We previously discussed the unease that many of us felt with the celebrations that occurred over the killing of Bin Laden and the later use of the killing to bolster the Obama campaign. This discomfort increased recently with an Obama commercial that unfairly suggested that Governor Mitt Romney would not have ordered the operation to go forward. Just in case anyone thought that was a tasteless and baseless campaign pitch by an overzealous Obama aide, the President himself just reaffirmed that message in a press conference with the Prime Minister of Japan this afternoon. It appears that, while the Administration will again bar the release of photos to the media and the public of the operation, they are eager to drag the body of Bin Laden behind the presidential limo to every possible campaign stop.
Recently, Vice President Joe Biden called the President’s ordering the operation as the most audacious plan in 500 years — apparently dwarfing Washington’s crossing of the Delaware and a number of other minor skirmishes. The thrust of these comments is that the President was the brave one to risk the political fallout of an unsuccessful operation.
We previously saw a squabble between Bush and Obama on who can claim part of the scalp of Bin Laden. It is clear that the President has decided to abandon his promise not to engage in excessive celebration or self-aggrandizement over the killing. I suppose there is now regret in the White House that they decide to forgo the taxidermist option in favor of the ocean disposal.
In the press conference, Obama seemed eager to suggest that Romney doesn’t have the guts to kill people, even our most hated enemies.
“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden. I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice. I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him–and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.
I suppose that explanation will now trigger a contest on how more willing each man is to order killings like some natural-born killer. With Obama recently claiming the right to kill citizens on his sole authority, that could be a dangerous race to the bottom. Romney is already insisting that he would have ordered the same killing.
Former and current Seal members criticized the President for using the operation in a political ad. Here is the commercial that ran in the last week:
The concerted attack appears to be based on Romney’s statement in 2007 that he believe that it was “not worth moving heaven and earth … just trying to catch one person.” That was a reasonable statement and one that many in the military appeared to agree with.
The use of the killing of Bin Laden as a campaign trophy is as unfair to Romney, unseemly of Obama, and unbecoming to the presidency. The President’s remarks this afternoon should be condemned by every citizen regardless of party affiliation.
Here is the press conference:
1zb1,
You know, I think we’re having (at least) two different conversations. If you’re not going to bother to remember what you said, I’m not going to bother talking to you.
“as to my original comment i do believe – and I find this issue with jt and many others on this site – is a disconnect between the world we all would like, and the world we have – a disconnect between the real world and the idealized abstract (and even a disconnect between comments and facts).”
I was curious as to what you thought that disconnect was. I guess you were more interested in ranting about what you think my positions are than clarifying. Well, that’s one way to have a conversation I guess, just not if you want to me to continue.
Have fun.
Once again Mr. Turley selectively shows umbrage only when convenient and safe to his audience. This is version of iokiyaao (It’s OK If You’re Against Obama).
Does JT exert any hefty criticisms of Romney? JT is not objective, and this blog has become like The American Conservative web-site minus the leading questions.
I agree Gyges.
Mike S. was correct that we may prefer our politics to be “nicer”, but that ship has sailed long ago. Now, you have to fight fire with fire.
Gyges, I believe JT (and many – but not all – readers here) tends toward the libertarian (emphasis on “tends” but not necesserily actual) by my reading of many of his comments (though not exhaustive). Often that goes under the title of “civil libertarians”. I did not say he was rightwing but i did broadly link rightwing and libertarians together based on voting habits. That is not to say JT or all libertarians vote rightwing or that some don’t vote democratic or others don’t vote ‘libertarian” or some don’t change from one to the other. I admit to painting in broad generalization. Some might say he is very liberal and progressive but one can go so far in one direct on some issues that the consequences if not always the actions leads you around the circle.
But really it is not for me to impose my notion of where he is politically, when i think it is easy for him to clearly define it himself if he cares (kind of like some of the inane argument that have gone on here about what the founders intended – if they wanted to make themselves clear for future generations they could have and JT can do the same now if he chooses) I suspect he might choose none of those terms. And btw, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing people and policies. Unlike Regan this is not a “never speak ill of another republican” idea.
Believe me I get that defending our basic rights often means defending those people, words, ideas, actions, and things we may find most offensive personally and as a general rule when in doubt more rights rather then less. I get that principles are important.
But I also know when life and death and reality are at stake, just like they say there are no atheists in foxholes (something in fact not true) the abstraction of law and principles without regard to the reality is being a slave to other peoples ideas as much as any chain. Our words have consequences – jt’s more then the rest of us.
The problem with your question, “So putting pressure on elected officials to not use certain rhetoric is not recognizing the real world? How so?”
…is I don’t have a problem with the rhetoric. I don’t have a problem with saying “I got the guy, you didn’t… you said you would not go into Pakistan… i said i would… you said your a big tough guy about iran and i’m not but whose really full of crap.”
And just to underscore some of the simple minded ways of looking at this, consider the message that commercial sent to Iran and how it might help bring a peaceful solution to that problem as in, “Hey douche bags, if you think I won’t drop a bomb on you guess again.”
But of course as far as your concerned, so what if Iran has a nuke, don’t they have a right to nukes as much as we do.
and now its you and jt’s turn to give me the list of what i (or obama0 are allowed to talk about.
1zb1,
I don’t speak for JT, but I REALLY suggest you start reading some of his posts about other subjects. Calling him a right-winger is absurd. You’re getting awfully worked up about what you imagine this one post means without the context surrounding it.
So since you think we should stop trying to prove how smart we are (I like how you included that AFTER you posted about how smart you were) and get back to the topic at hand: I’ll ask you again: “So putting pressure on elected officials to not use certain rhetoric is not recognizing the real world? How so?”
Please answer this time. I’m honestly curious as to your thought process. Also, remember this isn’t telling Obama not to defend his foreign policy, this is about asking Obama not to defend it by trumpeting the death of a human being.
Gene,
I agree, “the tendency to fall into habit ” is exactly what I’m referring to. Thus the phrases “used to” and “can” in “…how you’re used to talking about a problem can limit…”
thank you js for making a good point (even if, as Gyges would say, not as you intended). it underscores how people think: you take the credit – you take the blame. Seems reasonable enough unless its about Obama and you are a romney/republican/tparty/liberterian, in which case Obama gets all the blame but never any credit and romney/republican/tparty/liberterians get all the credit but never any blame.
Just read the CinC is in, or on his way to, Afghanistan. Wonder if he’s packed the “Mission Accomplished” banner.
Wonder what the 11 SS agents from Columbia would do for fun in Kabul?
CORRECTION: “The notion of calling Romney being out of bounds or even tasteless when its based on what Romney actually said”…. OF COURSE THAT SHOULD READ: “The notion of calling OBAMA being out of bounds….
Gyges,
“My point was that what tools you’re used to using shapes how you approach a problem, and how you’re used to talking about a problem can limit the number and type of solutions you can find for it.”
True enough that tools limit solutions, however, the second part of that seems reasonable enough but is counter-intuitively wrong. As tools, language and communication have a true flexibility to them that only the computer approaches. How can one come to novel solutions without the the ability to describe and communicate the idea? I suggest what you see is the tendency to fall into habit. Would Michelangelo be considered a genius sculptor if his habit was to sculpt David every time he came to a raw piece of marble? No. His genius was in figuring out new ways to use old tools to different ends. Novation and tool use, while related, are discrete. Intellectual laziness and creativity are limited by the nature of the tools, but the nature of language makes it nearly limitless as it is confined only by the audience’s ability to comprehend.
JT said, “I SUPPOSE there is now regret in the White House… ” and “I SUPPOSE that explanation will now trigger a contest ”
The emphasis is mine on “SUPPOSE”.
I SUPPOSE now they are mandating i buy health insurance they are going to mandate I buy brocolli and take away all miy rights.
See a pattern there among liberterians?
In any event I am glad to see most people seem to understand this is a phoney rightwing/libertarien made up controversy. The notion of calling Romney being out of bounds or even tasteless when its based on what Romney actually said AND did (and not done) – especially given Romney’s his own attacks (ie iran nukes), is about the silliest debat of all the sillyness that permeates this site.
The way I see it Obama is my attorney and just like an attorney is JT said, “I SUPPOSE there is now regret in the White House… ” and “I SUPPOSE that explanation will now trigger a contest ”
The emphasis is mine on “SUPPOSE”.
I SUPPOSE now they are mandating i buy health insurance they are going to mandate I buy broccoli and take all my rights all my rights away.
See a pattern there among libertarians?
In any event I am glad to see most people seem to understand this is a phony rightwing/libertarien made up controversy. The notion of calling Obama being out of bounds or even tasteless when its based on what Romney actually said AND did (and not done) – especially given Romney’s his own attacks (ie iran nukes), is about the silliest debate of all the silliness that permeates this site.
The way I see it Obama is my attorney and just like an attorney is supposed to do he is going to the mat for his client. I suppose jt doesn’t believe in representing his clients to the same degree.
i suppose I’m also reminded here a bit of about one of my favorite all time movies, “The Guns of Navarone”. (shows how old I am) You may recall, Corporal Miller, the explosives expert who avoids responsibility at all cost (played by David Niven) is whining his way about everything throughout the movie. Finally, as they are now about to face the final stage of their mission, Mallory, the leader of the group played by Gregory Peck has had it up to here with Miller and says,
“Mallory: You think you’ve been getting away with it all this time, standing by. Well, son… your by standing days are over! You’re in it now, up to your neck! They told me that you’re a genius with explosives. Start proving it!
[gesturing with his pistol]
Mallory: You got me in the mood to use this thing, and by God, if you don’t think of something, I’ll use it on you! I mean it.
The more I listen to the rightwing/libertarians the more I see Miller. The more I listen to Romney the more I think he is running for Whiner-In-Chief.
An don’t make the mistake of thinking my words come from some notion of American Cowboy Mentality (well maybe a little acm).
It comes from the simple place of being on the Titanic. Republicans (with admittedly more then a little help from Democrats and the stupidity of the American People) have run the ship into an iceberg and its going down. They jumped ship when they thought it was lost and now want to take it back when they see Obama managed to keep it afloat. And what do they do is claim its lower in the water then when they left it.
So, JT and some of the rest of you, you just keep “supposing”, while the rest of us worry about keeping the ship afloat. And don’t worry, I will defend with my life your right to whine about it any way you want.
Oh, and Gyges, I never said anything about the Ok Corral you did, but your description was close enough to how I did mean it (though I have to confess I did not know you were also a mind reader). In any event, apparently Earp, by his own testimony at the trial claimed the events leading up to the OK were indeed related to improving his chances for election.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/wearptestimony.html
“I had an ambition to be Sheriff of this County at the next election, and I thought it would be a great help to me with the people and businessmen if I could capture the men who killed Philpot.”
Seems to me if you are going to be a smartass you need to do a better job at it. Kind of makes me think of watching Romney (notice how fast he talks and those little tiny rapid steps he takes). He reminds me of the kid in school who thinks he knows everything wildly waving his hand to be called by the teacher and then gets it all wrong time after time.
Maybe if people would stick to the subject more and spend less time trying to prove how smart they are not we would have a better discussion.
Gene,
Depends on what you’re persauding people to do.
I agree rhetoric in general can be used for good or bad. My point was that what tools you’re used to using shapes how you approach a problem, and how you’re used to talking about a problem can limit the number and type of solutions you can find for it.
Gyges,
Is persuasion a good tactic or an evil tactic?
Warning: this is a trick question.
Mike and Blouise,
This is an area where reasonable people can disagree. Plenty of compromises have been made for the greater good, that ended up working for the greater good. Plenty haven’t. It’s up to everyone to decide what they can and can’t compromise.
When using their own rhetorical tools against them, it gets a little hard to tell who’s “us” and who’s “them.” Especially since rhetoric so often shapes action. If we get used to talking about foriegn policy and security in terms of military victories, then sooner or later we’re going to get used to thnking about it in terms of military victories. Once that happens, well then we get the same stupid foriegn policy we’ve had since sometime post WWII.
You can’t change your strategy when you only think in the terms that led you to that strategy in the first place. Take this discussion. The basic assumption underlying Obama’s strategy is that there are more people that buy into the “We kill Bad Guys because we’re the good guys!” than are turned off by it. If you don’t challenge that assumption, you’re never going to change the discussion.
Again reasonable people can disagree, but once you accept the premise “we have to act this way or loose,” you admit that this particular behacior isn’t going to be changed by you. You’re conceeding victory on the issue to the status quo.
“If achieving that means using their own tools against them, I’m willing to accept that this end justifies the means.”
I’m with you there, Mike. A job is easier when you have the right tools and as with any tool, they are rarely intrinsically evil, but rather the good or bad of them is in the application and the intent of the user. As to whether or not we’ll win in the end? I have no doubt as the arc of history moves towards civil and human rights, but my question still remains as “at what costs” and “when”. Although I suppose you could technically call me an optimist, I’m the kind of optimist who thinks really bad things will have to come to pass before the 99% rise up and claim the world from 1%. Apathy is the problem, but to paraphrase Tommy Smothers, nobody seems to care. To which I’ll add the caveat “yet”. Which also raises the question of time. Will the victory of civil and human rights over the tyranny of the oligarchs come before permanent damage is done to either the planet and/or society? We shall see.
This “means” is, as SwM mentioned up thread, targeted at independents in 7 states. These are the independents who commonly vote Republican when it comes to “strong on defense” issues. He’s wooing the macho vote. It’ll work.
“Remember that politics and Washington are the arts and Hollywood for ugly and/or talentless people.”
“Then how do you explain Ronald Re…. Nevermind.”
Gene and Gyges,
Politicians are “sold” today like you would sell beer or soap. Since the Goldwater debacle in 1964 the plutocratic elite of this country has taken the lessons learned from their corporate minions and employed the art of advertising and “hidden persuasion” (Google Vance Packard) to control and dominate the terms of debate in this country. It has turned politics into show biz and of course the acme was reached when they elected a failed actor, in the early onset of Alzheimer’s, to the nations highest office. Then too remember their early experiment with Senator George Murphy and the later one with Congressman Sony Bono.
To balance the equation, politicians are also “bought” regularly with both money and luxuries. How seductive it is for a relatively unattractive man to take on the seductive mantle of power, to the point that they will do anything to avoid a return to diminished status.
As you know we have little difference in viewpoint as to the harm done to this country by those in the elite and/or working with them, on both sides of the party lines. Nevertheless, from my perspective, this is the reality of the hand that has been unconscionably dealt to us, so we must play it within the constriction of the revised rules. This is how I can see the evils that exist and yet be willing to be pragmatic as to solutions to them. It’s all about buying time until we can turn it all around, that is if we still have any time left.
We then come to perspective and despite my many reservations I choose to remain a optimist. Two years ago I was about to literally die and now this year I was able to run after my 3 year old granddaughter in danger, running for the first time in 20 years. Personally, I choose to believe that all can remain well for me and my family. Politically I choose also to believe that we can beat these bastards in the end. If achieving that means using their own tools against them, I’m willing to accept that this end justifies the means.
Swarthmore mom 1, May 1, 2012 at 9:30 am
Dredd, There are many hurdles with these new voter id laws.
===========================================
Yep, the old Supreme Five trick of the 2000 election will not get it anymore.
Plan B, screw over as many democratic voters as possible, without the help of the Supreme Five.
What Mike S. said.
“Remember that politics and Washington are the arts and Hollywood for ugly and/or talentless people.”
Then how do you explain Ronald Re…. Nevermind.