The Republicans need to tell us how they would come up with the $2 billion per week it will cost to prosecute a full on ground war against ISIS. They can either raise taxes, or borrow it from the Chinese. There really isn’t any other choice.
I honestly don’t follow you; if a last-minute attack on the US would help Hillary win the election because she’s viewed as hawkish, then how does you get to that bit about how this-may-win-primaries-but-hope-trumps-fear-in-the-election?
Fear is propelling Trump in the primaries. Hillary has enough hawkishness in her to alleviate the fears, but overall has a much more hopeful message than Trump.
By cutting taxes. Duh!!!
First of all, you might want to drop the phrase ‘MoveOn.org crowd’ - it makes you sound like you just woke up from a twelve year nap. No one talks about MoveOn anymore, and some of the younger millennials probably don’t even know what it is.
Second, no, Republican whining about the lack of use of the phrase ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ has no effect outside the base. Everyone else either knows the reason that the Obama and Bush administrations didn’t use the term or don’t care. What they care about is whether or not a candidate is going to make them safer or less safe.
Which brings up the only point out of this that matters to the horse race: is this going to be a national security election? If it’s not, we can all go home now and welcome President Clinton. But it’s looking more and more like it is. And Obama is a serious liability on the national security front. Not because he’s done a bad job - he’s actually been one of the top Foreign Affairs presidents in my lifetime. But he’s a liability because people are starting to feel scared about ISIS, and for whatever poorly thought through reasons, that means they a hawk, a man (or woman) or action. And Obama projects too much of a thoughtful, non-active air.
But Obama isn’t running. Clinton is. And she projects as much, much more hawkish. That may be enough. But unfortunately, what it means is that once these primaries are over, the election is going to sound like a game of ‘Quien es lo mas macho?’ Republicans are going to pound the national security drum because they don’t have anything else. Clinton is going to do so to defend that flank. And we’re all going to be worse off for it.
Among thinking voters, sure. Among the chattering classes of security moms? Hell no. Remember, you are talking about the same electorate that returned GWB to office when it was blindingly obvious that it was exactly what bin Laden was trying to get them to do.
Not as much as having a president that gets us involved in another war would. If Republicans want to commit to sending ground troops to deal with ISIS to seem stronger on foreign policy that would guarantee a landslide for democrats.
Only if it goes badly. Arguably, the Iraq war went badly not because we sent in a lot of ground troops, but because there was no plan and not enough troops. BTW, those arguments were Democratic arguments that they made loudly and consistently for the next five years.
So a President Clinton would presumably conduct a ground war in Syria and Iraq much better.
“But this time, we’ll do it RIGHT!!” Yeah, there’s a definition of “insanity” that applies here…
It’s a bitch, being right.
So Democrats were lying all those years?
Were Democrats right, or just opportunistically lying while knowing all along that ground wars in the Middle East are folly?
I don’t know where you’re getting any of that.:dubious:
It was pretty much unanimous among Democratic officeholders and major Democratic figures from 2003-2008 that we didn’t have enough troops and there was no plan. That’s a pretty specific critique of the Iraq war. Now I realize we’re not supposed to hold Democrats responsible for the things they say(as Obama would say, it’s “campaign talk”), but the inference is pretty strong that more troops and better planning would have succeeded in Iraq, and given how things went once there actually was a plan and more troops, there’s a lot of evidence those critiques were true.
But now Democrats are saying that a ground war in Iraq and Syria would fail no matter what? Has something changed in the last ten years to make that so?
Seems to me that Democratic critiques were carefully calibrated to give Democrats the appearance of being strong on national defense: “We should have concentrated on Afghanistan! We need more troops! Better planning! Elect us and we’ll fight the war right!”
Everything about Democratic actions and words since 2009 has shown that it was actually just a carefully calibrated stance. Their instinct is to not use ground forces at all, for any reason.
Where are you getting that?
Seems to me the critiques were carefully calibrated to inform people that it was a spectacularly bad idea. 4500 troops dead and thousands more injured tends to leave a bad taste for using ground forces. And, we should have concentrated on Afghanistan.
Which is why after a short surge the PResident couldn’t wait to stop focusing on Afghanistan. Face it, the Democrats won’t fight.
Hillary would, but Obama won’t. Hillary flies flags at her rallies, and did have her hand on her heart at that anthem playing in 2007 when Obama didn’t. She believes in American leadership, which Obama seems tepid on. She wants American victory; Obama won’t say he does.
But back to the issue of this thread, clearly, what Trump is trying to do is get the left to push back against criticizing Radical Islam because some on the left will say that doing so is akin to criticizing non-radical Islam, and using it to win the election.
It might have been better, but in the long run it would have been disastrous no matter what. So most Democrats were wrong if they said more troops would have made a good outcome.
I don’t think Obama believes that a meaningful military victory is possible for us anywhere in the Middle East and neither do I. I hope Hilary realizes it, too, otherwise we’re in for more dead troops with little to show for it. I have no hope that Republicans will ever realize this.
Victory? Easy enough to find, wait for morning and follow the smell of napalm. But don’t dilly-dally, after a couple of days or so, another smell altogether more pungent will start to overwhelm that delicate aroma.
… this is a joke, right?
no its not. Just look at pictures of her rallies compared with Obama’s. The American flag is much more present at hers than his.