It has been a while since I've seen so much of it.
All of the pro-Obama pundits have been discussing the Sarah Palin vice presidential pick with the underlying assumption that it is obviously going to blow up in McCain's face. All I've been reading for the last week is anti-Palin this, anti-Palin that. Many of these tidbits have a lot of truth to them; especially from an independent or left-wing point of view (95% of the internet). However, they don't undermine the fundamental reality that Sarah Palin has made McCain a more competitive presidential candidate.
The right is falling in love with Palin. Evangelicals are getting excited. Only a week ago, I thought Obama's own VP choice was perfect, but the situation has changed dramatically. Joe Biden is going to have to tread very, very carefully in the VP debates lest he be seen as a bully. His inability to filter what he says would have been funny against a Romney or a Guliani; it will look chauvinistic against a Palin. The last thing the Obama/Biden ticket can afford to do is lose more women to McCain.
It will be interesting to see how Obama himself responds to the Sarah Palin factor. Hopefully his response will be more effective than that of all of his intellectual backers on the internet, which has been terrible. Its time to stop wishing Palin didn't make McCain stronger, or hoping that she is going to have some disastrous secret that destroys McCain's campaign. People need to take her seriously and begin to think about how to counter her. Otherwise, a lot of people are going to wake up on a cold November day still wondering how they lost to such a "weak" ticket.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Brilliant, McCain!
John McCain's pick of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was a brilliant tactical stroke. I must say, I was caught off guard by that pick but in retrospect I shouldn't be so surprised. If McCain is anything, he is a tactician. His VP is youthful, to offset his age. She is charismatic, something he lacks to some degree. She is moderate, and helps make the GOP ticket look as such. And of course, being female, McCain just tapped into the largest disaffected group of voters in this country. At this point, all bets are off. Intrade still has Obama at 60% to win, but make no mistake - it is a horse race at this point.
My own feelings are still pro-Obama but are relatively balanced between the two candidates. On economic issues, I side with McCain and always have. On foreign policy issues, the success of the surge and the stabilization of Iraq has turned a foreign policy and humanitarian disaster into a huge benefit - if it can be maintained. Everyone should give McCain props for that. The question we need to ask ourselves is who can best win the war in Afghanistan and who can best reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I believe Obama is still that man, but certainly not by a large margin.
P.S. Republicans should be very careful what they wish for. If Obama loses this election, Hillary Clinton is a guaranteed lock for the Democratic nomination, and probably the presidency, in 2012. The GOP might wish they'd tolerated an Obama for four years when faced with the prospect of another Clinton White House for eight.
****** Addendum ******
So apparently my initial sources might have been inaccurate. Governor Palin may not be a moderate at all. Some of the things I've been reading paint her as a religious right-winger similar to Rick Santorum; teaching creationism in the schools and all of that (BARF). At any rate, my opinion still stands that it was a smart political move on McCain's part. It isn't a decision that appeals to intellectual voters, it is a decision that appeals to spiteful voters. And there are many of them, who will soon realize if they already haven't that an Obama defeat in 2008 guarantees a Hillary Clinton run in 2012.
McCain will lose some ground with independents and moderate Republicans, who were hoping for someone with a strong economic background to complement McCain's obvious weakness in that area. But the truth is, as long as Obama talks like a populist and speaks against free trade, economic-issue voters will still be in McCain's camp. Meanwhile any losses he would have had will be more than offset by the gains in evangelicals and women voters.
There are a lot of people railing that this is a bad decision for the country. Bringing in someone with little experience and putting that person "a heartbeat away" from the Presidency. They point out that it makes a mockery of McCain's campaign slogan, "Country First". I agree with this people. It is a bad decision for the country. But it is undeniably a good decision for McCain's chances of winning the election.
My own feelings are still pro-Obama but are relatively balanced between the two candidates. On economic issues, I side with McCain and always have. On foreign policy issues, the success of the surge and the stabilization of Iraq has turned a foreign policy and humanitarian disaster into a huge benefit - if it can be maintained. Everyone should give McCain props for that. The question we need to ask ourselves is who can best win the war in Afghanistan and who can best reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I believe Obama is still that man, but certainly not by a large margin.
P.S. Republicans should be very careful what they wish for. If Obama loses this election, Hillary Clinton is a guaranteed lock for the Democratic nomination, and probably the presidency, in 2012. The GOP might wish they'd tolerated an Obama for four years when faced with the prospect of another Clinton White House for eight.
****** Addendum ******
So apparently my initial sources might have been inaccurate. Governor Palin may not be a moderate at all. Some of the things I've been reading paint her as a religious right-winger similar to Rick Santorum; teaching creationism in the schools and all of that (BARF). At any rate, my opinion still stands that it was a smart political move on McCain's part. It isn't a decision that appeals to intellectual voters, it is a decision that appeals to spiteful voters. And there are many of them, who will soon realize if they already haven't that an Obama defeat in 2008 guarantees a Hillary Clinton run in 2012.
McCain will lose some ground with independents and moderate Republicans, who were hoping for someone with a strong economic background to complement McCain's obvious weakness in that area. But the truth is, as long as Obama talks like a populist and speaks against free trade, economic-issue voters will still be in McCain's camp. Meanwhile any losses he would have had will be more than offset by the gains in evangelicals and women voters.
There are a lot of people railing that this is a bad decision for the country. Bringing in someone with little experience and putting that person "a heartbeat away" from the Presidency. They point out that it makes a mockery of McCain's campaign slogan, "Country First". I agree with this people. It is a bad decision for the country. But it is undeniably a good decision for McCain's chances of winning the election.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The US Economy is a beast!
GDP grew at 3.3%? I thought we were in a recession? 3.3% is significantly more than what would be considered "fast" growth in Western Europe.
My 2008 election prediction had Obama trouncing McCain. I did allow for a caveat, though. For McCain to have a chance, the US economy had to be strong and Iraq had to be going well. Amazingly, both seem to be a reality. I still think Obama will win, but it isn't so surprising that the polls are pretty close.
Obama's speech tonight was good, but he will have to perform well in the debates if he is going to win this thing.
My 2008 election prediction had Obama trouncing McCain. I did allow for a caveat, though. For McCain to have a chance, the US economy had to be strong and Iraq had to be going well. Amazingly, both seem to be a reality. I still think Obama will win, but it isn't so surprising that the polls are pretty close.
Obama's speech tonight was good, but he will have to perform well in the debates if he is going to win this thing.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Afghanistan
I've been reading "Nixon and Kissinger" this month, which naturally has a lot of discussion of the Vietnam war. Specifically, the negotiations, the conflict, and the enemy mindset and strategy. There are far more parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam than there are between Iraq and Vietnam, in my opinions.
Iraq was a nastier war from the start, but I said some time ago that I think it will resolve faster. Either we will win or we'll leave; either way, some conclusion will be met. This is more or less consistent with the past governing history of Iraq; it is used to being unified by a strong force despite all of its differences in ethnicity and religion (Turks first, then Arab strongmen like Saddam).
Afghanistan, on the other hand, has a long storied history of NOT being under the control of one dominant central authority. It also has a long storied history of refusing to become pacified by any major power, even in ancient times. More recently we look at the British, the Russians, and now the USA.
Terrain looks to be another factor. Vietnam obviously had terrain that was extremely conducive to guerrilla warfare, support from local populace or no. Now compare the two present battle-zones. Iraq is flat, with fertile river basins or desert depending on where you go. It isn't especially easy to hide from US reconnaissance aircraft in the middle of a desert. Contrast this all with Afghanistan. Just mountains and caves and nothing. And a 2000+ long mile border with Pakistan. This is probably another reason why Iraq has traditionally been more centralized while Afghanistan hasn't been. In Iraq, Saddam could just send his army to crush the dissenting ethnic groups, who had nowhere to hide. Not so in Afghanistan. Notice also that the one ethnic group that gave Saddam the most trouble - the Kurds, have a lot of mountainous terrain in their homeland.
I was also thinking that oil would contribute to a centralized power structure whereas the lack of an organized economy or lack of reliance of a central government would discourage such organization in Afghanistan. Could be a combination of all of those factors.
But the main similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam in my mind is the psyche of the enemy. There is simply no negotiation, nor is there a desire to negotiate. The Taliban simply do not care how many men they lose. Their reserves are nearly infinite. This is identical to the mindset of Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Communists. They will continue to attack even in the face of 10:1 casualty ratios.
So this is why I said some time ago that I think Afghanistan is more of a lost cause than Iraq; I see fewer prospects for a resolution and in 5-10 years we're going to ask why we should even bother. This isn't to say that we should give up the mission, but we need to re-think our strategy if we're going to make any progress. The impetus for this post in the first place was the news today of the French corps who were ambushed, with 10 killed and some 20+ wounded. France is contributing 3000; I imagine they will be gone before the years end. The war is pretty unpopular in other NATO nations as well. I'd say we have five years max to get this things wrapped up, because thats the very longest that public opinion will tolerate this sort of thing any longer, even in the states.
As far as what strategy changes are concerned, I would emphasize that we must think in political, social, and economic terms. Military solutions aren't as effective when your enemy doesn't care at all about casualties and your side does. I mean from news reports its seems like we already have 25:1 kill/loss ratios, it simply can't get much better than that unless we have robots. So here are my ideas:
1. Political: fix Pakistan. Yea, pretty simplistic and difficult I realize. But what I mean is we need to encourage democracy and strong institutions there, even if it means an anti-American (within limits) Islamic party takes power. We need to learn to work with such a government, to coexist with it. Once Muslims realize democracy isn't incompatible w/ Islam, a big reason for the Taliban to fight the Afghani government disappears.
2. Social: elect Barack Obama. The last thing we need is another militaristic Christian crusader speaking of going to war with miscellaneous Islamic countries. We are trying to get these people to see our point of view, to work w/ us, to coexist with us. Maybe we are destined to fight a clash of civilizations. But in the meantime, if anyone can convince some of the enemy to lay down their arms, its Barack Obama. I fear that McCain will only encourage more to pick up arms against us.
3. Economic: the opium trade is forcing poor Afghani farmers to break the law and side with the Taleban in order to feed their families. We need a three pronged approach here. First, mount a massive public campaign across the world but especially in Europe to reduce opium usage (discourage demand). Maybe Barack could spearhead it? Second, we should have our pharmaceutical companies buy Afghani opium for a fair price so the farmers can make their money legally. Third, we should subsidize Afghani farmers to grow other crops.
Third year of medschool is strange. I feel that there is less pressure and it is less busy than 1st and 2nd year. And yet, I feel that I have far less time than I used to. I barely ever get to read on the net anymore, and hardly get to crack my new issues of the Economist. So I decided I'd sit down tonight and think about something other than whatever clerkship that I'm in, but unfortunately have no time for editing or revising so if it looks jumbled, thats why. Because its way past my bedtime, and I have neurological examinations to perform in the morning...
Iraq was a nastier war from the start, but I said some time ago that I think it will resolve faster. Either we will win or we'll leave; either way, some conclusion will be met. This is more or less consistent with the past governing history of Iraq; it is used to being unified by a strong force despite all of its differences in ethnicity and religion (Turks first, then Arab strongmen like Saddam).
Afghanistan, on the other hand, has a long storied history of NOT being under the control of one dominant central authority. It also has a long storied history of refusing to become pacified by any major power, even in ancient times. More recently we look at the British, the Russians, and now the USA.
Terrain looks to be another factor. Vietnam obviously had terrain that was extremely conducive to guerrilla warfare, support from local populace or no. Now compare the two present battle-zones. Iraq is flat, with fertile river basins or desert depending on where you go. It isn't especially easy to hide from US reconnaissance aircraft in the middle of a desert. Contrast this all with Afghanistan. Just mountains and caves and nothing. And a 2000+ long mile border with Pakistan. This is probably another reason why Iraq has traditionally been more centralized while Afghanistan hasn't been. In Iraq, Saddam could just send his army to crush the dissenting ethnic groups, who had nowhere to hide. Not so in Afghanistan. Notice also that the one ethnic group that gave Saddam the most trouble - the Kurds, have a lot of mountainous terrain in their homeland.
I was also thinking that oil would contribute to a centralized power structure whereas the lack of an organized economy or lack of reliance of a central government would discourage such organization in Afghanistan. Could be a combination of all of those factors.
But the main similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam in my mind is the psyche of the enemy. There is simply no negotiation, nor is there a desire to negotiate. The Taliban simply do not care how many men they lose. Their reserves are nearly infinite. This is identical to the mindset of Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Communists. They will continue to attack even in the face of 10:1 casualty ratios.
So this is why I said some time ago that I think Afghanistan is more of a lost cause than Iraq; I see fewer prospects for a resolution and in 5-10 years we're going to ask why we should even bother. This isn't to say that we should give up the mission, but we need to re-think our strategy if we're going to make any progress. The impetus for this post in the first place was the news today of the French corps who were ambushed, with 10 killed and some 20+ wounded. France is contributing 3000; I imagine they will be gone before the years end. The war is pretty unpopular in other NATO nations as well. I'd say we have five years max to get this things wrapped up, because thats the very longest that public opinion will tolerate this sort of thing any longer, even in the states.
As far as what strategy changes are concerned, I would emphasize that we must think in political, social, and economic terms. Military solutions aren't as effective when your enemy doesn't care at all about casualties and your side does. I mean from news reports its seems like we already have 25:1 kill/loss ratios, it simply can't get much better than that unless we have robots. So here are my ideas:
1. Political: fix Pakistan. Yea, pretty simplistic and difficult I realize. But what I mean is we need to encourage democracy and strong institutions there, even if it means an anti-American (within limits) Islamic party takes power. We need to learn to work with such a government, to coexist with it. Once Muslims realize democracy isn't incompatible w/ Islam, a big reason for the Taliban to fight the Afghani government disappears.
2. Social: elect Barack Obama. The last thing we need is another militaristic Christian crusader speaking of going to war with miscellaneous Islamic countries. We are trying to get these people to see our point of view, to work w/ us, to coexist with us. Maybe we are destined to fight a clash of civilizations. But in the meantime, if anyone can convince some of the enemy to lay down their arms, its Barack Obama. I fear that McCain will only encourage more to pick up arms against us.
3. Economic: the opium trade is forcing poor Afghani farmers to break the law and side with the Taleban in order to feed their families. We need a three pronged approach here. First, mount a massive public campaign across the world but especially in Europe to reduce opium usage (discourage demand). Maybe Barack could spearhead it? Second, we should have our pharmaceutical companies buy Afghani opium for a fair price so the farmers can make their money legally. Third, we should subsidize Afghani farmers to grow other crops.
Third year of medschool is strange. I feel that there is less pressure and it is less busy than 1st and 2nd year. And yet, I feel that I have far less time than I used to. I barely ever get to read on the net anymore, and hardly get to crack my new issues of the Economist. So I decided I'd sit down tonight and think about something other than whatever clerkship that I'm in, but unfortunately have no time for editing or revising so if it looks jumbled, thats why. Because its way past my bedtime, and I have neurological examinations to perform in the morning...
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Is Larry Summers a sexist?
The answer would depend on whether or not one believes that truth trumps political correctness. I think it does. A great many people do not. For the record, I don't like those people - which is why I feel the need to post this at all.
-------------
Addendum: I don't think many people will understand the point I've made above, so allow me to clarify. I don't care whether men or women are better at math. This is only an issue because a bunch of left-wingers with an agenda read a study, misread the data (either deliberately or in ignorance), and used it to continue to make the case that Larry Summers is a sexist. When the study is analyzed correctly, and put into context with what Summers actually said, the data supports Summers, not the other way around.
I've written before of this, but the dogma of political correctness is an eternal source of friction between myself and the left. The left prides itself on intellectualism and the search for truth, but in reality group-think and stifling of dissent saturates any leftist discourse. You can't have your own opinions, you can only tow the line.
The right, on the other hand, simply lies. I almost prefer that; it's less insidious.
---------------------
Addendum number 2:
"What's interesting is not only that Larry was fundamentally right about the facts (no surprise there), but that much of the mainstream media are still reporting otherwise." -Greg Mankiw (economics professor @ Harvard, former colleague of Summers, author of my favorite econ blog)
-------------
Addendum: I don't think many people will understand the point I've made above, so allow me to clarify. I don't care whether men or women are better at math. This is only an issue because a bunch of left-wingers with an agenda read a study, misread the data (either deliberately or in ignorance), and used it to continue to make the case that Larry Summers is a sexist. When the study is analyzed correctly, and put into context with what Summers actually said, the data supports Summers, not the other way around.
I've written before of this, but the dogma of political correctness is an eternal source of friction between myself and the left. The left prides itself on intellectualism and the search for truth, but in reality group-think and stifling of dissent saturates any leftist discourse. You can't have your own opinions, you can only tow the line.
The right, on the other hand, simply lies. I almost prefer that; it's less insidious.
---------------------
Addendum number 2:
"What's interesting is not only that Larry was fundamentally right about the facts (no surprise there), but that much of the mainstream media are still reporting otherwise." -Greg Mankiw (economics professor @ Harvard, former colleague of Summers, author of my favorite econ blog)
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
John McCain
I just don't get it. The way someone becomes president in this nation is to pander to the base in the primary, and then move back to the middle during the general campaign. John McCain had vast appeal to independents and moderates for years because he wasn't so reflexively 'conservative' on some issues.
McCain has had the GOP nomination locked down for months. What has he been doing since then? Moving to the right, pandering to conservatives, and alienating moderates! Meanwhile, Barack Obama has been moving to the middle ground, to the relief of independents like myself who never took to his populist economic rhetoric.
Its almost like he is trying to lose the election, or he is losing his mind. I guess I'm not too concerned either way, because I obviously want Obama to win. Still, it saddens me some to see McCain go out like this. I always liked him.
P.S. Intrade has Obama 65% to McCain's 31% right now. We may be looking at a landslide. Come to terms with an Obama presidency, because its going to happen!
McCain has had the GOP nomination locked down for months. What has he been doing since then? Moving to the right, pandering to conservatives, and alienating moderates! Meanwhile, Barack Obama has been moving to the middle ground, to the relief of independents like myself who never took to his populist economic rhetoric.
Its almost like he is trying to lose the election, or he is losing his mind. I guess I'm not too concerned either way, because I obviously want Obama to win. Still, it saddens me some to see McCain go out like this. I always liked him.
P.S. Intrade has Obama 65% to McCain's 31% right now. We may be looking at a landslide. Come to terms with an Obama presidency, because its going to happen!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The crux of the issue
A summary of my entire "The Conservative Case for Barack Obama" post:
"Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today's Republican Party."
"Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today's Republican Party."
Monday, June 02, 2008
Beginning a new phase
I just took the USMLE Step 1, an exam that all medical students take after the first two years (which are mostly bookwork). Theoretically, the schedule for the final two years of med school are more relaxing. Clinical rotations begin in a couple of weeks; the rigor will vary per rotation. In some rotations, students are insanely busy (in surgery, 90 hours/week busy); in others, there will be more free time. Less bookwork should hopefully mean more free time on the weekends, as well.
What does this mean for my blog? For one, I'm hoping that I can spend more time on the pieces that I write; putting more thought and effort into them. Looking back on some of my posts for the last couple of years, I feel many are rushed and shallow. Not surprising, given that many of them were written at 2:00 am while I'm knee-deep in notes studying for some insane exam. Also, I want the focus of my writing to shift a bit. I want to begin writing more about my experience as a medical student, about my observations and criticisms of the system, and maybe even interesting encounters. I will still write about politics a lot I am sure, but probably not as much. With the primaries over, theres no way I can write about McCain-Obama for five months. Besides, considering that I am becoming a doctor and not a politician, this shift seems appropriate.
This all being said, I want to briefly summarize my thoughts on my two favorite issues. After all, I'm still on vacation!
Iraq: The progress in stabilizing the nation has been incredible lately. I am actually beginning to think that the Iraqi politicians are capable of something. This does not change my opinion that the US needs to remove the bulk of its forces from Iraq as soon as safely possible. The success as of late means that when we withdraw, we should be particular and cautious about it so as to preserve the gains we have made. Long term US military bases in Iraq should be out of the question, and reiterating that point to Iraqis will destroy one of the remaining good reasons for an Iraqi to join the insurgency. My optimism regarding the long term political viability of Iraq remains low, but then again, if Iraq if anything, it is unpredictable.
Afghanistan: Lets put it this way. I am significantly less optimistic about our long-term success in Afghanistan than in Iraq. The people we are fighting seem bored, so much so that they'll be perfectly content fighting NATO forces for the next twenty years if thats what it takes. And unlike Iraq, I feel like it will be difficult to convince many locals (in say Helmand province) that the foreigners are a threat. This because things seem to be based more on tribalism and less on nationalism than even Iraq. Not to mention the difficulties provided by the opium trade. I'd be curious to read about how NATO is planning its long-term strategy in Afghanistan.
2008 Election: My conviction that Obama will beat McCain in November has begun to waver. In my defense, I did have a caveat up front about that prediction - it assumes that Iraq had gone to shit and the US economy had tanked. In fact, neither has happened. McCain still has his work cut out for him, to be sure; Bush is the most unpopular president ever, the GOP is going for a third term, and the war is still very unpopular. McCain still appears to be in better shape than he was a couple of months ago. Also add in the fact that Hillary Clinton has (in my opinion, deliberately) done enormous damage to Barack Obama, who has a whole host of issues to contend with. Obama isn't nearly as strong as he was a couple of months ago. Right now I'd call the contest a 50/50 split. Intrade, however, gives McCain only a 37% chance of winning.
What does this mean for my blog? For one, I'm hoping that I can spend more time on the pieces that I write; putting more thought and effort into them. Looking back on some of my posts for the last couple of years, I feel many are rushed and shallow. Not surprising, given that many of them were written at 2:00 am while I'm knee-deep in notes studying for some insane exam. Also, I want the focus of my writing to shift a bit. I want to begin writing more about my experience as a medical student, about my observations and criticisms of the system, and maybe even interesting encounters. I will still write about politics a lot I am sure, but probably not as much. With the primaries over, theres no way I can write about McCain-Obama for five months. Besides, considering that I am becoming a doctor and not a politician, this shift seems appropriate.
This all being said, I want to briefly summarize my thoughts on my two favorite issues. After all, I'm still on vacation!
Iraq: The progress in stabilizing the nation has been incredible lately. I am actually beginning to think that the Iraqi politicians are capable of something. This does not change my opinion that the US needs to remove the bulk of its forces from Iraq as soon as safely possible. The success as of late means that when we withdraw, we should be particular and cautious about it so as to preserve the gains we have made. Long term US military bases in Iraq should be out of the question, and reiterating that point to Iraqis will destroy one of the remaining good reasons for an Iraqi to join the insurgency. My optimism regarding the long term political viability of Iraq remains low, but then again, if Iraq if anything, it is unpredictable.
Afghanistan: Lets put it this way. I am significantly less optimistic about our long-term success in Afghanistan than in Iraq. The people we are fighting seem bored, so much so that they'll be perfectly content fighting NATO forces for the next twenty years if thats what it takes. And unlike Iraq, I feel like it will be difficult to convince many locals (in say Helmand province) that the foreigners are a threat. This because things seem to be based more on tribalism and less on nationalism than even Iraq. Not to mention the difficulties provided by the opium trade. I'd be curious to read about how NATO is planning its long-term strategy in Afghanistan.
2008 Election: My conviction that Obama will beat McCain in November has begun to waver. In my defense, I did have a caveat up front about that prediction - it assumes that Iraq had gone to shit and the US economy had tanked. In fact, neither has happened. McCain still has his work cut out for him, to be sure; Bush is the most unpopular president ever, the GOP is going for a third term, and the war is still very unpopular. McCain still appears to be in better shape than he was a couple of months ago. Also add in the fact that Hillary Clinton has (in my opinion, deliberately) done enormous damage to Barack Obama, who has a whole host of issues to contend with. Obama isn't nearly as strong as he was a couple of months ago. Right now I'd call the contest a 50/50 split. Intrade, however, gives McCain only a 37% chance of winning.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Nightmare Ticket
I have a message for Barack Obama. As an independent, I am sure that I speak for many of my kind when I say this: If you pick Hillary Clinton to be your running mate, I'm voting for John McCain.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't "complement each other", as so many lunatics on the news have been claiming lately. The idea that their union would constitute a "dream ticket" is absolutely absurd. Lets face it - having Hillary on the ticket isn't really going to affect what her base does all that much. Most of them will fall in line behind whichever Democrat is nominated. It would be stupid for Obama to pick a VP with so many negatives.
I can guarantee that John McCain is rooting for Hillary. If Obama was so foolish, say goodbye to any Republicans that were thinking about supporting him. Say goodbye to a lot of Independents, too; they get along with McCain just fine. However, pick Hillary for VP, and say hello to a massive mobilization of life-long republicans. These are the people that are upset with Bush, don't particularly love McCain, and since Obama doesn't annoy them all that much, they might have stayed home on election day. Not anymore. The prospect of a Hillary Clinton vice presidency, or worse (remember, RFK was shot in June), will mobilize these people in vast numbers. They will vote not for John McCain, but against Hillary Clinton.
I've said it dozens of times. Anyone who thinks that the gay marriage issue can mobilize the conservative vote hasn't seen anything yet. With defeating Hillary Clinton as a rallying cry, McCain cannot lose. Don't do it Barack. You don't owe her anything. She'll probably poison your food or try to kill you in your sleep, anyway.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't "complement each other", as so many lunatics on the news have been claiming lately. The idea that their union would constitute a "dream ticket" is absolutely absurd. Lets face it - having Hillary on the ticket isn't really going to affect what her base does all that much. Most of them will fall in line behind whichever Democrat is nominated. It would be stupid for Obama to pick a VP with so many negatives.
I can guarantee that John McCain is rooting for Hillary. If Obama was so foolish, say goodbye to any Republicans that were thinking about supporting him. Say goodbye to a lot of Independents, too; they get along with McCain just fine. However, pick Hillary for VP, and say hello to a massive mobilization of life-long republicans. These are the people that are upset with Bush, don't particularly love McCain, and since Obama doesn't annoy them all that much, they might have stayed home on election day. Not anymore. The prospect of a Hillary Clinton vice presidency, or worse (remember, RFK was shot in June), will mobilize these people in vast numbers. They will vote not for John McCain, but against Hillary Clinton.
I've said it dozens of times. Anyone who thinks that the gay marriage issue can mobilize the conservative vote hasn't seen anything yet. With defeating Hillary Clinton as a rallying cry, McCain cannot lose. Don't do it Barack. You don't owe her anything. She'll probably poison your food or try to kill you in your sleep, anyway.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Leaving Iraq
It has been appropriate to withdraw for a long time now. Just in case there was any confusion left, however, a decisive event towards moving in that direction has occurred. One knows that it is time to go when the Shia leader al Sistani has declared that attacks on US Troops are acceptable.
Sistani is a moderate but extremely influential Iraqi Shia leader; easily the most powerful in Iraq. In the first few years of the invasion, he issued non-violence religious orders regarding US troops. He also kept Iraqi civil war at bay, by prohibiting his followers from retaliating against Sunni provocations. Finally, he urged his followers to vote in the US sponsored elections, which were thus a success only because of Sistani.
Hopefully the Shia government will ask US forces to leave soon. If they don't, we still should anyways. We have won the hearts and minds of nobody; the Iraqis don't want us there, and they don't appreciate the sacrifices our soldiers have made. Al Qaeda isn't going to take over the country; neither is Iran for that matter. Its long past time we let Iraqis sort things out for themselves.
Sistani is a moderate but extremely influential Iraqi Shia leader; easily the most powerful in Iraq. In the first few years of the invasion, he issued non-violence religious orders regarding US troops. He also kept Iraqi civil war at bay, by prohibiting his followers from retaliating against Sunni provocations. Finally, he urged his followers to vote in the US sponsored elections, which were thus a success only because of Sistani.
Hopefully the Shia government will ask US forces to leave soon. If they don't, we still should anyways. We have won the hearts and minds of nobody; the Iraqis don't want us there, and they don't appreciate the sacrifices our soldiers have made. Al Qaeda isn't going to take over the country; neither is Iran for that matter. Its long past time we let Iraqis sort things out for themselves.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Betting on the Clintons being evil
On Intrade, the contract "Dropout.June08.Clinton" is currently trading at about 81%. That's about 4:1 odds on a short-sell; it's essentially a bet to see whether or not Clinton drags this thing out to the convention. Doing so would be her best way to damage Obama in the long run. She needs Obama to lose if she is to make a run in 2012.
This might be the most overvalued Intrade stock I've ever seen.
This might be the most overvalued Intrade stock I've ever seen.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact
It has been terrifying to watch the formation of an unholy alliance between the Clinton campaign and Fox News. It reminds me of the Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact in 1939 - and Barack Obama is Poland. Hillary Clinton and Fox News are mortal enemies, but the destruction of Barack Obama is a more pressing concern for both parties. Both have something to gain from Obama’s destruction: a Clinton run in 2012, and a McCain victory in 2008.
The Clinton camp will create the narrative, and Fox will continue to amplify it. Already we are seeing Clinton’s “feminist” surrogates lining up to accuse Obama of being a sexist; this to ensure that Obama never wins the female vote. Clinton will continue to pretend to be the friend of Michigan and Florida voters, to help McCain win those states in November. Meanwhile, Fox will continue to claim that Obama can’t win the white vote, and remind voters of Jeremiah Wright and “bittergate”. Obama does not have a white problem, he has a regional problem – he doesn’t do well in Appalachia. No surprise there – it’s poor, economically stagnant, uneducated, white, and racist; in other words, Hillary Clinton’s base.
The only people who could put a stop to this are the super delegates. A massive exodus from Clinton to Obama would be a firm rebuke to her divisive tactics and make a Democrat victory in November possible. However, I am not optimistic that the Democratic leadership will be either decisive or courageous. Over the last few years they have only shown themselves to be a bunch of indecisive, sniveling cowards; I don’t see why this time will be any different. How pathetic. This sad state of affairs reminds me why I am not a Democrat.
The Clinton camp will create the narrative, and Fox will continue to amplify it. Already we are seeing Clinton’s “feminist” surrogates lining up to accuse Obama of being a sexist; this to ensure that Obama never wins the female vote. Clinton will continue to pretend to be the friend of Michigan and Florida voters, to help McCain win those states in November. Meanwhile, Fox will continue to claim that Obama can’t win the white vote, and remind voters of Jeremiah Wright and “bittergate”. Obama does not have a white problem, he has a regional problem – he doesn’t do well in Appalachia. No surprise there – it’s poor, economically stagnant, uneducated, white, and racist; in other words, Hillary Clinton’s base.
The only people who could put a stop to this are the super delegates. A massive exodus from Clinton to Obama would be a firm rebuke to her divisive tactics and make a Democrat victory in November possible. However, I am not optimistic that the Democratic leadership will be either decisive or courageous. Over the last few years they have only shown themselves to be a bunch of indecisive, sniveling cowards; I don’t see why this time will be any different. How pathetic. This sad state of affairs reminds me why I am not a Democrat.
Sore loser, sore loser
Hillary Clinton recently blamed her imminent defeat on the media, claiming it has been sexist. Right. Hillary has been dead in the water since February. Had the roles been switched...had it been Hillary with an insurmountable delegate lead over Barack, what would the narrative have been? Hillary would have laughed at Obama for continuing to campaign. She would have declared victory months ago.
It was the media that allowed Hillary to keep in this race. The Clinton campaign has used the media to dictate the narrative for months. First it was pledged delegates. Then it was "big states". Then it was the popular vote. Now its working class white people. According to the Clintons, the criteria we should use to pick the nominee is changing every other week, and the media laps it up. Hillary shouldn't be criticizing the media, she should be thanking it graciously for allowing her to continue her campaign for far longer than she should have been able to.
Just in case anyone is wondering why Clinton keeps winning "the white vote", it has far less to do with race than region. Obama can win the white vote; states don't get any more rural and white than Iowa. What he cannot win is the Appalachian vote. The Appalachian region extends through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky...all big Clinton wins. Economically stagnant, uneducated, and white, Appalachia is Clinton's base. I'm not impressed.
It was the media that allowed Hillary to keep in this race. The Clinton campaign has used the media to dictate the narrative for months. First it was pledged delegates. Then it was "big states". Then it was the popular vote. Now its working class white people. According to the Clintons, the criteria we should use to pick the nominee is changing every other week, and the media laps it up. Hillary shouldn't be criticizing the media, she should be thanking it graciously for allowing her to continue her campaign for far longer than she should have been able to.
Just in case anyone is wondering why Clinton keeps winning "the white vote", it has far less to do with race than region. Obama can win the white vote; states don't get any more rural and white than Iowa. What he cannot win is the Appalachian vote. The Appalachian region extends through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky...all big Clinton wins. Economically stagnant, uneducated, and white, Appalachia is Clinton's base. I'm not impressed.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Its over!!!
Granted, people who have been paying attention know that Obama won the nomination a long time ago. This has only gone on so long because the media wouldn't accept that Obama won until he delivered a "knockout blow" to Hillary. Last night, Obama delivered. North Carolina was a humiliation for HRC, who believed that she was going to keep it close. Indiana, with its abundant blue collar, working class, non-college educated white folk, aka "Hillary's base", should have went strongly for Hillary. Polls showed her winning by 6+ percent.
In reality, she couldn't even give her victory speech with confidence, because Indiana was still up in the air at that point. Bill was standing next to her, and he was absolutely furious. His face was as red as a monkey's ass. The Clintons knew last night that this race was over. I am so proud of Indiana, for being the state that finally destroyed the Clinton machine. Its been an exciting election thus far, but I'm glad its over. It has been a huge distraction, and I have work to do.
...and it most certainly is over. John McCain doesn't stand even a remote chance of beating Obama in November.
In reality, she couldn't even give her victory speech with confidence, because Indiana was still up in the air at that point. Bill was standing next to her, and he was absolutely furious. His face was as red as a monkey's ass. The Clintons knew last night that this race was over. I am so proud of Indiana, for being the state that finally destroyed the Clinton machine. Its been an exciting election thus far, but I'm glad its over. It has been a huge distraction, and I have work to do.
...and it most certainly is over. John McCain doesn't stand even a remote chance of beating Obama in November.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
George Bush's third term?
Someone asked Hillary if she knew of a single economist who thought her summer gas tax holiday was a good idea.
"Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists."
Classic. Its incredible how broad the census against this idea really is. It spans from the far left all the way to the far right. And yet, in the face of overwhelming agreement that this idea sucks, Hillary didn't backtrack. Instead, she became more adamant and more insistent that her idea was the correct one. She is now challenging Congress to pass legislation, to force everyone to choose to side "with the oil companies or with the American people" (barf).
This its just the latest illustration of a picture that has developed in many people's minds about what Hillary really represents. Her campaign reeks of nepotism; she is surrounded by yes-men and incompetent cronies. Her political tactics are vile and of the lowest order (she had to go negative early because she has no real vision of her own). She says offensive and dangerous things about other nations; most recently, claiming that we would "obliterate" all of Iran. She is a proven, pathological liar; indeed she does it so commonly that now it isn't even considered a big deal when she does. Notice how quickly the "sniper fire" controversy died down. Even many of her policies are outlandish and ridiculous - and yet, she egotistically clings to them in defiance. This isn't about whats best for the country, its about proving that she is right.
Hillary Clinton sure has a lot in common with George W. Bush. It is she, not John McCain, who most accurately would represent Bush's "third term" in office. Even now, her poll numbers are strengthening. She is poised to win Indiana and could even upset Obama in North Carolina. Polls now show Hillary beating McCain handily in a general election, while Obama-McCain is quite close. I've spent months trying to convince conservatives to support Barack Obama during this election cycle, citing his many strengths as a unifier and a stimulus for change. Now I'm going to urge conservatives, especially ones in Indiana, to rally around Obama for a different reason:
Do it, or be prepared to watch Hillary Clinton give an inaugural address in January.
"Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists."
Classic. Its incredible how broad the census against this idea really is. It spans from the far left all the way to the far right. And yet, in the face of overwhelming agreement that this idea sucks, Hillary didn't backtrack. Instead, she became more adamant and more insistent that her idea was the correct one. She is now challenging Congress to pass legislation, to force everyone to choose to side "with the oil companies or with the American people" (barf).
This its just the latest illustration of a picture that has developed in many people's minds about what Hillary really represents. Her campaign reeks of nepotism; she is surrounded by yes-men and incompetent cronies. Her political tactics are vile and of the lowest order (she had to go negative early because she has no real vision of her own). She says offensive and dangerous things about other nations; most recently, claiming that we would "obliterate" all of Iran. She is a proven, pathological liar; indeed she does it so commonly that now it isn't even considered a big deal when she does. Notice how quickly the "sniper fire" controversy died down. Even many of her policies are outlandish and ridiculous - and yet, she egotistically clings to them in defiance. This isn't about whats best for the country, its about proving that she is right.
Hillary Clinton sure has a lot in common with George W. Bush. It is she, not John McCain, who most accurately would represent Bush's "third term" in office. Even now, her poll numbers are strengthening. She is poised to win Indiana and could even upset Obama in North Carolina. Polls now show Hillary beating McCain handily in a general election, while Obama-McCain is quite close. I've spent months trying to convince conservatives to support Barack Obama during this election cycle, citing his many strengths as a unifier and a stimulus for change. Now I'm going to urge conservatives, especially ones in Indiana, to rally around Obama for a different reason:
Do it, or be prepared to watch Hillary Clinton give an inaugural address in January.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
One way to not get the Iranians to stop pursuing nuclear weapons:
Threaten to "obliterate" their nation. There seems to be a constant stream of American politicians who are willing to talk about nuking Iran. Most of the GOP candidates in one debate refused to rule out the use of preemptive nuclear weapons; only McCain and Ron Paul dissented. And now Hillary Clinton is talking of annihilating Iran? If I was an Iranian, I'd be pushing even harder for a strong nuclear program to deter a US attack.
I don't need to write a post talking about how stupid Hillary Clinton is, of course. There is not a single person who would ever read my blog that would be a Hillary supporter. My (small) reader base consists of only two types of people: bored, young, internet-saavy liberals who are well educated, and thus hate Hillary. Or family and friends who are educated and conservative, and thus hate Hillary. But I did want to put this out there because this is really the kind of thing that McCain or Obama fans should be jumping on to illustrate just how unpalatable a Hillary presidency would be. She isn't even the Democrat nominee yet and she is already pissing off other countries.
I can't believe I'm blogging at 1:45 am, the morning of my pharmacology final exam.
I don't need to write a post talking about how stupid Hillary Clinton is, of course. There is not a single person who would ever read my blog that would be a Hillary supporter. My (small) reader base consists of only two types of people: bored, young, internet-saavy liberals who are well educated, and thus hate Hillary. Or family and friends who are educated and conservative, and thus hate Hillary. But I did want to put this out there because this is really the kind of thing that McCain or Obama fans should be jumping on to illustrate just how unpalatable a Hillary presidency would be. She isn't even the Democrat nominee yet and she is already pissing off other countries.
I can't believe I'm blogging at 1:45 am, the morning of my pharmacology final exam.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Message to Reverend Wright:
PUT A SOCK IN IT.
Who is this guy working for, anyway? I just saw Reverend Wright give his side of the story about all of the controversy as of late. He has a sharp wit and a quick tongue, I'll give him that. And I personally don't have a problem with what he was saying. However, I suspect that I'm more open minded and more capable of synthesizing words than most people in Indiana. Most people in Indiana aren't going to be OK with the Reverend's talk. It was arrogant, condescending, and will make people wonder why Obama associates with him at all. Those words will be playing on the news nonstop from now until the Indiana Primary on May 6th.
On Super Tuesday, I called the Democratic Primary for Barack Obama. The type of scenario that it would have taken for him to lose the nomination was too far fetched to take seriously. For the first time since February 5th, I am doubting my conclusion. Obama isn't going to win Indiana; not after that speech by Reverend Wright. At the same time, polls are showing him doing worse against McCain and Hillary better. That far-fetched scenario where Obama somehow loses the nomination is no longer a stretch. I already dumped all of my Obama stock on Intrade; at 80% to win, it was way overvalued. The Democratic race is a tie at this point. When Indiana goes for Hillary, the balance is going to shift in her favor.
At least I still have plan B: John McCain.
Who is this guy working for, anyway? I just saw Reverend Wright give his side of the story about all of the controversy as of late. He has a sharp wit and a quick tongue, I'll give him that. And I personally don't have a problem with what he was saying. However, I suspect that I'm more open minded and more capable of synthesizing words than most people in Indiana. Most people in Indiana aren't going to be OK with the Reverend's talk. It was arrogant, condescending, and will make people wonder why Obama associates with him at all. Those words will be playing on the news nonstop from now until the Indiana Primary on May 6th.
On Super Tuesday, I called the Democratic Primary for Barack Obama. The type of scenario that it would have taken for him to lose the nomination was too far fetched to take seriously. For the first time since February 5th, I am doubting my conclusion. Obama isn't going to win Indiana; not after that speech by Reverend Wright. At the same time, polls are showing him doing worse against McCain and Hillary better. That far-fetched scenario where Obama somehow loses the nomination is no longer a stretch. I already dumped all of my Obama stock on Intrade; at 80% to win, it was way overvalued. The Democratic race is a tie at this point. When Indiana goes for Hillary, the balance is going to shift in her favor.
At least I still have plan B: John McCain.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The timing couldn't possibly have been better.
My previous post came only hours before an ABC-hosted debate between Obama and Clinton in Philadelphia. A relevant comment from my post:
"...the discourse [in MSM reporting] is so superficial. The "debates" that they have on most of these programs are so inane that they barely scratch the surface of what really matters in an issue."
In that post I cited CNN as an example, but now I can cite the performance of the ABC moderators in the Philly debate to further prove my point. The Washington Post says that the real loser of the debate was ABC. To watch a five minute video that highlights some of the "important issues" brought up in the debate, there is one posted here. Finally, the ABC news website is being flooded with literally thousands of angry viewer comments. There are 15,000 and counting at this point. The ABC site with comments can be seen here, but I'll pick out just a few representative samples:
This is exactly the reason I canceled my cable subscription this year. The major media has been destroying this country for some time now, and the saga continues. This was not a debate over politics, this is a joke. These people must think we are just dumb sheep that don't care about actual issues. I felt like I got dumber watching that "debate".
The mainstream media's disdain for the American public has hit a new low after last nights debate. It is clear that the moderators' impression of Americans is that we are an uneducated hoard with a sick craving for confrontation. Furthermore, their assumption is that our collective intellect cannot comprehend a discussion of serious issues that affect our world.Your entire network has framed this *debate* in nothing but bellicose noise. Look no further than the debate report title - "Philly Fight Night". How does this pass for news? How do your staff members pass for professional news journalists? Do you hate your country enough to make petty attacks and gossip the criteria on which we select our president?
It's about lack of substance and a failure to deal with the critical issues facing our country. I know many McCain supporters, including my father, who were just as disgusted by last night's debate as I was.
What a complete and utter disgrace your hosts and their questions made of this debate. Instead of focusing on real issues, you chose to question Sen. Obama's patriotism? Ask about the capital gains tax? Talk about flag pins? Shame on all of you. I will no longer watch ABC This was truly reprehensible.
"...the discourse [in MSM reporting] is so superficial. The "debates" that they have on most of these programs are so inane that they barely scratch the surface of what really matters in an issue."
In that post I cited CNN as an example, but now I can cite the performance of the ABC moderators in the Philly debate to further prove my point. The Washington Post says that the real loser of the debate was ABC. To watch a five minute video that highlights some of the "important issues" brought up in the debate, there is one posted here. Finally, the ABC news website is being flooded with literally thousands of angry viewer comments. There are 15,000 and counting at this point. The ABC site with comments can be seen here, but I'll pick out just a few representative samples:
This is exactly the reason I canceled my cable subscription this year. The major media has been destroying this country for some time now, and the saga continues. This was not a debate over politics, this is a joke. These people must think we are just dumb sheep that don't care about actual issues. I felt like I got dumber watching that "debate".
The mainstream media's disdain for the American public has hit a new low after last nights debate. It is clear that the moderators' impression of Americans is that we are an uneducated hoard with a sick craving for confrontation. Furthermore, their assumption is that our collective intellect cannot comprehend a discussion of serious issues that affect our world.Your entire network has framed this *debate* in nothing but bellicose noise. Look no further than the debate report title - "Philly Fight Night". How does this pass for news? How do your staff members pass for professional news journalists? Do you hate your country enough to make petty attacks and gossip the criteria on which we select our president?
It's about lack of substance and a failure to deal with the critical issues facing our country. I know many McCain supporters, including my father, who were just as disgusted by last night's debate as I was.
What a complete and utter disgrace your hosts and their questions made of this debate. Instead of focusing on real issues, you chose to question Sen. Obama's patriotism? Ask about the capital gains tax? Talk about flag pins? Shame on all of you. I will no longer watch ABC This was truly reprehensible.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
On the MSM
Bill Clinton recently suggested that young voters are easily fooled into voting for Barack Obama. On Digg, one user left a comment that I thought was fantastic:
Bill Clinton has it exactly backwards: Hillary is stronger with older voters because these voters are more likely to get their news mostly from the MSM, while younger voters rely more on the Web. On the Web, Hillary's spin gets shot to smithereens in seconds, whereas it has a much longer halflife on the MSM. The MSM is far more manageable by candidates than the Web is. The Web EMPOWERS its readers to get answers to their questions; they don't need to settle for and second-guess the narrow, cautiously worded narratives that the MSM puts out. For this reason, the MSM not only promotes ignorance, it also promotes self-mistrust in one's understanding of the political landscape (because consciously or not one is aware of the fact that the MSM is not being 100% level in its reporting).
Getting political information from the MSM is a terrible idea. This isn't because I believe big corporations are pulling the strings behind the scenes, or that its pure and deliberate propaganda. No...getting info from the MSM is a bad idea because the discourse is so superficial. The "debates" that they have on most of these programs are so inane that they barely scratch the surface of what really matters in an issue. Want proof? Watch CNN, and then watch CNN-International. It is undeniable: CNN purposefully dumbs down their content for American audiences.
Bill Clinton has it exactly backwards: Hillary is stronger with older voters because these voters are more likely to get their news mostly from the MSM, while younger voters rely more on the Web. On the Web, Hillary's spin gets shot to smithereens in seconds, whereas it has a much longer halflife on the MSM. The MSM is far more manageable by candidates than the Web is. The Web EMPOWERS its readers to get answers to their questions; they don't need to settle for and second-guess the narrow, cautiously worded narratives that the MSM puts out. For this reason, the MSM not only promotes ignorance, it also promotes self-mistrust in one's understanding of the political landscape (because consciously or not one is aware of the fact that the MSM is not being 100% level in its reporting).
Getting political information from the MSM is a terrible idea. This isn't because I believe big corporations are pulling the strings behind the scenes, or that its pure and deliberate propaganda. No...getting info from the MSM is a bad idea because the discourse is so superficial. The "debates" that they have on most of these programs are so inane that they barely scratch the surface of what really matters in an issue. Want proof? Watch CNN, and then watch CNN-International. It is undeniable: CNN purposefully dumbs down their content for American audiences.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Why is the US Military still fighting al Sadr?
In recent days, the Iraqi city of Basra has seen intense fighting between rival Shia groups. One is financed and trained by, and politically tied to, Iran. A reasonable person might think this is the group that the US Military is fighting, but alas, that person would be wrong. We are fighting along side the Iranian-backed Badr / rebranded ISCI, against local nationalists led by Muqtada al Sadr.
I've said it before, al Sadr is "anti-American" only in the sense that he wants us to withdraw from Iraq. So do all of the Sunni groups that are cooperating with us in Anbar since the surge! We still work with them, don't we? If someone was really interested in the long term stability of a place like Iraq, they would realize that al Sadr is the type of person who could help make that happen. He is a nationalist, keen to curb Iranian influence, and willing to join forces with Sunnis for the sake of "Iraq".
Iraq is the perfect setup for Iran. First we take out Iran's number 1 enemy in Saddam Hussein. Then we sacrifice thousands of US lives and billions of dollars fighting other enemies of Iran; Al Qaeda, the Sunnis in Anbar, and even local Shia nationalists like al Sadr. We are doing all of Iran's dirty work for it, protecting the elected government that Iran more or less owns, and all the while Iran gets to berate the US every day for occupying a Muslim country.
I've got a longer post on this topic coming, but I had to get this one off my chest.
I've said it before, al Sadr is "anti-American" only in the sense that he wants us to withdraw from Iraq. So do all of the Sunni groups that are cooperating with us in Anbar since the surge! We still work with them, don't we? If someone was really interested in the long term stability of a place like Iraq, they would realize that al Sadr is the type of person who could help make that happen. He is a nationalist, keen to curb Iranian influence, and willing to join forces with Sunnis for the sake of "Iraq".
Iraq is the perfect setup for Iran. First we take out Iran's number 1 enemy in Saddam Hussein. Then we sacrifice thousands of US lives and billions of dollars fighting other enemies of Iran; Al Qaeda, the Sunnis in Anbar, and even local Shia nationalists like al Sadr. We are doing all of Iran's dirty work for it, protecting the elected government that Iran more or less owns, and all the while Iran gets to berate the US every day for occupying a Muslim country.
I've got a longer post on this topic coming, but I had to get this one off my chest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)