Look, I consider myself independent politically, in the sense that I don't hold to one party line in my viewpoints. I'm on the Left on some issues, and more towards the Right on others. I also do not think that President Obama is infallible, or above criticism.
That said, the fact that members of the Right-leaning media are now criticizing Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan IS DRIVING ME @#%$@ CRAZY!!!!
Are you shitting me? Seriously? After 6 years in Iraq under Bush? Members of the Conservative press are just starting to care about dead soldiers in Afghanistan, calling for peace, showing coffins?
OH!!!!
OHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Wait – wasn't Obama just criticized for not being tough enough on Iran? Like, last week? Like: a few days ago?!
And now he's being portrayed as a war-happy president sending our children to die in the Afghan desert?
See, this is why I hate dogma, party lines, talking points, everything. Because it's never really about the stated issue. And it's a damn shame, because people from both sides of the political aisle really do have important issues to discuss. But all this bullshit keeps us from a real dialogue, from making any real change or headway. And maybe that's the point.
The more they yell, the less they say. Sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.
ReplyDeleteIt's because he's black in a white man's boy's club. Simple. If McCain won betcha we wouldn't have even half this BS (not counting the ZOMG! He's a MUSLIM! crap because that's just voided by default).
ReplyDeleteThe Republican reich, I mean right is not concerned with what is the correct course for this country. All it is about for them is blocking the President no matter what he does, no matter what decision he makes. two weeks ago they complained that he shouldn't pull troops out of Afghanistan and now that he's planning on leaving some troops there (Which I don't like, but I'm also a realist. There's no way we can leave that country completely without it being detrimental to the region) they're saying the opposite.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly it. Those in power WANT an uninformed and ignorant public.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think your political views aren't that unusual. I don't think Obama walks on water - although the more the Right bashes him, the more I support him - nor do I skew completely left. I'm probably more radical left/liberal than most, and definitely more than President Obama...he's a centrist in the Clinton mold (sadly).
I *THINK*, I *THINK* the issue is not that conservatives want us out of Afghanistan, its that they want more decisive involvement in Afghanistan that won't make the sacrifice a waste.
ReplyDeleteThere also may be an undercurrent of paleo-conservative reaction against US empire building.
Right-leaning can lean in north and south directions too :)
I think you may be reading more into that Drudge headline than may actually be there. If there's opposition to our presence in Afghanistan from right-wingers other than Pat Buchanan and his weird gang of crypto-nativists, I have yet to hear of it.
ReplyDeleteAlso: Since when was Matt Drudge "the Right"?
I thought you'd be happy to see all those pics the media were fighting to take last yea of the coffins. They stopped asking to take them once Obama was in office, oddly enough.
ReplyDelete"Also: Since when was Matt Drudge "the Right"?"
ReplyDeleteI follow many right- and left- leaning blogs & sites daily, and Drudge perfectly telegraphs the pulse of the Right media. That's not a condemnation of Drudge. I read Drudge every day, and usually check in every hour or so. Same for HuffPo. And I have the same periodic outrages at HuffPo's slanting of the news.
Everything about that Drudge headline links Obama to dead troops. It's not *supposed* to make sense. It's supposed to hit you on an subconscious level: "this guy's killing our sons!" That's what propaganda does. That's what Drudge does on a regular basis, which is to make Obama look as bad as possible. And HuffPo did it with GWB too. And I hate all of it, because it in the midst of all this propaganda the real issues are lost.
This current focus in the Right blogs on dead and suffering troops simply wasn't there to this extent during the GWB years. Instead, many chose to meditate on the patriotism and glory of war. Indeed, some pundits insinuated that to focus on the deaths -- to even show pictures of coffins -- was unpatriotic. Why the sudden change of heart?
The sudden change of heart is to link as many bad things to Obama as possible, whether it makes sense or not. Death panels, communism, Hitler, dead soliders – whatever works.
And I'm frustrated because when I then go to argue in favor of some issue that is considered Right-of-center, my opponent can just point all of this other insanity out. It prevents a rational discussion.
When South Park presents one of the most balanced dialogues in the media, something is fucking wrong.
Augie said...
ReplyDeleteI thought you'd be happy to see all those pics the media were fighting to take last yea of the coffins. They stopped asking to take them once Obama was in office, oddly enough.
Because unlike the previous administration they did block them from taking photos or having public funerals.
Listen I'm like Val, I consider myself a moderate. However the republicans( not to be confused with conservatives) have lost their way. We need Barry Goldwater style republicans back in charge of the party, which you're starting to see again as a backlash to the extreme right wing loons.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican Reich. That's awesome.
ReplyDeleteJamal -
ReplyDeleteSo it's only a story because it sticks in the media's craw and NOT because of the dead soldiers? Or because they're protecting Obama? (See CNN fact checking SNL now, for example. )
Ye gods and little fishes. Will the Republican Party just implode already so that all the sane conservatives and moderates who don't feel comfortable with the Democratic Party can build a new party that actually wants to contribute to the political process and the betterment of the country and the wingnuts can stick with marginals like the Peace and Freedom party and building their bunkers in the wilderness?
ReplyDeleteAnd Augie is summing up why it's a bad idea to get into an argument with someone determined to argue about ANYTHING.
ReplyDeleteIs this really an important issue? No, it isn't. An important issue is not going to war and having no idea of how to end it. And that's not a liberal point of view. Any military person worth their stripes will tell you it's important to have an exit strategy. You can't just war for the sake of warring.
I'm always a little uncomfortable with someone who just comes out of nowhere with no profile (sorry if you posted a comment before, but I don't remember you...).
Hysan - I'm just pointing out the usual
ReplyDeletemedia hypocrisy, is all. I'm a conservative, not a Republican mouthpiece. I burnt out on
politics a while back, but find it fascinating to still see so many of the old tropes still going in circles. The cries
about the lunatic right have been around since at least Reagan, so I tend to ignore them. It's the same old arguments 25 years later. Every now and then I pop up in the completely one-sided ones, which ae
most comic book sites.
If we pull out now, the terrorists win.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the terrorists win, Obama wins.
Isn't Afghanistan the country that actually was giving material aid and monetary and logistical support directly to the terrorist group responsible for the WTC attacks of 9/11? I mean, as opposed to that other country we invaded which... you know... basically had little or nothing to do with that group?
ReplyDeleteIsn't America's #1 enemy figurehead still running around in that general vicinity?
This is the one area where I believe George Bush got it right, although letting bin Laden slip away and then pretending he was "marginalized" and no longer a factor was pretty weak stuff. More waffling and excuse making from "the Decider." But at least on this front we were directly engaged with al Qaeda in their home grounds. Unlike that other place where they didn't show up until we gave them a big opening.
I remember when Bill Clinton launched some missiles at these guys back in 1998 and the right-wing press-- Washington Times, Fox News, National Review, New York Post-- criticized him for attempting to distract America from the real issue-- Monica Lewinsky. Imagine the firestorm if he'd actually invaded and cleaned their clocks.
New decade, new president, same old tricks.
I have to second pduggies statement. The issue is not the death of brave men and women. The issue for conservatives is that the President is not giving full support to the mission.
ReplyDeleteThe likes of Gore Vidal have howled for the last 8 years that we are in a new Vietnam. We lost Vietnam when our leaders wold not commit to winning the battle.
To bring it back on the over all topic, it's like how Tony Stark lost the Civil War when he didn't kill the rebels.
Truthfully, that's the biggest fallacy about the fight against terrorism: thinking you can fight it like a regular war. Terror cells don't just sit around waiting for an army to show up. Do you really think the still living architects of 9/11 are still in Afghanistan? Really? Don't bet on it.
ReplyDeleteYou can't fight these bastards the way we have been. You have to go after them like you would criminals, and when you have them cornered, then you bring in the big guns and wipe them off the planet, or better yet, wipe some of them out and capture one or two to get intel. But trying to fight a conventional war against a group that can just run from country to country and set up operations ANYWHERE is just not going to do it.
Augie said...
ReplyDeleteJamal -
So it's only a story because it sticks in the media's craw and NOT because of the dead soldiers? Or because they're protecting Obama? (See CNN fact checking SNL now, for example. )
No Augie, it's because the bush administration did not allow photos to be taken of flag draped coffins for 8 years and now they can. It's because Barack Obama actually goes to Soldier's funerals as opposed to George Bush who never attended one during his entire presidency. there was a news blackout when it came to returning coffins.
Mike- That's an overly simplistic view of the Vietnam debacle. A popular one but a reductive one that can't deal with about 1000 years of Vietnamese nationalism or even American intransigence towards Vietnam in the years before open hostilities. And other complexities.
ReplyDeleteBottom line-- Due to a number of very complicated factors, Vietnam was never winnable. We lost that war the moment we started it. The trick is knowing which wars are winnable and which ones are unwinnable and avoid starting the unwinnable ones.
Which brings us to Afghanistan. The caveat to that is, when your nation is directly attacked by another-- and I would argue that due to the Taliban's material and territorial support for Al Qaeda the 9/11 attacks were a de facto assault on the US by Afghanistan as well as that terrorist organization-- you have to strike back in a credible way or appease.
That's why I supported the Afghanistan attack and continue to support it while I have had misgivings about the Iraq War.
What's frustrating is, we were doing a pretty good job of knocking out Al Qaeda and had just about finished off the Taliban before the Bush Administration sidetracked us into Iraq. Now Afghanistan is being bandied about as unwinnable.
This is the one area where we would've had international support and avoided alienating all our allies and the UN. The one area where we were actively engaging those who committed attacks directly against the US. Now it's a big mess because we put all our geopolitical eggs in the Iraq basket and neglected Afghanistan for 6 years or so.
While bogging down in Iraq eroded national will and wore down our military might and readiness the Bush administration let Afghanistan spiral out of control. Now we may not have the staying power to finish the one job we should have been doing in the first place in this so-called "War on Terrorism."
Which, to my mind, outside of our efforts in Afghanistan, has actually been a war against the US Constitution and civil liberties and a war for record oil profits and outright war profiteering by these Halliburton and Blackwater scumbags.
Should Barack Obama get the blame for this? Should he have to carry the load? Well, I guess if the recession-- which started before he was even a presidential nominee, btw-- is his fault, then Afghanistan is, too. That's the "logic" of conservative commentators.
Bush blew it, blame Barack. Some mighty smooth Orwellian doublethink is going down here.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
ReplyDelete"The likes of Gore Vidal have howled for the last 8 years that we are in a new Vietnam. We lost Vietnam when our leaders wold not commit to winning the battle."
ReplyDeleteMike this statement is wrong on so many levels. First and foremost we NEVER HAD A REASON TO BE IN VIETNAM. And yes, if someone wants to be a partisan hack, it was Kennedy and Johnson who greatly escalated Vietnam. That isn't my point, which is WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE.
I am shocked by the number of people who say we could have "won" Vietnam if we had the will as if that f$%^ing matters. We slaughtered half a million Vietnamese people for no reason and if we had won, it still would have been for no reason.
Augie,
ReplyDeleteThey don't demand them because they are given them.
I had a 9/11 class in college once. Very interesting, we watched a lot of videos put out by the extremes of both political parties.
ReplyDeleteOne girl asked "but wait... why are we talking about Al Qaeda as if it's REAL when the video we just saw said that it is NOT?"
Another dude, in his sixties: "Can you tell us where and when we will be attacked next?"
People are frickin' idiots. And I work in retail. I know.