What Would FDR Do?

Kevin Drum, responding to Joe Lieberman's suggestion that George W. Bush is closer to the "hawkish internationalism" of past Democratic Presidents, asks the essential question:

"Given their actual records, does anyone seriously think that FDR, Truman, or JFK would have invaded Iraq if any of them had been president after 9/11? Anyone?"

Anytime I hear people suggest there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans I always come back to this. Not even our most hawkish Democratic candidate for President would have gone into Iraq in response to the attacks on 9/11.

Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says

Good News!

Does this mean the troops can come home now?

Productivity

The Newshoggers: Dems Will Ensure Motion To Impeach Cheney Goes Nowhere: "Hoyer has backing from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers [to block Kucinich's effort to introduce an impeachment resolution against Cheney] who said ''If the speaker were to let this thing out of the box, considering the number of legislative issues we have pending, it could create a split that could effect our productivity for the rest of the Congress.'"

You say that like it would be a bad thing.

Remember, Democrats were elected to be obstructionists.

It Lives!

It was inevitable. The Clinton Body Count has returned.

I can remember in the early years of the Bush presidency someone started a Bush body count. It was clearly meant to be a parody of this bit of Clinton era nonsense.

The joke ended on 9/11.

The Politics of Distraction

Commentary » Blog Archive » First They Came for Hillary Clinton…: "It is widely assumed, on both Left and Right, that Hillary Clinton and her campaign made a grave error by responding to the criticism of her performance in last Tuesday’s Democratic debate by complaining of a “pile-on.” Bill Kristol, for one, called it a “foolish overreaction.” I’m not so sure. Whether intentionally or not, Hillary managed to change the terms under which the debate has been discussed in the days since. In its immediate aftermath, the debate was seen as a referendum on her policy slipperiness, and one in which she did not come off well. Now, however, the discussion of the debate has become something quite different."

What we’re talking about now is the extent to which it is fair to criticize her. ...

The Republicans are very good at the politics of distraction. When something starts to attract unwanted political attention, they are very good at doing something that changes the dialog away from the thing they don't want to talk about and on to more comfortable ground.

Hillary exposed herself in the last debate with her inconclusive response on the issue of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. It exposed here on two fronts: (1) on the issue itself, which is potentially explosive because a lot of independents are pissed off about the immigration and (2) by feeding the narrative that she is a double-talker who never takes sides on anything controversial (at least not without poll-testing it).

We aren't talking about either of those things any more. By subtly putting out the idea that it was somehow unfair for a bunch of men to "pile on" against a woman, the Hillary campaign has effectively turned the debate into one which no one really wants to have. The question of how to treat female politicians is a sensitive one for many. I'm sure even those who would disagree with the characterization are uncomfortable saying that it isn't true for fear of saying something that could be misinterpreted.

The end result? A couple of days of fooferall about women in politics which will quickly die down and an almost complete abandonment of the original questions that started the controversy.

I've always thought that Clinton, amongst the leading Dem candidates, was the smartest operator when it comes to using techniques perfected by the Republicans. If JPod is right, this may very well be one of the best examples of just that.

Game Over Man

In the previous post I said that the 'Halo 3' player differed from a real terrorist in that the player didn't actually die. I forgot, however, that some terrorists believe that their actions will give them another (better) life.

So maybe the similarity is closer than I realized.

Taking Them With You

Clive Thompson: 'Halo 3' turned me into a suicide bomber

In all seriousness, I think Thompson makes a good point about how the inequalities in skills can sometimes lead the less skilled to adopt desperate tactics (asymmetrical warfare) in order to at least keep the other guy from winning. How many times in movies and books have we seen someone who is hopelessly outgunned still achieve a sort of victory by taking the other guy with them?

Of course real suicide bombing is at a whole other level of desperation than the simulated kind Thompson experienced on Halo 3 (for one thing, Thompson is still alive and can continue to play). But at least this little glimpse into the mindset of the truly desperate can be enlightening.

Whiners

Frustration Builds for Democrats: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking at a recent news conference, said she doesn't blame Americans for giving Congress low marks, given that the party hasn't 'been effective in ending the war in Iraq.' She added: 'If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well.'"

And what kind of message do you think it sends when the Speaker gives her self low marks?

Instead of whining about it why don't you do something?