78 thoughts on “Obama!”

1. There’s no way Hillary will be the nominee. The way her campaign has gone after him precludes it, not to mention the invitations it would open to wedge the ticket by exploring the bruises there from their past conflicts.

   Disaffected Hillary supporters might be huffing and puffing now, but the idea that they would turn around and vote for a man who will continue stacking the Supremes with conservative judges hostile to Roe v Wade is absurd. Tempers that have been tight recently but they will cool eventually, and rationality and unity will return.

   Obama will be looking at a VP who can combat McCain on military terms, such as Jim Webb, who has recently got on notch on McCain through the GI bill.

2. “There’s no way Hillary will be the nominee. The way her campaign has gone after him precludes it, not to mention the invitations it would open to wedge the ticket by exploring the bruises there from their past conflicts.”

   George HW Bush certainly didn’t prevent Reagan being elected in a landslide despite having fought a bitter primary campaign against him.

3. Interesting point, but Reagan started with a huge presumptive lead, and Bush dropped precipitously after the debate incident. So it’s a bit different to a drawn-out process where Hillary has baited Obama. I can’t remember if voodoo economics haunted the Reagan-Bush ticket, but it doesn’t have the same salience as some of the harsher stuff HRC has said about Obama, and especially in foreign policy.

   There are other worries too with the ticket too, such as Billy Boy being quite a different spectre to Barbara or Nancy wasn’t a Bill.

   I could see Obama accepting a GOP VP spot such as Hagel before he offers anything to Hillary.

4. His best chance is a complete break from the past; there will be no Hillary; my money is on a dumb white male; in the Michael Moore sense.

5. Strickland, the Governor of Ohio seems like a reasonable bet – conservative Democrat, Hillary supporter and likely to bring a key swing state into the Democrat camp.

6. What’s wrong with McCain, other than being a Republican? And what’s so great about Obama, other than being a Democrat?

7. Seems like a pointlessly broad question Joseph, which unfairly assumes a partisan blindness amongst participants in this debate. I think it’s much more reasonable to assume at least some degree of considered enthusiasm here, especially for wonkish fora like this, where you’re unlike to visit without commitments in political economy, etc. Even if you might have reason to dispute any particular candidate preference as an expression of ideology, or world view, there’s no reason to suspect party-line loyalty is what’s really doing all the work.

   As for my particular preferences, there are many things about McCain I don’t like. For instance, his views on foreign policy issues are excessively and reflexively hawkish, such that he sees the utilisation of the military as a primary tool in foreign policy, rather than a tool of last resort. I disagree with his support of the Iraq war – and have found him an opportunistic critic of the administration, not seriously grappling with the broader issues of war failures, and sticking to operational critiques when they have become safer territory. I think his temperament is uneven a lot of the time, which is could be considered problematic in a leader.

   I also think he has a record which does not back up his maverick status, particular in terms of enabling the kind of radical views the Bush administration has advanced on executive power (see warrantless wiretapping, etc). That’s a trajectory I think is inimical to the kind of better angels I see in the American way, and I would like to see it stamped out in favour of the previously bipartisan commitment to the US Constitution and Congress checking Presidential power.

   McCain will also appoint the kind of justices to the Supreme Court I would disagree with – further pushing the Court’s already right-heavy tilt.

   He is likely to ratchet up rhetoric against Iran, and potentially further destabilise the middle east. Many of his advisers are unrepentant neo-conservatives, and I think they need to be systematically removed from the levers of power after the mess they have made of things.

   As for Obama, he’s basically the opposite of that. He’s more committed to resolving problems through international fora, and committed to reform the UN to make it work from the inside, rather than just setting it up for failure. He is likely to pursue moderate economic policy based upon the more holistic Stiglitz-Krugamn model, which isn’t so slavish to the neo-classical orthodoxies – unlike the Republicans – which i think is a good thing. I think he is uniquely capable of restoring American’s now hugely tarnished reputation, which will help restore their effectiveness and moral legitimacy as a global leader on all manner of issues. I find in general he is more likely to address things head-on, somewhat like Turnbull here as his intellectual gifts, make him less likely to play it safe and abide by the strictures of conventional political straight-jackets. I found his recent interview with The Atlantic on the Israel – Middle East relations to be particularly striking in this regard.

   I could go on if you want more, that’s just a sample…

8. Pardon my ignorance but has Obama actually won the nomination until Hillary concedes? ie they don’t have to go down to super delegates now?

9. Theoretically no-one is the official nominee until the convention. The same applies to Republicans as well. McCain will not be the official Republican nominee until after the Republican convention. The primaries and causes are not direct votes for Obama or Clinton but are theoretically to elect ordinary delegates who will then go to the Democratic convention and vote for Obama or Clinton. Superdelegates can’t vote until the convention either. But superdelegates can and often do declare who they will vote for before then. Obama’s claim to have won the nomination is based on his delegate count and the number of superdelegates who have publicly pledeged they will support him. They can still change their if, for example, Obama is caught in bed with the proverbial live boy or dead girl but that is unlikely. However that is now Clinton’s only path to the nomination and hope of that is why she has not conceded.

   On another point I also think it is very unlikely Clinton will be the VP nominee. I know enough about her now to be thankful for that.

10. Hope mccain wins so when ever he does something wrong in the white house i can say “ahhh Mccain you have done it again”

11. He can not win without Hillary, although I hope he tries to. He’s not going to win over the majority of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, even though I really can’t understand why she has supporters. Mrs. Clinton would otherwise be a nobody if it weren’t for being married to an ex-President, which in my oppinion hardly makes her any more qualified than the average person to run this country.

    I’ve read alot of posts on here and have been biting my tongue, but I have a few minutes to put in my two cents today.

    He can not pull the troops out of Iraq in 60 days (or whatever unrealistic time line he’s using today). Doing so would be totally irresponsible and foolish. Anyone who actually believes that he will and that this is a good idea is truly living in some kind of fantasy world and has no buisness casting a vote. Total chaos would erupt, and the region would become even more unstable than it already is. Yes, it may draw immediate praise from the masses of “bleeding hearts” around the world wearing their rose colored glasses, but this is the real world and not some kind of Utopia. Like it or not, we are there and need to remain there until the Iraqi government can stand on its own feet, and realistically this is probably better measured in years not days. Anything less, whether you’re for or against the war, would be irresponsible and not honor the lives lost by the brave young men and women of our armed forces. Yes, it’s a war, it sucks and gets very ugly at times, but the men and women serving are volunteers and the majority of them believe in and know why they are there. They have all either enlisted or re-enlisted after 9/11 and the start of the war. Let them do their job. Obama’s weak stance on our military will only serve to weaken our Department of Defense. Much like the first Clinton, when he slashed the defense budget, which severly cut the number of troops across the board and the equipment funding also suffered, the lack of armor that was well reported in the early stages was his fault, not the current admin.

    Changing the way Washington runs? Sadly, again, Not going to happen. Our government is is ran by three branches (in case you’ve forgotten). The President actually has very little control over how the government functions. If he steps out of line, Congress and the Senate (who are both controlled by the Dem.s and Rep.s) will put him in check, little happens in Washington without a vote first. He has really no control of the economy, housing market or any of our other current woes. His main job is “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces, and like President Clinton, it doesn’t really sound like he’s the man for the job.

    I’m not trying to be “pollitically incorrect”, but if race (Obama getting the majority of black votes) and sex (Clinton getting the female vote) which are both constantly reported on by the media, are not an issue, why are we considering either one? If either of them would foucus on something that they can actually do something about, like maybe securing our borders and taking care of illegal immigration to keep our construction and other labor dollars taxed and in the U.S. (not to mention the burden put on our schools, hospitals, police forces, etc.) or demonstrate their ability to be a strong “Commander in Chief” for our military, maybe I’d jump on board.

    Thankfully, I really don’t think Obama can get elected without Hillary on his ticket and Edwards wont pull enough Clinton supporters, so I can rest easy, for now. But I’m just an ex-Marine, what do I know,right?

12. Re Clinton as veep, it’s hers if she wants it and on the terms she chooses. Obama may indeed prefer otherwise, but he will have no say in the matter if Clinton asks for the nomination openly at the convention. He just doesn’t have the votes to resist. If he tries to resist it will occur in private before the convention and at the convention itself the nomination will be made to look like his idea.

    All of that said, Clinton may prefer a sure path to the Senate majority leadership to an uncertain future as VP.

13. How can anyone in their correct state of mind vote for Obamanation? He will set this country back 50yrs. with his far left socialist thinking. How can anyone vote to have your taxes raised? If he was to somehow get elected President he will raise all of our taxes higher than we have seen since Carter!

14. Anyone who actually believes that he will and that this is a good idea is truly living in some kind of fantasy world and has no buisness casting a vote…Yes, it may draw immediate praise from the masses of “bleeding heartsâ€? around the world wearing their rose colored glasses, but this is the real world and not some kind of Utopia. Like it or not, we are there and need to remain there until the Iraqi government can stand on its own feet, and realistically this is probably better measured in years not days.

    I’m not sure how this utter rot bears any features distinguishing it from a ‘fantasy world’. Furthermore, if a US president believes that a clear majority want immediate withdrawal then it can be done (even if this presupposes the same ‘hang the consequences’ attitude that precipitated the war in the first place).

    But in other respects, no, Obama isn’t likely to revolutionise things.

15. Hilary for VP is a long way from being a ‘no-brainer’.

    In any campaign of this nature there are those who will cling to the ‘your candidate sucks’ meme. But given the choice between Obama + X and McCain + Y, they’ll vote (with some regret) for their ideological ally. I’m equally unconvinced by the lamentations of conservatives who proclaim “Never McCain!”. My guess is that Obama’s campaign understand this, and they will choose a running mate for usual reasons (shore up weak points).

    Second, the change agenda all Democratic candidates have set out — universal health care, environmental / energy policies — combined with some things they haven’t talked about — sane tax policy being the biggie — will require tremendous effort in the congress. HRC was spot on when she pointed out the importance of LBJ’s working both houses that actually got the Civil Rights and Great Society legislation enacted. Obama (and the Democrats) will need high profile, heavy lifters in the Senate to get their agenda through. Hilary is perfectly situated to play this role, and she can use that leverage to further her own agenda.

    And third, the lady has baggage. In a modern campaign — where money doesn’t talk / it swears — the prospect of running against a Clinton was attractive to the GOP less because they think they may have defeated her, but more because she motivates the base to contribute money to the GOP. Obama will probably be able to outspend McCain, but in my view he will enjoy a far greater money advantage if he can take away the Clintons as grist to the GOP money mill.

    The money the Democrats raise will be spent on ‘down ticket’ races. It will take 60 Democratic votes in the Senate to push through Health Care.

16. I also predicted Obama would win the White House back in January, and I don’t think it matters WHO he picks as Veep.

    Politics is all about telling a story. As anyone who paid attention to his Iowa win could see, Obamamentum is real. It’s an exciting phenomenon which transforms the US political landscape in a way not seen since Robert Kennedy’s campaign.

    OTOH McCrazy is an ageing sack of s**t.

    Another reason why it doesn’t matter who Obama picks as VP is that he will never give his VP the kind of control Cheney has exercised over the White House. Obama’s VP will have to kill him to get any real power, which is all the more reason not to pick Clinton.

    On that crazy conspiracy note, does anyone now seriously think that former CIA director George HW Bush was NOT behind the assassination attempt on Reagan? I mean, given that the gunman had dinner with Bush’s son the night before, and Bush was in charge of the investigating committee which found (in less than 24 hours) no evidence of conspiracy, and a training exercise was due that day with a scenario where the VP takes power, which of course reminds us all of those training exercises planned around 9-11…

    There’s only two things that can stop Obama now: one is a bullet, the other is called Diebold.

17. A few related stories out today:

    1. Obama dragged Liebermann into a corner and gave him a good talking to yesterday at the AIPAC Zionist love-fest.

    2. Jimmy Carter says Hillary for VP would be a big mistake. FWIW I think it will be Edwards.

    3. Bill Leak actually has a funny cartoon today. So does Moir, but he’s always funny.

18. An Obama victory should snap America out of its current economic doldrums, only a decisive end to the Bush era will do that. A McSame victory will be viewed as a continuation of the Bush Administration.

    However, all three candidates are equally unlikely to do anything about climate change and the desperately needed transition to clean energy.

19. Don’t forget, it’s not who is voted for, it’s who counts the votes. Obama will need a big win to ensure a narrow victory. A close poll will go to republicans. All the Florida, Ohio, New Mexico,etc, shenanigans are still in place and more refined this year with the new voter id rules.

    Three stolen elections in a row will show their republic is lost.

20. I won’t be surprised if Joe Liebermann defects to the GOP as McCrazy’s VP candidate. Get this from Kos:

    While Lieberman Wednesday declined to say whether he would continue acting as a surrogate for McCain in attacking Obama, he stated that he would not put his work in Congress in jeopardy by participating in the McCain campaign.

    “Obviously I support Sen. McCain … but I can only do so much as long as it doesn’t interfere with what I’m doing here,” Lieberman said.

    When asked whether his activities should bring his role as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee into question, Lieberman said he would leave that decision up to the Democratic Caucus. “That’s up to my colleagues,” he said.

    He might take a sizeable chunk of the Dems with him, which might be a good thing.

21. I don’t know who the VP nominee will be but I agree with you on two points – McCain is not the man he is painted as, and there are grounds for optimism on a democratic win. At first I at least respected McCain for speaking out against waterboarding. However as I have heard more of his other views, I don’t see any end in sight to the appalling cronyism of the Bush era under McCain.

    As for the election, the democrats do sem to have a knack for badly organised campaigns, but there area few things in their favour this time. The US economy is in trouble and much of the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of the outgoing republican administration. There is also likely to be more bad news from Afghanistan between now and November, as the situation there is worsening. Finally, Obama has proven to be agenuinely skilled campaigner, with a tactically astute team behind him. He is not Kerry or Gore, much as I respected Gore as a person.

22. No way Obama will pick Hillary. He’ll go South, Deep South, and a pick a suitable good ‘ole boy. He needs them southern electoral college votes, and Hillary won’t deliver ’em for him.

    Plus, why would Obama want to saddle himself with Hillary as VP? She’d be out of control from the get-go. And he’d have Bill running rampant as well.

23. I think Saint72 has nailed the Iraq question fairly well. Now all the arguments against the Iraq war might have flown once, but they don’t now, or if they do, they apply equally to Afghanistan. That’s essentially Obama’s and to a lesser extent Rudd’s problem now. While Rudd could pull us out of Iraq fairly easily, since we were always a bit player in a relatively safe haven, that’s not the case for the US. We’re both in the same bind in the ‘good war’ in Afghanistan now. Houston has said we’re there for a decade at least now and Fitzgibbon admits at least another 10,000 troops are needed but the UN/EU axis have gone weak at the knees, so there we all are. Obama will have to argue more of a schizophrenic case than Rudd to get out of Iraq quickly now and it will be interesting to see how McCain can tease that out on the hustings. Nevertheless, you’d think a US electorate facing the inevitable money supply, induced stagflation come election time, would be a lay down misere for change. No doubt Hillary knows that and hence her reluctance to concede, or at least play her best cards there for the VP.
    Unfortunately for the troops in Iraq, the fundies there are going to give it one last gasp to convince US voters and Obama to pull out and leave the field for them to rebuild. They’ve started that campaign by the looks of it
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23813519-23109,00.html

24. I’m not at all sure McCrazy will even make it to November (“health reasons” may be cited). I strongly suspect the GOP has a Plan B.

    So the GOP VP pick will be very interesting.

25. observa,
    Agreed, though I think the term ‘war’ is misleading. The word should be reserved for conflicts between nations. The Americans are in Iraq at the invitation of a democratically elected Iraqi government. Pulling out of Iraq will not end a war; it will abandon a fledgling democracy (and an ally) who is asking for help.

26. “The Americans are in Iraq at the invitation of a democratically elected Iraqi government.”

    Just who is it that has a firmer grip on reality here?

    It’s a bit like saying Miranda Devine is an expert on all things Middle Eastern and we should treat the drivel she writes about Iraq seriously.

    The security agreement Bush is trying to push on the Iraqis makes a mockery of any claim that the Americans are there at their request.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL02405711

    Iraqi sovereignty….now there’s a novel concept for Americans to ponder!

27. JQ – I see your blog has had a visit from some States-side windbag sock puppets over night. Always entertaining.

    I predicted in this blog back in early January that a Obama-Richardson ticket will win 40 states on November 4. I still reckon that’s about right. McCain will severely embarrass himself – so much so that there will be serious talk of drafting Bloomberg about mid-September. But they won’t.

    H. Clinton will end up the next appointment to the Supreme Court. That will be her vig. And she’ll end up outlasting everyone there, and loving it!

    Apologies for sounding so certain about it.

28. What’s wrong with McCain, other than being a Republican? And what’s so great about Obama, other than being a Democrat?

    um, that isn’t enough for you?

29. It’s hard to believe Australians are interested in US politics. I’m one and I’m not.

30. Joseph Clark

    “The Americans are in Iraq at the invitation of a democratically elected Iraqi government.�

    So Sadam Hussein invited the Americans to Iraq in 1993? I think that pushes the forum policy on no trolling/provocation to the limit, though I respect its JQ’s decision.

31. “It’s hard to believe Australians are interested in US politics. I’m one and I’m not.”

    To paraphrase (I think) Trotsky, you may not be interested in US politics, but US politics is interested in you, as we’ve found out with the various wars we’ve lined up for.

32. “The Americans are in Iraq at the invitation of a democratically elected Iraqi government.”

    I want some of what he’s taking! As Col. Kong would say – “EEEEEHAAAAHHHHH”!

33. Surely nobody here thinks that the Iraqi government wants the Americans to go? Do they?

34. This story via Atrios explains quite a lot, if you think about it:

    Clinton’s latest report to the Federal Election Commission showed an April 30 cash balance of nearly $29.7 million, but that was deceiving. FEC spokesman George Smaragdis said the figure included $6 million in primary-season cash and $23.7 million in donations designated for the fall general election campaign. None of the general election donations can be used to retire debts accrued during the primary season.

    Clinton’s biggest problem, of course, is the $21 million in IOUs, which include $11,425,000 she is known to have lent her campaign through the first week of May and possibly millions of dollars more in yet-to-be-disclosed loans during her last-ditch primary campaign efforts.

    Maybe the reason she stuck around so long, and behaved so deperately, is that she and Bill basically gambled their house, as well as their reputations, on this.

    Kinda puts the whole VP issue in perspective, doesn’t it?

35. ““The Americans are in Iraq at the invitation of a democratically elected Iraqi government.â€?

    I realise this is getting into troll-feeding, but I chanced across an issue the other day that says a lot about the American way of doing war and is also a neat litmus test for any notion of Iraqi sovereignty. It’s also timely because of the recent publicity given to finding the bodies of Australian and British troops mown down at Fromelles in 1916.

    The issue is the burial in unmarked mass graves of Iraqi troops mown down in 1991 in the retreat from Kuwait. In gross breach of the Geneva Conventions, the victorious Americans made no attempt whatever to identify the bodies or to return personal effects to next of kin. They weren’t even counted (as an aside, the ‘we don’t do body counts’ remark was first made by General Swartzkopf in this context). Red Cross requests for information weren’t responded to. To this day next of kin have no idea where and how their loved ones died.

    The Fromelles bodies, by contrast, were treated correctly by the Germans in 1916 according to the rules of war as then developed. Which is why we know whose bodies lie in the recently-rediscovered grave.

    It suited Saddam Hussein to obfuscate the enormity of the military disaster into which he’d led his forces in 1991, just as it suited the US military to downplay the enormity of the massacre of defeated Iraqi conscripts at the time. It is difficult however to believe that any genuinely sovereign, let alone democratic, post-Saddam Iraqi government would continue to connive in the cover-up.

    Back on-topic, there have been a number of suggestions made that McCain’s record as prisoner-of-war in Hanoi is far from spotless, indeed that he collaborated with his captors in return for privileges. Look forward to this becoming a significant issue in the forthcoming campaign.

36. From Wikipedia
    “In mid-1968, McCain’s father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and McCain was offered early release. The North Vietnamese wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.
    In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain. McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda “confession”. He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, “I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.” His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.â€?

    And you call him a collaborator? For the record, I’m no fan of McCain. My own political leanings don’t give me much to separate McCain from Obama.

37. I’d remind you again that aspersions cast of sock puppets and legitimate democratic invites apply equally to Afghanistan. Burma and Zimbabwe too by the looks of things recently. Still the UN/EU axis could have waited politely for a Taliban invitation for all that ‘legitimacy’ that’s being bandied around.

38. What Joseph Clark said.

    There are elements of McCain’s record which can be questioned – such as his involvement in the Keating 5 scandal.

    However his behaviour during his captivity is pretty much beyond reproach.

    The only people I’ve seen raise this issue have been extreme right-wing Republicans.

    I say we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

39. “Surely nobody here thinks that the Iraqi government wants the Americans to go? Do they?”

    Don’t know about the Iraqi govt. but there appears to be a large number of Iraqis who aren’t all that keen on the US occupation.

40. Malcolm Fraser today let loose with both cannons:

    “I do think that there’s a story waiting to be told in relation to still relevant events, which involved the United States and Britain in particular, and that’s Iraq,” he said.

    “I don’t think journalism has pursued what happened there, how the war was begun, as vigorously, as fearlessly as it should’ve.

    “I don’t believe that the fabrication of evidence and the false intelligence that was used to justify war has been adequately exposed for what it, in fact, is.

    “I don’t think the leaders of Britain and the United States have really had put on their shoulders fairly and squarely the responsibility of what I believe was to be a most disastrous venture.”

    LINK

    One assumes his comments apply to John Howard as well. The word “evil” appears in the story, if not the quoted text.

41. Congratulations to Obama!

    Having said that, I truly believe that this liberal spineless jelly fish and his blundering wife will continue to sell America and Americans down the river at any expense and most certainly encourage America to become more like France.

    I do not believe that the Republican or Democratic parties stand for anything of substance or character any more.

    Pathetic and Sad for America and Americans.

    Enough said…

    Hold on folks, get em ready your gonna need em!

42. Having said that, I truly believe that this liberal spineless jelly fish and his blundering wife will continue to sell America and Americans down the river at any expense and most certainly encourage America to become more like France.

    The US more like France? Vive le jellyfish!

43. Don’t know about the Iraqi govt. but there appears to be a large number of Iraqis who aren’t all that keen on the US occupation.

    The current main stumbling block to negotiations between between Moqtada al-Sadr and the Iraqi government is that Moqtada wants a referendum on the American presence; it’s being refused precisely because the outcome is certain, and an Iraqi “sovereign government” that agreed to it would not get US co-operation (actually, let’s get real: it would probably be quickly deposed).

    Not that you’d find that out from the US press.

44. Not so sure everyone wants to listen to Malcolm’s ravings ghandi-

    “Let’s be clear about Howard’s reasons for war. In the legal opinion he tabled last March, the only reason canvassed was to eliminate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. No humanitarian reason was advanced.”

    – Kevin Rudd, The Australian, February 4, 2004.

    “We’re talking about a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from the child’s parents. This is a regime that will burn a person’s limbs in order to force a confession or compliance. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed the crime of criticising it would be punished by the amputation of tongues. Since Saddam Hussein’s regime came to power in 1979 he has attacked his neighbours and he’s ruthlessly oppressed ethnic and religious groups in Iraq – more than one million people have died in internal conflicts and wars. Some four million Iraqis have chosen exile. Two hundred thousand have disappeared from his jails never to be seen again. He has cruelly and cynically manipulated the United Nations oil-for-food programme. He’s rorted it to buy weapons to support his designs at the expense of the well-being of his people. Since the Gulf War the people of Iraq have not only endured a cruel and despotic regime but they’ve had to suffer economic deprivation, hunger and sickness.

    And we should never forget that economic sanctions imposed have had a humanitarian cost. That cost has been made worse by Saddam Hussein’s rorting of the sanctions regime. Those sanctions could have been lifted years ago if Iraq had complied with the requirements of Security Council resolutions about disarmament.

    It is too easy to limit, it’s too easy for some people to limit the humanitarian considerations to the consequences of military conflict. In truth there’s nothing easy or reassuring or comfortable about the problem of Iraq. Surely it is undeniable that if all the humanitarian considerations are put into the balance there is a very powerful case to the effect that the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime would produce a better life and less suffering for the people of Iraq than its continuation.”

    – John Howard, National Press Club address, March 13, 2003—7 days before the Iraq invasion.

    “I can’t recall Mr Howard ever admitting he’s made any mistakes on issues like taking our country to war on a lie.”

    – Kevin Rudd, Interview, March 4, 2007.

    [Saddam]..”has invaded his neighbours, in complete violation of international law, and he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which in the past he has used against his own people as well as his neighbours. None of these matters are the subject of dispute.”
    – Kevin Rudd, Hansard, September 17, 2002.

    “There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does.”

    – Kevin Rudd, Lateline, September 24, 2002.

    Best of luck Malcolm.

45. I must be smarter than Kevin Rudd then, because Howard and Bush, even Colin Powell and his pathetic power-point presentation never fooled me for a minute. Actually I guess I must have been smarter than a lot of supposedly very smart people. Funny how an intellectual reputation and proximity to power causes one to believe obvious absurdities, or at least pretend to.

46. By the way, not that I’m pointing fingers or anyting, but the McCain campaign is recruiting trolls to post pre-prepared talking points on internet blogs.

    Help spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain’s policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign. You know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States and we need you to tell others why.

    Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you’ve commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center.

    But there’s no money in it unfortunately, which might account for the poor quality of the effort.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/20/195039/019

47. This is interesting:

    Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

    Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

    A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

    The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

48. Not only were you smarter than Kevin Rudd and John Howard gerard, but you were smarter than all the leaders of the COW at the time, barring Germany and France. Their leaders were the smarter ones who readily took on the graveyard of empires instead, but now they’re not so keen apparently. This obviously makes them smarter than all the rest except you, unless you agreed with them and are therefore equally as smart. You know it makes sense.

49. doesn’t really make sense actually, but I’m guessing you are attempting to change the subject to afghanistan, as if the causus bellum there was in any way comparable to the WMD farce. of course the COW leaders weren’t actually that dumb. they were just lying. it was the dopes who believed they were telling the truth who were dumb. kevin rudd probably knew that they were lying, but was smart enough to pretend to be dumb. you don’t get anywhere in politics by pointing out that the emperor is naked.

50. “Funny how an intellectual reputation and proximity to power causes one to believe obvious absurdities, or at least pretend to.”

    A smart bloke- June 5 2008