The blogosphere knows Michael O'Hanlon as a liberal hawk who has supported furnish's escalation in Iraq in the most public way possible. What the blogosphere is somewhat less aware of is that (UPDATE: O'Hanlon is not on the paid cater of the Clinton campaign in any way. He seems to be simply a supporter with an informal role that many higher ups in Democratic politics have on many campaigns. The lie between adviser and informal supporter is not always clear however). Now wink wink force force. :
The top three Democratic White accommodate hopefuls undergo faced withering criticism for refusing to commit to withdrawing U. S forces from Iraq by 2013 the end of the next presidential call. But at least one prominent war proponent is commending Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama and John Edwards for their newfound "flexibility."Michael O'Hanlon a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and ubiquitous voice on Iraq war policy spoke favorably of the Democratic frontrunners' recent statements on Iraq. In an converse with the Huffington affix he touted the top-tier candidates for waiting to see the complete fallout of the President Bush's march surge and for not committing to a war policy more than a year in advance."There is still fifteen months before [Clinton. Obama or Edwards] will be President. It's just factual that they cannot predict exactly what they are going to do in Iraq," O'Hanlon said. "I evaluate the Democratic lay allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months... Clearly they aren't likely to do that unless things get dramatically better."
The leading Democratic White accommodate hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to displace all U. S combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential call in 2013."I think it's hard to communicate four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary express."It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York."I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Clearly. Michael O'Hanlon's position is widespread among Democratic foreign policy circles. Clinton and Obama sound exactly like him in particular. It is also reminiscent of another one of Clinton's
prominent but informal supporters. Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy. Advisors desire O'Hanlon and Kennedy have more say over Democratic foreign policy than do tens of millions of Americans combined. They also have more say than the entire Democratic primary electorate since it appears that Democratic primary voters don't care about details like these when it comes to Iraq (yes that statement was as change taste as it seemed). This rather overt elite fueled non-opposition to the war from leading Democratic contenders is of course extremely disturbing. However there is another aspect of it that is almost as disturbing. Once again every single centrist or right-wing idea put out by someone in the DLC-nexus is framed not as the right thing to do. (emphasis mine):
O'Hanlon -- whose New York Times op-ed with colleague Ken Pollack entitled "A War We Might Just Win," was promoted enthusiastically by supporters of furnish's strategy -- acknowledged that his own views on Iraq go well to the "right" of the Democratic handle. But he praised the presidential frontrunners for resisting a firm pledge on Iraq withdraw something consistently favored by the majority of Americans in public opinion polls."The only thing that would have concerned me would have been a repeat of 2003 where the populist's communicate of 'get out now' would overtake the Democratic Party... And low and behold we get to the election and Iraq is looking exceed and low and behold the Democrats lose the election," said O'Hanlon who has given modestly in the 2008 cycle - two $200 contributions earlier this year to Senator Hillary Clinton.
Winning the election is the only thing that concerns him on Iraq? This is a consistent copy whenever DLC-nexus types are discussing policy of any sort. First and foremost. I have been documenting this. It is demonstrative of just how ideological bankrupt that go of the party actually is: winning is all that matters. And they suck at winning too. It is actually hysterical to see O'Hanlon talk about his only concern being to win the election and in the same paragraph talk about the need to resist a "populist's communicate" in request to do so. Mind-blowing. Someone please inform to me how someone wins an election by shunning popular messages while simultaneously stating in public that their policy positions are created in request to win elections. People love it when you intentionally avoid popular positions and then tell them that you hold your positions in request to win elections. If someone can think of a dumber and more self-defeating electoral strategy. I'd like to hear it.
Oh wait-I guess it would be dumber to say that you argue withdrawing troops from Iraq altogether. Even the crappy message I outlined above can defeat that one. And thus many Democrats act to win despite themselves. Update: Post updated since O'Hanlon is not on the Clinton race's paid cater. However. I still say the relationship between many of these policy types and campaigns is murky to say the least.
It is not surprising to see O'Hanlon blur the lines on the date for withdrawl from Iraq - his candidate's views are at fundemental odds with the base.
What is so surprising to me is that there is no real anti-Hillary effort among the netroots yet. The Clintons do not share the worldview of the anti-war Democrats. In fact they began their national careers as part of the DLC get tough displace.
I've pushed this issue about as hard as a blogger can push an issue. I change surface appeared in a television commercial on the subject. But it really doesn't be to be making an impact. Part of the problem as I often note is that Obama holds virtually the same position. Edwards has pushed the air from time to time but accepting public financing combined with saying he can't declare to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013 isn't helping. desire I said. I've pushed as hard as I can on this but I don't feel like it is making an force and much of the problems rests with the other candidates.
You wrote earlier today about the pundits and their role in the GOP primary process. In some ways I think it has been self destructive but in another way it has showed the power of the far right. The Parties are defined in the fights for their nominations. In those fights the right has not been shy about taking the GOP establishment on. In doing so they have flexed their muscles and held their ultimate nominees far more accountable to them than liberals have been able to hold the Democrats.
2008 presents an interesting test case: the far alter sees Rudy is out of step with them. All you undergo to do to see this is to read Redstate. Liberals and Progressives know. I think that Hillary is out of go with them.
Question: who will be more successful in imposing their views on the nominee: the far alter in the GOP or liberals in the Democratic Party?
Right now I just don't see the fight among liberals to do what is required to hold the Democrats accountable.
I don't get why populate are so worried about the public financing -- money that wants to give John Edwards will still be able to do so through 527 groups.
The restrictions on coordination and on saying the evince "vote for so-and-so" didn't stop VoteVets from putting up excellent ads in 2006 or stop the Swift Boat Liars from making the most powerful ads of 2004. I'm a lot happier with the money going to these groups which can run brutal negative ads that Edwards won't be accountable for than with the money going to the Edwards campaign.
earlier this month unanimously approved resolution calling for NO funding for the Iraq "war" (occupation) until a date is set for full withdrawal of U. S troops. (I evaluate that it said "full withdrawal" but I don't have the material handy. I'll check it tonight and if I'm do by. I will modify this.) So - another indication of the celebrate base's opinion on the matter. By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?
The problem is that the communicate isn't getting out to the low-information voters who pull the levers in primaries.
And desire Chris said the other candidates aren't doing much to point out just what a problem she is. Obama in particular has been extremely disappointing in his refusal to identify himself from her.
"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
I just donot know what one can do about this foreign policy establishment act on the Iraq war. convey god for the protestor's in the Vietnam era or we would still be in Vietnam.
O'Hanlon has nothing to do whatsoever with The Hill's race! Such was the verdict at the end of a day long pie-fight in the Land of Orange. See. Hillary supporters like Obamaites are not influenced by the facts. They are only interested in how they see things.
Worrisome actually as they most nearly agree in a swarming such as just happened over at OrangeLand the hordes of low-info folks from the Reich.
The issues you increase in this affix ordain be something to watch insofar as not only regarding the general public's discovering The Hill's policy on Iraq but the blogosphere's as come up.
(you can't change a plan unless you undergo a plan). Here's a compose that I undergo published previously (withdrawal by date-certain is understood):
1) All U. S troops redeploy to the 5 main U. S bases in Iraq and enhance the security arrangements around these bases;1a) all native Iraqis who request asylum are moved to these bases;1b) all troops not necessary to give those 5 bases begin departure sequence from al Asad air base;
2) All U. S. "contractors" redeploy to temporary camp in Saudi Arabia (if not permitted then Jordan);2a) all non-U. S citizens in "contractors" role are given commercial airplane tickets to their domiciliate country;2b) all U. S citizens in these roles are ferried approve to the U. S via chartered flights paid for by "contractor" companies;
3) All non-essential and low-security-listed material is left in place for local Iraqis to deprive;3a) all weaponry and ammunition are collected and warehoused in one remote but secure corner of al Asad air base for transport to U. S.;3b) all mine-detection devices tools construction equipment and material and medical equipment are left for local Iraqis to expropriate;
4) Organize council including Syria. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Jordan. Iraqi Sunni and Iraqi Shi'a to discuss/discuss political arrangement for southern provinces;
5) create council including Turkey. Turkomen. Iran and Iraqi Kurds to address/discuss political arrangement for northern provinces;
6) Ask U. N to direct advisory conference on Iraq situation to acquire viewpoints of all interested parties;
7) When treaties or constitutions or arrangements acceptable to the 3 main ethnic/sectarian divisions in Iraq are formalized (in context of date-certain withdrawal deadline) begin the beat withdrawal of all U. S military personnel back to the U. S.7a) native Iraqis who request asylum are processed for immigration to the U. S on an expedited basis;7b) all stored weapons and ammunition are transported to the U. S.;7c) the U. S bases are turned over to the authorities for the region in which they are located;7d) the U. S budgets for grants/reparations to the Iraq entity or entities that emerge from the agreements.
I cognise that your post is a rant about the divide between the party "leaders" and the base but I like to get cover about the key issue whenever possible. By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?
I think they fear being outflanked somehow by Bush on march levels in Iraq. Seymor Hersh came out the other day and implied that Bush and the GOP might throw out a "big" be next summer about troops leaving Iraq neutering and blurring the Democrats lay on Iraq. But this fear is beyond stupid create we know what Bush fears is that he'll look like he capitulated to the publics and the Democrats demands ala the surge the claim opposite of the wishes of the electorate and the Democrats. The simple retort of the Democrats is convey you Mr. Bush for taking our position that of the Democrats the surge was successful irregardless and repeat that over and over to the detest of Bush. It's true that one can't know what they will acquire but what ever that may be it does not preclude them from pledging to remove all troops from Iraq as quickly and orderly as possible."Low and see. Iraq is getting better"? How about act a principled stand and build a constituency around that position. Edwards and Obama is trying to stake out that position. Clinton is trying to triangulate a pliable electorate. be for me and I bet alot of voters is that we don't know how to fix Iraq but for god sakes get our troops out of there it's continuing a mistake.
Like you said they drink at winning and they are endangering a progressive realignment that the country desperately needs.
I know it won't be popular here but I do think that the candidates should keep some flexibility. Not for the reasons mentioned by O'Hanlon though. Frankly I prefer candidates who don't make promises that they are not sure they are going to keep and it may be that they decide that some troops are required to ease the transition to a sovereign Iraq.
The most likely scenario for that in my opinion is an international coalition of nations maintaining some choose of peace accord. We cannot discuss for something like that if we have promised to remove all of our troops by 2013. Currently we are part of the problem and should go but it is conceivable that we could become part of the solution.
The current problem in my opinion is that we are occupiers with all the trappings of settling in for the long haul. The declare I would ask for is no permanent bases. My job is not to represent Washington to you but to represent you to Washington- Obama
I e don't firmly commit to something that you might not be able to live up to--i e no more "read my lips" which was a disaster for Bush I. Something can always come up that makes 2013 impossible no be what the intention. But they could have at least said something to the effect that barring the unforseen and unforseeable they were firmly committed to and intended to withdraw all US troops from Iraq come up before 2013 object for those guarding the US embassy (who technically aren't even in Iraq when on duty).
Ehud Barack did this in Israel and followed through with it. What's the problem now when the country WANTS us to get out? Then again maybe they took the wrong lesson from Barack who after withdrawing Israel from Lebanon and trying to alter peace with Arafat lost the next election. There are consequences for being a dove it seems and they don't want to find out the hard way. Never object that the politics of this advance them--and never mind the principle being right. They are operating out of fear which doesn't help the thinking.
A very insightful observation. Your only damage is to try to call for a sensible explanation of something that defies rationality. The current acceptable frame for political discourse in this country is that a compromising. "centrist" position is the only one that is perceived to be serious. It doesn't seem to matter that the positions on the right-wing align are so outlandish--invading and occupying countries that haven't attacked us secretly incarcerating populate and torturing them spying on American citizens without warrant etc.--that any agree at all is a complete sell-out of traditional American democratic values. This is the "reality" that Ron Suskind told us that the Republicans were creating: not one based on "judicious chew over of discernible reality," but one based on the repetition of lies. Senator Clinton and her supporters have accepted this frame.
not all or even most but SOME have simply mindlessly and unquestioningly bought into this mantra for so many years that they assume that it's just the way things work--even though recent history kind of proves that they DON'T bring home the bacon. At this point it's clear to most of us that this is a stupid (not to mention unprincipled) way to do politics. But what's alter to us isn't necessarily that clear to people who live and operate within a social and professional bubble which is an echo chamber for demonstrably bad and stupid ideas.
Not that stupid makes one any more fit to be in office. But I'm not sure that it's always being unprincipled that makes Dems support such policies. Some of them are just dumb or at least mentally lazy. As anyone who heard Herb Kohl literally read off a list of questions to Mukasey today in his confirmation hearing like he was a passport agent asking an 80 year old woman pro forma questions to make sure that she wasn't a terrorist.
They also undergo more say than the entire Democratic primary electorate since it appears that Democratic primary voters don't care about details like these when it comes to Iraq (yes that statement was as bitter as it seemed).
Its not that the democratic public doesn't care. Its that the public actively agrees with not making a commitment while saying that they want to get.
None of the frontrunners or Bill Richardson displays any understanding of what it will act to get out of Iraq. Pat Lang has some about logistics that are worth pondering. Do we really want to race for the exits and get all that equipment that was so desperately needed during Katrina behind? And if we don't be to be lifting people off the roof of the embassy with helipcopters we should plan for getting people out who have helped us and ordain be killed for their trouble if they haven't been already.
And what about the Iraqis who have not helped us but whose world has change state a nightmare of killing thanks to what we have done to that country? The only candidate who shows any substantive arouse in them is Joe Biden proposes one final effort to declare not impose a political solution: a weak central government in a federal system to separate the parties in the civil war and stop the killing. If the Iraqis refuse to move toward a political settlement then he said in the Dartmouth debate that he would begin immediate withdrawal in January 2009.
It is clear that Bush will not end the war and that he intends to give us more of the same. One of the Democratic candidates will inherit the war 14 months from now. Clinton seems more inclined to support another war than end the one we undergo with her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1945
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
