that President Bush is selling every day on the teevee.

Terrorists control nothing in this world. Where Hamas and Hezbollah exist they are political parties with paramilitary wings that are seeded with terrorists, which is a not uncommon format for political power in the world. See Sinn Fein/IRA in Northern Ireland in the 70s-90s and Irgun in what is now Israel in the 30s-40s for comparison. Terrorism is usually a local response to a dominant power, not a global threat. The stateless terrorism of this century IS new and deadly but it's definitely NOT a threat to hold and dominate any modern socieity including Pakistan, it's just NEW and deadly. There are plenty of other things that are still more deadly (disease, famine, drought) but since those are OLD, deadly problems nobody much pays any attention - the old problems just kill the odd million here and there and we're OK with it. That said, Obama doesn't want occupy Pakistan in some holy struggle. He just wants to kill Bin Laden and leave a burning hole in the ground, not 160,000 occupying forces for...what exactly? No, he just wants to kill the people responsible for 9/11 and deny future such assholes the idea that they can kill strangers for mad reasons and get away with it.

Most Americans are OK with that and don't need a global war against a billion Muslims to punish a subset of a few thousand criminal assholes who are a comparable threat not to 1930s fascists but to 1900s anarchists which is to say not a threat to take over the world, or even so much as a barren corner of it.

Posted by joejoejoe | August 8, 2007 4:08 AM

it's the same strategy as Gordon Brown which is to deny lunatic zealots (whatever their stripe) who commit criminal acts the legitimacy that the Right gives them every day by talking about them as though they were the equivalent of the Soviet Union circa 1960.

Gordon Brown, the Euroweenies, and the American Left desperately want to keep this as a law enforcement mentality - and not have to admit that the radical Islamists now number 20-35% of the 1.3 billion Muslims and that like all movements that use terror as a tactic to boost the morale of the 99.9% of the population that doesn't engage in terror but supports what they do. None of the 360 million or so radical Islamists consider OBL a criminal - the infidels, especially the Jews, are the true criminals, by their way of thinking.
Unless you confront the broad movement, all you are doing is playing "terrorist whack-a-mole" kill or jail some "evildoers", their replacements pop right up. The Zionists have tried "targeted assassination",and "surgical strikes" on "actionable intelligence". All it has gaiined them is even more murderous Hamas leaders and a current top leader, of Hezbollah. The very intelligent, young, and adept Sheikh Nasrallah who got his gig because Israel helped him by whacking several previous leaders.

Terrorists are simply thugs, not ideological leaders with any global power.

Riiighttt!

Terrorist thugs like Jomo Kenyatta, Mao Zedong. Castro. The Bolsheviks. Terrorist Nelson Mandela. Thugs like Gerry Adams - who was feted at the White House almost as avidly as his fellow murderers Begin, Shamir, Arafat, and Mandela were.

Todays terrorist, tomorrow's statesmen and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

The stateless terrorism of this century IS new and deadly but it's definitely NOT a threat to hold and dominate any modern socieity including Pakistan, it's just NEW and deadly.

You continue to delude yourself that there is no radical Islam, just a small pack of "criminals" called AQ who could never hold a country. And think if only a few dozen of them are "brought to justice, defended by ACLU," all will be Good Again with the wonderful "Religion of Peace". By being blind to the notion that terror is only a manifestation of radical Islam, just as genocidal SS stormtroopers were only a manifestation of Nazism - you ignore that radical Islamists hold and dominate Iran, Sudan, Somalia, KSA in a Wahabbi sort of way and would hold and dominate Afhanistan in two weeks if the US left. Shiite areas of Iraq within months of Obama yanking the troops out for Pakistan preps.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 8, 2007 7:42 AM

radical Islamists hold and dominate Iran, Sudan, Somalia, KSA in a Wahabbi sort of way

The Shiite nation of Iran is run in "a Wahabbi sort of way".

That might be a stupider comment than "terrorist Nelson Mandela", but hey, I know there's more to come.

And in his first paragraph, he laid out the logic of the genocidaire - the entire population of the Muslim world is our enemy, "surgical strikes" don't work, what's necessary is to "confront the broad movement." Do tell. Shall we round them into camps, you cretinous fuckwit?

Posted by DivGuy | August 8, 2007 7:52 AM

The stateless terrorism of this century IS new and deadly

Stateless terrorism has been around for a long time--it ain't new. Try a Google search on the term, "propaganda of the deed."

Posted by rea | August 8, 2007 9:00 AM

Div,
Don't forget this gem: "It is a battle fueled by Saudi oil money to push intolerant Salfist Islam, a battle pushed by Iran."

You really have to love people who fancy themselves knowledgable about the middle east and yet are under the impression that the Iranians can't wait to help Sunni radicals who think they are a bunch of infidels.

I blame the pro-Iran war movement for this widespread ignorance. Such sectarian distinctions only blur the clean lines of their tales of good and evil.

On another note, Obama did say in the debate that he would redeploy troops out of Iraq and to other nations in the region. This is not directly comitting to no residual forces, but it is getting closer.

Posted by Shochu John | August 8, 2007 9:14 AM

Re Chris Ford's comment "Gordon Brown, the Euroweenies, and the American Left desperately want to keep this as a law enforcement mentality - and not have to admit that the radical Islamists now number 20-35% of the 1.3 billion Muslims and that like all movements that use terror as a tactic to boost the morale of the 99.9% of the population that doesn't engage in terror but supports what they do."
----------
Does Chris Ford have ANY citations or references to support this claim that roughly 1/3 of Muslims are "radical Islamists" who want to wage war on --and kill --Ameicans??

Or is his claim merely part of the deceitful propaganda put out by the lower bottomfeeders in the Neocon group? False claims created to enlist the support of American morons (Christian right,etc) for vicious aggression that harms American national security but serves several private agendas? Deceitful propaganda remarkably similar to racist claims put out by the Nazis to justify their killing of the Jews?

Why doesn't Chris address the fact that much of the support Bin Laden does receive from SOME Muslims are due to past acts of aggression by the US government in the service of Big Oil and the Israel Lobby? I've cited those acts on several occasions. UNLIKE Chris, I've provided citations
and references to back up my statements..

We have a real problem here in America. Our national discourse is being polluted with FOX-type delusions crafted by dishonest propagandists and those delusions are being given more weight by the ignorant than are statements of fact based upon reality.

But let's see if we can at least have rational discourse here. So come on, Chris. I'm skeptical but willing to see the evidence. Present it. Show me that 1/3 of the Islamic World is hard core "Radical Islamists".

Start by defining that term. What is a "Radical Islamist"? Would such a person carry messages for Al Qaeda. Donate money? Would they hide an Al Qaeda operative from US forces? Would they provide logisical support a terrorist attack on Americans? Would they actually go so far as volunteer to carry out an attack? Would they carry out a suicide attack?

Or do they merely think the US government has been fucking the Islamic world for the past 50 years in an unjust manner and on behalf of greedy corporate interests?

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 11:01 AM

I have a handlebar moustache... other than that, this thread is worthless.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 1:16 PM

I'm not sure I would have phrased it the way Hillary did, but I DO think that a presidential primary is the worst possible forum for meaningful discussions on sensitive issues such as our policy in Pakistan.

Gregor,

Women outnumber men in this country, there are scores of black men and women in leadership positions throughout our society, politics included. Just because we haven't had a black or a woman president doesn't mean it won't happen this time. In fact, I'll wager it does. At least the woman part. Probably the first black vice president too. Republicans have had their southern strategy turned on it's head. Now, by catering to their needs, they have alienated the rest of the country. Look at the map, outside of a couple of small western states (Wyoming, Utah), the trend is decidedly Democratic. Last time, Bush won in Ohio and West Virginia. No Republican will carry either of those states this time around. Without them, Republicans can't win. They're toast and even they know it.

Posted by ny nick | August 8, 2007 2:26 PM