Why is anyone still listening to these people?
“I guess now Dick Cheney knows what it feels like when someone you thought was a friend shoots you in the face.” –Jon Stewart after Megyn Kelly grilled Dick Cheney on Fox about being wrong on Iraq.
One of the major attacks on Obama from the right was that they never captured those responsible for Benghazi–never mind how many people responsible for embassy attacks under Reagan and Bush were never apprehended, or that it was Obama that got bin Laden years after Bush let him escape at Tora Bora. Now one of those responsible for Benghazi has been captured.
You might think that even Republicans would find this to be reason to celebrate, but instead many did what the usually do and twist anything into a way to attack Obama.
Fox claims this was done to boost Hillary Clinton’s book tour and presidential prospects.
Allen West calls this “Orwellian message control” to distract the populace from other problems.
I imagine next they will threaten impeachment because Obama didn’t inform Congress before he acted.
This should really come as no surprise. The conservative movement is packed with people who will do anything for political gain, regardless of how much it harms the country. Attacking Obama is now their number one goal, but it didn’t start with Obama. They played politics with the 9/11 attack, and used it to justify both the war in Iraq and infringements on civil liberties. More recently they have played politics with the deaths of Americans in Benghazi. These are also the people who have fought to hinder economic recovery after their policies crashed the economy, and caused a lowering of our credit rating while playing politics over the debt ceiling.
Harry Reid has responded to the Republican attacks:
It doesn’t matter what your ideology is, you should feel good about this. There’s no conspiracy here, this is actual news. But the reaction of some of the Republicans, I’ve been told, is to downplay and insult the brave men and women of our special forces and the FBI. They’re trying to say, oh, it’s no big deal. I wonder if the men and women who captured the terrorist agree. But the Republicans said it’s no big deal.
Even in these days of polarization, created by the obstruction, the delay, and diversion of the Republicans, even in these days of polarization, their reaction is shocking and disgusting. They’re so obsessed with criticism, criticizing anything President Obama does. They’ll go so far as to sit here and insult the men and women in uniform and in law enforcement. They should stop and think, just for a little bit, about what it’s like to put your life on the line and to do something for our country — that’s what they did. They’re insulting these good men and women who did some courageous things, heroic things, in order to criticize President Obama. I think they’ve lost touch with reality; it’s really pathetic, there’s no other word for it.
Iraq is now playing out as opponents of the war warned from the start. Predictably, the right wing blames Obama for Republican mistakes, when Obama understood from the start that going into Iraq was a mistake. I don’t understand why the media keeps playing clips of John McCain attacking Obama over the events in Iraq. First of all, shouldn’t the man who was wrong every step of the way keep quiet now that his policies have been shown to be a disaster? Secondly, even if McCain does keep talking, why should any news organization consider this newsworthy?
Paul Waldman explained why we should pay no attention to McCain and the others who were wrong from the start:
We have now reached the rather ironic situation in Iraq where we find ourselves allied with Iran in an effort to save the corrupt and thuggish government of Nouri al-Maliki, while the army we spent eight years training falls apart. I’m not going to pretend to have unique insight into Iraqi politics (I’d suggest reading Marc Lynch, for starters, as a way of getting up to speed on what has led to this point).
But there are few people who understand Iraq less than the Republican politicians and pundits who are being sought out for their comments on the current situation.
As you watch the debate on this issue, you should remind yourself that the most prominent voices being heard are the very ones who brought us the Iraq War in the first place, who promised that everything was simple and the only question was whether we’d be “strong” and “decisive” enough — the same thing they’re saying today. They’re the ones who swore that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, that he had a terrifying arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, that the war would be quick, easy and cheap, that since Iraq was a largely secular country we wouldn’t have to worry about sectarian conflict, and that democracy would spread throughout the region in short order, bringing peace and prosperity along with it.
We can start with the man on every TV producer and print reporter’s speed dial, John McCain. McCain does provide something important to journalists: whatever the issue of the moment is, he can be counted on to offer angry, bitter criticism of the Obama administration, giving the “balance” every story needs. The fact that he has never demonstrated the slightest bit of understanding of Iraq is no bar at all to being the most quoted person on the topic.
For context, here’s a nice roundup of some of the things McCain said when he was pushing to invade Iraq in the first place. When asked if Iraqis were going to greet us as liberators, he answered, “Absolutely.” He said, “Post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is going to be paid for by the Iraqis” with their oil wealth (the war ended up costing the American taxpayer upwards of $2 trillion). And my favorite: “There is not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias, so I think they can probably get along.”
The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites is the central dynamic of the Iraq conflict, of course. Yet today, the media once again seek out John McCain’s wisdom and insight on Iraq, which is kind of like saying, “Jeez, it looks like we might be lost — we really need to ask Mr. Magoo for directions.”
…We’re facing yet another awful and complex situation in the Middle East where we have a limited set of options, and none of them are good. But whenever you hear anyone say that the answer is simple and that being “strong” is the key — as one conservative after another will no doubt be saying in the coming days — don’t forget what happened the last time the country listened to them.
Keith Olbermann blasted McCain’s views on Iraq in a Special Comment back in 2008.
While the Republicans deserve the blame for the disastrous foreign policy moves which brought us to this position, there were unfortunately also Democrats who supported their actions. Now that events in Iraq have completely disintegrated, why is anyone still taking Hillary Clinton seriously as a presidential candidate? Shouldn’t Democrats nominate someone who got the big issues right? Clinton rationalizes her mistake by saying she was deceived by the Republicans, but there was ample evidence at the time that they were lying. There was never any connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attack. The weapons inspectors found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction which posed a threat. It was obvious that it might not be difficult to overthrow Saddam, but creating a stable alternative would be far harder getting us into a real quagmire. A president has to make the right decision from the start.
Barack Obama recently described his views on the use of military force at West Point. E.J. Dionne pointed out that military “restraint makes us stronger” and praised “the more measured approach to military intervention practiced during the presidencies of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.” Obama said, “a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable.” This was described by Andy Borowitz as meaning”Obama Defends Controversial Policy of Not Invading Countries for No Reason.”
Conservative critics were taken aback by Obama’s speech, which was riddled with incendiary remarks about only using military force for a clearly identified and rational purpose.
Obama did not shy away from employing polarizing rhetoric, often using words such as “responsible” and “sensible” to underscore his message.
Harland Dorrinson, a fellow at the conservative think tank the Center for Global Intervention, said that he was “stunned” to see Obama “defend his failure to engage the United States in impulsive and random military adventures.”
“History tells us that the best way to earn respect around the world is by using your military in a totally unpredictable and reckless manner,” he said. “Today, President Obama showed once again that he doesn’t get it.”
Even beyond Borowitz’s satirical take on the speech, this is a clear change from past years. The apparently inevitable nomination of Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential nomination has some on the left concerned. An article on Clinton in The Wall Street Journal will not help to reassure anyone worried about Clinton’s more hawkish views. We must keep in mind the Republican bias of the source, which leads me to question some of the assessments in the article that Clinton was ineffective. I doubt that they would have reason to exaggerate Clinton’s hawkishness, and their assessment on this is consistent with the views of many others.
The article describes her as a “hawk with clipped wings.” It argues that, “She was often more hawkish than the White House she served, and at some key moments was ineffectual at swinging policy her way.” Despite the article’s description of Clinton as someone who did not push her views, I often had the opinion that Clinton was one of the forces pulling Obama more to the right. Syria was given as an example where the two did disagree:
“… she was more comfortable than Mr. Obama with the use of military force and saw it as an important complement to diplomacy, present and former administration aides say.
“In the debates that we had, she generally was someone who came down in favor of military action,” says Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “She had a comfort with U.S. military action.”
Syria was a test case. The civil war exposed a divide in the administration, with Mr. Obama hesitant to commit military force and Mrs. Clinton pushing to arm secular rebels who might help oust Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.”
It would certainly be ironic if Rand Paul manages to win the Republican nomination, leaving the Democrats with the far more hawkish candidate who would take over without Barack Obama in the White House to counter her more hawkish tendencies.
The documents released by Edward Snowden have already demonstrated that the government has lied to the American people, and to our representatives in Congress, regarding violations of the law and the Constitution in conducting surveillance of American citizens following 9/11. Just as the attack was used by the Bush administration to launch the war in Iraq based upon lies, the attack was also used to greatly expand government surveillance in an atmosphere where there was too little scrutiny of government actions. There have been a lot of side issues raised to try to distract from these real issues. The latest such side issue raised by the NSA actually casts even more doubt on their credibility.
The government is denying claims made by Edward Snowden since he first became known publicly that he had first tried unsuccessfully to complain about these abuses internally. They are doing this based upon releasing a single email he had sent in April 2013 which did not raise major concerns. Here is a portion of Snowden’s response:
The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers – after more than a year of denying any such contact existed – raises serious concerns. It reveals as false the NSA’s claim to Barton Gellman of the Washington Post in December of last year, that “after extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden’s contention that he brought these matters to anyone’s attention.”
Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities – such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies – are sometimes concealed under E.O. 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations.
If the White House is interested in the whole truth, rather than the NSA’s clearly tailored and incomplete leak today for a political advantage, it will require the NSA to ask my former colleagues, management, and the senior leadership team about whether I, at any time, raised concerns about the NSA’s improper and at times unconstitutional surveillance activities. It will not take long to receive an answer.
Ultimately, whether my disclosures were justified does not depend on whether I raised these concerns previously. That’s because the system is designed to ensure that even the most valid concerns are suppressed and ignored, not acted upon. The fact that two powerful Democratic Senators – Ron Wyden and Mark Udall – knew of mass surveillance that they believed was abusive and felt constrained to do anything about it underscores how futile such internal action is — and will remain — until these processes are reformed.
Still, the fact is that I did raise such concerns both verbally and in writing, and on multiple, continuing occasions – as I have always said, and as NSA has always denied. Just as when the NSA claimed it followed German laws in Germany just weeks before it was revealed that they did not, or when NSA said they did not engage in economic espionage a few short months before it was revealed they actually did so on a regular and recurring basis, or even when they claimed they had “no domestic spying program” before we learned they collected the phone records of every American they could, so too are today’s claims that “this is only evidence we have of him reporting concerns” false.
Considering all the evidence that has been released of dishonesty on the part of the NSA and its defenders, I find Snowden’s statements that he had raised concerns about NSA activities to sound far more credible than the current NSA claim that this suddenly discovered email constitutes his sole complaint.
When promoting health care reform there was an implicit assumption that having health care insurance is beneficial. While few rational people would deny this, we now have more data to back up this assumption. The Annals of Internal Medicine published a study comparing counties in Massachusetts to comparable counties in other states to show a reduced mortality among those who received health care coverage. They estimated that giving 830 adults insurance coverage would prevent one death per year.
In this case, supporting health care reform is definitely the pro-life position.
There are a number of variables affecting a reduction in mortality so I would be cautious about extrapolating this number exactly to other areas. The New York Times estimates that the three percent drop in mortality seen would lead to a reduction in 17,000 deaths per year nationally. Harold Pollack extrapolated the reduction of 830 deaths per year to the entire uninsured population, providing an estimate that extending health care to all could lead to a reduction in 24,000 deaths per year. To put this in perspective, “That’s almost the number of Americans who die in auto crashes. It’s more than the number who die of AIDS or the number who are murdered every year.”
Some conservatives have questioned the value of this by arguing that there could be less costly ways to save the same number of lives. This misses the point that there are multiple other benefits of having insurance beyond the reduction in mortality. Providing health care coverage could lead to a reduction in the number of diabetic patients who go blind or lose limbs. Insurance coverage for people with hypertension could reduce the number who have to live with the effects of a stroke. Health care reform also spares people from going bankrupt to pay medical bills.
Some conservatives have also twisted the results of a previous study on those who received Medicaid coverage in Oregon to claim that receiving the coverage is not of benefit. The study actually did show benefits, but was not conducted for a long enough period to show significant differences in those with chronic medical problems. The Massachusetts study published this week helps to clarify this issue. Of course if conservatives want to argue that providing Medicaid is not of value, I would be very happy to see a system in which instead of receiving Medicaid the poor are provided the public option initially proposed, or even regular insurance through the exchange, in place of Medicaid. (Due to their lower incomes, it would also be necessary to provide coverage for the co-pays and deductibles, comparable to how Medicaid covers these costs for those duel eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.)
If providing access to health care saves lives, the converse would also be true. Denying people access to health care coverage would lead to more deaths. The Health Affairs Blog looked at the consequences of denying expanded Medicaid coverage in many of the Republican controlled states:
We estimate the number of deaths attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states at between 7,115 and 17,104. Medicaid expansion in opt-out states would have resulted in 712,037 fewer persons screening positive for depression and 240,700 fewer individuals suffering catastrophic medical expenditures. Medicaid expansion in these states would have resulted in 422,553 more diabetics receiving medication for their illness, 195,492 more mammograms among women age 50-64 years and 443,677 more pap smears among women age 21-64. Expansion would have resulted in an additional 658,888 women in need of mammograms gaining insurance, as well as 3.1 million women who should receive regular pap smears.
Those denied access to the expanded Medicaid program is probably the largest group who could be covered under the Affordable Care Act as originally passed but are not able to receive coverage. Considering the amount of misinformation being spread by the right wing, and outright campaigns to encourage people not to enroll, there are undoubtedly some people who are not obtaining coverage due to falling for right wing propaganda. The old cry during the Bush years and Iraq war was that “Bush Lied, People Died.” Down the road the sad truth about conservative misinformation on health care might be “Fox Lied, People Died.”
Tim Kaine is getting some publicity for saying he is ready for Hillary. I wonder if it is an early application for the vice presidential spot.
I’m not ready for Hillary, first because we have a major election coming up this November. Democrats need to concentrate on that, not 2016.
I’m also not ready to settle for Hillary. Sure, her nomination looks inevitable, but 2016 is still a long time away. She is unlikely to make the same mistakes which allowed Obama to beat her in 2008, but there is the possibility that she will make new mistakes. At the moment there doesn’t seem anyone credible to challenge her, but new Democratic leaders just might emerge while campaigning this fall. While the attacks are pure partisan nonsense, it is also possible that the Republican witch hunt on Benghazi might make her decide it just isn’t worth it to run.
I’m still hoping that the Democrats could do better and find a candidate who stands for something beyond inevitability and being the first woman president. If we want a woman candidate, I’d certainly consider Elizabeth Warren before Hillary Clinton. I’d have to take a closer look before endorsing her (and that would be premature to consider when she denies plans to run). She has received favorable publicity for a variety of reasons. Perhaps what interests me the most about her is that she once said “I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets.” She now is a Democrat because of realizing that is not true. It is impossible to truly be a supporter of a free market economy and vote for Republicans, whose agenda is to destroy the market economy, along with the middle class, in order to transfer the nation’s wealth to a tiny plutocracy.
At very least, can’t the Democrats come up with a candidate who wasn’t a cheerleader for the Iraq war, one of the biggest mistakes in our history?
There is no doubt, considering how extreme the Republican Party is, and how disastrous their policies are for individual liberty, economic prosperity, and our national security, that if Hillary is the candidate I will hold my nose and vote for her as the clear lesser evil. On the other hand, amusing that Republican defeat is otherwise assured, should our two party system only give us a choice between a Clinton and a Bush, I just might take a look at the Green Party.