Simultaneously Weak And Strong
Larry Hunter takes Obamacon enthusiasm to its logical extreme and simply pretends* that Obama’s domestic policy isn’t the domestic agenda he will pursue:
Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don’t take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn’t bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn’t mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it’s taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.
This is roughly as persuasive as Philip Klein’s attempts to discount everything Obama says about foreign policy and national security and assume that he is, in fact, a secret McGovernite/appeaser who wishes Israel harm. What I find remarkable is that Hunter will take Obama at his word on the war and then conveniently overlook everything else in Obama’s record and his foreign and security policies that suggests that Obama’s credibility as an antiwar politician is quite poor. In general, Obama proposes an activist, hawkish foreign policy and accepts the use of essentially all the surveillance powers that Mr. Bush received or usurped, and his position on Israel policy is indistinguishable from that of the current administration. None of this satisfies Klein, just as apparently none of it worries Hunter.
The worrisome thing about Obama is that it seems you generally can take him at his word when he stakes out a policy position, and most of what he has said he will do is quite awful, especially when judged from an antiwar, constitutionalist conservative perspective. On the whole, when he has reversed himself substantively it has been in the opposite direction away from those few things that antiwar conservatives have found appealing. In the last six weeks, he has adopted a more confrontational attitude towards Iran than he had displayed before (and he does this at a time when the Bush administration has started becoming more interested in negotiation!), caved on Fourth Amendment protections and has at the very least “shifted emphasis” on Iraq. With the opening of intermediate-level negotiations with the Iranians, one of Obama’s signature issues has been co-opted by the sitting administration after he had started to adopt a more belligerent tone regarding the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Certainly, this formal opening to Iran is interesting and probably good news, but it also deprives Obama of one of the few aspects of foreign policy in which he remains reasonably distinct from Mr. Bush.
Of course, you can still argue that Obama is marginally preferable to the even more hawkish, pro-security state candidate in McCain and you can insist that third-party voting is useless, but as the two candidates “converge” it is Obama who is gradually losing whatever attractive features he may have once had in the eyes of antiwar conservatives. There are tactical “moves to the center,” and then there are capitulations to establishment positions. The only reason to expect that Obama will abandon his central domestic agenda proposals once in office is if the political pressure to push them through Congress is substantially weaker than the pressure resisting them. That seems obvious, and perhaps it is, but it goes to the heart of why Obamacon arguments such as Hunter’s make no sense: the preference for avoiding confrontation and political risk that makes Obama potentially less of a concern on domestic policy is the same preference that will ensure that everything Hunter likes about Obama is also going to vanish or diminish after the election. Put another way, Hunter is basically hoping that Obama proves to be such a weak President that he cannot advance his domestic policy agenda, but that he is also such a tremendously dynamic and effective President that he will be able to restore compromised civil liberties, end the war in Iraq and resist entanglement in a new war with Iran. That is a pretty rare combination.
P.S. Actually, Hunter hopes that Obama will be like JFK, but if we took this comparison on its face this would mean that Hunter hopes Obama will be inclined to cut taxes but will botch every major foreign policy decision he ever makes, which would be the exact opposite of Hunter’s stated reasons for supporting him.
* I should clarify: Mr. Hunter doesn’t really pretend this, but simply doesn’t care one way or the other, as he says towards the end:
But here’s the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I’m still voting for him.
Reveals himself? He hasn’t been hiding his agenda. What does Mr. Hunter think Obama has been proposing to do for the last year and a half if not drastically expand the government’s size and role? What happens when his hopes on civil liberties and foreign policy are also dashed? This seems relevant, since it is already happening.
Filed under: politics, foreign policy
45 Responses to “Simultaneously Weak And Strong”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Hunter is basically hoping that Obama proves to be such a weak President that he cannot advance his domestic policy agenda, but that he is also such a tremendously dynamic and effective President that he will be able to restore compromised civil liberties, end the war in Iraq and resist entanglement in a new war with Iran.”
Neither ending the war in Iraq or “resisting” entanglement with Iran involves convincing anyone in Congress or anywhere else of anything. Passing domestic policy does. A weak President Obama will still have lots of power to right the foreign policy ship (whether he does or not) by virtue of his office; and not as much on the domestic side in the same way G.H.W. Bush could run the Gulf War while being unable to influence much the trajectory of domestic policy.
Granted, Obama will likely have a big Democratic majority that will favor his domestic programs; but it isn’t as if the “weak President” model doesn’t work for isolating the guy’s foreign policy effectiveness from his domestic policy effectiveness.
That Obama isn’t McCain may not make the most compelling blog commentary, but I’m afraid for many of us that truth is compelling enough.
But Presidents who are weak at home tend to face a Congress dominated by the other party, and there is no guarantee that failure in pushing a domestic agenda will be equaled by competence or wisdom in foreign affairs. There is an assumption that Obama will not go to war with Iran over its nuclear program. I have no idea why people believe this, since he has made it clear that he is quite willing to do that if there is no other way to stop the Iranians from acquiring a bomb. If it is true that Iran is fairly close to acquiring a bomb, this will not be a hypothetical question for Obama’s first term.
Presidents who are weak at home because they are unwilling or unable to challenge entrenched interests on domestic policy are also not likely to take bold positions on foreign policy in opposition to the Washington consensus and influential lobbies. Bush the Elder was able to do whatever he did with Israel-Palestine and the Madrid talks because of the political capital earned by the relative success of the Gulf War, but by and large he was hewing to an establishment line on major foreign policy questions. But he also invaded Panama and got us stuck in Somalia, which are hardly encouraging precedents.
So, yes, the executive has the freedom and power to act with respect to foreign policy that he properly lacks in domestic affairs, but the idea that Obama will use that freedom and power to pursue what Washington considers politically controversial and risky goals is hard to accept.
When I read that this morning, my first thought was that in previous years, Larry Hunter would have crawled over broken to vote AGAINST someone who is offering what Obama seems to be offering. His op-ed read to me as more of an indictment of the current GOP rather than anything positive for the Obama.
I can see why it might be compelling enough in a “if you hold a gun to my head and I have to pick one of these two or be shot” sort of way. Since no one is pointing a gun at anyone’s head and we don’t have to pick one of these two, I suppose I’m still having trouble seeing how it is compelling enough to get people on the right to vote for Obama.
Absolutely right, John. That is what most of these arguments end up being. I can understand the white-hot anti-GOP sentiment, and I share it, but I still can’t quite get to the point where it makes sense to back Obama. It still puzzles me how those who are rightly outraged by the GOP’s betrayals and misrule think they are helping themselves or the country by endorsing someone who would, on the whole, do more of the things that made conservatives so angry when Republicans were doing them.
I supported and cheered the Democratic takeover in ‘06 on punitive/accountability grounds and on the assumption that the new majority would be incapable of doing much of anything. Unfortunately, that also meant that they did nothing on the war, and instead gave it a new lease on life. Breaking up united government in ‘06 seemed to be in the best interests of the country. The argument for having a different kind of united government doesn’t seem very strong to me, and it seems to me that if someone wanted to make a genuinely positive case for Obama from the right he would need to explain why unified Democratic government is acceptable. You weren’t arguing a point about this one way or another, but as I got to writing this occurred to me.
[…] I just finished reading Larison’s remarks on the Larry Hunter piece we linked earlier, and Nancy Pelosi is on my tv screen babbling about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. […]
What’s behind many (I’m not claiming all) of these “conservative supports Obama” screeds is simple:
1) A belief that the only way the Republican party is going to change on various issues is if they are punished at the polls until they get the message. Adding to this is the nausea-inducing thought of Republican hawks proclaiming on November 5 that a McCain victory shows that the American people supports their positions. If it seems far fetched that people would say such things, go read “The Corner” for a while.
2) A realization that belief in 1) means supporting Obama. Even if a third-party candidate does relatively well, it will not have the same effect on the Republican party if McCain is still the winner.
3) At this point, you’ve boxed yourself into a corner and you start making rationalizations and looking for evidence to support your position. So, you tell yourself that Obama won’t be too liberal, and even if he is too liberal, he won’t be too bad, and even if he said X he probably doesn’t really mean it, and so on. It also helps that McCain himself has provided justification (the kick Russian from the G8 proposal, for example) for thinking that Obama might actually be better in many areas.
I think that’s right. To his credit, Obama has rejected the idea of kicking Russia out of the G-8, which suggests that even in his ridiculous NATO-expanding, Kosovo-defending way he is marginally better on Russia and Europe policy. It’s pretty pitiful when the bar has to be set this low, but he does at least clear it this time.
What seems to me to be the fundamental error with these arguments from which all others derive is the belief that the GOP will, as a party, learn something or that it will learn the right things after it is defeated again. 2006 taught them nothing, except that earmarks are the devil’s creatures. Maybe with McCain as the nominee a GOP loss will persuade people to think that his tacking left on green issues and immigration was the problem, or maybe the GOP will understand that the war was a disaster for them and for the country.
More likely, the prevailing wisdom will be that McCain was “held hostage” by conservatives who forced him to adopt positions he didn’t want that were in any case unpopular, and they will prove that they were unpopular by pointing to McCain’s defeat. Circular reasoning? Absolutely, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the official “lesson” of the ‘08 election in the event of an Obama win is that Republicans were “too” conservative on everything domestic and not “strong” enough on foreign policy. This would require identifying conservatism with whatever Mr. Bush supported doing, which should be a familiar move for many Republicans to make.
Worse, as Obama reverses and “adjusts” and “converges,” he is helping any future Republican narrative about an Obama win that will say, “He knew he couldn’t win by running as a fully antiwar, civil libertarian candidate, but gradually had to come around to our view of the world. Even though McCain lost, the Bush Doctrine won, etc.” It’s possible that they might try to make this argument regardless of what Obama said or did, but Obama is giving them the ammunition for it on a regular basis.
“A belief that the only way the Republican party is going to change on various issues is if they are punished at the polls until they get the message”
This is the one reason for an Obama vote that keeps pacing in the back of my head. The GOP needs to get what it deserves, and get it good and hard. A couple of things mitigate against voting for Obama on those grounds alone:
Progressives & liberals have fallen in line pretty quickly with Obama’s flip-flop on FISA (Glenn Greenwald being a notable counter-example). If they are willing to capitulate so quickly on such an important issue for crassly political reasons, would they suddenly find the backbone to fight a president of their own party on keeping to a strict timetable for an Iraq pullout?
If Obama’s SecDef or CIA Director came to capitol and told Pelosi & Reid that they’re maybe sort of 90% sure that Iran will have a working nuke within 12 months, do they muster the intestinal fortitude to say ‘bugger off’ to the first Democratic president in 8 years and the 1st black president ever?
On a real visceral level, I would love for the GOP to be exiled into outer political darkness until such time as they get over this Wilsonian notion of democratization by gunpoint that makes them unfit to hold the office of county cororner I would raise a glass or two to seeing a shell-shocked Bill Kristol on election night, but there are larger issues at stake than my own personal enjoyment.
“If they are willing to capitulate so quickly on such an important issue for crassly political reasons, would they suddenly find the backbone to fight a president of their own party on keeping to a strict timetable for an Iraq pullout?”
Some would protest, but most would fall in line and justify it by saying, “We just have to keep looking “strong” until after the midterms, and then you’ll see!”
Keeping the government divided is making more sense all the time. It hasn’t prevented such terrible things as the “compromise” bill, but perhaps with expanded majorities pitted against a McCain White House the damage done at home would be minimal and resistance to an attack on Iran would be greater than if Obama were leading the charge. That almost sounds like a pragmatic solution to an awful set of choices. But, hey, I’m just some naive radical idealist, so what do I know?
“There is an assumption that Obama will not go to war with Iran over its nuclear program. I have no idea why people believe this, since he has made it clear that he is quite willing to do that if there is no other way to stop the Iranians from acquiring a bomb. If it is true that Iran is fairly close to acquiring a bomb, this will not be a hypothetical question for Obama’s first term.”
This kind of view is symptomatic of the false reasoning and nearly batshit crazy certainty of your predictive powers. The simple fact is that people tend to assume Obama won’t go to war against Iran because they feel fairly certain that he doesn’t want to go to war against Iran, and would only do so as a genuine last resort. The difference with Bush/McCain, on both Iraq and Iran, is that they clearly wanted to go to war with Iraq, and found whatever pretext they could to justify it, and they want to go to war with Iran as well, and will find whatever pretext they can to justify it. If you can’t see the difference between Obama and McCain there, it’s not Obama’s fault. The same goes for virtually all of your analysis. The idea that Obama’s reminding people that he’s always said he would withdraw from Iraq intelligently, and not by a fixed timetable, doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to withdraw from Iraq quickly. It simply means he would only change his planned timetable for withdrawal if circumstances made that a clear necessity. McCain clearly doesn’t ever want to withdraw from Iraq, and would never change his plans under any circumstances. Obama has clarified that he will,indeed, withdraw from Iraq numberous times, including recently. You can say he’s lying, and no one could prove otherwise, because future intentions are not provable in the present, and your crystal ball can’t be counterfeited except by future events, by which time no one will much care that you got it all wrong. However, if it turns out you did get it wrong, I wonder what kind of consequence you would be willing to accept? Giving up on journalistic commentary as a career and returning to Byzantine studies?
Now, as for opposing Obama on domestic grounds, I think there’s good reasons for conservatives to do so. The idea that Obama would be a weak President domestically is probably fanciful. I think you will probably find him to be a cautious, but increasingly strong President who will have the backing of congress in most everything he does. That would not bode well at all for conservative goals. I know the idea of punishing one’s own failed party is an attractive one. Democrats did so with the election of Reagan in 1980, but I’m not so sure it’s really in the interests of conservatives as a political movement to empower the opposition so strongly, counting on the idea that Obama would be a weak President, which is mostly wishful thinking and the general mistake of underestimating the man, which seems to be the forte of many on both sides of the aisle, including yourself.
This is the one reason for an Obama vote that keeps pacing in the back of my head. The GOP needs to get what it deserves, and get it good and hard.
The entire reason I left the GOP and instead of going undeclared or independent, went Democrat. The current GOP must be destroyed. Right now they are out of power, but if you listen to the McCain campaign and the GOP mouthpieces elsewhere, they still have not gotten the message.
Additionally, I simply do not see Obama as a raving liberal. I see him as a center-left pragmatic type.
Regardless, McCain is worse, and your earlier commenter was correct- that is compelling enough.
On Iraq,
” The idea that Obama’s reminding people that he’s always said he would withdraw from Iraq intelligently, and not by a fixed timetable, doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to withdraw from Iraq quickly. It simply means he would only change his planned timetable for withdrawal if circumstances made that a clear necessity. ”
I don’t know how else to explain this. Your own candidate would, and has disagreed with your assessment.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/
As for the “not by a fixed timetable” part:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
So if I am to understand this correctly: he really wants to withdraw from Iraq, and has a plan to do so in 16 months, which is not a timetable, unless circumstances upset that plan and disrupt the aforementioned timetable.
The funny thing about a massive logistical operation such as a full withdrawal from Iraq: There will always be ‘circumstances’ that interfere with those plans, and if you read your own candidate closely, there is no intention to withdraw at all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7510802.stm
“Leave behind, says Mr Obama, “a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al-Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq’s security forces”.
Obama’s residual force is precisely what our current force is doing in Iraq this very minute.
It can’t be put any plainer than that. Your own candidate disagrees with what you think your candidate’s position is. He has said repeatedly and publicly that he is not withdrawing all forces from Iraq, has no intention of doing so on any timetable whatesoever.
“perhaps with expanded majorities pitted against a McCain White House the damage done at home would be minimal and resistance to an attack on Iran would be greater than if Obama were leading the charge.”
That assumes the members of Congress have any interest in performing their Constitutional role as a check on the Executive, or (assuming the Democrats retain control of the legislature) are interested in their role as an opposition party. The last 8 years are not encouraging in this regard.
There was a decent piece - I think it was in Slate - a week or two ago when the former Secretaries of State were talking about a new war powers resolution. The writer commented that the members of Congress chiefly want to avoid responsibility at all costs, so they can complain when things go poorly, and ride the president’s coat-tails when things go well. On pragmatic terms, they are no longer an equal branch of the government; all we’re left with is the Executive and the Judiciary.
I mean, maybe this will change magically in 2008. But I don’t see it as very likely.
I wish there were more coverage o the candidates’ views of the judiciary. Obama, as a law professor, presumably has some interesting views on this matter. Meanwhile McCain, from the impression I get, likely either hasn’t given the matter much thought, or else needs to shore up his social conservative credentials. But it would be a handy data point to have.
What’s not clear is why people feel “fairly certain” that he doesn’t want to go to war with Iran. Based on his unequivocal support for the Lebanon war, which was the very definition of the sort of “dumb” war he claimed to oppose, it seems to me that a combination of a willingness to attack Iran, pandering to AIPAC on this point and the likelihood that Iran’s nuclear program will not be halted by diplomatic means points toward a good chance that Obama will order such an action. McCain is more inclined to do it, but that doesn’t mean Obama is disinclined. The people who don’t want war with Iran are the ones who don’t think that Iran poses a serious threat that cannot be deterred and contained. Everyone else who accepts the assumption that there is an uncontainable “Iranian threat,” however grudgingly, supports going to war with Iran to one degree or another. Obama does seem more interested in exhausting other options first, but his acceptance of the idea that Iran is enough of a threat to merit launching an attack against the country concedes the most important point of all. That doesn’t necessarily mean that either a McCain or an Obama administration absolutely will attack Iran, but that the difference between them on this particular issue is obviously one of degree. The relevant point in this post is that an antiwar conservative who thinks Obama’s Iran position is a good reason to support him doesn’t really understand his Iran position.
As I’ve said repeatedly, premising withdrawal on Iraq’s stability is essentially the same as saying that our combat forces will not leave for many, many years and it makes our policy hostage to those who want to foment disorder. Obama premises withdrawal on Iraq’s stability, which makes his old and renewed pledges about timetables pretty useless.
If I’m seriously wrong about these things, I will be glad to acknowledge my error. If commentary writers stopped writing after having a couple of mistaken interpretations, there would be no commentary of any kind. Besides, I don’t do this as a “career” and have every intention of continuing with Byzantine studies.
Incidentally, Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment because he said it provided the administration with a pretext for attacking Iran. Then he told AIPAC that he thought it was the right thing to do. That would imply, by his own account of what Kyl-Lieberman did, that he supports giving the President a pretext to attack Iran. But we’re “fairly certain” that he doesn’t want to do this–that’s encouraging.
Re-reading the post, I noticed that every claim I made about Obama’s positions is not only defensible but also very understated compared to some statements I have made in the past. It’s strange that this should provoke much hostility from any of his supporters.
Another note–this Ralph Peters item is actually worth reading for its discussion of the complexities of any serious effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. It may be that the risks and difficulty of such an operation will make it seem prohibitively costly, no matter who is in the White House, but the very nature of what we’re talking about makes it all the more amazing that Obama has been as open to military action as he is.
I agree with John Cole’s statement that the current GOP must be pretty much destroyed after what they have done to the country, or at minimum the RNC and DC establishment.
If Obama overreaches, he knows a repeat of 1994 would be the likely result. Therefore I think we’re going to get a repeat of the Clinton domestic policy of 1995-2000, which was incredibly successful.
Anyone have a particular problem with a budget surpluses, a healthy stock market, record job creation, and declines in abortion, crime, illegitimacy, and wage inequality?
On another point, the Democratic Party’s gains in congress have come in large part by replacing establishment GOP figures or extreme Christian right types with economically populist and socially moderate or conservative Democrats.
Nancy Boyda and Heath Shuler are both solid votes against corporate welfare and immigration amnesty, to give a couple examples of quality Democrats elected in 2006 in formerly GOP districts. The Democrats are getting better as the GOP somehow managed to find someone dumber, more radical, and less fit for office than George W. Bush. From a C student to someone 6th from the bottom out of hundreds? And that before the cognitive decline of a someone who would be 76 his 4th year in office.
The rise of a new class of blue dogs has been heartening, which is why I have not been too concerned about the victories in Louisiana and Mississippi. For Obama to undo the majorities in both houses he will have if he is elected, he will have to overreach and blunder even worse than Clinton. A significant GOP comeback in 2010 in the wake of an ‘08 defeat seems unlikely, since the party will be so shell-shocked and confused that it will take two years just to shake off the effects.
Daniel,
You’re right that you can defend everything you say, because what you say depends on future actions by Obama that have not yet happened. Those of us without crystal balls are at a severe disadvantage in refuting your claims, therefore. It’s just a silly way to argue, basing your projections on an interpretation of comments you like to spin in a direction that create circular reinforcement for what you already want to believe. What Obama has actually said, and clarified, contradicts your projections, and yet you argue as if his actions have already occurred the way you predict - in your mind at least - because they can “defensibly” be interpreted that way. Well, I think there’s a higher standard for truth than “defensibility”. There’s also such a thing as modesty and uncertainty about the future based on incomplete information. You seem to love to make predictions about the future based on tiny bits of information that somehow conforms to your own ideological biases, and personal dislike of Obama, and you resist any corrections that come from anyone who supports Obama, whether they are on the right or the left. Well, this should make us wonder who is the brainwashed cultist here. In my experience, one can spot cultism by the degree of certainty people have in inverse proportion to the information they have. In your case, you might as well be using astrology to predict Obama’s actions as President. There’s at least a system behind such thinking. In your case, there’s no system at all, just a preconcieved result that requires an invented, “defensible” path of logic to justify it. We get it. Obama is bad, and he’s going to be a bad President if elected. It seems that everything else you say is just trying to fill in the gaps with whatever “defensible” logic you can find, and as long as it depends on future events that no one can say for certain won’t happen, you’re in the clear.
In short, I don’t object to your being critical of Obama. What I find objectionable is the pseudo-rationality of your arguments, which create certainty out of bits and shreds of what often amount to little more than batshit conspiracy theories. The fact that politicians are always maleable, and that anything can happen, just gives you cover to come to conclusions you wanted to come to all along. It doesn’t make the reasoning process rational. It just makes it cultic in an opposing fashion.
conradg, try focusing on one point at a time. Has Obama changed his position that he would attack Iran if all other options fail?
What I was describing as “defensible” claims were these statements in *this* post:
“In the last six weeks, he has adopted a more confrontational attitude towards Iran than he had displayed before (and he does this at a time when the Bush administration has started becoming more interested in negotiation!), caved on Fourth Amendment protections and has at the very least “shifted emphasis” on Iraq.”
Are these or are these not true statements? Allowing for disagreements about phrasing, I think these statements are pretty accurate and fairly subdued compared to language I have used in the past. You could argue the FISA point if you want and insist that there was nothing he could have done to stop it, but my position on the legislation has been clear. My objection to that legislation goes far beyond Obama and my problems with him. I am also very disappointed that Jim Webb voted for this legislation, but it is less remarkable that he did so since he never gave any indication that his position was anything other than what it is.
Obama supporters should not start accusing other people of “pseudo-rationality.” Someone might accuse them of “projecting” onto others.
So, Obama is revealed to be …….. a politician, one whose views are malleable? One who will vote party lines (e.g. FISA) when convenient? Shocking, I know, and some on the more liberal/progressive wing of the party are dismayed. Others, like myself, recognize what it takes to get elected president. Obama was not my first choice, but I’ll gladly pull the lever for him.
Daniel Larison said:
Help me out here, and I’m not being snarky: just what is this “Iranian threat”? What exactly has Iran “threatened” to do. I know that their president made some inflammatory statements, the translations of which are in question. And in the Iranian system, the office of president doesn’t carry that much clout. I can find no evidence that Iran has an official policy of “destroy Israel”. Yes, they fund their Shiite brothers in Hezbollah.
Iran now has the most powerfull army in the world parked on two of its borders. A western army occupies their neighbors in Iraq. Do we seriously expect them to sit meekly and watch?
I’m shocked that an “antiwar constitutional conservative” seems to be suggesting that another war, another entirely preemptive war, may be necessary.
George W. Bush has declared that Iran may not develop civilian nuclear power; indeed, they are forbidden from “possessing the knowledge”, i.e. “we may attack you for what we suspect might be in your head” Madness.
So trampling on the Constitution is “what it takes” to get elected? If that’s so, I’m not sure why any decent person would want to have “what it takes.” I suppose it is fitting, since most Presidents spend their terms violating the Constitution in one way or another, so they should get some practice in before they take up the job, right?
Regarding Iran, I confess that I am at first a bit amazed that anyone reading this blog could conclude that I think a war against Iran might be necessary. This is so far removed from anything I have ever written that I don’t understand where this comes from. Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier comments, since I assumed everyone here would know what I thought about any so-called threat from Iran: I don’t think Iran, even an Iran with nukes, poses a threat that cannot be deterred, so I don’t buy into talk of an “Iranian threat.” That’s why I put quotes around it, because I don’t think it exists. The people who talk about an “Iranian threat” being “grave,” as Obama does, are the people who are setting us up to go to war with Iran because *they* make it seem as if it is an act of dire necessity. It isn’t. How anyone could conclude that I take a pro-war view regarding Iran is a complete mystery to me.
So, to be absolutely clear, I don’t think there should be another war, just as I have always believed there was no reason to attack Iraq *even if* everything the government had claimed about Iraq’s weapons programs had been true. Yes, Bush’s position on Iran is fairly mad–no kidding!
Unlike me, both Obama and McCain do believe that such a threat exists and have stated publicly that they will do *everything* in their power if they are elected to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuke. In my view, their positions are also pretty far out there.
Daniel,
Let’s examine the basis for your claims:
“In the last six weeks, he has adopted a more confrontational attitude towards Iran than he had displayed before (and he does this at a time when the Bush administration has started becoming more interested in negotiation!), caved on Fourth Amendment protections and has at the very least “shifted emphasis” on Iraq.”
Now, yes, we can both agree that Obama has been more “confrontational” with Iran lately in his rhetoric. Nothing wrong with saying that. But exactly how much more “confrontational” has he been? Not much. He always said he hasn’t taken miltiary options off the table. He re-affirmed that lately. He’s always said he will take a diplomatic approach, even willing to meet with Iranian leader to discuss these issues without serious preconditions. He’s always said he thinks these issues can and will be resolved peacefully. He’s recently affirmed that. So what exactly are you basing your notion that Obama has dramatically changed his approach to Iran, such that we can anticipate him now getting into a war with Iran? Well, that’s where the pseudo-rationality comes in. You assume that some slight re-emphasis by Obama of his long-standing position, merely meant to remind everyone that he’s not a wussy pushover the Iranians will take advantage of, that he’s not some naive idealist who doesn’t know how foriegn policy works, means that he’s actually become a war-mongering aggressor no different from McCain who will lead the country into a war with Iran as sure as night follows day. This is where you completely lose me, and I think most of your readers. I don’t mind if you come back at me at all with accusations of irrationality, if you can find any support for them. But simply assuming that “everyone knows” Obama supporters are irrational cult followers doesn’t make your case for you. If you think I’m projecting, go right ahead and demonstrate it. So far, you haven’t made even the slightest case for that.
“You could argue the FISA point if you want and insist that there was nothing he could have done to stop it, but my position on the legislation has been clear.”
As a matter of fact, I have argued precisely that multiple times here, and you have simply ignored it every time, choosing instead to deny the relevance of facts that completely undermine your arguments, because they are so inconvenient to the conclusion you already have in your mind. Your position on the legislation is irrelevant to the compromise Obama has by necessity agreed to, being the best he can get under current circumstances. You could argue against that, to be sure, by describing some path by which Obama could get a better deal in the here and now, or defeat the bill outright, but you don’t. Instead, you take the “principled” stand of arguing in favor of, well, nothing more than losing on principle, rather than compromising on policy. In short, you are accusing Obama of trying to win a Presidential election rather than losing for some obscure but noble reasons. If you can demonstrate how that would actually advance the cause of protecting the Constitution, I am all ears, but your complete refusal to even address the issue over these last few weeks tells me you have no such argument, but are in reality totally bankrupt in that department.
tedschan,
“conradg, try focusing on one point at a time. Has Obama changed his position that he would attack Iran if all other options fail?”
I have never heard or seen any evidence that Obama’s position is that he will attack Iran if all other options fail to prevent Iran from developing nukes. He has certainly said this is an option, but he has never vowed to attack in such a circumstance. The reason for that should be obvious: one of the best forms of pressure we have to persuade the Iranians to abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions is the threat of military action. To take that off the table actually increases the odds that Iran will develop nukes, and that we will have to use military options to prevent that or reverse it. So diplomatically it’s silly to take that option off the table. That said, everyone is also supposed to read between the lines and know that Obama wants never to use that option, and that we will provide many incentives towards that end. It’s old carrot and stick diplomacy.
In that light, I thought that Bush’s original aggressive approach towards Iraq could have been brilliant if he had simply not invaded. His aggressive approach certainly got Saddam to let in inspectors and gain access to sites that were proving the abscence of WMDs in Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush never intended peace at all, but was merely searching for a pretext for war. Thus, “the absence of evidence is itself a rationjale for war, because it makes clear that Iraq is hiding its WMDs”. In Obama’s case, that motive to find a pretext for war is reversed. Obama will look for reasons not to go to war, which is what makes all the difference. This boils down essentially to a character issue. My own assessment of Bush, long before 9/11, is that this is a guy who wants war, and who puts people in power whose whole rationale is fighting wars. Obama is very different. He’s simply not a warrior. He could fight if he had to, and do well I’m sure, but it’s not what he’s aiming to do, and that’s what makes the difference in the kinds of disputes we have with Iran, in which there is no driving necessity for either Iran to get nukes or for us to go to war with them. We are actually natural allies in the region, which would have been the case all these years if not for our blundering support for the Shah back when, and the subsequent revolutionary reaction to that support. Obama I think will try to steer us back towards the natural affinity we ought to have with Iran’s nationalist aims in the region (as opposed to their theologically artificial anti-Americanism).
Daniel,
First of all, I’m a new visitor here, having bounced over from Balloon Juice. Your position on Iran is not clearly stated above, but I made matters worse by making an assumption. Sorry about that, and I’m glad to see you have a sane view on Iran.
As to “So trampling on the Constitution is “what it takes” to get elected? “, I think you’re off the mark in laying this in Obama’s lap. A recent Glen Greenwald column on FISA had Obama’s name in the headline, and mentioned his name dozens more times in the article. Barely mentioned were the real architects of this disaster, Steny Hoyer et al.
Much of my thinking about the recent FISA bill has been informed by this Kos diary:
http://tinyurl.com/6kt5p7 (no embedded links over here?)
by a (supposed) constitutional lawyer. The point of the diary being that the Constitution is already well-trampled, and the recent FISA bill was mostly political theatre that did in reality did little one way or the other. For example: my understanding is that the telecoms already had de facto immunity. They are protected from any culpability for actions ordered by the President or the Justice Dept. The real culprit, according to the diary, is the Patriot Act, which had dire implications for both the 4th and 6th amendments.
This is not to say that I’m happy about any of this, but laying it in Obama’s lap is a stretch. I’ve heard it said that “he’s the titular head of the Dem party”; I would counter that, right now, he’s a senator running for president. I’m not sure he has the power to make Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, et al fall into line.
Obama’s shift simply points out the deranged nature of our national political discourse. Obama suggests, at one point, that we might consider talking……… TALKING!…. to Iran, and this is view as complete lunacy. McCain cracks wise, more than once, about attacking and killing Iranians, and he gets a pat on the head.
In our local newspaper this morning, a letter to the editor states:
Is this person not aware of the completely avoidable financial debacle that is happening as we speak? That we’re already bankrupt?
It’s hard to run a democracy (yeah… I know) when the well of public discourse is so thoroughly poisoned.
Thanks for the comment, montysano. There are a lot of new people reading the blog, so I should have guessed that you were unfamiliar with my view. I agree that the larger, more fundamental problem is with the PATRIOT Act (another bad piece of legislation Obama has voted to reauthorise). Addressing your point and conradg’s last, I do think as de facto head of the party his support for a filibuster of the FISA bill would have been significant and could have moved enough Democrats to oppose cloture that it could have made some difference.
It’s true that the greater fault lies with Pelosi and Hoyer in particular, since as Speaker she could have kept the bill from ever receiving a vote in the House. The bill represents the general failure of the Democratic leadership, but it is compounded by the nominee’s collaboration with the leadership in that failure. I don’t think he needed to adopt a losing position, but could have held to his pledge and turned the losing position of opposing this bill into a winnable filibuster fight. Even allowing for a few red-state Senators’ defections, the Democrats had enough votes to support a filibuster had there been *any* leadership from the nominee, Speaker and Majority Leader. The Democrats are in the majority, after all, so it isn’t as if this legislation was foisted on them by wily opponents. If Obama didn’t want the hassle and risk the filibuster would entail, he should never have promised to support a filibuster. That much is really very simple.
Regarding Iran, Obama said in his speech to AIPAC: “We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” It’s true that he starts with a diplomatic approach, but the plain meaning of his words is that he supports attacking Iran if nothing else gets Iran to give up its nuclear program.
In case that earlier quote wasn’t clear enough for the audience, he was more blunt later: “Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” He had already made clear that he regards Iran as the greatest threat to Israel’s security: “There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran.” Put all of this together, and I think it is fair to say that he would order military attacks against Iran if Iran does not give up its nuclear program and its “support for terror, and threats to Israel.” I think it is very unlikely that any Iranian government will ever abandon the nuclear program, and it seems clear that Obama regards Iran’s nuclear program to be absolutely unacceptable and part of the threat.
The good news for now is that it seems that any military action is going to be put on hold.
“Regarding Iran, Obama said in his speech to AIPAC: “We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” It’s true that he starts with a diplomatic approach, but the plain meaning of his words is that he supports attacking Iran if nothing else gets Iran to give up its nuclear program.”
First, take into account the audience for this speech. But even taking it at face value. it in no way says that he will attack Iran militarily, in that there’s no guarantee that a military attack will actually do the job. So the cavaet “everything in my power” covers quite a lot of ground, makign clear that his vow is in the realm of the possible and useful, rather than some sort of absolute ultimatum encopassing literally all the options theoretically useable. This means that Obama could easily justify abandoning the notion of military strikes, in that actually stopping Iran from obtaining nukes simply isn’t ultimately within our power, even if we launch conventional attacks. Unless you think that Obama just promised a first strike nuclear attack on Iran, which I think is far more absurd than the interpretation you are already taking.
The problems with your analysis is that you resort to a nearly Biblical literalism when looking at statements Obama makes, when their meanings are much more clear in the context of his overall foreign policy. The simple fact is that Obama is just not advocating military solutions or military attacks, because they do not achieve the goals intended. This is why he was against the war in Iraq - not because he was categorically against the notion of war itself, but because it did not look to acheive the intended goal. I know this is why you don’t trust Obama - because he doesn’t agree with your categorical rejection of war - but his practical rejection of war under most circumstances as least likely to achieve one’s desired goals amounts to very much the same thing in practice.
Regarding the other remarks about Iran, again, you confuse carrot and stick diplomacy with war-mongering. Clearly Obama will wave the stick at Iran. If every time he does this, you assume this means he’s about to go to war, you will be disappointed countless times. Or not disappointed, since you don’t want him to go to war. The difference between him and Bush/McCain is that he is sincerely holding out carrots as well, and has every intention of making the carrot option the far likeliest to be carried through with.
Given his overall approach to policy I think this statement of yours is simply absurd:
“Put all of this together, and I think it is fair to say that he would order military attacks against Iran if Iran does not give up its nuclear program and its “support for terror, and threats to Israel.”
I see very, very few actual circumstances in which this scenario gets played out under Obama. Under McCain, I see very few circumstances in which it does NOT get played out. I think that’s the real difference here.
As for Obama’s ability to actually mount a successful filibuster of FISA, this is a non-starter. The Dems have a majority of Joe Lieberman, meaning none, and dozens of a few instant defections. The chances of keeping a filibuster alive are virtually zero, which is why Reid wouldn’t go for it. As for Pelosi, she too is under pressure from all the marginally elected Dems and potential Dems who could win this fall to give in to FISA during this congress, with the knowledge that a Democratic President and a larger majority in both houses in the next congress will make it easy as pie to revise FISA and the Patriot act. The idea that they should make some blood in the sand defense now, and suffer all the ugly consequences in November, when this battle can be fought safely and quietly and much more successfully in the next congress, is the epitome of bad tactics forced upon oneself by ideological notions of purity. Neither Pelosi, Reid, or Obama is stupid enough to make that mistake, though many proponents of FISA and the surveillance state would hope that they were.
Yes, the problem is that I take seriously that Obama means that military options are on the table when he says, as he did in the speech, “Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation.” This is hardly the first time that he has said this, and he has said it before audiences other than AIPAC. In that old Global Affairs Council speech that we’re also not supposed to take too literally, he said, “In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table.” If the goal is to stop Iran from getting a bomb, all other options are then exhausted, and confrontations are sometimes unavoidable, this is a recipe for launching a strike.
What is lost in the transcript of the AIPAC speech, incidentally, is how much stress Obama put on the line about doing everything in his power. The way he delivered the line was this way: “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything.” This is either unusually desperate pandering, or it is sending a signal that he is quite willing to go to war with Iran. I don’t expect that this will persuade you, because nothing is going to persuade you on this point, but I think the meaning of all this is quite clear.
If the filibuster was always a non-starter, which I don’t buy, that makes your candidate look rather foolish for having promised to support one.
There was no need to bring this up for a vote at all. What “ugly consequences” in November? Are freshmen House members from Indiana and elsewhere going to be voted out because the Speaker didn’t bring up a bill to handle warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity? That’s silly. Especially in a year this good for Democrats, there would have been next to no electoral consequences for sitting on this until the next Congress. If they aren’t going to a take a stand in this extremely favourable climate, when exactly are they going to do it?
Also, in a blast from the past, there was this old item from ‘05 discussing Obama’s remarks when he was first running for Senate that I commented on before:
What more can I say?
conradg, re FISA:
Bingo.
As to the overall situation, I can:
- Vote Republican;
- Vote Democratic;
- Vote third party (IMHO, waste my vote).
My preferred choice would be to vote for an anti-nation building, fiscally conservative, constitutionalist candidate (who has a prayer of winning). This seems to be a non-starter, so Obama it shall be.
One last, small point re: Iran. Despite Obama’s AIPAC endorsement of labeling the IRG a terrorist group, his website still boasts about his earlier opposition to labeling the group. No doubt, people who know his Iran position only from his campaign website would think that he has a very different view from the one that he now claims to hold.
Daniel,
Yes, if Obama were talking as he did before AIPAC in other settings, as a standard part of his campaign message, I would take it seriously. As it is, I think its clearly a simple case of pandering. To use that one speech as the key to an entire “theory of Obama” is pernicious. You’ve previously said that Obama was clearly pandering to AIPAC, now you claim he was revealing his secret intentions. Which is it? And why would you imagine that he would speak his heart to AIPAC and nowhere else? It doesn’t add up, and his AIPAC speech needs to be seen in the context of what he means by “everything within my power”.
Your picture of Obama as someone who avoids all confrontation while caving into compromise on FISA is completely at odds with this picture of Obama as an uber-Bush who will do absolutely everything to stop Iran from getting a nuke, opposition be damned. I’m merely suggesting that he will consistently compromise and seek the most practical solution in each case, including Iran. You simply can’t have it both ways. If Obama is someone who avoids confrontation at all costs, he will clearly avoid confrontation with Iraq, in which case there’s no reason for you to believe his words at AIPAC any more than you should believe his promise to filibuster FISA. If he’s someone who believes in confrontation at all costs, his compromise on FISA makes no sense at all. Both of these “theories of Obama” can’t be true. The best solution I can see is that Obama is a guy who will talk tough, but compromise in the end. You are just cherry picking whichever side of this dynamic makes Obama look bad in the moment, suggesting that Obama will attack Iran because he believes in confrontation, and will surrender on all FISA-like issues because he avoids all confrontation. The only consistency on your part is a desire to see the worst in Obama at all times, under all circumstances. My theory is at least consistent with both the facts and his rhetoric.
I’ve acknowedged before that the pledge to fillibuster 6-8 months ago was a mistake and a miscalculation. At the time it seemed workable, and that the bill could be blocked from coming to the floor. Since then it’s been revealed that it’s not workable to do that. Your idea that issues like this and the surge won’t matter in the fall, whether true or not, is not what most top Democrats think is true. Obama has had to acknowledge this political reality, and he doesn’t want to, and can’t if he did, change that view around. He’s not about to demand that house and senate Dems bow to his will just so that he doesn’t have to look like a flip-flopper, not that they would in any case. The good news is that this isn’t a guy who will stick to his guns when he finds out he’s been wrong or outnumbered. The bad news is that sometimes he’s wrong or outnumbered. Wow, imperfect. Obviously not the Messiah.
And, regarding your post about Obama’s 2004 remarks, the key phrase there is “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in”. I think that states very clearly what Obama’s policy is. You focus on the cavaet he offers, that there exist worse situations in which military strikes might be ordered, rather than his clearly stated policy aim of avodiing confrontation. Again, you suddenly abandon the notion that Obama consistently desires to avoid confronation in favor of a sudden turn to military confrontation, as if that is the real meaning of these remarks. This simply doesn’t make sense. As with FISA, we can see that in the end Obama will compromise to avoid confronation. Merely saying that there are some circumstances in which compromise doesn’t work is merely stating the obvious. No Presidential candidate could state otherwise and be credible on foreign policy. But clearly Obama is going to pursue a path of diplomatic compromise to render confrontaion unnecessary and avoidable. The bigger, unspoken aspect of this issue is whether he or any American President can prevent Israel from mounting a strike against Iran in such a circumstance. My best guess is that Obama would lobby very hard to convince the Israelis not to take that route, and do all in his power to prevent such a situation from arising. I can’t predict what would happen, but I’d put more money on Obama’s chances of achieving a diplomatic solution than either McCain or Bush.
Regarding the Kyle-Lieberman ammendment, Obama opposed this not because he thinks Iran doesn’t sponsor terrorism, but because it creates a legal basis for a US obligation to attack Iran, which Obama wants to avoid. In normal discussions, however, Obama has no problem calling Iran a sponsor of terrorism, so long as that doesn’t obligate us in some way to go to war with Iran.
Yes, but the problem is that at AIPAC he said that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a good idea! Laying out options for sanctions on Iran, he said, “…boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.” So which is it? Does he support “creating a legal basis for a U.S. obligation to attack Iran,” or not? Most recently, the answer has been yes. Doesn’t that create a problem for your interpretation of his position?
As for his habit of avoiding political confrontation, the question is whether he would defy the interests here who support a war with Iran. On the contrary, to the extent that he has to keep “proving” his solidarity with Israel and appearing “strong,” he may be more susceptible to domestic pressure to attack.
The problem with Kyle-Lieberman at the time of its vote was that it was seen by many, quite justifiably, as a potential authorization for Bush to attack Iran outright. No way was Obama going to be suckered into voting for such a thing under those cirumstances, when Bush was clearly trying to ratchet up a public campaign to support such an attack, very much in parallel to his previous campaign for an invasion of Iraq. Obama doesn’t have a problem seeing Iran as a terrorist sponsor, or passing a resolution naming Iran as such, as long as it isn’t in the context of a campaign to mount an attack on Iran, but only as part of a campaign to put diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran. That’s why he could say that there was a good idea in Kyle-Lieberman that was worth pursuing, so long as it wasn’t about ramping up a PR campaign to attack Iran and claim congressional authorization via the Kyle-Lieberman vote. This should be obvious to anyone who followed the debate at the time. Pretending this is ambiguous now is just being deliberately obtuse.
You still are not adequately explaining your complete contradiction in analyzing Obama as, on the one hand incapable of confrontation, and on the other, incapable of resisting pressure to be confrontational. The notion that Obama would have a hard time resisting neocon pressure to attack Iran is about as absurd as the notion that he had a hard time resisting neocon pressure to invade Iraq, or resisting neocon pressure to keep our forces in Iraq for 100 years. It’s one thing to suggest he will pander to AIPAC in speeches, quite another that he will attack Iran for that purpose, as if he has no will of his own that he has stated quite clearly already. Now, if there were massive, overwhelming pressure in the US to attack Iran, that would be one thing. But there is no such pressure, and it’s very unlikely that there will such pressure if Obama is President, in that there will be no aggressive executive mounting such a campaign, as Bush has done with Iraq and tried (and failed thus far) to do with Iran. Your thesis would suggest that Obama is so frightened of AIPAC that he would mount his own public campaign to mobilize public opinion for an attack against Iran because he needs AIPAC’s support that badly. I think this is further evidence of the kind of deranged thinking some critics of Obama are required to muster in order to make him seem unsuited for office.
One simply has to ask oneself, is John McCain better able to resist the pressures of Neocons to attack Iran than Obama? The answer, of course, is that John McCain would be one of the Neocons pressuring Obama to attack Iran, and if McCain were President, he would be leading the campaign form the White House, rather than merely urging it on a President Obama from the Senate. I think, having defeated McCain and his neocon agenda to get to the White House, Obama would have a very easy job of rejecting it once he gets there. On the other hand, if McCain is elected it will empower him to advance the very neocon agenda he is running on, which of course means more wars against our “enemies”, number one of which would be Iran. Elections do matter, I hope you realize.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about my thesis. He avoids confrontation with those who have the ability to harm his career, and the more powerful the interest the less likely he is to challenge it. He has no difficulty drop-kicking supporters and associates once they have served their purpose, and he has no problem confronting constituencies (e.g., the netroots, the black community) that are already locked into supporting him, but where has he ever risked serious confrontation with a powerful group or interest that had the ability and willingness to harm him? When you read that Lizza piece in the New Yorker, you see that he got where he is by doing the exact opposite of that. Why would he change habits when they have proven to be so important for his success?
If you don’t think there is great pressure to attack Iran, I would suggest that you are not looking in the right places.
Obviously, I understand that McCain is more aggressive and militaristic, and I have said repeatedly that he *is* unsuited for office without a doubt. That doesn’t mean that I am going to pretend not to see flaws in his opponent when I see them. Elections matter, but they don’t matter nearly as much as Obama’s supporters think they do when it comes to foreign policy.
Again, if he is averse to confrontation, why on earth would you presume that he is going to be a militaristic, confrontational President who goes around the world looking for places to start wars, which is your primary thesis in relation to foreign wars, rather than someone who will find ways to avoid the risks of militaristic confrontation? One could certainly argue that his argument against the invasion of Iraq was that it was too risky - because that pretty much was his argument against the invasion. It was mine as well at the time. It’s hard to see how that basic orientation would suddenly change in relation to Iran, in which militarism is even riskier. If his response to Iraq was to avoid risk, even in the face of huge political pressure to support Bush on so many Democrats, why on earth would it be different in relation to Iran, where the pressure is so much less? Yes, there’s some pressure from some quarters to attack Iraq, but certainly there’s no widespread public opinion in that direction. One reason of course is the lesson people have learned from Iraq, which makes them highly suspicious of any arguments for military action against Iran. So there’s no way the pressure to attack Iran is going to be greater than it was to attack Iraq, and so many ways to take advantage politically of NOT attacking Iraq, that I simply can’t see how you can argue that Obama will be MORE inclined to attack Iran than he was to attack Iraq, which of course he opposed. Where exactly is this “great” pressure to attack Iran coming from? I would say a pretty small contingent, not a widespread public opinion. Widespread public opinion wants strong diplomatic engagement, which is precisely what Obama wants and proposes. So even taking your original thesis of Obama as a risk-averse politiician into account, it doesn’t lead to him attacking Iran, but to him not attacking Iran, but finding a diplomatic compromise that defuses the situation, which as it happens is precisely what most people want and is the most politically advantageous policy for him to pursue. You can certainly argue that this isn’t heroic or courageous of him, but you can’t argue that it’s against the country’s interests, or even your own political agenda, or even more absurdly, that it’s something he would go AGAINST when it clearly isn’t to his advantage. If you want a heroic President who will courageously buck public opinion and try to lead us into an unpopular war against Iran, John McCain’s your man. They are virtual opposite in that regard. Obama is campaigning against tha kind of “heroic” leadership, as exemplified by Bush, and in favor of risk-averse sanity.But of course you are AGAINST precisely that kind of foreign policy, which means of course that you support Obama - except of course that would mean supporting Obama, who you can’t stand. Your dilemma is clear, but your argument against Obama seems to be lacking a rationale, other than that you must can’t personally stand the guy. You want a heroic leader who somehow will courageously not lead the country into foreign wars against Iran, as if that is the sort of path that “courageous” leaders take. You need to sort out your emotions, dude, and bring them in line with some sort of rational thought.