Council Submissions
Mere Rhetoric - Obama’s Top NSA And CIA Picks: Harsh On Israel, Sympathetic To Iran And Hezbollah
Both James Jones, rumored to head the NSA, and John Brennan, rumored to be the new head of the CIA, are put under the microscope. Some troubling perspective by both regarding Israel and Iran is examined in this piece.
Soccer Dad - Well, duh
Soccer Dad once again examines media bias in the last election. This time in light of a report by Mark Halperin of Time magazine. John Heilmann is quoted as excusing the bias because the media generally thought Obama was smart. That, frankly, speaks for itself.
The Colossus of Rhodey - Culture of Whine (a rant)
Collosus goes into a long rant about a bratty class he had. Welcome to the real world of education my friend.
The Glittering Eye - Official History
Glittering eye examines the manner in which the Chinese tell their history with other accounts. To no one's surprise, the totalitarian government portrays the history of the Chinese people as entirely uninfluenced by outsiders. The piece then goes on to debunk this and other accounts of ancient history.
Joshuapundit - Zero Hour…Iran Now Has Material For First Nuclear Bomb
Joshuapundit examines a new IAEA report that speculates that Iran has enough raw material for a nuclear bomb and is only missing the technology to harness it. Frankly, I don't know that anyone but the Iranians know for sure. The day of reckoning is fast approaching and it's better to act sooner rather than later.
Cheat-Seeking Missiles - Sunday Scan
Cheat Seeking Missiles has nominated their entire past Sunday lineup. This includes a piece about a monumental "mistake" by scientists that claimed that this past October was the hottest on record only to find they were measuring September. It also includes an indepth look at President Elect Obama's new car, and a piece about the bru ha ha over Governor Palin's interview in front of turkey slaughterer.
The Provocateur - Some Perspective on PNC, Fraud, and the Bailout
My piece puts into perspective the fraud I broke two weeks ago involving PNC bank and the bailout.
Bookworm Room - Halting the Schism
Bookworm room takes a look at whether or not social conservatives are killing the Republican party. I wrote a piece similar to this myself. It's an absurd notion put out by elitist conservative pundits like Kathleen Parker, and moderate Republicans like Christine Todd Whitman. It might be good fodder for punditry, but social conservatives aren't going anywhere, and they aren't about to be exorcised from the Republican Party.
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: Mere Rhetoric - Defense Tech - The Big Three/National Security Risk Myth
Submitted By: Soccer Dad - Israelly Cool - The despicable Lauren Booth
Submitted By: The Colossus of Rhodey - Times Higher Education - Nine out of ten dogmas
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye - Serendipitous altruism - American troops in Afghanistan through the eyes of a French OMLT infantryman
Submitted By: Joshuapundit - Serendituous Altruism - American troops in Afghanistan through the eyes of a French OMLT infantryman
Submitted By: Cheat-Seeking Missiles - National Review Online - Party of Privilege
Submitted By: The Provocateur - The Daily Beast - No Stimulus From Government Spending
Submitted By: Bookworm Room - Jewish World Review - Why Reporters — and Judges and Professors — are Biased
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Isolation: Dealing With Despots, Tyrants and Thugs
A couple days ago, I was stunned to read that President Bush sat down with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
It wasn't but a couple months ago that Russia brazenly violated the sovereignty of its much smaller neighbor and invaded Georgia. The world talked tough. They said there would be punishment and there would be consequences. Now, just a couple months later our President sits down with theirs as though the invasion never happened.
There has been a lot of debate about whether or not our President should sit down with the leaders of Iran. The argument against such a meeting is that their leader would gain legitimacy from such a meeting. Yet, that's exactly what this meeting provided to the thug, Dmitri Medvedev.
To me dealing with thugs, tyrants, and despots would be fairly easy if the world spoke with one voice. That voice, in my opinion, should be the voice of isolation. In April, our ambassador to Venezuela was attacked in Caracas. My first question was why we had an ambassador in Venezuela.
To me, dealing with tyrants is simple. All you need to do is isolate them. Kick out their ambassadors. Remove your own from their embassies. Furthermore, you isolate them economically. For instance there is the website Divest Terror. This site encourages pension funds from U.S. states to divest from any company that does business with Iran, Syria, North Korea and other despots. If there were real economic punishment for doing business in Iran, Iran would immediately be economically isolated. If the peace loving world came together to isolate tyrants, then the only folks tyrants would ever interact with is other tyrants. In such an environment, tyrants wouldn't be able to stay in power very long.
Such isolation is difficult and it is painstaking. The model for success of such isolation was the apartheid government of South Africa. That took decades but eventually the will of the South African government was broken.
The problem is that much of Europe is in love with the idea of engagement and dialogue. They welcome any opportunity to engage countries like Iran. We have diplomatic apparatus like the United Nations that welcome despotic regimes like Iran so that business can't be done. If we lived in a world where peace loving nations did everything they could to isolate despots, despots would survive for a very short time. Unfortunately, the world hasn't reached a consensus on how to deal with despots. As such, the forces of isolation are countered by the forces of engagement.
U.S. President George W. Bush and his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev has met in Lima on the sidelines of the ongoing APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) economic leaders' meeting, Peru's Andina news agency reported Sunday.
Bush and Medvedev agreed during their meeting Saturday to continue cooperation on a number of issues including piracy off the Somali coast and international security.
They also discussed their positions on Iran and Georgia, the news agency said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the two sides also discussed the global economic crisis and that Moscow hopes that practical cooperation would continue after U.S. President-elect Barack Obama takes office early next year.
It wasn't but a couple months ago that Russia brazenly violated the sovereignty of its much smaller neighbor and invaded Georgia. The world talked tough. They said there would be punishment and there would be consequences. Now, just a couple months later our President sits down with theirs as though the invasion never happened.
There has been a lot of debate about whether or not our President should sit down with the leaders of Iran. The argument against such a meeting is that their leader would gain legitimacy from such a meeting. Yet, that's exactly what this meeting provided to the thug, Dmitri Medvedev.
To me dealing with thugs, tyrants, and despots would be fairly easy if the world spoke with one voice. That voice, in my opinion, should be the voice of isolation. In April, our ambassador to Venezuela was attacked in Caracas. My first question was why we had an ambassador in Venezuela.
To me, dealing with tyrants is simple. All you need to do is isolate them. Kick out their ambassadors. Remove your own from their embassies. Furthermore, you isolate them economically. For instance there is the website Divest Terror. This site encourages pension funds from U.S. states to divest from any company that does business with Iran, Syria, North Korea and other despots. If there were real economic punishment for doing business in Iran, Iran would immediately be economically isolated. If the peace loving world came together to isolate tyrants, then the only folks tyrants would ever interact with is other tyrants. In such an environment, tyrants wouldn't be able to stay in power very long.
Such isolation is difficult and it is painstaking. The model for success of such isolation was the apartheid government of South Africa. That took decades but eventually the will of the South African government was broken.
The problem is that much of Europe is in love with the idea of engagement and dialogue. They welcome any opportunity to engage countries like Iran. We have diplomatic apparatus like the United Nations that welcome despotic regimes like Iran so that business can't be done. If we lived in a world where peace loving nations did everything they could to isolate despots, despots would survive for a very short time. Unfortunately, the world hasn't reached a consensus on how to deal with despots. As such, the forces of isolation are countered by the forces of engagement.
No Stimulus in Government Spending
Arthur Laffer is a well known supply side economist and he was one of the main architects of Reaganomics. He is most famous for the Laffer curve.
The Laffer curve stated that there was an optimum level of taxation that would both not mitigate productivity and also maximize tax receipts. Today, Laffer writes an interesting piece bemoaning the idea that government spending would stimulate the economy.
This is an excellent point about the futility of stimulus checks. The government issued an extra $170 billion in U.S. government bonds to send out these checks. While some of these bonds were bought by foreign entities, most of them were bought by Americans. In other words, this stimulus merely transferred money from those that bought the bonds to the tax payers at large. On top of this, the government now owes interest on all of these bonds. In effect, this was a net loss and that as good an explanation as any for why the stimulus of last February failed to stimulate the economy.
Now, here Laffer makes an excellent theoretical point however in practice it may or may not hold water. Laffer's point is that any stimulus which would be borrowed, of which this would be, would be offset by everyone spending less that would wind up being taxed more to pay for said stimulus. In practice, no one yet has had their taxes raised. As such, no one should be minimizing their spending because no one's taxes have been raised. Furthermore, defenders of stimulus through government spending would argue that taxes would only be raised on those wealthy enough to have stopped spending long before the tax increase. For this, Laffer has a rather vague and confusing response.
If we don't know who is going to bear the burden, then why would those folks stop spending. Furthermore, defenders of this policy would say that taxes would be raised when the economy has recovered and is need of a tax increase. Still, Laffer makes a very simple and important point...government creates nothing, but rather it transfers it. That's an important thing to keep in mind as we watch all of this government stimulus evolve.
In economics, the Laffer curve is used to illustrate the idea that increases in the rate of taxation do not necessarily increase tax revenue. (For instance, a 100 percent income tax will generate no revenue, as citizens will have no incentive to work). Increasing taxes beyond the peak of the curve point will decrease tax revenue. The Laffer curve was popularized by Arthur Laffer (b. 1940) in the 1980s. However, the idea is not new to him. In his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, John Maynard Keynes described how past a certain point, increasing taxation would lower revenue and vice versa.[1
The Laffer curve stated that there was an optimum level of taxation that would both not mitigate productivity and also maximize tax receipts. Today, Laffer writes an interesting piece bemoaning the idea that government spending would stimulate the economy.
It is true, as the proponents of these stimulus packages argue, that recipients of government checks will spend more than they otherwise would have spent. And, that increased spending will have a multiplier effect increasing spending even further. But this is only part of the story.
The government can only transfer resources; it can’t create resources. There is no tooth fairy. Every dollar given to someone comes from someone else. The government can’t bail some people out of trouble without putting other people into trouble, plus a hefty “toll for the troll.”
This is an excellent point about the futility of stimulus checks. The government issued an extra $170 billion in U.S. government bonds to send out these checks. While some of these bonds were bought by foreign entities, most of them were bought by Americans. In other words, this stimulus merely transferred money from those that bought the bonds to the tax payers at large. On top of this, the government now owes interest on all of these bonds. In effect, this was a net loss and that as good an explanation as any for why the stimulus of last February failed to stimulate the economy.
From the standpoint of accounting, the government is $170 billion further in the red, and taxpayers are liable for an additional $170 billion worth of taxes. Therefore, for every dollar of transfer payment there’s at least an equivalent dollar of future tax liabilities. Those people with the increased tax liabilities will spend less, thereby dis-employing people who had been supplying them with goods they’ll no longer buy. And the reduction in spending of those with higher tax liabilities will lead to a multiplied reduction in total spending equal to and fully offsetting the increase in total spending from the recipients of government checks. There is no stimulus from the stimulus programs!
To see this point more intuitively, imagine what the “stimulus effect” would be if they borrowed the $700 billion from the same people to whom they gave the $700 billion and then promised to raise their taxes by enough in the future to pay off their bonds. Where’s the stimulus in that?
This point is hugely important. For the proponents of increased government spending to argue that their policies will increase output, it is absolutely essential that the increased spending by transfer recipients more than offset any decline in spending by others. If the income effects of fiscal policy net to zero, there is no rationale for these spending policies. And, the income effects of fiscal policy do indeed net to zero.
Now, here Laffer makes an excellent theoretical point however in practice it may or may not hold water. Laffer's point is that any stimulus which would be borrowed, of which this would be, would be offset by everyone spending less that would wind up being taxed more to pay for said stimulus. In practice, no one yet has had their taxes raised. As such, no one should be minimizing their spending because no one's taxes have been raised. Furthermore, defenders of stimulus through government spending would argue that taxes would only be raised on those wealthy enough to have stopped spending long before the tax increase. For this, Laffer has a rather vague and confusing response.
The diffuse and imprecise nature of just who bares the increased tax liabilities makes the point difficult to understand. We all know who benefits from government programs: mortgage holders, undercapitalized banks, auto companies, low-income earners and the like. But who bears the increased tax burden? That’s a far trickier question, the answer to which I don’t have. But in the aggregate I do know that for every beneficiary of government spending there is someone who has to pay for it. As Milton Friedman so wisely noted, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”
What I don’t really know is just how far this process can go and just what it will take to stop this vicious cycle. Combine the unintended consequences of a flawed model with a crashing economy in ever more desperate need of beneficial policies, and the results are lethal. The old adage “if you don’t like government problems just wait till you see government solutions” has never been truer.
If we don't know who is going to bear the burden, then why would those folks stop spending. Furthermore, defenders of this policy would say that taxes would be raised when the economy has recovered and is need of a tax increase. Still, Laffer makes a very simple and important point...government creates nothing, but rather it transfers it. That's an important thing to keep in mind as we watch all of this government stimulus evolve.
President Elect Obama: Something Doesn't Add Up
Yesterday, President Elect Obama announced his economic stimulus proposal.
Today, here is what President Elect Obama said about fiscal restraint.
Herein lies the rub, as Shakespeare might say. President Elect Obama wants to stimulate the economy through increased government spending. He wants to create jobs through a series of public works projects like building roads, bridges and highways. At the same time, he wants to cut funding to projects and programs that he thinks are inefficient and no longer useful. The problem is that cutting those programs would contract jobs.
Let's say the government is funding some useless study on mice. While there maybe no reason to fund this study, the funding creates jobs. Whoever receives said grant hires researchers, rents space, buys equipment. Some of the research may even be outsourced. The project may even hire consultants. All of this goes to expand the economy. This program may in fact be inefficient and even worthless but it also creates jobs. Cutting it will cut jobs. Cutting a mass number of wasteful programs will also cut a mass number of jobs.
What President Elect Obama is going to realize soon is that any plan in which the government leads in job creation is not a plan in which efficiency is of any priority. FDR didn't begin cutting "inefficient programs" while he expanded government. It would have been a counter productive move. Barack Obama will take jobs out of the economy at the same time he is putting jobs into the economy. What Barack Obama is proposing is creating jobs through one set of new government spending while at the same time cutting jobs through the elimination of other government spending. Does anyone else see this as totally fallacious?
This of course exposes the fallacy of using the government as the driver of economic growth. In order for any such plan to work it requires a massive growth in the size, scope, and spending of government. You can't cut government spending and expect the government to create jobs. Ultimately, the success of Obama's plan will come down to just how efficiently the new spending will be compared to how inefficient the old spending was. Even if Obama is able to spend efficiently the gains will still be marginal. In Barack Obama's plan, there is nothing to stimulate job growth in the private sector (like the plan I developed) In such a plan, making government more efficient is vital. Instead, President Elect Obama's plan relies on making the government as big, powerful, and expansive as possible. Such is, in my opinion, a recipe for economic disaster.
The president-elect said he wanted Congress to act “right away” on a stimulus measure that would blend spending and tax cuts. Asked for details, he said without elaboration that he wanted a measure “of a size and scope that is necessary to get this economy back on track.”
Democratic officials in Congress said the stimulus plan could include aid to cash-strapped states to provide health care to the poor, along with road and bridge funds. More money for food stamps is also likely, they said.
Obama renewed his campaign-long call for middle-class tax cuts but said he would let his advisers make a recommendation on whether to roll back Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.He offered few details about the economic stimulus measure he wanted from the new Congress, saying he would ask his new team of advisers to consult with lawmakers.
As a candidate, he supported a $175 billion measure, but the economy has worsened since then, and many lawmakers and economists argue for a more robust jolt. Obama said his goal was to create 2.5 million jobs by “rebuilding our infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, modernizing our schools and creating the clean-energy infrastructure of the 21st century.”
Today, here is what President Elect Obama said about fiscal restraint.
We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politician, lobbyist, or interest group," he said.
Obama said he would ask his economic team to "think anew and act anew" to meet new challenges.
"We will go through our federal budget -- page by page, line by line -- eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way," Obama said.
Herein lies the rub, as Shakespeare might say. President Elect Obama wants to stimulate the economy through increased government spending. He wants to create jobs through a series of public works projects like building roads, bridges and highways. At the same time, he wants to cut funding to projects and programs that he thinks are inefficient and no longer useful. The problem is that cutting those programs would contract jobs.
Let's say the government is funding some useless study on mice. While there maybe no reason to fund this study, the funding creates jobs. Whoever receives said grant hires researchers, rents space, buys equipment. Some of the research may even be outsourced. The project may even hire consultants. All of this goes to expand the economy. This program may in fact be inefficient and even worthless but it also creates jobs. Cutting it will cut jobs. Cutting a mass number of wasteful programs will also cut a mass number of jobs.
What President Elect Obama is going to realize soon is that any plan in which the government leads in job creation is not a plan in which efficiency is of any priority. FDR didn't begin cutting "inefficient programs" while he expanded government. It would have been a counter productive move. Barack Obama will take jobs out of the economy at the same time he is putting jobs into the economy. What Barack Obama is proposing is creating jobs through one set of new government spending while at the same time cutting jobs through the elimination of other government spending. Does anyone else see this as totally fallacious?
This of course exposes the fallacy of using the government as the driver of economic growth. In order for any such plan to work it requires a massive growth in the size, scope, and spending of government. You can't cut government spending and expect the government to create jobs. Ultimately, the success of Obama's plan will come down to just how efficiently the new spending will be compared to how inefficient the old spending was. Even if Obama is able to spend efficiently the gains will still be marginal. In Barack Obama's plan, there is nothing to stimulate job growth in the private sector (like the plan I developed) In such a plan, making government more efficient is vital. Instead, President Elect Obama's plan relies on making the government as big, powerful, and expansive as possible. Such is, in my opinion, a recipe for economic disaster.
My Mostly Conservative Stimulus and Economic Recovery Plan
With Barack Obama as President and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid leading the Congress, expect any and all stimulus packages to focus on massive expansion of government, massive new spending, and all sorts of government regulations as part of any stimulus package. Jobs will be created with the government taking the lead. As such, what I am about to propose is nothing more than a pipe dream in the current environment. At the very least, we can all compare the conservative approach to stimulus than what Barack Obama proposed yesterday.
My proposal would focus on a series of across the board tax cuts. First, I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and I would drop each and every marginal rate another three percent which would expire in five years unless they are extended. Currently the rates are 10, 15, 25, and 33% and so under my plan they would be 7,12,22, and 30% for the next five years.
Second, I would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 27%. Right now our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the civilized world behind only Japan. When Ireland reduced their rate to 10%, their economy exploded. When I saw Rudy Giuliani speak during the primaries, he made an interesting point about the corporate tax rate.
Putting the corporate tax rate at 27% would put the U.S. in the middle of the civilized world. It would continue to allow the Federal government to collect a relatively healthy amount of corporate taxes, but also, it would keep the U.S. competitive against other nations. Corporations won't have high taxes as a motivation to move offshore.
Next, I would encourage strongly for FASB to suspend and eliminate the corrosive marked to market. This new rule forces companies to write down long term assets like mortgage backed securities. Many times MBS are used as part of capital requirements. Marked to market causes capital requirements to be drained fairly artificially.
Next, I would eliminate the capital gainst tax for any investment made in the next three years. In other words, any home, business, or other investment purchased in the next three years would face absolutely no capital gains tax if and when the gain is realized. This will spawn some much needed investment and home buying.
Next, I would eliminate all fees and taxes on early withdrawals from IRA's, 401ks, and any other retirement vehicle if the withdrawal is used for the purchase of a property. Such a suspension would be another help to the distressed housing market.
I would also immediately halt the bailout and announce that any further bailouts would only come under the most extreme of circumstances. While I am firmly against any bailouts, I also would want to leave myself some room for a very disastrous situation.
I would also set up an advisory committee to look at regulating two markets, credit swaps and loan modifications. While I am generally against regulations, these two highly unregulated markets are open to a lot of abuse and fraud. I would be hesitant to institute and mass regulations while the economy is weak, but it would be a priority to look at putting in some much needed regulations in these two markets. On that note, I would reverse and halt all federal government interventions that encourage loan modifications. The FDIC, for instance, is now insuring loan modifications. My government would not be in the business of rewarding irresponsibility. Loan modifications occur when a borrower gets a better loan because they can't afford the one they have. Federal government help for such behavior would end right now.
This would all be combined with John McCain's idea of a freeze on all non essential government spending. Under my administration, we would attack the weakened economy be encouraging the private sector and keeping the federal government as far away as possible. Keeping spending down would limit the deficits we would incur by dropping taxes dramatically.
My proposal would focus on a series of across the board tax cuts. First, I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and I would drop each and every marginal rate another three percent which would expire in five years unless they are extended. Currently the rates are 10, 15, 25, and 33% and so under my plan they would be 7,12,22, and 30% for the next five years.
Second, I would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 27%. Right now our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the civilized world behind only Japan. When Ireland reduced their rate to 10%, their economy exploded. When I saw Rudy Giuliani speak during the primaries, he made an interesting point about the corporate tax rate.
He spoke about productive and unproductive taxes. An unproductive tax is one that is among the most extreme when compared to the civilized world. For instance, he pointed out that our corporate income tax is one of the highest in the entire civilized world. He said that if we merely lowered our tax so that is closer to the middle not at the top that it would keep a lot of the business we lose. He said his tax policy would focus on identifying and lowering those taxes that he determined to be unproductive.
Putting the corporate tax rate at 27% would put the U.S. in the middle of the civilized world. It would continue to allow the Federal government to collect a relatively healthy amount of corporate taxes, but also, it would keep the U.S. competitive against other nations. Corporations won't have high taxes as a motivation to move offshore.
Next, I would encourage strongly for FASB to suspend and eliminate the corrosive marked to market. This new rule forces companies to write down long term assets like mortgage backed securities. Many times MBS are used as part of capital requirements. Marked to market causes capital requirements to be drained fairly artificially.
Next, I would eliminate the capital gainst tax for any investment made in the next three years. In other words, any home, business, or other investment purchased in the next three years would face absolutely no capital gains tax if and when the gain is realized. This will spawn some much needed investment and home buying.
Next, I would eliminate all fees and taxes on early withdrawals from IRA's, 401ks, and any other retirement vehicle if the withdrawal is used for the purchase of a property. Such a suspension would be another help to the distressed housing market.
I would also immediately halt the bailout and announce that any further bailouts would only come under the most extreme of circumstances. While I am firmly against any bailouts, I also would want to leave myself some room for a very disastrous situation.
I would also set up an advisory committee to look at regulating two markets, credit swaps and loan modifications. While I am generally against regulations, these two highly unregulated markets are open to a lot of abuse and fraud. I would be hesitant to institute and mass regulations while the economy is weak, but it would be a priority to look at putting in some much needed regulations in these two markets. On that note, I would reverse and halt all federal government interventions that encourage loan modifications. The FDIC, for instance, is now insuring loan modifications. My government would not be in the business of rewarding irresponsibility. Loan modifications occur when a borrower gets a better loan because they can't afford the one they have. Federal government help for such behavior would end right now.
This would all be combined with John McCain's idea of a freeze on all non essential government spending. Under my administration, we would attack the weakened economy be encouraging the private sector and keeping the federal government as far away as possible. Keeping spending down would limit the deficits we would incur by dropping taxes dramatically.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Cynicism of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State
Compare the positions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on domestic issues and you will find little difference between the two. Both want some form of universal health care and differ mostly on specifics like whether it will be mandatory for everyone to be covered. Both want some form of middle class tax cuts. Both are in favor significant new government spending on infrastructure, job creation, and green technology. Both believe the spirit of deregulation played a very large part in creating the crisis and so both favor some form significant new regulations. Both are socially liberal. They both favor most abortions. They both favor liberal judges. Neither favors gay marriage though both favor some sort of civil unionship.
If you were a voter that made their choice on positions, there would be little to choose from on domestic issues. On foreign policy, that was a far different issue. First, Obama made the centerpiece of his campaign that he had the wisdom to see Iraq for the unmitigated disaster that Democrats see it as and that his more experienced opponents didn't have the same kind of wisdom. It is this wisdom, in the view of Barack Obama, that was most important in making foreign policy decisions.
On Iran, Barack Obama was the only candidate to say that he would meet unconditionally with their leaders in the first year of his Presidency.
Here is how Hillary Clinton characterized such a policy.
Later, it was Hillary Clinton's turn to say something controversial about Iran.
Here is how Barack Obama characterized that statement.
In February of 2007, Barack Obama made his first major foreign policy speech in front of the Council on Foreign Relations. He indicated that if Pakistan wasn't ready to act against Al Qaeda stationed within their borders, the United States, under his command, would act with or without their permission. Here is how Hillary Clinton characterized such language.
White House hopeful Hillary Clinton slammed her Democratic rival Barack Obama Tuesday for suggesting he would order a raid against Al-Qaeda inside Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf failed to act.
Clinton, who has sought to paint Obama as lacking the foreign policy experience to be commander in chief, questioned the wisdom of Obama's threat during a key debate here before crucial nominating contests in Ohio and Texas.
"Last summer, he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take," Clinton said.
"I have long advocated a much tougher approach to Musharraf and to Pakistan and have pushed the White House to do that," she said ahead of next Tuesday's do-or-die nominating contests.
There is a rather perverse cynicism in having Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton for his Secretary of State. If she were chosen for his HHS Secretary that would have been one thing. Here, Barack Obama spent an entire primary staking out a foreign policy position that differentiated from Clinton's on most major points. He criticized her on more than one occasion, and he even said often that her vote to authorize the war showed she wasn't fit to be President. She called his policy toward Iran naive, and he called hers much too much like George Bush's. Yet, now he has put her in charge of his entire foreign policy platform. What will Hillary Clinton do if Barack Obama follows through on his threat and attacks Al Qaeda without the permission of Pakistan? What Will Hillary Clinton do if she is directed to broker a deal between Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Some of these things are natural criticisms made in a campaign. Certainly, if a President could only pick those that never disagreed with them that would leave very few people to choose from in a cabinet. Still, there are fundamental differences here between how these two view geopolitics. Barack Obama believes that voting in favor of the Iraq war indicates an individual doesn't have the judgment to be President. Hillary Clinton thinks that unconditional Presidential level negotiations is a naive and dangerous policy. Yet, these two will come together to make foreign policy. Not only is this cynical, but it is the sort of cynicism that Barack Obama promised to get beyond.
If you were a voter that made their choice on positions, there would be little to choose from on domestic issues. On foreign policy, that was a far different issue. First, Obama made the centerpiece of his campaign that he had the wisdom to see Iraq for the unmitigated disaster that Democrats see it as and that his more experienced opponents didn't have the same kind of wisdom. It is this wisdom, in the view of Barack Obama, that was most important in making foreign policy decisions.
On Iran, Barack Obama was the only candidate to say that he would meet unconditionally with their leaders in the first year of his Presidency.
Here is how Hillary Clinton characterized such a policy.
I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," she told the Quad-City Times of Iowa.
Later, it was Hillary Clinton's turn to say something controversial about Iran.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Here is how Barack Obama characterized that statement.
"It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush," Obama told NBC's "Meet the Press."
In February of 2007, Barack Obama made his first major foreign policy speech in front of the Council on Foreign Relations. He indicated that if Pakistan wasn't ready to act against Al Qaeda stationed within their borders, the United States, under his command, would act with or without their permission. Here is how Hillary Clinton characterized such language.
White House hopeful Hillary Clinton slammed her Democratic rival Barack Obama Tuesday for suggesting he would order a raid against Al-Qaeda inside Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf failed to act.
Clinton, who has sought to paint Obama as lacking the foreign policy experience to be commander in chief, questioned the wisdom of Obama's threat during a key debate here before crucial nominating contests in Ohio and Texas.
"Last summer, he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take," Clinton said.
"I have long advocated a much tougher approach to Musharraf and to Pakistan and have pushed the White House to do that," she said ahead of next Tuesday's do-or-die nominating contests.
There is a rather perverse cynicism in having Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton for his Secretary of State. If she were chosen for his HHS Secretary that would have been one thing. Here, Barack Obama spent an entire primary staking out a foreign policy position that differentiated from Clinton's on most major points. He criticized her on more than one occasion, and he even said often that her vote to authorize the war showed she wasn't fit to be President. She called his policy toward Iran naive, and he called hers much too much like George Bush's. Yet, now he has put her in charge of his entire foreign policy platform. What will Hillary Clinton do if Barack Obama follows through on his threat and attacks Al Qaeda without the permission of Pakistan? What Will Hillary Clinton do if she is directed to broker a deal between Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Some of these things are natural criticisms made in a campaign. Certainly, if a President could only pick those that never disagreed with them that would leave very few people to choose from in a cabinet. Still, there are fundamental differences here between how these two view geopolitics. Barack Obama believes that voting in favor of the Iraq war indicates an individual doesn't have the judgment to be President. Hillary Clinton thinks that unconditional Presidential level negotiations is a naive and dangerous policy. Yet, these two will come together to make foreign policy. Not only is this cynical, but it is the sort of cynicism that Barack Obama promised to get beyond.
Some Random Thoughts on 24: Redemption
Introduction: please note that I will talk a bit about plot and so if you haven't seen it and want to, you may not want to read further.
No one got a more raw deal from the writer's strike than fans of the show 24 which saw the entire season cancelled because of the timing of the strike. That's why this season's prequal 24: Redemption was a welcome to all super fans. Here are a few thoughts.
First, I immediately put myself in the postion of the President. There was a military coup trying to take over a country we are allied with. The government is democratically elected. Yet, the country offers no strategic value to ours and we would be inserting ourselves into their Civil War. Would I, as President, insert troops to help the Democratically elected government? While I reserve my right to change my opinion based on new information, at this point I would not. The President of the United States represents the interests of the United States. The President is not the chief do gooder. Our country needs to have a strategic reason to insert itself into a war, and merely avoiding a genocide of an internal conflict is not enough reason.
Second, the scene that will stick with me for the longest period of time is the scene in which Jack's special ops buddy, Robert Benton, turns himself into a suicide bomber in order to take out the posse that was out to assassinate them in the woods. There is something perverse and very powerful about showing a scene in which someone uses the technique of a suicide bombing to a strategic asymetrical warfare victory of sorts. By drawing the posse in, Benton was able to blow them up with him (he had stepped on a mine trying to save one of his kids from the same mine). This gave Jack and the kids he was with a free path into the city.
Third, I just love how the UN peacekeeper was portrayed as not only hapless but also as totally void of character and courage. That's the television show version of giving your audience red meat. Furthermore, the description is totally accurate and appropriate.
Fourth, many of the scenes reminded me of the movie, Blood Diamond. That's frankly because both are able to rather accurately portray the unfortunate realities of life in much of Africa. The use of children to fight Civil Wars is a very unfortunate fact of life on that continent. The initial scene in which a child is essentially forced to behead a prisoner is very similar to one out of Blood Diamonds. That's frankly because both portray everyday realities of Civil Wars in Africa.
Finally, it appears the show may take a decidedly left slant this season. If this is intentional, it is also brilliant. There are quarters of liberal thought where this show is seen as some sort of a right wing schill. This season may present injecting ourselves into a Civil War to avoid a genocide as good and noble, a la the Sudan and many other left wing causes. Certainly, the new President will be in favor of such an action. It also appears possible that the show will take a decidedly more negative stance to Jack's torture, another sore spot for the most rabid leftwing critics of the show. If the show presents a more left wing perspective, that will leave critics with little more to criticize. It's hard to criticize it's suspense, acting, writing, presentation, or anything else. The only thing you could criticize is its supposed politics. By presenting this season from the other ideology, that will leave no more criticism at all.
No one got a more raw deal from the writer's strike than fans of the show 24 which saw the entire season cancelled because of the timing of the strike. That's why this season's prequal 24: Redemption was a welcome to all super fans. Here are a few thoughts.
First, I immediately put myself in the postion of the President. There was a military coup trying to take over a country we are allied with. The government is democratically elected. Yet, the country offers no strategic value to ours and we would be inserting ourselves into their Civil War. Would I, as President, insert troops to help the Democratically elected government? While I reserve my right to change my opinion based on new information, at this point I would not. The President of the United States represents the interests of the United States. The President is not the chief do gooder. Our country needs to have a strategic reason to insert itself into a war, and merely avoiding a genocide of an internal conflict is not enough reason.
Second, the scene that will stick with me for the longest period of time is the scene in which Jack's special ops buddy, Robert Benton, turns himself into a suicide bomber in order to take out the posse that was out to assassinate them in the woods. There is something perverse and very powerful about showing a scene in which someone uses the technique of a suicide bombing to a strategic asymetrical warfare victory of sorts. By drawing the posse in, Benton was able to blow them up with him (he had stepped on a mine trying to save one of his kids from the same mine). This gave Jack and the kids he was with a free path into the city.
Third, I just love how the UN peacekeeper was portrayed as not only hapless but also as totally void of character and courage. That's the television show version of giving your audience red meat. Furthermore, the description is totally accurate and appropriate.
Fourth, many of the scenes reminded me of the movie, Blood Diamond. That's frankly because both are able to rather accurately portray the unfortunate realities of life in much of Africa. The use of children to fight Civil Wars is a very unfortunate fact of life on that continent. The initial scene in which a child is essentially forced to behead a prisoner is very similar to one out of Blood Diamonds. That's frankly because both portray everyday realities of Civil Wars in Africa.
Finally, it appears the show may take a decidedly left slant this season. If this is intentional, it is also brilliant. There are quarters of liberal thought where this show is seen as some sort of a right wing schill. This season may present injecting ourselves into a Civil War to avoid a genocide as good and noble, a la the Sudan and many other left wing causes. Certainly, the new President will be in favor of such an action. It also appears possible that the show will take a decidedly more negative stance to Jack's torture, another sore spot for the most rabid leftwing critics of the show. If the show presents a more left wing perspective, that will leave critics with little more to criticize. It's hard to criticize it's suspense, acting, writing, presentation, or anything else. The only thing you could criticize is its supposed politics. By presenting this season from the other ideology, that will leave no more criticism at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
