by Nick on July 29, 2008
Here are the top five reasons why I am voting for Barack Obama:
- The Economy - In 2009 the United States is projected to have a deficit of more than $480 BILLION. Our national debt is quickly climbing to $10 TRILLION. Republicans have run our economy into the ground with their irresponsible fiscal policies, and our children (and their children) will pay the price. It is no easy task to pay off $10 trillion dollars in debt. As if our nation’s cash flow problems weren’t enough to be concerned about, the American people aren’t doing so great these days either. With gas at $4 a gallon, and many foods at all time high prices, many American families are struggling to get by. Jobs are being lost, and not being replaced. Paul Krugman posted a graph of employment growth for each president back to Dwight Eisenhower. Notice the clear difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republican Party has proven time and time again that they are not good stewards of the economy. It’s time to go with a Democrat.
- The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a mistake from day one. Saddam Hussein was a terrible human being, but he posed little threat to the United States. He had no weapons of mass destruction; he was surrounded by nations that despised him and would contain him (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Iran - not to mention the American patrolled no fly zones). Furthermore, Saddam had no role whatsoever in the planning, funding, or execution of the 9/11 attacks. Yes, the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein. But Iraq distracted us from the war we should have been fighting. It is still distracting us from the war we should be fighting. The Iraqi government and military can step up and take control of their nation. It’s time for the United States to withdraw and refocus it’s military efforts where they are most needed. Barack Obama supports withdrawal in 16 months so that we can do just that. Which of course brings me to reason 3.
- The War in Afghanistan - Obama recognizes that Afghanistan is the central front in the War on Terror. He advocates sending at least an additional two brigades to Afghanistan. We should have had these extra troops there in the first place. It is well documented that Osama bin Laden was in Tora Bora when we bombed it, but slipped out through the mountain passes. We did not have enough troops to adequately secure the area to assure his death or capture. This is a mistake that will not be made a second time if Barack Obama is president. On September 11th, 2001 Al Qaeda, on the orders of Osama bin Laden, attacked the United States and killed more than 3,000 people. in the 7 years since the Bush Administration has failed to capture or kill bin Laden. It’s clear that Republican priorities are flawed, but John McCain wants to continue those policies. Barack Obama will capture kill Osama bin Laden because his foreign policy will be focused on Afghanistan and dismantling terror networks, rather than foolish and costly preemptive wars.
- Health Care - The health care system in the United States is a mess. Despite spending far more on health care than any other industrialized nation, Americans often receive worse care. American life expectancy and infant mortality rates have fallen behind other modernized nations. A major part of the problem is that the lack of quality, affordable health care means that our system focuses on curing an illness rather than preventing it in the first place. Barack Obama has a health care plan that will give access to quality, affordable health care to every single American. John McCain does not. If your health is important to you, the choice in this election is clear.
- Energy - Our economy and our planet are both in peril and a major reason is our dependence on fossil fuels. Not only is this an economic and ecological problem, but it is also a national security problem. We cannot rely on foreign sources of energy and maintain our position as the worlds only superpower. John McCain’s solution is to drill offshore, drill in Alaska, and drill everywhere else we can put an oil well. But we can’t drill our way out of this problem. Barack Obama’s energy plan will guide our nation to energy independence with the use of clean, renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.
by Nick on July 23, 2008
Posted By: Nick
Writing at The Huffington Post, Matt Littman says that “John McCain has made the biggest mistake in politics.” What is the mistake? He told Barack Obama to go to Iraq.
Senator McCain, knowing that he held an edge on Barack Obama on the “Commander in Chief” question, badly overplayed his hand. He taunted Senator Obama on his lack of foreign policy experience and he challenged Obama to go to Iraq. He sneered at Obama for formulating an Iraq policy prior to traveling to the war zone. He even offered to go with him to Iraq, as if Obama needed his hand held by the man with military experience.
Of course Obama went to Iraq. And Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, and Germany. And so far, the trip has been an incredible success. Obama has looked every bit like the President. The images have been striking.
To make matters worse, McCain has made a series of errors in his public statements. The contrast between the two candidates over the past few days has been interesting, to say the least. Littman sums up:
All John McCain has done, with his childish taunting of Obama, is create a situation where Obama has now gone overseas; been seen with General Petraeus smiling, looking Presidential; been photographed with world leaders who seem excited by the prospect of an Obama Presidency, and shown, by images, that he fits in just fine on the world stage; and, of course, Obama has taken all the media attention with him when McCain is desperate for media coverage.
This trip would not have happened without McCain’s taunting — and so, Barack Obama would never have gone on this trip and looked this good if McCain had not made such a stunning mistake in urging him to do so.
Did McCain kill his chance of becoming President? I think it’s still a bit too early to tell. But keep an eye on the polling over the next week or so, and pay attention to where the narrative of this campaign moves from here. The past week may just have been the turning point in this campaign.
by Nick on July 20, 2008
Posted By: Nick
Couple of videos from MSNBC/NBC about Obama’s trip. The first is a general news piece about the trip, with some video of Obama in meetings and with some of the troops. The second is Chuck Todd and David Gregory on Meet the Press discussing the trip.
[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=mXuAN_5Xr7U]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqCtoREx88I]
The trip is turning out to be quite successful for Obama. It has looked great; so many images of the troops so excited to see him are quite remarkable and can only play to his advantage. Other events that have transpired have only bolstered Obama’s foreign policy positions. Those developments combined with this trip are driving the discussion right now, and it’s all pro-Obama.
UPDATE: Barack Obama is good at basketball. This is a longer clip of the scene from the MSNBC clip above where he sinks a 3-pointer.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/j87k1j4CpOw&hl=en]
by Nick on July 19, 2008
Posted By: Nick
Just 3 days ago I posted about Barack Obama’s Trouble with Iraq. Things looked bad for Obama. The decrease in violence in Iraq was quickly and effectively being framed by the McCain campaign as the direct result of the surge; Obama had strongly opposed the surge, and this outcome looked like it would start to hurt him.
But what a difference 3 days makes. Suddenly the tables have turned and McCain is on the defensive about foreign policy. First, the Bush Administration reversed its “no talks” position and is now holding talks with Iran. The initial round hasn’t gone as well as we might like, but the change in policy has already been made. The move severely undercut McCain’s argument that holding talks with Iran amounted to appeasement.
Second, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki told Der Speigel that U.S. troops should leave Iraq
as soon as possible as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
Al-Maliki basically endorsed Obama’s Iraq plan. McCain’s argument that Obama doesn’t understand the situation on the ground has gone out the window. Surely Al-Maliki understands the “situation on the ground.”
Finally, the last few days have shown a clear movement among the top military brass in favor of increased troops level in Afghanistan; Obama has been proposing this very same strategy for some time. McCain’s response to Obama’s suggestion that we send two additional brigades to Afghanistan? Send three additional brigades.
Looks like McCain and the Bush Administration are simply moving towards Obama on foreign policy. In a year that so heavily favors the Democrats, Obama will win if he continues to lead the way on major issues like this.
by Nick on July 16, 2008
Posted By: Nick
Barack Obama is starting to take some real heat over his position on the Iraq War. The biggest reason for this is that the surge (which he opposed) seems to have made some real gains in Iraq. The Washington Post hit him for this today in an editorial. Jack Tapper at ABC News says the success of the surge has put Obama on the defensive.
John McCain went after him yesterday as well. He makes the point that:
Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy — a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible. Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded.
I have made my own position clear. I think the war in Iraq has been a major distraction from our efforts in Afghanistan. It has strained our military, driven us further into deficit, and has hurt our credibility around the world. Osama bin Laden is still at large, almost seven years after the 9/11 attacks.
However, I think Obama is walking on very thin ice right now. And I’m not sure how he can improve his situation. The reality is that violence in Iraq is down significantly since the beginning of the surge. Arguments can be made about the reasons for the decrease in violence (it should be pointed out that a major factor may not be increased American presence, but rather increased American cooperation [bribery] with Sunni tribes, among other factors). But with the simplistic way the average voter sees the war, Obama may be in some trouble here. With the media beginning to turn against Obama on the war, McCain has a real opportunity to pick up some extra votes.
by Nick on July 14, 2008
Posted By: Nick
Barack Obama writes his plan for Iraq in today’s NYTimes. I’m sure this is mostly in response to the criticism he recieved last week when he said he would visit Iraq and reevaluate after his trip. I think it’s clear he meant he was open to tweeking his plan here and there as required based on the reality of the situation, but never fundamentally mean that his position of ending the war would change. Of course his poor choice of words left him open to attack, so today he has clearly stated his position so as to avoid any confusion.
Here are some bits I especially like:
Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
But [the Bush/McCain plan] is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
I love it. He’s saying exactly what we should be doing. Get out of Iraq ASAP, and get more focused on Afghanistan.
by Nick on July 14, 2008
Posted By: Nick
On Sunday, Taliban militants in Afghanistan attacked a U.S./NATO military base. Nine American soldiers were killed, 15 NATO soldiers (likely Americans) were wounded, and 4 Afghani soldiers were wounded. That the Taliban has been able to regroup to the extent that it feels comfortable attacking a U.S. military base is extremely troublesome. That they managed to inflict the damage they did is even more troublesome. Things are not going well in Afghanistan.
I wrote about Afghanistan last week, and I’m sure I will continue to do so. The fact of the matter is, we have a foolish, shortsighted strategy in Afghanistan that is doing nothing to increase our national security. Iraq distracted us from what should have been our real focus: Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Now they have regrouped and we are beginning to pay the price.
We need more troops in Afghanistan, we need a new, aggressive military strategy, we need to convince Pakistan to take a more proactive stance against the Taliban; and we need these things now. If militants in Afghanistan (likely operating from inside Pakistan) are capable of launching such an attack on a U.S. military base, then what else can they do?
Six and a half years into the war in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is unacceptable. The failure of the Bush Administration to properly execute this war has real consequences that we are now beginning to see.
NYTimes Article
by Nick on July 11, 2008
Posted By: Nick
Little known fact: the United States is actually fighting TWO wars right now. There’s the one we all know about, in Iraq, and then there’s this whole other war in a place called Afghanistan. Amazing, huh?
Well, as it turns out, that other war isn’t going too well these days. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in Pakistan and are causing all sorts of headaches for everyone in the region. The NYTimes thinks its about time that sodid something about this problem.
Both countries have a common and increasingly urgent interest in rolling back the power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and working together to promote democracy and development in Pakistan. President Bush needs to persuade Pakistan’s leaders of that — and he needs to do it now, before Al Qaeda and the Taliban get any stronger.
For 6 years Bush has not done this. I’m sure nothing is going to change for his last 6 months in office. Hopefully the next president will actually do something useful.
by Nick on July 11, 2008
Posted By: Nick
There has been quite the increase in commentary this week about possible war with Iran. It’s an unfortunate situation that looks like it may not have a happy ending with the current administration running the show.
The truth of a war with Iran is that the United States would win. While Iran is larger than Iraq, and has a better military, they are still no match for the United States Military. We would win. We would win quickly and decisively. But after we win… then what? Suddenly we would find ourselves occupying a vast swath of the middle east (Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan). Iran is much larger than Iraq both in terms of geographic area and population. The occupation of Iraq will likely pale in comparison to an occupation of Iran.
The further concern is what will happen in terms of the broader Middle East. Will Iran launch missiles at Israel in response? Will this draw other nations into the conflict? The situation could quickly get out of hand. The mere though of the United States occupying so much more of the Middle East will surely inflame the Islamic world.
Oil prices, already at ridiculous levels, will surely increase.
But these things may be inevitable. Afterall, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Though some in my party on the far left would like us to never go to war for any reason, sometimes we must. If Iran looks to be on the verge of developing a bomb, we must stop them. Fortunately the recent estimates I’ve read give us at least another year before Iran has an operational nuclear weapon. And even then, they would have only the one (or maybe two?). We still have time to resolve the situation without war, and the Bush administration (and whichever administration comes in next year) should actively pursue all avenues of dealing with Iran. We should be talking to Iranians. Diplomacy works, and can work in this situation. But that shouldn’t be our only action. We should continue to actively seek sanctions as long as the Iranians continue nuclear development. We should maintain our covert actions to both hamper Iran’s nuclear production and to make Iran’s cost of doing business unmanageable.
If we actively engage Iran on numerous fronts (Diplomatic, Economic, Military [covert operations and threats]) we can resolve this situation before it gets out of hand.
The alternative of course is a war that we will win, but which may cripple our nation as a result.
