'How Do You Ask Someone to Be the Last to Die for President Obama's Political Image?'

[Bluebear]

by David Sirota

...In an interview with the same Washington elite who manufacture this bullshit concept of "strength" and "weakness," Obama insists "Not only is not popular, but it's least popular in my own party" and then pats himself on the back for supposedly having courage by saying popularity is "not how I make decisions."

It's a nice little self-aggrandizing pirouette - one that obscures the fact that, in fact, popularity is exactly how he's trying to make decisions. He's trying to find a way to be very popular - ie. considered very "strong" and manly - among Washington insiders (thus the escalation), while simultaneously limiting the unpopularity of his actions among the general public (thus an escalation far short of what his own military experts say is necessary). And because of that unbridled political narcissism - because of that apparent desire to be loved not just by his constituents (ie. the public) but also (and more importantly to Obama) by the Washington power class - troops lives are being put on the line unnecessarily.

And so it's fair to ask two simple questions. Is it really worth putting 100,000 Americans at risk for the next few years exclusively to protect the political image of a president? More specifically, is it worth putting those 100,000 American lives on the line so that President Obama can fulfill the media and political establishment's artificial definition of "strength"?

I certainly don't think so, and I think it's an almost unprecedented level of immorality.

When John Kerry famously asked about Vietnam, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" he was right to suggest that Vietnam was, in part, an honest Cold War "mistake" (although as the Johnson tapes also show, it was also, in part, a deliberately craven effort to protect a president's "strong" credentials). Afghanistan is different - we've been there 8 years, so the awful consequences of a new escalation (and continued occupation) that's nonetheless not truly designed to achieve goals isn't some innocent "mistake." It's almost entirely deliberate. And so the question for President Obama on Afghanistan is simply "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for your political image?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/how-do-you-ask-someone-to_b_378559.html

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Political Image? How about fixing a horrible mess?

Does David Sirota have a better solution?

[Bluebear]

2. Gee I don't know, email him!

[The Wielding Truth]

8. I thought that to be a cheap shot when it is not his image but the problem that

is paramount.You have brought us this article by David Sirota, right? What you do feel about the slant of the question?

[mike_c]

13. did you read the article...?

It is indeed about the WH struggles to maintain a "strong commander-in-chief" image. How WOULD you ask anyone to die for that? Or to allow their homes to be destroyed for it?

[anigbrowl]

16. That's what it's about, but that doesn't Sirota's assessment is right.

Personally, I think it's total BS. Sirota imagines a psychological explanation for Obama's decision and then proceeds as if his assumption were factual, a hoary rhetorical fallacy.

[The Wielding Truth]

19. I reread the entire article and find nothing other than conjecture by

David Sirota. I think that this is not purely a save face political image movement on Barack Obama's part, and I feel that it is slimy to assume it is. He may not have wanted to send any troops if it was not completely necessary to settle and stabilize this Afghani government.

There is no smell or other leanings to even hint that this is a personal image decision? I feel that it is a piling on of expression of disappointment that Obama cannot give us the quick and painless cleanup to the horrible condition left by the quick and thoughtless actions of the past Republican actions or lack of.

That's how it reads to me. You are willing to see the truth through DS view.I need more proof.

[JNelson6563]

21. Sirota's a rock thrower

The wing of our party I think of as the Barbiturate Left adore him.

Personally he seems like a broken clock to me, right twice a day. This doesn't appear to be the time of day for him to be right.

Julie

[sendero]

45. As if..

... that were even possible. Jesus, just 4 years ago everyone here acknowlkedged that we were very unlikely the war in Iraq could ever be "won" whatever that means, and now lots of the same people have amnesia because it is a democrat doing the warring.

It's hypocritical, it's indefensible.

We aren't going to "FIX" anything, that is up to the Afghanis and the Iraqis.

[Vidar]

3. Good post. Recommended,

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. LoL! That is some good shit you are smoking.

Care to share? :smoke:

[Bluebear]

I don't do drugs and don't get your post but whatever

[bvar22]

5. How do you ask an American soldier...

...to DIE for the corrupt Karzai government in Kabul?

Obama has NOW completely co-signed the undeniably FRAUDULENT election in Afghanistan, and has legitimized and empowered one of the WORST creeps in the Middle East.

Obama is NOW asking (telling) our children to DIE for Hamid Karzai.

K&R...back UP to +4

Fuck NO!
I won't GO!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. But hey, didn't Karzai work for Unocal and is into that whole pipeline thing?

:shrug:

[amborin]

6. it's a mistake to escalate in Afghanistan, for many, many reasons

[The Wielding Truth]

20. I thought you would state them. I would like to hear your ideas.

[era veteran]

7. So different than the Kerry analogy

I was in Washington that week 1971. So easy to play the Vietnam card. All sides use it.

[karynnj]

40. That week must have been incredibly emotional

You are so right both sides are using the Vietnam card.

[era veteran]

47. I was a 17 year old small town KY boy

With my older cousin who had just been expelled from West Point for weed. Very enlightening and fun too. Fuck the war painted in 15 foot letters on the Washington Monument. The largest gathering of people ever in the country. We really thought we would change the world. Great assortment of America. I learned a lot. Peace, Richard

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Wars fought for PR and political expediency cost lives. A lot of lives. !

[bvar22]

10. Will YOU send your kids to DIE for this man?

This is Hamid Karzai.
He is one of the most corrupt scumbags in the Middle East.
When Obama spoke of protecting the government of Afghanistan, he was speaking about THIS man.
Hamid Karzai IS the Government of Afghanistan, sometimes referred to as "The Mayor of Kabul".

Hell NO!
I won't go!

[moodforaday]

46. Plus, his brother is a drug-runner

Afghanistan's Poppy Problem: Karzai's Brother Under Drug Suspicion - SPIEGEL ONLINE
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,434523,00.html

... *and* on CIA payroll:

Brother Karzai on CIA Payroll: Drugs, Spies, Controversy - TIME
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1932862,00.html

There is nothing to "fix" there. The fix is already in.

[NJmaverick]

12. It's articles like this that make me embarrassed to admit I am a liberal

damn that was one heaping pile of dog sh*t

[mike_c]

14. it sounds as though maybe you should reexamine your political identification....

I mean, I find it fully consistent with liberal principles. What do you find otherwise?

[NJmaverick]

17. I have found critical thinking to be a corner stone of liberal principles

right wingers will often accuse us of hating America because we don't blindly support our nation and believe we are always 100% right. A true liberal is that way because they see the world for the shades of grey and don't stick to simplistic black and white thinking. Combine that with compassion and a strong desire to see everyone's rights protected (especially those in minorities) and you have the basics of a liberal.

Then I read an article like this, and I am sickened. The intellectual dishonest tricks and tactics are so bad they would make Karl Rove tip his hat as a professional courtesy. A true/good liberal (in my opinion) values an honest approach to issues. They favor facts and reason over emotions (particularly anger and fear). A liberal would not attempt these cheap tricks because a good liberal would never fall for them. We have certainly seen the right manipulate their followers and others, I always felt the left was above that (which admittedly I am seeing is not always the case)

[Bluebear]

34. >intellectual dishonest< LMAO ...EVERY single post.

Where did you learn that phrase and who told you it makes you look smart?

[NJmaverick]

37. I learned it and try live it. You should really give it a try yourself

It would totally change your position on things. Here's a good start for you:


1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

[Bluebear]

39. I've read that, you've posted it many times. I'm just suggesting you sound like you have a tic

When you resort to that phrase every other post you are kind of watering it down. Just a suggestion.

[NJmaverick]

41. If you have read it and I assume agee with it, how on earth could you

post an article that manages to violate every single rule?:shrug:

[JNelson6563]

23. The re-working o famous quotes is usually pretty lame

not to mention unimaginative. Perfect for cheap shots though, you know, quickie throw-away lines some will consider brilliant. Oy.

Julie

[NJmaverick]

24. What are you babbling about?

[JNelson6563]

42. Neat trick,

I usually pretend not hear what I don't like using "I'm sorry, did you just say something?". I feel it brings a bit of humor into it that your rudimentary method of trying to belittle opinions you don't like lacks.

Ah well, to each their own.

Julie

[WeDidIt]

15. And once again, Lord Privy Douchenozzle Sirota lays a steaming pile of SHIT! n/t

[MilesColtrane]

18. Considering how he is being excoriated by half of the people who voted for him, and...

how the most Americans want us out of Afghanistan, I don't think he made this decision to bolster his image.

[anonymous171]

22. He doesn't care about the common american. He is trying to bolster his image with the elites

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Ludicrous

[anonymous171]

27. Politicians don't make unpopular decisions on principle.

They do it because they know that they can get something even better than the voters approval.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. That's asinine

[anonymous171]

29. It's the truth. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. I don't argue with fundamentalists

Good luck to you.

[anigbrowl]

35. It's your opinion...not the same thing. nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

26. your proof please n/t

[NJmaverick]

32. I thought only rightwingers misused the term "elites"

then again the whole post sounds like a right wing talking point

[anonymous171]

33. I am talking about the military and economic elites

You know, the only people who actually support the occupation.

[NJmaverick]

38. "the ONLY poeple to support the OCCUPATION"

Are you sure you didn't help write this article? Your use of hyperbole and false claims and strawmen are very similar.

[ecstatic]

30. I think if it was image Obama was worried about, he'd pull out

His base is mostly against the war. So I'm not going to bother with reading the article since the headline is so childish.

[Bluebear]

36. You think he's concerned about his base? As far as not reading, your loss.

I have found it to be enlightening to read even things that on the surface I don't agree with, if only to appreciate the adversary view.

[Prism]

43. The disingenuousness is painful

Not in the OP, but in the responses of people here who are objecting to the OP's premise when these same people wildly applauded a recent infamous post in GDP that made exactly that argument - that we should escalate Afghanistan because it's good for the President's political image that he be seen as strong.

I don't ask for too much, but I do ask a "How dare you?!" reply not follow less than a week after cheering on the exact same sentiment when it was expressed by their "side".

There's dishonesty and then there's craven moral vacuousness.

[branders seine]

44. Easy,

Get one of the DU cheerleading squad to send them an email.

[TexasObserver]

48. Recommend