Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Good points. The answer of course is that sweeping general principles with respect to such choices are almost certainly wrong sometimes. Both domestically and in international affairs, there are always hard-to-predict side effects of government intervention that all to often dominate the results. Both tend to create their own constituencies of beneficiaries who complicate the ensuing arguments about the effectiveness (or lack of it) of the action, and it is very hard to reverse the policy once it is undertaken.

First of all, one of the few constitutionally manadated functions of the federal government is defense. It is not a function that we can do as individuals for ourselves, unlike most things.

Secondly, characterizing Iraq as a pre-emptive strike is not a universally held opinion. To analyze our involvements, first take Afghanistan, and I think even most Democrats have supported that war. It seems fairly clear that the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan, supported and gave safe haven to Al Qaeda, but if you want to be technical about this, neither the Taliban itself, nor the main population of Afghanistan, conducted the attacks on 9/11, so according to a very strict interpretation, you could argue that the war in Afghanistan was pre-emptive. I don't know what your answer is on that? You might wish to clarify what your position is on Afghanistan?

In regard to Iraq, no need to rehash the history at length, but we and the world had dealt with the dicator, Hussein for a long, long time. Remember the Bush doctrine, any government that supports or gives safe haven to terrorist groups have already in effect attacked us, so any response that we make toward any such country is not a pre-emptive strike. It is not vastly different than Afghanistan. There is argument about exactly what Hussein had or did in all of these regards, but we as a representative republic had a national debate on that, and congress voted to give authorization. To be honest, I teetered and debated in my mind whether it was justified. However, congress voted Bush acted, and the rest is history. Now, the Democrats have spun this issue for years, with some traction to the spin, arguing that Bush lied. I don't happen to buy it. It is more a case of people wanting to ride the fence and not taking responsibility for their own votes. They would rather go with whatever political wind happens to be blowing.

The question of whether Bush lied has been debated to the point of exhaustion, but two points, Ms. Clinton herself said she talked to all the experts aside from Bush and was convinced Hussein probably had WMD, and secondly, Valerie Plame in her recent book admitted she was fearful of WMD when our troops entered Iraq. It was her agency that told Bush what the probabilities were, not the other way around, and she specialized in WMD issues at the agency.

In regard to your chosen candidate, Obama, I commend him for consistency, he was against the war all along, and therefore is not a hypocrite like many of the other Democrats. And finally, in regard to war as a Republican, I am not in favor of wars, and certainly not pre-emptive, but I don't agree that Iraq was clearly pre-emptive. Congress voted, we are in this as a country, and we would be far better served to unify and see it through in a reasonable manner instead of backstabbing and using it as a political football. The world is far better off, and I think safer without Saddam Hussein.

I doubt that this proposition is demonstrably true. While it is indeed likely that either soon or already one will be able to truthfully say that Iraq is far better off without Saddam, it is not necessarily true for the world.

Iraq, under the secular/Sunni domination of the dictator Saddam was an effective check on the Islamist/Shia revolutionary government of Iran; and as well on the potential ambitions of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, governments that are accumulating vast petroleum wealth and whose furure political development and intentions are far from clear. Now that is gone.

The unhappy fact is that the only meaningful rationalization for our overthrow of Saddam - the creation of a modern secular government that would create a beneficial model for modernity, tolerance and a degree of democracy in a Moslem world handicapped by backward-looking secular and Islamist authoritarian models - has not occurred, and the prospects for it are, so far, dim. It just might eventually work out as a partial success, but that is not evident yet.

Your argument is a valid one, george. And the world will never be a safe place, as we go from one threat to another. About the time one problem is solved, another much worse could evolve or manifest itself.

I am not happy with how hard Iraq is, but my main point is that is what we are faced with and it does us no good to villify each other over it. We do elect congressmen, and they did vote, we need to make the best of it, and it is quite hopeful that Iraq can emerge a better place. And our memories are short. We cannot govern with 20/20 hindsight, we have to go forward. We perhaps do not remember the worry and threat that Saddam Hussein presented. And although we hear nothing about it, it is quite possible he was in fact behind the anthrax attacks. Bottom line, we don't have to worry about him now, and let us try to affect a positive outcome rather than abandoning ship as some of the Democrats apparently wish to do.

you have made an a2k career over doing just that.

I may not put as much stock in political rhetoric as, perhaps, you do. Now, in the midst of the campaign, the candidates are all reaching for both symbolic and substantial expressions that will differentiate themselves from their principal competitors and appeal to segments of the electorat that, at the moment, are thought to be critical or in play.

In my view a probably a more reliable indicator of what they would do in office is to look to the segments of the electorate that appear to be their strongest supporters. In some cases, particularly in such open contests as we have today, this can be hard to fathom, as the principal candidates in both parties struggle to compete for some of the same constituencies.

I believe this year the uncertainty is greatest among the principal Republican candidates. While the three principal Democrats are currently working hard to say virtually the same things, there are fairly reliable indicators with which to differentiate among them. However, even here, the situation is a bit more fluid than in previous campaigns.

Okie, please point to where in my words above I mentioned Iraq or Bush?

Isn't that a bit coy, Butrfly? Isn't it pretty obvious to all, what "preemptive" instance you referred to?

It isn't at all obvious to me.

Actually I had in mind Iran and North Korea. And no, I don't wish to debate the validity of strikes in those countries. That wasn't the point of my question.

I am not in favor of hitting Iran or North Korea either, and there is no evidence we have actual plans to do it. We may rattle sabres, and the defense department has contingency plans for virtually any scenario, that is what they do there, but I think some people are assuming we will do things that we will never do. I have read predictions of our invasion of Iran on this forum, but I don't see it happening without alot more reason to do it.

Well maybe its just me, but I was thinking that the larger debate about "preemptive war" didn't begin in earnest until Bush did his thing in Iraq.

Its not just you, snood. When I read the following, I don't think it was unreasonable of me at all to assume she was talking about Iraq? In fact, I don't know of any other war lately besides Iraq, or possibly Afghanistan, where it has been argued to be a pre-emptive strike?

The question is what's the difference between complaining about the expansion of big government and the costs entailed for creating all these social programs while cheering on the expansion of government and costs involved in pre-emptive military strikes.

Whether that pre-emptive strike is in Iraq, Iran or Korea does not matter to the question.

Is expansion of big government and big spending the problem or isn't it?

Looks like Obama may take SC.



Edwards had better accept the fact that he's out of the race.

No it didnt.
Every President since the end of WW2, including Bill Clinton, has authorized plans for a first strike capability.
That means that the US has always had a policy of preemptive attacks on other countries, mainly with nukes.

Bush was just the first President to actually act under that policy.

Or Clinton his in Serbia.

Bending history a bit again or we Geroge.

There is a big difference. If you don't care about the constitution, then you can grow the government for any reason that strikes peoples current wants and desires and it wouldn't make a difference, but it should make a difference because the constitution does not mandate the government do everything that people are clamoring for it to do. Defense is mandated by the constitution as a legitimate function of the federal government.

The truth is that entitlement spending is mostly breaking the bank, not defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fed-budget-2007-chart.GIF