John Judis has some advice for Barack Obama, including the following paragraph, which makes it difficult to take the rest seriously:
Reagan and the Republicans ran against Carter and the Democrats in the same way as Roosevelt ran against Hoover. Baker and Atwater had studied Roosevelt’s and the Democrats’ 1934 campaign. (They even swiped “stay the course” from FDR.) But Obama and his advisors have been reluctant to stigmatize George W. Bush and the Republicans–perhaps out of a spirit of bipartisanship.That’s a mistake, as Obama seems finally to have realized.
Emphasis mine. Is this man insane? Or is this some new meaning of the word “reluctant” with which I was previously unfamiliar? Perhaps he means they’ve been doing it 24/7/365 “reluctantly”?
What was Roosevelt running for in 1934?
McGehee Says:
March 15th, 2010 at 10:16 am
What was Roosevelt running for in 1934?
I was wondering about that, too. Certainly, it wasn’t the presidency. It would be another two years before he ran for re-election.
Could it have been “King of the World”? How about “Emperor of the Universe”?
Maybe Judis can tell us.
Rewriting history….so easy a caveman can do it.
Reagan and the Republicans ran against Carter and the Democrats in the same way as Roosevelt ran against Hoover.
Reagan blamed Carter for being too laissez-faire?
This must be the same bearded-Spock universe where Alex Jones is a Pulitzer-winning magazine editor and the Samizdata gang are all Labour Party MPs.
Rand, I think you’re too blinded by your Obama opposition to recognize how much more pointed and partisan he could choose to be. Obama will usually refer to the Bush administration in vague, sweeping terms, e.g. as “the people who got us into this mess.” He could be calling out individual Republicans in Congress for votes that exploded the deficit; instead he offers them Cabinet positions, and asks them to offer their ideas. In over a year Obama’s gotten exactly three important Republican votes (Specter, Snowe and Collins for ARRA), and seen his agenda hobbled by a record number of filibusters, but he still acts as if there’s something he can do to bring GOP legislators around. A less patient president would have gone into take-no-prisoners attack mode a long time ago.
I see that Jim is posting from the same alternate universe that Judis is.
What was Roosevelt running for in 1934?
A larger majority in Congress, which he won (one of the very few times a party has gained seats in the mid-term elections immediately following their winning the White House).
Jim,
How is Obama supposed to call out people for making the same votes he did as Senator?
If you just look at “reluctant to” a little cross-eyed, and hit yourself on the head with a hammer a few times, you’ll start to see that it could mean “obsessively compelled to” and thus makes perfect sense.
I do not think that word means what he thinks it means. LoL
I’m sorry, but the Democrats are devolving into the realm of self-parody. If there’s been much beyond “Everything bad is Bush’s fault” in the last year, hell if I know what it is.
…is completely irrelevant to running against Hoover, you twit.
Jim says:
Ah yes, this one is a favorite excuse of the left for the fact that they can’t get anything done despite having a super majority.
From the Senate Republican Policy Committee:
Those facts, I tell ya, they are pesky little things. I guess when your Congress is willing to make up anything as it goes along what’s another tinsy winsy little lie if only it helps keep hold of the victim card?
Chris L.- the same way Kerry, the Clintons, and all of the top National Democrats called out President Bush for saying the same things about Iraq in 2002-2003 that they all had said 1992-2000.
Facts simply mean different things, depending on who is in office… when you’re a Democrat.
Maybe by “reluctant” he means that Obama has only been slamming the Bush administration 23/6/364.
And I think you’re too blinded by your slavish worship of Obama to recognize just how petty, juvenile, embarrassing and downright unpresidential Obama’s constant whine about “inheriting” a mess (as if he hadn’t been part of a Dem-controlled Congress for two years) is.
How is Obama supposed to call out people for making the same votes he did as Senator?
Obama did not vote for the 2001 and 2003 tax bills, or Medicare Part D, which collectively dwarf all of Obama’s programs in their (negative) fiscal impact.
Chris L.- the same way Kerry, the Clintons, and all of the top National Democrats called out President Bush for saying the same things about Iraq in 2002-2003 that they all had said 1992-2000.
First of all, and to their shame, Kerry and the Clintons did not speak out against Bush’s push for war in 2002-2003. Instead, Kerry and Hilary Clinton voted for it.
Second, there’s a big difference between Bill Clinton’s Iraq policy, which eliminated the Iraqi WMD programs without the loss of a single American life, and George Bush’s, which chewed up a trillion dollars and 100,000 Iraqi lives chasing a mirage.
Those facts, I tell ya, they are pesky little things.
Yes, they are. One pesky fact: your quote from the Senate Republican Policy Committee is talking about the 110th Congress. The current one is the 111th. Try to keep up.
For information about this Congress, here’s the Associated Press:
“Second, there’s a big difference between Bill Clinton’s Iraq policy, which eliminated the Iraqi WMD programs without the loss of a single American life, and George Bush’s, which chewed up a trillion dollars and 100,000 Iraqi lives chasing a mirage.”
Saddam wanted WMD and hoped to have it when things “cooled off”. How many Iraqis do you think Saddam would have killed by now, if he was still in power? His count was what, 400K? That’s not counting the Gulf and Iran wars. Funny about that Clinton thing, do you think he would have been as successful if 41 hadn’t softened him up first?
“Obama will usually refer to the Bush administration in vague, sweeping terms, e.g. as “the people who got us into this mess.” ”
And he or his minions like Bagdad Bob Gibbs did it day after day after day.
Except when he let’s his “Justice Dept” try to criminalize the activities of the previous administration.
Last year, the first of the 111th Congress, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the first two months of 2010, the number already exceeds 40.
That means, with 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Republicans have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that will more than triple the old record.
Good. I hope they keep throwing sand in the gears until November. Or until all hell breaks loose, whichever comes first.
JIm, IOW Clinton had the same information that Bush did about WMD’s… but thought that it would be better POLITICALLY if he limited himself to eight years of expensive, risky airstrikes instead of solving the problem.
Andf you’re proud of this.
Second, there’s a big difference between Bill Clinton’s Iraq policy, which eliminated the Iraqi WMD programs without the loss of a single American life
Clinton’s policy did not eliminate Iraqi WMDs. You ought to read up on this subject, Jim.
How many Iraqis do you think Saddam would have killed by now, if he was still in power?
Fewer than died as a result of the war. Saddam’s body count from 1999 to 2003 was in four or five figures; ours since 2003 is well into six, and it isn’t as if the killing has stopped.
Except when he let’s his “Justice Dept” try to criminalize the activities of the previous administration.
Name one Bush official put on trial by Obama’s Justice Department.
expensive, risky airstrikes
Are you serious?!? A decade of those “expensive” airstrikes cost less than one month’s worth of the war. A decade of those “risky” airstrikes cost zero U.S. lives, while the war cost 4,000. The math is not that difficult.
instead of solving the problem
Clinton did solve the problem; Saddam got rid of the last vestiges of his WMD programs (which weren’t much in any case).
Fewer than died as a result of the war. Saddam’s body count from 1999 to 2003 was in four or five figures; ours since 2003 is well into six, and it isn’t as if the killing has stopped.
High six digits for Saddam Hussein. Of course, that’s using the same bullshit metric that you’re using for assigning responsibility for deaths in the US case.
Name one Bush official put on trial by Obama’s Justice Department.
There’s the torture investigation. Just because people aren’t expressly put on trial doesn’t mean much.
Are you serious?!? A decade of those “expensive” airstrikes cost less than one month’s worth of the war. A decade of those “risky” airstrikes cost zero U.S. lives, while the war cost 4,000. The math is not that difficult.
Reflecting on this, the Clinton work probably reduced the overall cost of the invasion by a bit since it helped cripple Saddam Hussein’s military forces. And for what it’s worth, Clinton did maintain the economic sanctions unlike several other states.
Clinton did solve the problem; Saddam got rid of the last vestiges of his WMD programs (which weren’t much in any case).
The threat of being invaded by GWB did that job. Again I ask that you read up on this first before wasting our time.
High six digits for Saddam Hussein.
Your link says no such thing. Remember, the question was about how many people Saddam killed between 1999 and 2003.
The threat of being invaded by GWB did that job.
Not according to the Iraq Survey Group report, or the defectors we interviewed before we invaded.
We also found chemical WMDs – violation of Section 8 (a) of the ceasefire agreement.
We found gas centrifuges and (literally) tons of yellowcake uranium in Iraq. Those vestiges survived Clinton’s bombing raids.
Didn’t we also find gas centrifuges? That hits on Section 12 (emphasis added): “Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities.”
Saddam also sheltered and/or harbored a number of terrorists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1097948/posts
Not that I think Bush Co. was up on their Strauss & Howe, but Saddam could not have been removed at a better time, generationally-speaking. For purely political reasons, the leftstream media thirsted for an all-out civil war that never happened. Of course it wouldn’t—it was much too soon after the Iran/Iraq war just a generation or so ago, a crisis war for both nations. Iraqis would want a civil war about as much as hippies in 1969 USA.
If future geopolitical chess-masters can learn from this lesson, there’s certain to be more success and marginally less bloodshed in future generations.
Remember, the question was about how many people Saddam killed between 1999 and 2003.
Remember that is the date you arbitrarily set.
Karl,
There was no arbitrary about it. Jim knows that if you include the all of the Iraqi’s killed by Saddam (either directly or through the wars he started) that figure would be a bit larger. If he sticks to just when Bush II is in office, that improves things for his argument.
Remember that is the date you arbitrarily set.
I chose those dates because the best predictors for year X are years X-1, X-2, X-3, etc.
We can’t know how many people Saddam would have killed had he stayed in power. He is believed to have killed about 600,000 Iraqis over the course of 30 years, but he did not kill an even 20,000 per year. There were two major spurts of internal murderous violence, in the late 80s (e.g. the Anfal campaign against the Kurds) and in the aftermath of the Gulf War (when he killed at least 100,000 Shia re-establishing his control of southern Iraq). At other times the annual rate of Baathist murder was much lower, in the 4 or 5 figures per year. One contributing factor to that decline in violence in the 90s/early 00s was that the U.S.-enforced no-fly-zone protected many of his internal enemies.
It is very unlikely that, had we maintained the no-fly-zone, he would have murdered nearly as many people in 2003-2010 as actually died as a result of our invasion.
He is believed to have killed about 600,000 Iraqis over the course of 30 years
That excludes deaths from wars. He killed somewhere around 800k to a million people in the Iran-Iraq war. Another 50,000 or more were killed in the Persian Gulf war and the Iraq invasion. The Iraq Body Count shows a figure of 100k deaths due to violence for 6 years of post-invasion occupation (which is less than 20k per year) and is much lower now. Last I heard, this seemed to agree with UN estimates.
It is very unlikely that, had we maintained the no-fly-zone, he would have murdered nearly as many people in 2003-2010 as actually died as a result of our invasion.
Why would we have maintained the no-fly zone? That was part of the UN sanctions and those were going away.
Why would we have maintained the no-fly zone? That was part of the UN sanctions and those were going away.
The sanctions were imposed by the UN Security Council. The U.S. has a veto on the Security Council. The sanctions were not going away until the U.S. agreed to let them go away.
That excludes deaths from wars. He killed somewhere around 800k to a million people in the Iran-Iraq war.
And given what we know about the state of his armed forces, you actually think he was going to start another war in the period 2003-2010?!?
And given what we know about the state of his armed forces, you actually think he was going to start another war in the period 2003-2010?!?
Well, he did in 2003. And there are periods of time past 2010 when he could have done so, with chemical and nuclear weapons at his disposal.
Did Saddam ever engage in or considering in engaging a war through terrorist proxies, such as Iran’s occasional war against the west via Hezbollah?
As Mohamed Atta demonstrated, you don’t need to have lots of conventional armed forces to threaten a powerful nation. The specter of Iraq supporting such unconventional forces is what cements my support for the invasion.
Well, he did in 2003.
Do tell us all about this previously unheard-of war.
As Mohamed Atta demonstrated, you don’t need to have lots of conventional armed forces to threaten a powerful nation. The specter of Iraq supporting such unconventional forces is what cements my support for the invasion.
In other words, we should feel free to invade any country that looks at us funny, because after all even the most impotent country is capable of producing a Mohamed Atta.
Saddam had a dozen years after the Gulf War to strike us with unconventional forces; he didn’t, in any way that you’d notice.
Aren’t you embarrassed to have shown fear in the face of such a non-threat?
Do tell us all about this previously unheard-of war.
Iraqi invasion of 2003.
Iraqi invasion of 2003.
You’re saying that Iraq started our invasion!?!
You’re saying that Iraq started our invasion!?!
YES. Iraq had an easy step for demonstrating that it wasn’t producing WMDs. Namely, open the country up fully to inspections from any party and stop playing games. Clearly, they mistook US intent until it was too late, but that is their fault. Second, Saddam Hussein didn’t need to resist the invasion. There’s no law that your shitty military is required to loose badly in a fair fight to a powerful foreign invader.