The candidates are indeed impressive and well versed, but this is supposed to be a debate and no one is really debating. The campaign advisors must have told their candidates ”don’t argue.” There appears to be no question Russert and Williams can come up with to generate any conflict. In general, Romney is at his best when talking economics; McCain shines when he’s talking Iraq strategy and spending reduction. In other words, this is nothing we haven’t heard or seen before. Rudy’s team is busy e-mailing oppo on his opponents, but unless Rudy articulates these arguments they amount to little.
Contentions
0 Responses to “The Non-Debate”
May 2013
-
Articles
-
"My Negro Problem-and Ours" at 50
Norman Podhoretz -
Gay Marriage, the Court, and Federalism
Tara Helfman -
The Spirit of '75?
Algis ValiunasAn audacious, and wrong, argument about the American Revolution.
-
In Praise of Sheryl Sandberg
Christine RosenThe controversial Facebook executive's book is exactly the right kind of self-help.
Fiction
-
Onto a Good Thing
Joseph Epstein
Politics & Ideas
-
The Bureaucrat-Driven Life
Heather Wilhelm -
The Making of an Education Reformer
Sohrab Ahmari -
Bork's Watergate
James Rosen -
Dear Prudence
Paul O. Carrese -
Whose Accomplishments?
Mona Charen
Culture & Civilization
-
The Parenting Trap
Dana Mack -
George Saunders, Anti-Minimalist
Fernanda Moore -
A Chekhov in Training
Terry Teachout -
What Ailes the Liberal Media?
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
Taking Obama's Foreign Policy Seriously
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
More Genocide Threats from Iran
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Denying Jewish Peoplehood-and Reality
Our ReadersResponses to Robert S. Wistrich's "The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism"
-
Gun Laws, Crime, and Freedom
Our ReadersResponses to Benjamin Domenech's "The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control"
-
Don't Confuse Principle and Pose
Our ReadersResponses to Matthew Continetti's "Poseur Politics in the Era of Obama"
-
Jews and Sports
Our Readers
Enter Laughing
-
Get Our Free Newsletter
Class tells.
I’d rather have an irascible, old curmudgeon leaving office who knew how to articulate the connection between the War on Terror and Iraq, who, when defeated on reform of Frannie and Freddie, fought that rejection and identified the Congressional culprits, who vetoed spending bills and didn’t propose one very expensive new entitlement and another bureacratic nightmare in education, and who didn’t throw out his market principles by signing on to a program pushed by his secretary of Treasury and the latter’s Wall Street friends…….than a nice, pleasant guy who would be fun to talk with about baseball and has good table manners. In this conservative’s estimation, Bush 11 has been a near disaster; right behind Carter and Nixon.
It was indeed a classy Q & A. The interesting thing to me is the assumption by the press of a major mistake that demands confession. That mistake is, of course, the Iraq invasion. The reason it was a mistake was that the invasion “failed”. No one, most notably the press and the administration itself, has ever delineated success in Iraq. Literally any outcome could be termed failure if no standard of success has been established. At the same time, there hasn’t been an examination of the “failure”, except in terms of violence. No one has determined the level of “background violence”, violence that’s unrelated to the U.S. presence and is the product of a tribal society’s normal day to day operation. The ideas that U.S. casualties are indicative of failure, and that the financial costs of the “war” made it unacceptable, can’t be verified now or in the immediate future. Expecting Bush to indulge in some mea culpa is one more example of an unhinged press.
Chuck,
There was a clear standard of success for Iraq — a successful reconstruction of a society and an introduction of democracy along the lines of post war Germany or Japan. But in part because Iraq is, as you point out, a tribal society marked by violence that outcome was never very likely.
I regret that Bush wasn’t able to run for a third term.
Jenny “Goebbels” Rubin churns out her daily defense of Dubya. Let’s all hold hands and pray that conservatives keep praising Bush for years to come.
“Extracting confession is not the usual treatment the media reserves for acting or former presidents (Richard Nixon being the exception which proves the rule)” — Jennifer Rubin
Nor is it “usual” to have a president who has failed so spectacularly in nearly every respect from foreign policy to fiscal policy to allowing attacks on American soil to lawbreaking and war crimes. Consider this in lieu of a trial.
This get my vote for Contentions quote of the year:
“many of us don’t yet have a firm grasp,” — Jennifer Rubin
You got that straight. A rare moment of self reflection and candor that I shall savor.
Gee, Inagua, reconstruction? Of what? An 8th century caliphate or a more modern Baathist tyranny? Of course, in spite of what seem to be free, open and legitimate elections for the first time in the history of the location, the Iraqis really haven’t been able to assume the democratic trappings that we hold so dear, as exemplified by Blagojevich, William Jefferson, Kwame Kilpatrick, the Branch Davidians, Elian Gonzalez, etc., etc.
Prudence is the mark of the true conservative. Reagan had it;W was too impulsive.
“I believe that running the Social Security idea right after the ‘04 elections was a mistake,”
With all the Panic news, seems that everyone else has forgotten about the coming Social Security shortfall that would appear at the end of a possible Obama 2nd term (yes, Virginia, it’s that close). The talk of deficit spending in the trillion dollar range will do nothing to make the “Social Security problem” any better.
You got me, Chuck. Reconstruction was a poor word choice. I should have said nation building. I say it is not going well, and you seem to be satisfied with it. Cheers.
#11,
I got a great idea,and it should be easy to sell. Let’s privitaze Social Security,and peg it to the Dow Jones. Wait, I have a better idea. Let’s securitize our Social Security debt,bundle it with mortgage debt,and sell it. we could pay for Social Security with the profits.
I can’t believe I actually voted for Bush, twice! What a disaster, everything he touches turns to crap. I wish he would just go away quietly and hide in a corner, enough damage he has done already.
#14,”— everything he touches turns to crap”
That could be considered a WMD.
Well, the alternatives were Al Gore and John Kerry, and I do not anticipate ever, for even one minute, regretting that I voted for George W. Bush. I’ve had some serious disagreements with his policies, but you know, I just have to point this out, since the bleeping “Mission Accomplished” banner has been brought up yet again:
THE SHIP PUT THAT BANNER UP.
I happen to know the department head on the ship (USS Abraham Lincoln) whose shop made the banner, and it was the ship’s idea: to show pride, when the president visited, in THEIR accomplishments on a unique (and very long) deployment. Their assigned mission had indeed been accomplished: with honor, courage, and commitment. They deserved that banner. If they had it to do over again, they should do exactly the same thing.
Bush made a few exceptionally good decisions, and a slew of mediocre ones. BDS is far more an indicator of the creeping BS syndrome in our population than of anything about Bush himself. If you’re waiting for the media to tell you a president is the Good Witch of the North (or if you believe them when they tell you that, as with Barack Obama), you don’t deserve to be governing yourself in the first place.
17,”— you don’t deserve to be governing yourself in the first place.”
I’ve been saying that for years,our national IQ is too low to be allowed self governance. However, we could never reach agreement about who should be the dictator.
“They deserved that banner. If they had it to do over again, they should do exactly the same thing.”
That may be true,but someone should have run it past the Public Affairs Officer before mounting it.
Bush is garbage. I can’t forgive him for, forfeiting “free market principles, to save the free market.” Ridiculous.
RCAR at #10 — I don’t know how old you are. But Reagan had ZERO reputation for prudence when, in this very week 20 years ago, he was about to depart the Oval Office. The media and left-wing politicians had been calling him an impulsive cowboy (and of course “amiable dunce” — Clark Clifford) for a decade at that point. Even his supporters on the right were still trying to figure out how he had prevailed, and gotten the INF Treaty signed, by going against their sage — PRUDENT — advice at Reykjavik.
Our greatest national virtue is also our greatest national shortcoming: we can’t remember what happened five minutes ago. This does make us less prone than other peoples to seeking vengeance for slights suffered 800, 1300, or 2500 years ago. But it’s a real drawback in other circumstances.
There was no big national consensus on Reagan as a mighty, but prudent, huggy-bear in 1989. The Berlin Wall had not even come down yet, nor were there inklings that it would. There was still a Soviet Union. “Iran-Contra” was the main foreign policy theme of the news media. The main press coverage relating to Reagan’s domestic policies was of the “millions” of homeless there supposedly were, the schoolchildren on the brink of death from school lunch funding cuts, and the terrible expansion of the supposed “gap” between rich and poor on Reagan’s watch.
History will judge George W. Bush more analytically than he is judged today. Today, it’s all emotional perception.
RCAR at #10 — I don’t know how old you are.
Old enough to vote for Reagan twice:without regret. I’ve never voted for anybody named Bush,They remind me of the later Romanovs.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/an_unreflective_man/
working class americans pay for bush’s utopianism
RCAR — I usually let these things go, but not today. The ship’s captain knew the banner was being posted, and clearly approved it. His PAO (a lieutenant/O-3 position on a carrier) would hardly have had a different perpsective, or been in a better position than the captain to know what was politically good for the president. Nor would higher authority staffs. No one would have had a reason at the time to think it was a bad idea.
In fact, it’s just stupid to consider it a bad idea, even in retrospect. The ship’s mission WAS accomplished. Saddam was deposed. It took the Chinese water torture of an incessant refrain from the media to convince people that the image of the “Mission Accomplished” banner was tied up with other, unrelated impressions — also fostered by the media — that Bush had sent the military into Iraq without a clear mission; and that therefore the image was inappropriate.
Bush’s media representatives didn’t think quickly on their feet, and they should have defused the media narrative about the banner by simply saying, “USS Abraham Lincoln’s mission WAS accomplished. We appreciate the pride they had in a job well done. Now, what is your question about our current situation in Iraq?” But, unfortunately, the Bush communication squad was never that deft.
“The ship’s mission WAS accomplished.”
lol still spinning
The MSM just wouldn’t stop..couldn’t they have cut OUR PRESIDENT (no matter if you voted for W or not) a break? I’m ashamed for the WPC – President Bush kept his composure, and even tried to be easy-going with the Press Core. But they couldn’t even give him any respect in his last News Conference. I got embarassed for them! Talk about barracudas!
#22, Now, what is your question about our current situation in Iraq?”
No question, It’s obvious to me that Iran & Iraq have many similiar interests,and that fact, will continue to vex US interests in the NE. And it is a disaster for Israel.
J.E. Dyer,
Very interesting stuff on Mission Accomplished. But you are incorrect in one small detail. The Bush media team did not have to “think quickly.” They could have issued the statement you suggest any time, and they never did.
Inagua — good point at #26. Communication has just not been a strong suit of the Bush 43 administration.
lester at #23 — the ship’s mission was to depose Saddam. Saddam was deposed. The ship’s mission was accomplished. What about that is unclear to you? I urge you not to be a stooge for the media’s political narratives.
JE- lol the sign didn’t specify which ship and which mission. it was a press event. the implication was that the war was over. that’s how it was appropriately viewed by everyone in the world at the time and it was a dumb thing to do because it wasn’t over
No, lester, you read into the banner an implication that the war was over. The media helped you do that, of course. THEY could have said, “The Abraham Lincoln’s sailors are proud of the job they did,” and not even started the idiotic theme that Bush was arranging for public images to lie about what the war really was, and whether it was over or not. Instead, they ran with their tendentious narrative. And you seem happy to let them rule your thoughts.
Lester – read the speech made on the carrier.
Quotes:
“We have difficult work to do in Iraq.”
“Yet we also have dangerous work to complete”
“Our mission continues”
“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort.”
“Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight.
After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war, after 100,000 miles on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound.” ie Mission Accomplished.
Life isn’t an episode of “24″ where the good guys always win or even survive. There are people out there just as dedicated to undoing all that the US and other Western nations are tying to do. They are intelligent, capable and highly motivated and quite able to frustrate any act they think is not in their best interest. This is far from over.
As exhibited by the Olbermannish Bush-haters in the comments here, there are likely no “graceful exits” for them. Magnanimity is not everyone’s strong suit.
29/30- nope. mission accomplished meant the war, not that particular bunch of guys. if it meant otherwise he should have printed it legibly on the banner.
no one agrees with you. everyone agrees with me. next!
Lester
Who’s “he” – Bush? He had nothing to do with the making of the sign.
You have concrete for a brain. A few agree with you; some agree with me. Agree to disagree.
Next.
steve- so you think most people in this country, in the world, feel that that sign was not what it appeared to be but rather the very very specific thing you described?
that it wasn’t celebrating bush’s stupid belief he had achieved a cakewalk but rather the mission of those men on that ship. and the press was simply invited to watch that and nothing he said applied to anyone but them.
and it’s just a coincidence that Bush had no plan for the post war AND that he and his adminstration were under the impression that the war was only going to last a couple of weeks, months at the most as has been collected in quotes we’ve all seen
“The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.”
By May 2003, the first military objective had been accomplished. Further objectives, while having a military component, are not examples of war conduct and, in fact, provoked criticism at that time that the military did not having the training and expertise to complete them. The war was over. The CVN-72, having no role on the ground in Iraq, was certainly justified in displaying the banner, “Mission Accomplished”.
Ah, lester, you are such good entertainment.
“no one agrees with you. everyone agrees with me. next!”
With logic and evidence like that — who can argue?
Lester will have nothing to say in another week…BDS will be a thing of history’s ashbin.
Yes Lester I do believe that the sign was written by the ships company to celebrate what they had achieved.
Many people in the USA, Canada (my country) and the rest of the world are sheep and believe whatever they are fed. The present adulation of Obama being it’s most recent manifestation. While I wish him well the expectations of the man are ridiculous.
Perhaps you could read a book like War and Decision or even The Threatening Storm (both ridiculed or ignored by the MSM and “intellectuals”) and broaden your horizons at somewhat.
And yes I have read books on both sides of the question.
steve- neo conservatism is over. look around you and get a clue. They don’t even get invited on C SPAN anymore much less one of the major networks. and with Bush gone there will be absolutely no reason to ever talk to any of them again. the only reason we even kept people like kristol or stephen hayes around was to see what type of thinking was gong on in cheneys office, not becuase they or any other neo con have the slightest bit of significance or are respected in the the least by anyone!
je- yeah I had a much longer reply to that in 34. as for the “ship’s company” story, well if that’s how it went down then they most certainly punked Bush because if you have to explain it it’s too late.
“the only reason we even kept people like kristol or stephen hayes around was…”
WE?? You are in charge of the mainstream media now? Whew that explains alot.