Steve King: The Opposite of Right
Well, this al Qaeda loves Obama B.S. is 180 degrees wrong. It doesn't just miss the truth, it's as wrong as it could get. It's...it's...it's the anti-truth. It's not folks like Obama who are helping out al Qaeda, it's folks like George Bush and his supporters. Steve King is probably a moron...but it's not his stupidity that's running the show here. He's obviously just flailing around looking for something bad to say about Obama.
A few points:
1. First: what al Qaeda actually wants is irrelevant, and the very fact that King focuses on that suggests that he really is just trying to find the most negative thing he can think of to say. It's the political equivalent of saying that Obama has cooties.
2. Second: what matters is what al Qaeda should want. What al Qaeda should want is a continuation of Bush's policies. No one has ever done more to help Osama bin Laden than George W. Bush and company. They were the ones who let OBL get away at Tora Bora, allowing both OBL and al Qaeda to live to fight another day when they could have been crushed. They were the ones who let the war in Afghanistan slide while pursuing an unrelated war. They were the ones who tricked the country into attacking OBL's enemy, depleting America and its military in a three trillion dollar war, and in essence conducting a recruiting campaign for al Qaeda. They were also the ones who managed to turn world opinion--perhaps never more pro-American than after 9/11--as far against us as it has ever been.
No, Representative Steve King is not right. He's not even just wrong. He's anti-right.
But a disturbingly large number of people seem to agree with him. As is so often the case, we really have to hope that this is just a cynical campaign ploy. Because the alternative is that Representative King--and a fair number of folks in his quadrant of the political spectrum--are so mistaken as to border on being delusional.
Well, this al Qaeda loves Obama B.S. is 180 degrees wrong. It doesn't just miss the truth, it's as wrong as it could get. It's...it's...it's the anti-truth. It's not folks like Obama who are helping out al Qaeda, it's folks like George Bush and his supporters. Steve King is probably a moron...but it's not his stupidity that's running the show here. He's obviously just flailing around looking for something bad to say about Obama.
A few points:
1. First: what al Qaeda actually wants is irrelevant, and the very fact that King focuses on that suggests that he really is just trying to find the most negative thing he can think of to say. It's the political equivalent of saying that Obama has cooties.
2. Second: what matters is what al Qaeda should want. What al Qaeda should want is a continuation of Bush's policies. No one has ever done more to help Osama bin Laden than George W. Bush and company. They were the ones who let OBL get away at Tora Bora, allowing both OBL and al Qaeda to live to fight another day when they could have been crushed. They were the ones who let the war in Afghanistan slide while pursuing an unrelated war. They were the ones who tricked the country into attacking OBL's enemy, depleting America and its military in a three trillion dollar war, and in essence conducting a recruiting campaign for al Qaeda. They were also the ones who managed to turn world opinion--perhaps never more pro-American than after 9/11--as far against us as it has ever been.
No, Representative Steve King is not right. He's not even just wrong. He's anti-right.
But a disturbingly large number of people seem to agree with him. As is so often the case, we really have to hope that this is just a cynical campaign ploy. Because the alternative is that Representative King--and a fair number of folks in his quadrant of the political spectrum--are so mistaken as to border on being delusional.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:05 PM
9 Comments:
Bravo -- such "anti-right" spewing from an elected representative calls for a response.
Sadly, your alternative, "that Representative King--and a fair number of folks in his quadrant of the political spectrum--are so mistaken as to border on being delusional" appears to be the case.
Consider, for example, the number of Americans believing Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, or (to my mind, worse), the even larger number of number of troops who believe Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks!
And this belief is widespread even though Mr Bush himself has stated that "[W]e've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th"
Like it or not, we face widespread delusions.
King cited Obama's pledge to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, his father's Muslim roots in Kenya and his middle name, Hussein, which King said has a meaning to terrorists.
He's an asshole. I've often written here that a good gauge is how the parties, and in this case the presidential canfdiates, handle their extremists. Sen. McCain has come through here.
However, King's first point is arguable, and he should've stuck to it. I do not agree with your analysis of the situation and the ramifications of a quick withdrawal from Iraq, which Sen. Obama either advocates or doesn't, depending on whether you listen to him or his advisors like Samantha Power.
[Or his hedge in a 60 Minutes interview.]
I do believe electing as our next president someone who will pull the plug in Iraq and call it the end of the war is a force multiplier for al-Qaeda.
Eventually some actual positions and facts must emerge, and they will be the proper topics of discussion and who we shall vote for. I'm so sick of talking about talk and spinning the spin and the etc.
Surely there's an underlying reality lying under all our blather someplace.
Well, first, I think it's clear that Obama has no intention of pulling out too early. His campaign has already laid the groundwork for going a little slower.
But, second, even a fast pullout can't be anything like the boon to aQ that going in in the first place was. Tho, still, we have to deal with the pooch we've actually screwed. I really think that what we face is this: McCain, who has to pretend like he's willing to stay for a hundred years in order to keep his base on board, and two Dems who have to pretend like they'll be out by last Tuesday in order to keep much of theirs. But in reality, McCain will try to get out pretty slowly (but not 100 years), and both of the Dems want to start heading for the door, but not as quickly as they have to say they do.
I really wish they could all be honest with us, but they can't. I don't blame any of them for not being totally honest on this. I DO tend to agree that we've given it long enough and gotten no real signs of progress in return (unless you count the surge, which really only got things back to bad from horrible). Time to put some pressure on the Iraqi government.
The best guess we've got on this is the Iraq Study Group, and that's what they said, too.
we have to deal with the pooch we've actually screwed
Indeed. McCain is running on that, that Obama is running against the past, the original decision. Nice rhetorical riff for the Old Man.
Well, first, I think it's clear that Obama has no intention of pulling out too early. His campaign has already laid the groundwork for going a little slower.
Well, second, I think Obama is running on the confusion between those who want a bailout and those who suspect he won't be so irresponsible.
I really wish they could all be honest with us, but they can't. I don't blame any of them for not being totally honest on this.
Aha. This is politics. But McCain is more honest with the hyperbole of "100 years" than the other side is being.
As for the rest of what you wrote, that would be substance, on which persons of good conscience---and best guess---should be able to respectfully disagree.
[My very good Democrat friend at the office thinks Joe Biden as Obama's VP could fill a lot of foreign policy holes: not Bushist, not leftist. I agree. Word up.]
Well, I don't agree with most of this, but experience has shown me that it won't do any good to actually discuss specifics. So I'll just register my disagreement and move on.
Thanks for taking the time to write a non-answer.
Moving on,
http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolving-obama-and-calculating-obama.html
"In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an 'absolute obligation' to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success."
The Globe continued, "'The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,' he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. 'It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.'"
Not bad. But that was back in
2004. Dunno what he thinks now. But if he hasn't changed, a lot of his supporters are gonna be pissed.
Tom,
How do you figure that us leaving Iraq quickly will lead to success for aQ? Right now they have a great rallying cause, Americans are in Iraq, oppressing our people, and forcing an American form of government on them. We leave and they lose that. Sure they can still say, America came in and destroyed our county and forcibly removed our leader, but this can be countered with ease. Offer money, period end of discussion, no strings attached, no conditions, no requirement to pay it back, nothing, just money to help rebuild. You do have to pay for what you break, but you don't have to take it home with you. Do that and while they might still dislike us I doubt they will make an effort to attack us at home, heck even without the money I doubt they would do that.
The Iraqi people are not highly religious like the Saudis, yes they are separated by sects of Islam but in reality these are more ethnic than religious at this point in time. Islamic fundamentalism isn't the reason these people are attacking our troops, it's because we are an occupying force who as best can be seen by most of them people has made the situation worse. Prior to the invasion public utilities worked, today they still are out of operation in many parts of the country. Prior to the invasion the odds of your house being stormed by armed troops, while a threat from the secret police was less than it is today. These people don't want to kill us at home, they just want us to go away.
It's time to leave Iraq and go after the real bad guys hiding in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Something which by the way Obama and Obama alone has said he will do. al Qaeda doesn't love Obama, they fear him.
During the summer immigration debates, Steve King was responsible for the single most phenomenal five minutes of C-SPAN I have ever watched. His fortune was made in construction, and he was very pro-big-wall.
To make sure none of his fellow house members missed the nuance of the idea 'big wall,' he brought a bunch of painted cardboard and foam rubber onto the House floor with him, and proceeded to (live on CSPAN, before my eyes) build a scale model, explaining it as he put it together. Live on the House floor.
Best summer ever.
Well, that's a principled argument, tehr0x0r, although I don't agree. I think a quick US departure will simply leave a power vacuum and room to operate in the less populated areas, therefore the lack of Iraqi sympathy for them and their cause is secondary if not moot.
I'm not quite there with al-Qaeda fearing Obama either, but I'd sure like to be wrong about that, as he has a better than even chance of becoming our next president.
As to what Obama will actually do, I'm not really sure and can't tell by his rhetoric and the nods and winks from his advisers.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home