Hmmm... It's always interesting when you talk to a reporter for a half-hour, and 58 words make it into print.

My point, which I think Yardley mostly conveyed, is that Obama has managed to win the support of a big chunk of the Nader/Kucinich wing of the party -- despite the fact that his policy positions are not in sync with their's.

Part of it is because of his appeal to idealism, part of it is the excitement about voting for the first African-American president.

But as Obama said recently (paraphrasing), just because he disagrees with you on a particular issue does not mean that he's "being political" or "playing to the middle"; it's entirely likely that he just plain disagrees with you.

And that's OK. I think most folks understand that. But there's a small slice of the electorate that's getting very cranky. He's idealistic; they're idealistic. They assume that his idealism leads to the same policy choices as their idealism does. When it doesn't, it can come as a surprise.

Barack Obama is not from the Nader/Kucinich slice of the electorate; and he's never pretended to be. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that those folks are so surprised by that.

Other than the FISA thing (which is fairly inexplicable), I haven't seen him change his position on anything so far. It's just that people haven't been listening very well; or only hearing the stuff that fits their own preconceived notion of what the perfect candidate is.

Until you run for office yourself, you'll never find a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every issue.

I think that sometimes people find themselves ticked off at a candidate like Obama because he isn't far enough to the left. But what we forget is that no matter how much we want it to be so, this country is not far to the left, nor are the majority of voters. We can pull the thinking in this country a little more left in steps, but there's no way we're going to get a far left person elected to something like the presidency - not in one step.

It's a big problem that I've had with democrats.com over the past year - they go after Democrats who aren't left enough for them. It doesn't matter if the electorate they're representing is moderate or even conservative - if the person isn't far enough left, then they need to go.

Excellent thoughts, everyone.

More thoughts from me, along the same lines (mostly cribbed from an email exchange with a friend.)

I'm pretty cranky about FISA too.

I do think that Obama is basically right that he hasn't changed his positions in recent weeks (except on FISA) and that people who think he has may not have been paying close enough attention.

I think we've got an interesting thing going on here. Obama has a strong appeal to idealism. And it's easy to get caught up in that. It's easy for folks who are substantially further to the left of him to think that because they like him so much personally that he must agree with them on every issue.

It's kind of like the pro-choice Republicans who love John McCain because they think he's a maverick - and he must therefore be pro-choice like them. Except he's not. And when they find out, it's devastating for him. See Peter Hart's poll last month (PDF).

In some ways, Obama appeared on the national scene so fast and so strong that he became an empty vessel for the hopes and dreams of many, many people. And, inevitably, because they assigned positions to him that weren't accurate.

For example, a big chunk of the anti-war left loves Obama. But he's always been very clear that he's not anti-war. In that famous 2002 speech, he said as much -- not anti-war, but anti this war, anti "dumb wars". I hope it never comes to this, but I won't be surprised if years from now, President Obama has to send troops or planes or missiles to some part of the world we're not thinking about right now. And the anti-war left will go nuts, because they thought he was anti-war like them. But he's not. And never was.

Kari,

The little box you've invented "Nader/Kucinich wing of the party" isn't doing anyone any favors.

And the idea that anyone sort of at that end of things is "surprised" is ludicrous. I get angry at George Bush when he does things he shouldn't that don't surprise me. I get angry and disappointed and frustrated by missed political opportunities, IMO, by Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, but not surprised. Now, same for Barack Obama. Actually, consistently for Obama going back to when Edwards was still in the race.

I'm not surprised. I am disappointed, because he had choices, chose wrongly on a number of things, and IMO missed some political opportunities that would help him in the election as well as helping the country and the party. Obviously his judgment in light of whatever his advice he's getting was different.

The closest thing to "surprised" for me was his backtracking on NAFTA and his reversal on FISA. I had hopes that his talk of "change" meant something about trying to hold himself to a higher standard of personal honesty than do many politicians. I wasn't certain, I was waiting to see. Now I've seen and know that I can't trust what he says. This doesn't surprise me, because I didn't have an actual belief that he was more honest than that, just his claim. It does disappoint me, and it tells me that he will be conducting more politics as usual.

The (few) actual current Naderites who comment on BlueOregon have been consistently disdainful of Obama since before his recent moves. They're either not Democrats at all, or determined to vote for Nader once Kucinich was out. They are not surprised, but they, like you, mistakenly think that others whose policy views may not be so different from theirs, but have been determined to vote D, are surprised. Hence the variations on "told you so" or "aren't you going to change your mind now." But they, like you, are mistaking disappointment for surprise.

In fact most of the commenters here whom you might call left-liberal, left-progressive or social democratic, have been raising questions and doubts about Obama (and Hillary Clinton, and even John Edwards) right the way along. And also saying they intend to vote for "the eventual nominee"/Obama, depending on date. And still are saying that.

It's not a question of surprise, it's a question of resolution of certain uncertainties and hopes held open for the sake of not prejudging, that now are more or less foreclosed. If they'd been resolved the other way, it wouldn't have put Obama much further left than he currently is, that wasn't the question or the expectation. But it would have left more confidence about core values, and a better feeling about character.

So I'll be motivating myself much more by deep opposition to McCain and antipathy toward what he stands for and would do, than by enthusiasm for Obama. That's more or less what I expected, just wasn't absolutely sure.

But please also note that some of us who regard ourselves as social democrats or left-progressives or something of that sort never have supported Nader in this cycle or the previous (in my case, also not in 2000), and some, though fewer, never have been particularly engaged by Kucinich either. To me, one of the problems, which I recognize as a measure of the marginality of my views, about which I don't have illusions, is that there is little in the way of effective leadership for them, no one with whom to identify the way some people apparently do with Kucinich.

In any case, of the 75,000 who turned out for Obama, few were so far left, and to my mind, the real question is not what we who have been skeptical all along think of the recent moves, but how those moves will affect the enthusiasm that produced that crowd among loosely progressive but basically less political folks he inspired at that point. They're the ones who matter for the election.

Chris -- Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I didn't mean to imply that all the people that are upset with Obama right now are just Naderites.

And if your concerns are entirely about FISA, well, then I think your concerns are legitimate.

My comments (both here and to the NYT reporter) are directed more at the people who think Obama is backsliding on bringing the troops home. Maybe I watch too much cable-news, but that's all they've been talking about for the last two weeks.

During the primary season, Obama basically said that he'd start bringing the troops home right away (and it would take 16 months to do it.)

Now, he's saying that he'll finish bringing the troops home in roughly 16 months (though he'll start right away.)

The same thing, though with reversed emphasis.

Anybody who thinks he's changed his position on bringing the troops home hasn't been paying attention (or, like the mainstream media, is deliberately crafting a convenient storyline.)

I resent your classification of those of us who respect the Constitution as "cranky."

Fair enough. Just note that I also described myself as "cranky" regarding the FISA vote. How about "pissed off"? Or maybe "righteously furious"? We can play thesaurus games all day long, I suppose...

Hardly, but Democratic Party establishment apologists would like the story spun (labeled and dismissed) that way.

Pat, you're free to label and dismiss me as a "Democratic Party establishment apologist" if you'd like -- but please note that I didn't attempt to spin or dismiss the FISA vote. As I've said all along here, I think that's a legitimate concern.

Kari Chisholm: Fair enough.

Not really, Kari. Don't you see the calculated umbrage game Mr. Malach is playing?

Look at his statement: 'I resent your classification of those of us who respect the Constitution as "cranky."' The clear implication is that his view is the only one that "respects the Constitution", and that everyone else doesn't.

You've got to admit, it's pretty hypocritical to be playing the "oh my, you have deliberately offended my fragile ego by calling me cranky" - in the same post where you're insulting a vast swathe of the American public.

All that said, I also wish the FISA vote had gone the other way, even as I am perfectly aware that the ACLU has a real uphill battle ahead in trying to persuade any Court that preventing private lawsuits in particular areas of law is something Congress can't do.

The (few) actual current Naderites who comment on BlueOregon have been consistently disdainful of Obama since before his recent moves. They're either not Democrats at all, or determined to vote for Nader once Kucinich was out.

While I normally more or less agree with Chris when he posts here, I have to ask: How do you define a "Naderite"? And who exactly are the "Naderites" who post here? How can you be sure that they've determined to vote for Nader now that Kucinich is out? This sounds like the same sort of vague generalization and marginalization Kari expressed in the portion of his interview that was quoted.

This election may be a lot closer than a lot of people realize. Can Obama and the Democratic party really afford to continually piss on the "left" and expect to gain a clear majority (or a majority at all)? Particularly on issues like telecom immunity where nearly 60% of voters were against it?

Me, I'm just waiting for Obama to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate in an attempt to "reach out" to the center of wherever he is and bring him back into the Democratic fold. Not really sure that's a fold of the big tent we'd want to live in, though.

LT, as I remember it, someone picked Lieberman as the Democratic VP candidate just eight years ago. The New Republic -- that venerable organ of centrist Democratic politics -- touted him as their choice for President in the 2004 primaries even after his whole-hearted embrace of Bush's war and national security policies. And any number of Democratic politicians -- including Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer -- supported him in the 2006 primary race against Ned Lamont. He still chairs the Homeland Security committee.

If Al Gore had served two terms in the White House, Joe Lieberman would have been the leading candidate for president this year in the Democratic primaries. Contrary to what a lot of his former advocates claim, there's no real difference -- other than eight years of age -- between the Lieberman of 2000 and the Lieberman of 2008.

So... who to pick? A snake-in-the-grass like Obama who has no real convictions besides whatever it takes to get elected; or a liberal Republican who will shift his entire party apparatus leftward?

Peter, this seems unbalanced to me. I have had my own criticisms of Obama, but we do ourselves a disservice when we apply binary slots for candidates:good or bad. Politicians are a mixture in all things, as Kari has noted. I've never encountered a politician who stands for my varied views on the issues, and I never expect to find one.

But there's even more nuance than that. We can't know a politician's motivation, and in your commentary, I hear a very strong judgment on that score. When does a politician make a stand based on principle, and when does he do it for political expediency? When is it for a mixture of reasons? Or when does he do something for political reasons that may not be manifest until later--as when politicians back legislation they oppose on principle because they've done some backroom dealing for GOP support on an issue down the road.

I always find it tiring and dispiriting to hear people render moral, personal judgments about candidates. Obama may turn out to be a "snake in the grass," but there's really nowhere near enough evidence to render that judgment now. So what's the point of doing so?

Darrel, fair comment. Harry Kershner is the only one who comes to mind regularly advocating a Nader vote. I thought Bill Bodden did too but he recently wrote that it was more likely than not he would end up voting for Obama, I inferred barring something even more dramatic by Obama. If we went back through we'd find a few anonymous comments against any DP presidential vote. But most pro-Nader comments have either been against scapegoating him &/or defending past votes, or defending in principle the choices of others. So you're right, I went along too much with the framing.

The main point is that it is simply an error, and a false accusation of naiveté to say that those who have been critical or skeptical of Obama are surprised by his recent actions. Which is why the Gail Collins column point is dumb.

I always find it tiring and dispiriting to hear people render moral, personal judgments about candidates.

What about when people render moral, personal judgments about potential voters?

I’m not surprised they’re getting a little cranky. They’ve always been kind of cranky.

I sympathize with Kari's lament in his first comment to a certain extent. My first interview (and last) with a national magazine just about got me fired from my job at the time (probably not a surprise to anyone here).

Despite the fact that I haven't missed even special elections (that I'm aware of) for nearly 30 years, I've never voted for a candidate who was in lock-step with my positions on every issue. Even my wife and I disagree on stuff. The idea that those of us who know we stand firmly to the left of the mainstream on most issues won't vote for people who don't share all of our positions is just so amazingly bogus that I can't believe it's still uttered. We've never had anything else to vote for. So those of us who do vote regularly are far more aware of the necessities of buckling down and voting for someone despite their shortcomings than the middle-of-the-road Democrat who has to make finesse their decision between people like, say, Edwards, Dodd, or Biden.

The other option, of course, is to simply not vote at all.

Which is why it continually astounds me is that anyone expects people on the left to just suck up and take the actions and comments from people like Obama over and over. Voting over and over for bad bills. Dismissing the concerns of opponents of telecom immunity as overblown. It is enough to make one cranky and -- I dare say -- "bitter." Because that kind of offhand disregard certainly makes it appear as if you really don't care about what those people think. And why should they vote for someone who doesn't care what they think? Why should they vote for someone whose supporters don't care what they think?

Let the accusations of "purity trolling" begin!

Posted by: Pat Malach | Jul 13, 2008 8:42:14 AM Label and dismiss, as Kari did in the NYT article, is a common way for lowgrade minds to debate.

LOL - this from the same lowgrade mind who thought it funny to softpeddle a racist quip by facetiously expressing the hope that my German father and Jewish mother hadn't give me a middle name beginning with the same "K" which my first and last names begins with.

This, of course, is just one small example of how some of the cranky whack-jobs on the far Left delight in dishing it out and then whine to high heaven if they percieve one iota of it being sent back their way.

F-ing hypocrits...

Kari,

You are right that Obama has not changed his position on the occupation of Iraq, or indeed his general military posture (expand the military, intensify war in Afghanistan, be willing to attack into Pakistan without permission). These have all been clearly understood by the anti-war movement.

Two things have changed slightly. One is that he has amplified and detailed certain things. During the primary, Clinton was clear that she expected the "residual" troop presence to be on the order of 60,000 to 70.000 troops and to maintain the bloated "embassy" (read occupation headquarters city) of 5,000, protection of which is one source of high troop numbers. Obama was vaguer on both of those points, but has now confirmed that his "residual" number is comparable to Clintons (which most on the left & in the anti-war movement believed) and that he too intends to maintain an imperial proconsular city in the heart of Baghdad.

Secondly, he has been putting increasingly frequent emphasis on the "I will follow the advice of the commanders in the field" line, and downplayed his portrayal of himself as an anti-war candidate. These are rhetorical shifts, but it puts his rhetoric in line with George Bush's.

Again, if anyone might be surprised by this, it will be the folks LT likes to cite who don't or can't pay too much detailed attention and have heard the anti-war rhetorical tone and may now find it changing. Again, if that tone and the anti-war impression it may have created was a reason why some of the not-usually-so-political Obama enthusiasts liked, they may be disappointed and might be less active. The "center" of U.S. public opinion on Iraq is anti-war, except among hard-core Republicans. Obama is well to the right of the majority of Democratic and Independent opinion. I interpret him as shoring up his media position -- showing the foreign affairs pundits and the policy think-tanks on which they depend and with whom they form the echo chamber that let Bush lie us into war that he is "reliable."

Whether that will hurt him with the anti-war but not activist grassroots I don't know, but think is something he and his campaign and anyone who wants McCain defeated ought to worry about.

The main point is that it is simply an error, and a false accusation of naiveté to say that those who have been critical or skeptical of Obama are surprised by his recent actions.

I agree with you on that point.

Anyone who was paying attention knew the DLC was eager to claim him as one of their own when he ran for office, until he had his name stricken from their directory of New Democrats.

This is from Obama's letter to the Black Commentator, in 2003, when they asked him about his inclusion in the directory:

As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention. ... But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better.

Personally, I'm still waiting for a little of that persuading.

Peter Bray, the idea that John McCain is a "liberal" Republican simply is delusional. The reputation always was exaggerated, and his moves to the right on those relatively few areas where he did stick out are much more extreme than any changes in Barack Obama's positions. He couldn't move the Rs to the left if he tried, but he's not even going to try.

LT, it is not really true that it requires 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. The Republicans quite regularly used to force things through with smaller majorities. What it takes is a willingness to choose fights over which you will make a decision to try to stop something with the filibuster rules so painful for the other side in other terms, blocking things that matter to them, that they don't fight to that point. The Rs regularly used to do that. The D leadership should do more of that even now, but doesn't.

However, it should be said that at present the 60 vote excuse has a little more to it, insofar as forcing things through in the way mentioned would then come up against a veto in most instances. IMO the D leadership still ought to do that on some occasions and make the Rs pay the price of their positions on some things. I think they've missed some chances.

If Barack Obama gets elected president, the veto back-up behind the filibuster threats won't be there in the same way, and the ability of the Ds to make obstructionist Rs really pay for obstruction will be greater. Will they use those tools? Don't know, but am not optimistic, both because of the general timidity of the D leadership, and because it may be that Obama's "bipartisanship" will amount to a promise to fight with one hand tied behind his back. It may not -- that depends on the Rs. Right now I'd be more impressed if those who like his "stop the partisan bickering" approach would identify who his negotiating partners would or will be on the other side, and say what reason we should have to think that the R lockstep imposition of voting discipline on their more moderate members will change.

LT, it is not really true that it requires 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

Not only that, but with the Dodd amendment FISA bill, it would only have taken a majority vote. Instead, eighteen Democratic senators (only four of whom are up for re-election this year) voted to kill it. Then it would have been incumbent on the president to either accept it without telecom immunity or veto it.

I just think that there's a significant portion of the Democratic congressional delegation who are more or less in agreement with the Republicans on whether Americans need to be spied on. Some of them may just have to cover their tracks with meaningless votes on amendments they know are doomed to get elected. That's at least as reasonable an explanation as the idea that someone would change their vote on an important issue to gain important "centrist" cred.

There's no real reason this had to be passed at this particular time. It could easily have waited until after the election. It's hardly as if unconstitutional spying on Americans wasn't going to happen without it.

I understand the point of view of those who view DLC as evil, and if only THEY were in leadership, by golly they would be as confrontational as they talk about being here.

You reminded me that I forgot to mention Joe Lieberman was the head of the DLC for the years leading up to 2000.

I didn't mention the DLC to claim that it was evil, just to say that I wasn't surprised by Obama's current positions, because five years ago the DLC was trying to sidle up to him because they thought he shared their views.

I'm glad for you that you've accepted Bush into your life, LT, although I'd have to say that it's always easy to "compromise" when you propose incredibly slanted legislation over and over, then give up a few small things in order to get the things you really want.

Personally, I found Matt Bai's "Promises to Keep" piece in the NYT Magazine this morning much more insightful. To quote selectively:

Both men criticize a lack of responsiveness of government to its people, caused primarily by the influence of “special interests.”

Reform, expressed in dueling visions, is the ideal that delivered both McCain and Obama to this shared summit in their political lives. They abandon it at their own peril, and at ours.

The Obama campaign's stock in trade was idealism, coupled with the savvy to cash that in for votes and legwork in addition to money. I think, Kari, that you miss the point when you say that "it's easy to get caught up in that." This wasn't something that naive souls got "caught up in" - it was the essence of the campaign itself. By suggesting that people shouldn't have been so naive as to actually believe that shit, you're undermining the strongest basis Obama's initial appeal to new voters, replacing it with the more standard fare cynicism of political insiders/hacks - like the majority of folks who write and read blogs like Blue Oregon.

Surely you see the problem here: one of the most hopeful features of the primary campaign was the mass registration and mobilization of new unlikely voters. While McCain's strength is with likely (especially older) voters, Obama needs to keep those new voters motivated and excited. While the punditry and seasoned political operatives will explain recent moves with their usual cynical savvy, that's hardly the spirit we need to keep up and build on the energy of the armies of volunteers who are now spreading out across the country.

Thanks Dan, very well put.

LT, the supposed "compromise" on FISA wasn't a compromise at all, it was a cave-in.

The "compromise" on the supplemental appropriation for the occupation of Iraq was not a compromise at all on its central provisions, to do with Iraq. It was a "compromise" of choosing not to veto add-ons for veterans and some other domestic spending. And even at that, the overall cost of the bill didn't rise above the threshold Bush said he would veto.

Bush hasn't really been conciliatory in any substantial way.

What both the D leadership and the Rs agreed on was taking "war funding" so-called "off the table" until well into then next president's term. This was a missed opportunity by the Ds, I believe.

You haven't really addressed the point that Dan had now made better than I did before, which is exactly about people who aren't deeply engaged with politics, who may have responded to one kind of impression about Obama, and who may be getting another message now, and what they may think about all of that.

I don't think Kari is doing anyone a disservice by saying that people like me are cranky.

It's the lack of acknowledgment that there are reasons people are cranky. Kari says he's cranky about FISA, too, but in the next paragraph he's burbling about how it's just a bunch of "idealists" and that everyone unhappy with Obama just misunderestimated him.

And the anti-war left will go nuts, because they thought he was anti-war like them. But he's not. And never was.

Pretending that the people who opposed the Iraq war were isolationists and pacifists a la Peter Beinart in The New Republic back in 2002 is cant that was old long, long ago. Just a bunch of un-American DFHs.

I admit, I had the audacity to hope because I thought Obama meant it when I heard about his remark that he wouldn't support "stupid wars". Hey, so am I! But that pretty much ended when candidate Obama started talking about expanding the military budget and chatting over foreign policy with Colin Powell. Didn't that guy get us into a "stupid war"?

Way to win friends and influence people!

LT, aside from the fact that it was you who were claiming that Bush was "compromising" when he got everything he really wanted, it's not my job to win friends or influence people. You never seem to get that.

I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to come across to my point of view, because I've got nothing to sell. From where I stand, it looks like a bunch of Democrats -- including the current presidential nominee -- have abandoned what few protections laws passed back in the 1970s guaranteed American citizens -- i.e. the right not to be spied on by their own government (not that it ever really stopped, of course) -- because they were either too stupid to make the case to the people that it was a bad idea or they supported said spying.

I'm not pushing a presidential candidate. No, at this point, it's up to the Obama supporters to make the case that he really deserves the support of the people who are unhappy about the relentless rightward creep of the Democratic party since, oh, the late 1940s.

And that's why it's amusing -- if a little sad -- to see people in the center of the Democratic party demonizing the left while still trying to wrap themselves in a progressive flag. Theoretically, the left has nowhere to go, but if you spent enough time making sure that they know you despise them and everything they stand for, and caricaturing them the same way Republicans do, you just add another brick to the campaign foundation of the next third-party politician who comes along and tells them that the two parties are essentially the same.

That 2000 vote was sooo close. But like I said, I'm not the one selling anything.

Maybe we should get T-shirts that say simply "Cranky" on them. The truth is, after 8 years of evil and corruption and 28 years of GOP dominance, we damn well should be cranky.

Portlander... I didn't see the part where you referred to yourself as "cranky" only the part where you differentiated yourself from "them."... Am I missing something?

Yes.

At 9:39 p.m., above:

I'm pretty cranky about FISA too.

In general, I suggest that folks read the comments before commenting yourself. Often, the clarification or answer you're looking for is already there.

Thank you, Israel, for understanding that I'm not responsible for the entire article - nor the context that my quote was placed in.

As I mentioned up top, it's always interesting to see what comments get pulled from a long interview and dropped into a story. I think Yardley did a decent job with my quote; the words are basically what I said, and I don't expect him to simply produce a transcript of our entire conversation.

That said, it's particularly tough for a blogger - when you're used to putting your own words into the context that you'd like to put them in...

Obama's abandonment of progressive positions...

Would someone please care to itemize the positions (plural) that he has "abandoned"?

I'll start:

• FISA

Now, your turn...

(It's my belief, fairly well-researched I think, that that's the whole list. On NAFTA, he merely went from "unilaterally renegotiate" to "opening up a dialogue." And besides, how the hell do you unilaterally renegotiate something anyway? You can't negotiate with yourself...)

Tom Civiletti: Neither of these are leftist issues.

Well then, Mr. Civiletti, if they truly are bipartisan issues, then there should be prominent conservatives and center-right independents who hold those views as true as well. Who can you point to, what conservative organization, espouses them?

I do agree that your first statement, which assumes as its premise a falsity - that Palestinian humanity is not being recognized - is indeed truly "not a leftist issue". But only because the vast majority of leftists, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, reject it outright.

The real "verifiable facts" are that the Israelis have treated the Palestinians better than any other two conflicting groups in the middle east have ever done. In fact, the reason why Palestinians engage in suicide bombing against Jewish children is because, unlike any other country they'd try it against, they feel safe in the knowledge that Israel will always be proportional in its response. That's a rare trait, one not shared by nearly every other country, including all its neighbors, and all the world powers.

Well then, Mr. Civiletti, if they truly are bipartisan issues, then there should be prominent conservatives and center-right independents who hold those views as true as well. Who can you point to, what conservative organization, espouses them?

How about the Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr?

Ron Paul's netroots raisers are working with the ACLU on it as well.

There are in fact true conservatives who are just as outraged. On the Constitution, they are as protective as progressives concerning privacy.

The apologia for Israeli crimes and brutality that follows is sickening.

Well, this thread seems to have degenerated into anti-Obama vitriol from folks who had never supported him in the first place. That's quite a different place from where Jeff started out. So back to the issue of "disaffection" - which assumes there was some affection there in the first place.

TPM reports this morning that additional national polling shows the race tightening, and now virtually even. This suggests that those who are expressing their disaffection apparently aren't alone, and that there's just something off about Obama's stances these past weeks. Let's hope the campaign hears that message.

<

Is the FISA bill everyone is so angry about word for word verbatim of the old one? Or are there some new things in it?

Can it really be that you've been arguing about how this is no big deal and you have no idea what's contained in the FISA bill last week? It's no wonder you don't understand why people who actually know what they're talking about are unhappy with the capitulation of the Democrats on this issue.

Apart from the retroactive telecom immunity -- which is an entirely new provision of this bill that grants absolution for breaking the old FISA law -- the new version of FISA does things that the old version did not, including allowing warrantless wiretapping of a communication if either party (is presumed to be) a foreign national. In the past, you were at least supposed to get a warrant if either end of the conversation included an American citizen. But the Democrats -- including Obama -- just blew off thirty years of established law by passing this revision.

Draft-Hillary-Clinton Committee

Sorry, Peter would be too late with that one. The Denver Group, led by the redoubtable professor Heidi Li Feldman, is already running ads trashing Dean, Obama, and anyone not on borad the mission to steal (or perhaps reposition 170 delegates from Obama to Clinton at the convention.

The thinking is to never give up. If they fail with the convention putsch, they will work to undermine Obama all the way through the fall campaign, because if Obama loses, Clinton can start running for the 2012 election on the day of the McCain victory rather than having to wait eight years when she will be in her '70s........

I'm still waiting for someone to add to my itemized list of actual Obama flip-flops and abandoned positions.

Can anybody identify a single one, other than the FISA thing?

Darrell, are you saying that the entire legislation is online and you have read every word of it?

The entire legislation is online. All you have to know is how to use the intertubes.

And no, I haven't read every word of it, but I read enough of it and enough about it to know better than to ask whether the new legislation on FISA is "word for word verbatim of the old one". The second word in the title -- "FISA Amendments Act of 2008" -- should have clued you in to the fact that it wasn't the same as the old FISA act.

LT, it appears to be you who are telling other people that they have no right to think for themselves if they don't agree with you.

Kari,

Obama's gratuitous comments about Jerusalem are new, stupid and obstructive to Middle East peace prospects. Although today's Iraq piece tries to unring the bell of suggestions about just how big the "residual" force in Iraq will be, it lacks persuasiveness. The NAFTA reversal is bigger and more substantial than you say. I wasn't aware of Tom's info on corporate taxes.

But the overall point is about tone, which has been central to how he has run all along. As Dan Petegorsky suggests, he may be doing real damage to himself. If I'm cranky, it's as much because having accepted that in many areas his policies aren't my preferences, he's now IMO going out and shooting himself in the foot.

Your downplaying of the significance of Obama's shift on NAFTA is emblematic of the general problem with your approach.

Obama was voicing very strong rhetoric about NAFTA that was getting him support. Now he says he didn't really mean it.

This raises a question about what else he says that he doesn't really mean.

What will such shifts mean to people who weren't following the policy specifics so closely, who were engaged and mobilized and motivated by the tone of the rhetoric, the general attitude it seemed to express?

The "candidates always move to the center" meme doesn't actually fit Obama's situation very well, because he was to a great extent running a "general" campaign in the primary. Apparently his political advisors feeding him the conventional wisdom aren't paying enough attention to that.

He was emphasizing reaching out all along. He did not run a very "left" primary campaign, and he ran an anti-partisan campaign. He was not only registering new voters but also getting independents to re-register to vote for him -- the same independents who generally are reckoned the focus and reason for the "move to the center" kind of politics in the general.

He got enough of those and enough D base voters to squeak out the nomination, with Hillary running more to the base promising a more partisan kind of fight with the Rs.

So he had a winning approach for general election purposes already. His shifts seem like poor politics to me, being almost entirely gratuitous. They only serve to undermine perceptions of him as consistent.

They convey the wrong message. NAFTA in particular is bad, because his prior rhetoric on it said "this approach means I will be standing up for you," meaning the working class people who have been hurt by so-called free trade. Now he is saying "oops, I didn't really mean it."

To some that will convey the message that he's just another politician who will tailor what he says for short term advantage. It undermines his message that he represents change.

But perhaps more damaging is that it conveys the message that what he didn't really mean was that he will stand up for the interests of working people.

Some may see this in this combination a blunter message, that he's just another liar who will sell us out like the rest.

What Obama has been doing has not really been "moving to the center." It has been reassuring elites. With NAFTA, it's reassuring financial and corporate elites. With FISA and the military emphases, it's been reassuring the securocrats, their intellectual allies in the policy apparatus, and their propagandists in the media -- you know, collectively the folks who brought us the war and think civil rights and liberties are anachronistic and unrealistic.

Apart from its substantive faults, FISA was a missed opportunity to show leadership demonstrating that he really does represent change. Consistency on NAFTA would have exemplified change -- saying one thing to working class audiences and another to the financial press & their business audience is just politics as usual.

You're the guy whose big on branding & political marketing. Obama is hurting his brand. He's undermining the key image: "change you can believe in", by showing that where he sounded like change, or openness to it, he doesn't really stand for change, and by raising doubts about just what we can believe, when he says something.

There is one other aspect which is rather different, which has to do with his choice to triangulate against MoveOn.org, taking a page from Hillary Clinton's book. Now, MoveOn.org endorsed him as soon as Edwards was out, pretty much, and did not ask him for any commitments (an approach of which I was critical, as a member & local activist). They/we have put efforts into getting members to make phone calls for him, to raise money for him, to publicize McCain positions and show how they continue Bush.

The Clintonesque triangulation strategy makes me think he is going to be the wrong kind of compromiser. You can compromise without telling people who support you that you disdain them. He's chosen not to do that.

Again, this was perfectly gratuitous. He can portray his genuine centrism within the DP spectrum without attacking his own supporters. Why he doesn't choose that smarter route I don't know. Maybe it is personal arrogance on his part, maybe he is listening to the same Democratic strategists who have been so wrong so often before. But it bothers me.

As I wrote in response to a fundraising appeal from the Obama campaign, based on McCain's big fundraising surge:

"If Senator Obama wants to distance himself from me by triangulating against me, it cuts both ways. I don't have a lot of money. Giving it to someone who shows me contempt in return for my support is not high on my list of priorities for it. I will be donating the money I might have given to Obama to defeat Senator Smith here in Oregon instead."

Senator Obama has been sending me the message that he doesn't need me, and even sees me as a liability. Why shouldn't I take him at his word?

Shorter version: Why has Barack Obama abandoned a winning strategy and why is he gratuitously dividing his supporters?

Please get my reply to Steven Maurer past the spam filter, and I will work on your request.

done.

LT: Your question about the FISA review is not too "pragmatic" a question, simply an unanswerable one.

If McCain is elected, it will certainly be a whitewash.

But NPR was reporting this morning or last night that Obama may ask Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Speculation? Yes, just like the FISA review question.

The record, from say matters like the Iran-Contra investigation, or Democratic controlled Senate oversight committees more recently, is not terribly promising.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. But taking it not only on faith, but as a matter of faith, isn't pragmatic.

First, we'll talk about Tom Civiletti's list.

• Public campaign finance. OK, I'll accept that one. I think it's pretty loose to call it a flip-flop, but OK. (After all, the whole point of public campaign finance is to get the big special-interest money out of politics, and Obama's done that by other means. But whatever.)

• Free trade. Again, I'll disagree. He hasn't changed his position - merely shifted from "unilaterally renegotiate" to "open a dialogue." He's always described himself as a free-trader, but one that wants to make sure that we negotiate a good deal for Americans. And besides, how the hell does someone unilaterally renegotiate in the first place? Negotiation, by definition, requires two parties.

• Corporate taxes. Don't be silly. He said he opposed McCain's gigantic tax break plan. That doesn't rule all other smaller tax break plans that he might have himself.

Now, we can talk about Peter Bray's list.

• Ditching supporters who do bad or dumb things isn't a "flip flop".

• Obama "standing with Scalia". I presume you're talking about the 2nd Amendment. Not a flip flop. He's always supported the individual right view of the 2nd Amendment. (Which I disagree with, but that's not a flip flop.)

• Iraq. As I noted in an earlier comment, he hasn't changed his position, just the emphasis.

• Faith-based. Not a flip flop. Read his damn book.

• FISA. Agreed. Flip-flop.

Chris's comments are generally good ones. I agree that there's been a shift in tone... but that's different than a shift in the policy positions.

People who are seeing a shift in positions, and are merely reacting to the tone, just weren't paying attention before.

When Obama says, "I'm a free trader" but people hear "I'm against free trade", well, is that his fault?

When Obama writes in his book that he supports faith-based programs, as long as they don't violate church/state separation, is it his fault if people don't read his book?

When Obama says that he'll start pulling the troops out on Day One, but that it'll take 16 months to get it done -- is it his fault if some people ignored the second half of that statement and assumed that he could somehow magically pull them all out on the first week in office?

"When Obama says, "I'm a free trader" but people hear "I'm against free trade", well, is that his fault?"

Yes, given his skill as a communicator. He deliberately tried to convey something much closer to the latter message for most of the primary after February.

"merely shifted from 'unilaterally renegotiate' to 'open a dialogue.' ... how the hell does someone unilaterally renegotiate in the first place? Negotiation, by definition, requires two parties."

Nothing "mere" about it. This is a substantive change.

What the U.S. could do unilaterally would be a) unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA, and renegotiate from square one, or b) say we want to renegotiate, and that if there isn't subtantial movement in those negotiations within a year, or 16 months, (to pick a number), we will unilaterally withdraw then.

Either of these positions would mean taking up a tough bargaining posture aimed at more than small changes at the margins. By evoking the word "unilaterally," that is exactly what Obama was conveying to his working class audiences. Given his facility and felicity with the language, it undoubtedly is what he intended to convey.

My interpretation was, I believe, also shared by big business and by the press who write for them and ask their questions of candidates. among other roles. They asked him. He backed off the word unilateral.

That is, he backed off the part of his position that gave his projected bargaining position real clout and promised the possibility of substantial change, and substituted a position that promised to a different constituency limited, marginal change.

This is not just a change in tone or emphasis, as with his military positions, which have been consistent except with degree of specificity about "residual forces," which in any case he has been explicitly and consistently situational.

On NAFTA, he has changed the substance of his position, promised one thing to working class people who are hurt by NAFTA, and promised something different to business interests that profit from it.

Kari,

I don't expect you to agree with what I just wrote.

But I would be genuinely interested in what you think about the possibility that he is damaging his own "brand" because he already was effectively running a campaign aimed at the range he'd want to reach in the general. And/or Dan Petegorsky's formulation of a related perception.

LT,

The point isn't what I thought would happen with Iran-Contra, the question is whether there's much reason to think the item in the FISA bill you cited will go much differently. Your citing it is just a speculative sound-bite, and is not pragmatic by your definition.

The only point about Gates is that you said there would be a new Secretary of Defense. There may not be.

Your E. Oregon example is not relevant in my case, nor that of many others of my acquaintance, nor is Gail Collins' column, which I think is dumb and mischaracterizes what is happening. I've known all along what Obama's positions were, as have many others, who as you like to point out, correctly, are atypical in their/our degree of engagement in politics.

The real criticism isn't that he "took us by surprise" because we "weren't paying attention" and "assumed he agreed with us." It is that the things he is doing are gratuitous, given that he already has been running a campaign oriented to appealing broadly. They are unnecessary.

Worst is, they make him look as if he is changing more than he really is, i.e. more like the typical politician, undermining the basis of his appeal to that broad range of more typical, less political people. They hurt, not help his electoral chances.

Not so great is that they gratuitously divide his supporters. He had broad, non-partisan message anyway, which "the left" of the party mostly had accepted as the basis on which we would support him.

LT,

The investigation mooted in the FISA bill is theoretical at this point, and is a soundbite by you. I.e. not pragmatic. The only point about Gates is that we might not have a new Sec of Def, as you said we would.

At the time of Iran-Contra, I pretty much thought what happened is what would happen, partly because the problem started before the pardons, with the Dem. Congress erring in how it granted immunity to Oliver North. Your imputation that I'm naive has no basis. On the contrary, the question remains, why do you think the suggested investigation will be different? Do you think Junior Bush is going to be any less free with the pardons than his pa?

LT, sorry, didn't mean a double hit, it appeared that the first one hadn't posted.

I think I've left out an important part of my argument -- that I thought was obvious, but perhaps shouldn't be left unsaid.

Q: If Obama's positions are largely the same as they've always been, then why do some people perceive a shift?

A: Because the media is desperate for a mid-summer storyline, and it fits their preconceived ideas for "good strategy".

It's the 2008 equivalent of Shark Week. And, in fact, I suspect that all we need is some rough equivalent to pull this crap from the airwaves. Are Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan available to pull another idiotic stunt?

Gates has been a lot better Defense Secretary than Rumsfeld.

So was Dick Cheney, ostensibly, but I wouldn't want him as SoD under Obama, either.

Why would Obama want Gates, a man so closely connected to the Iran-contra scandal, in his cabinet? And not just someone closely connected but someone who just barely escaped indictment and stonewalled those investigating the matter?

From the Walsh Iran/Contra Report (Walsh was the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters):

Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras. Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October.

Does that formulation sound kind of familiar? The witness denies knowing about something, then documentation subsequently proves that he should have known about something, then he gets off because you can't prove he actually read the report he signed off on? Remember, we're not talking about whether he could come up with what he had for lunch some day, it's a matter of whether he -- as CIA deputy director of central intelligence -- knew about money from arms sales to Iran going to support the contras; two things about which the CIA should have known if they were doing their jobs at all.

The evidence established that Gates was exposed to information about North's connections to the private resupply operation that would have raised concern in the minds of most reasonable persons about the propriety of a Government officer having such an operational role. Fiers and Cannistraro believed that Gates was aware of North's operational role. The question was whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates deliberately lied in denying knowledge of North's operational activities. A case would have depended on the testimony of Poindexter. Fiers would not testify that he supplied Gates with the details of North's activities. In the end, Independent Counsel concluded that the question was too close to justify the commitment of resources. There were stronger, equally important cases to be tried.

Gates skates once again, because the IC would have needed testimony from someone who received a pardon from George H.W. Bush.

Conclusion Independent Counsel found insufficient evidence to warrant charging Robert Gates with a crime for his role in the Iran/contra affair. Like those of many other Iran/contra figures, the statements of Gates often seemed scripted and less than candid. Nevertheless, given the complex nature of the activities and Gates's apparent lack of direct participation, a jury could find the evidence left a reasonable doubt that Gates either obstructed official inquiries or that his two demonstrably incorrect statements were deliberate lies.

Basically, you've got a guy who's second in charge of the organization that's supposed to know what's going on in the world, who not only claims that he didn't know what was going on in two of the hottest spots in the world at the time, but was "less than candid" during the investigation according to the Independent Counsel's report. It's almost as believable as a former head of the CIA operating in the White House not knowing that there were covert operations going on to subvert laws passed by Congress.

I'd say that if Gates becomes a serious contended for SoD, that's another flip-flop, because it's certainly not going to engender feeling of change or hope. More like a revival of the Reagan era.

Q: If Obama's positions are largely the same as they've always been, then why do some people perceive a shift?

Because of his continual attacks on the left. And those of his supporters. It's never directed the other way.

But mostly it's the FISA bill. It was a big vote. One that he could have taken a stand on without losing any ground with the electorate, most of whom were against telecom immunity.

It's the wire(tap) that broke the camel's back, if you will. It's not going to affect the people who bought thousands of dollars worth of hand-pulled lithos of Obama that a friend of mine sold in San Francisco last weekend, but the people who were already feeling a little meh about Obama? The ones some people like to denigrate as purity trolls or wacko leftists or socialists who were going to cross their fingers and hope for someone who was actually going to do more than talk about fixing the problems (as they see them) of this country? Why the hell would they donate to or vote for people who dismiss their concerns over and over again?

The FISA vote actually showed what could be a very serious problem for even an Obama presidency. If the Democrats can't manage to keep the Blue Dog coalition from banding together with the Republicans, the GOP is still going to be able to press through their own versions of legislation like they did on FISA. Even if Obama was inclined to veto such legislation, it passed with a large enough majority to overrule any veto. It would take some serious leadership to push back against that, and so far I'm just not seeing it.

Kari Chisholm: Q: If Obama's positions are largely the same as they've always been, then why do some people perceive a shift?

I answer that question much differently than you do, Kari. Taking clues from TPM about how the McCain campaign is trying to sell this "flip-flop" charge, it's clear that our GOP aligned media is trying to tarnish Obama's halo any way they can - including, of course, lying about his previous positions and lying about them now.

This is also helped by the fact that Barack was perceived as far more leftist when he was struggling to win the nomination against one of the chairs of the DLC - Hillary Clinton. Mind you, I'm not one of the frothing at the mouth the-DLC-are-worse-than-Hitler kooks, but clearly running against a DLCer is going to anyone look quite leftist by contrast, whether they are or not.

My argument to Barack Obama is that while he may not have been a perfect progressive, people perceived him as such, and they liked him that way. So if he is open to shifting positions, he should consider shifting in the progressive direction. People of this country are really really looking for an anti-Bush this time around.

105 comments and counting. Chalupas for everyone!

darrelplant: Thanks for the Gates lesson. It should be required reading.

Actually, I should have added that Rumsfeld (1975-1977) was probably a better Defense Secretary than Rumsfeld (2001-2006).

Harry Kershner: What will that make of your "brand", Kari? Keep whistling past the graveyard.

Honestly, it worried me for many months how happy the kooks were with Barack Obama. It really makes me nervous when the Che Guevara crowd latches onto any Democrat - it's more a sure kiss of death for a candidate than being locked up in one of Che's prisons.

Thanks, one and all, for assuring me that my fears were unfounded.

No, Tom, I just get tired of the incessant bashing and hate, and am not shy in calling such people out. And also, I'm being completely honest. Seeing a politician loved by people who are too radical fringe to realize that they're radical fringe is not reassuring for me. I think the reason should be obvious, but if it isn't to you, it's not worth it to me to spell it out.

But since you were decent enough to at least attempt a fact based argument, I'll even look past the fact that they're based on commondreams.org opinion pieces, and try to respond with some basic reasoning of my own.

Let's start with little homework for you. Add all the Palestinians that the Israelis have killed, ever, since the foundation of the state of Israel. Now compare this to the daily death rate in Iraq.

Or if that doesn't work for you, because the US is involved, compare it to the daily death rate in Darfur, created by the anti-US (and therefore saintly) Muslim government of Sudan. Or what happened in Syria in the Hama massacre. Or Iraq under Saddam. Or Iran. Or France in Algiers. Or Russia. Or Great Britain. Or China. Or India in Nepal. Or Pakistan in Nepal. (The Nepalese get it coming and going.) Or America vs Germany or Japan, or Americans in the civil war. Or Japan vs China. Or Vietnam. Or Cambodia. Or Serbia. Or Kosovars, now. Or Palestinians, who brutally murder each other in power struggles and rioting.

The point is not that Israelis are angels. But clearly they're too good for their own good, because if the Palestinians pulled the same kind of provocative crap against just about anyone else on the entire planet, there would quickly be peace: the peace of the dead. They know it too, which is why they feel safe doing it.

I still believe the Palestinians could have a just peace if they truly wanted it. A true peace movement by the Palestinians in the tradition of Gandhi, would have great sway in Israel. But by all the political polling that's ever been done (and there's been a lot), when you talk to the man on the street in Gaza, a majority don't want a just peace with Israel. They want Israel gone and the Jews gone with them. This is reflected in the basic political platform of Hamas.

It's all very self satisfying to write scolding one sided diatribes on a website, while you are safe in your own country, and don't have to worry about people murdering you. It quite different dealing with the pan-Arab and Pan-Islamist ideologues, who I assure you, are every bit as charming as the neocons are here, or less so.

Steve,

You are wrong about Palestinian polling being consistent. In fact it has varied a good deal over the nearly 20 years now since the Madrid meetings that set up the Oslo conference. I don't have the info to hand right now but I will try to get a decent link.

Who on earth are you accusing of defending the Sudanese government?

No, Tom, I just get tired of the incessant bashing and hate,

Kind of makes me wonder why you keep indulging in it.

Seeing a politician loved by people who are too radical fringe to realize that they're radical fringe is not reassuring for me.

That's kind of funny, because the NYT article ended with an interviewee admitting that the reporter was talking to “somebody who’s pretty far out of the mainstream.” And frankly, I don't think the "radical fringe" "loved" Obama. The love's coming from a much more mainstream crowd, if the people I saw in line at the Portland rally were any indication.

The "fringe" was willing to support Obama, despite some misgivings that he might not be all he cracked himself up to be. But they might not be very enthusiastic in coming months.

Not that that should worry anyone. After all, how many of them can there be? The number of votes they represent probably won't make a whit of difference. Obama's going to win in an electoral landslide, isn't he?

To read the pages of Blue Oregon, you would think the United States invaded Iraq just to stir things up and kill people.

Considering the fact that the purported reasons the US went to war against Iraq didn't exist (WMD, link to al Qaeda) and that the occupation quickly devolved into a bloodletting of sectarian violence and the displacement of millions of refugees -- which was predicted by many of the people who opposed the invasion in the first place -- stirring things up and getting people killed is pretty much the de facto accomplishment of the invasion.

Saddam had also plotted to murder former President Bush.

Actually, that charge was bogus as well. There was never any good evidence pointing to Iraq's part in a plot to assassinate George H.W. Bush (sort of like how there was never any evidence of WMD after 1993) but intelligence analysts went along with Bill Clinton when he wanted to bomb Iraq to show how tough he was. After the 2001 invasion, the Pentagon reviewed 600,000 captured documents covering covert Iraqi activities. This is what Michael Isikoff of Newsweek wrote about that investigation:

[C]uriously little has been heard about the allegedly foiled assassination plot in the five years since the U.S. military invaded Iraq. A just-released Pentagon study on the Iraqi regime's ties to terrorism only adds to the mystery. The review, conducted for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, combed through 600,000 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents seized after the fall of Baghdad, as well as thousands of hours of audio- and videotapes of Saddam's conversations with his ministers and top aides. The study found that the IIS kept remarkably detailed records of virtually every operation it planned, including plots to assassinate Iraqi exiles and to supply explosives and booby-trapped suitcases to Iraqi embassies. But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]."

So I'm afraid that little story doesn't hold water, either.

Saddam Hussein was a butcher who threatened the stability of the entire region.

Saddam Hussein had no way to threaten the stability of the region. He didn't control his own airspace. He couldn't openly buy arms to stage any kind of invasion. He didn't have WMDs or any way to build them. Nearly all of the incidents you list were from before the Gulf War, when he was an American ally against the Iranians (who we were also selling arms to).

More people have died in Iraq as a result of the US invasion in five years than in twenty-odd years of Saddam's reign. Saddam was a butcher, but the US has engaged in a fair amount of butchery -- and the enabling of butchery -- itself. Additionally, we've destroyed an already crumbling infrastructure providing power, water and sewage services to millions of people and forced three to four million people into refugee status, with a couple of million of those going to Syria, Jordan and other countries.

Syria's absorbed one-and-a-half million Iraqis. It has a population of about 20 million. Here in the US, we're complaining about an illegal immigrant population that's about 4% of the size of the country's total population. Well, because of the war we started in Iraq, Syria's got an Iraqi refugee problem about twice that size, all in just a few years. Jordan has a similar problem. That's destabilizing.

I regret the loss of innocent lives

I don't really believe you.

During the time Hussein was developing his chemical weapons program and using them on sections of his own population as well as in the war with Iran, the U.S. was backing him in the same war and facilitated his development of those weapons. The Republican administration of the day did not oppose what he was doing, but supported him. Part of the reason Hussein thought he could get away with conquering Kuwait was because of this history and because an incompetent Republican envoy, April Glaspie, informed of the possibility of the upcoming attack, responded with indifference, leading Hussein to think he had a green light.

Darrell, I am not sure about the overall death toll but part of the reason it might be more complicated than you say is because of the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions regime in the 1990s, which the U.S. prevented from being ended by the U.N. once its failure and civilian consequences were clear.

Darrell, I am not sure about the overall death toll but part of the reason it might be more complicated than you say is because of the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions regime in the 1990s, which the U.S. prevented from being ended by the U.N. once its failure and civilian consequences were clear.

That would kind of depend on where you placed the blame for those deaths. Do they go on Saddam's plate for not acceding to the demands of the US, to the US for pushing the sanctions to the breaking edge, or do we split the difference?

President Bush, in his 2004 State of the Union speech, made this claim:

The killing fields of Iraq -- where hundreds of thousands of men and women and children vanished into the sands -- would still be known only to the killers.

Estimates of the dead from the Iran-Iraq war are about 1.5 million, but a lot of those are Iranians, and I limited my statement to Iraq.

Toss in a couple hundred thousand for the Gulf War, just to be on the high side. Most of which we killed, but Saddam did start the thing. (I have wondered whether the "mass graves" that undoubtedly had to be dug for dead Iraqis in that war have been recycled as "finds" since the invasion).

Of course it's "more complicated" -- for one thing, nobody's keeping track of how many people have been killed even in this highly-efficient, super-technological version of war. The Pentagon doesn't do body counts (sort of hard when you neither control the territory nor want to know how many civilians were killed along with your suspected targets). I think you can look to the scale of the refugee situation as an indicator that the violence unleashed by the invasion outstripped what it was under Saddam. Sort of a frying pan into the fire kind of thing.

...so there were WMD's...

Actaully, no, there weren't. There were high-quality plastic explosives that could be used in the triggering mechanism of a nuclear bomb but which had non-WMD and even civilian purposes.

Further along in that same article:

But the disappearance of the HMX, or ''High-Melting Point Explosive," caused particular alarm because the lightweight substance is twice as powerful as an ordinary plastic explosive and is not easily set off by an accident as other substances are. That makes it the perfect detonator for a nuclear device, or in attacks on large buildings or planes, although the substance is not considered a weapon of mass destruction...

Harry, once again, I didn't even bring up the WMD argument. I cited it as a "purported" reason the US went to war with Iraq, in an exchange with someone who was claiming that he thought BO readers thought "the United States invaded Iraq just to stir things up and kill people." Which is essentially what we did and was apparently the plan even if we had found WMDs.

Then you claimed that there were WMDs when the report you linked to clearly says that what the IAEA was monitoring was not considered WMD. I don't believe in giving the crazies even a glimmer of hope by letting them believe there was the slightest justification for the war.