It’s no secret that I am a supporter of Sen. Obama. I have donated to his campaign and I have unwavering faith that he will be a better president than Sen. John McCain.
It’s also no secret that I support a full withdrawal from Iraq. I once supported a rapid withdrawal, but on most days, I am convinced that a safe and orderly withdrawal would be sufficient.
I also think that the decision to withdraw should be made regardless of the “facts on the ground.” It comes down to a question of the mission. “Facts” are meaningless unless they’re evaluated in the light of interests and purposes. Yesterday’s fact that a suicide bombing killed twenty-two people, including five Iraqi police officers, in the Diyala province of Northern Iraq can be viewed in a myriad of lights, some arguing for further commitment and some arguing for withdrawal.
For Sen. John McCain, any fact must be interpreted in light of the mission as he sees it: “It is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people.”
For me, any fact must be interpreted in light of the fact that we are an occupying force.
This is not a question of whether we should or shouldn’t have gone in. It is not a question of whether we’re better off with 4,158 Americans dead than we would have been with Saddam Hussein alive. Nor is it a question of whether the death of ~90,000 innocent Iraqis was “worth it.”
Instead, it is a question of cost. This nation can no longer afford our empire.
The United States is $9,689,696,698,847.73 in debt. According to the treasury report for June 2008, $503 billion of that is owed to China; $170 billion to “Oil Exporters” (which includes Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.); and $65.3 billion to Russia. There are other holders of our debt, of course, but these three are in our national security cross-hairs, and we’re sending them a lot of money. After defense, Social Security, and Medicare, the fourth biggest outlay of federal funds in 2007 went to paying down the interest on our debt. We spent $237 billion on interest payments last year. INTEREST PAYMENTS! Not on healthcare, education, infrastructure, or security, but on INTEREST PAYMENTS!
Compound that massive national debt with the $341.4 million we spend each day in Iraq (and that doesn’t include the massive outlays of the soldiers’ regular salary, the potential future costs that will come from supporting wounded soldiers, nor for the interest costs that accrue based on the fact that the war is being financed while we have a budget deficit; it does not include the war in Afghanistan or any other enhanced security abroad; it is a simple reflection of the Federal budget, and as such it is a minimum cost, not a maximum). I can’t even begin to do the math, but the obvious trend shows that we cannot afford this war.
Now, with all of that said, I want to get to the point of this post: You should read this month’s cover story in the Atlantic, “The Wars of John McCain.” I know this was a long way to go to suggest an article to read, but I want to let you know where I stand before I tell you that this particular article could easily convince independent voters to cast their ballot for John McCain.
But I am not an independent voter. And maybe that’s why I found this particular paragraph to be more insightful than any of the others:
In my conversations with McCain…he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending.
This explains the John McCain we’ve seen running for election this year, and I think it accurately predicts how President McCain would act in office.
Reading that paragraph, an independent voter could easily accept that kind of man as President.
But I can’t ignore the fact that we’ve already had eight years under a President whose sole passions were national defense and “victory,” and I don’t think we can afford four of the same.
This is not to parrot the Democratic talking point that says President Bush is the same as Sen. McCain. If Sen. McCain had been the Republican nominee and eventual victor in 2000, I do not think the country would have the same issues we have now. We would still be in Iraq (McCain was quick to link Iraq to Al Qaeda), but a Pres. McCain would have been more responsive to military realities than Pres. Bush and probably less prone to ideological blinders.
But while Sen. McCain may not be President Bush, I think he sees the world in an awfully similar light. We can’t afford another four years of the same unrealistic perspective that would have us honor a lie before we honor our debts.
30 Comments
I do not even have the time or effort to dispute some of the stuff said in here.
why do you even think you have to dispute it?
you always seem to find the flaws when it comes to a post against a republican or a company or the government… - and if there’s a post that is praising a democrat you tend to find the flaws in that also… - you never seem to find the flaws in a post that talk trash about a democrat or a post that praises a republican…
i understand that you see holes and flaws in a story… - i see holes and flaws everywhere… - but… - you only seem to notice the holes and flaws in the way a republican would notice them… - even though you say you’re not a republican…
what gives?
To be fair to Justin, I don’t write lot of posts that talk trash about Democrats or posts that praise Republicans.
i know… - i was just thinking that…
: )
maybe you should post some republican praise… - i know it’s ridiculous and difficult to do so… - but… - if you post some articles from a republican source… - maybe we can see if that gets the motor running on justin’s keen eye…
This post originated with the intention to link to the Atlantic article that, as I said, could reasonably persuade independent voters to cast their ballot for John McCain, i.e., this post began with a kind of “pro-McCain” intention.
Unfortunately (I guess), I just couldn’t leave well enough alone.
If you or anyone else hasn’t already, you REALLY should read the Atlantic article linked above.
It seems that way just because of the slant of this site. If this site was super republican I am sure I would find faults in the anti liberal posts. As I said before what’s the point of having this place if we all agree. By me disagreeing sometimes, makes people actually research the stuff they are saying, which makes people more informed. (Myself included)
While I agree we are spending a ton of money in Iraq and we owe a lot of money I do not think that it is as dire right now as Kyle makes it seem. The GDP to debt ratio puts us in the middle of the pack of industrial nations. In other words we can afford to keep on fighting, in fact given the war machine economy we have it probably is not as much of a drain as it seems.
so really I am here to help keep the boat from tipping to far to the left and drowning us all.
i’m not sure if that article alone is going to sway the independent minded voters who are confused about who to vote for… - it was way too long and most definitely boring… - the vietnam war was a million years ago… - jesus… - in the immortal words of janet jackson… - “what have you done for me lately?” - a surge? - that’s just peachy… - thanks john…
people who are truly on the fence are most likely waiting for the debates to give their confusion a dose of clarity before voting…
Check out Obama’s speech on the Wall Street crisis from earlier this morning. It gets a little slow around the seven minute mark, but picks up again during the last minute, when he connects the economic crisis to Iraq…as I did in this post.
I have not listened yet but connecting Iraq to the “crisis” on Wall Street economically is the same as connecting Saddam and al Qaeda. And it is not a crisis it is more just a market correction, a big market correction, but a correction none the less.
IS there a transcript I can read so I am not hypnotized by his voice and tone?
so you’re saying that a war has no effect on an economy? - c’mon justin… - you can do better than that… - and this isn’t just any old war… - but… - it happens to be the most expensive war in the history of our planet… - i’m pretty sure that it has something to do with the problems that wall street is having…
and i’m actually more hypnotized by palin’s voice and tone…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6aKXMTBsQ
Has nothing to do with it. 0. Saddam had more to do with 9/11 then the war does with what happened on Wall Street.
The housing market tanked and with it the bad loans that were given out were defaulted which started the ball rolling down hill to the market correction that we are looking at today.
Last time I checked a lot of the companies making money off the war are traded publically so their success would actually help Wall Street. Then you can factor other things like the unemployment rate is lower because of the war (less people needing jobs when they are in Iraq, ect).
Not saying that it is financially good we are there but these are two totally different animals. Shit the US gave AIG 80 billion to keep them from going under so it is not even a case of the government not being able to help out because we are over there.
i think that it is a little more complicated than that…
and the u.s. gave aig 80 billion? - and? - what’s your point? - we spend that much everyday before breakfast in iraq… - so…
maybe not that much… - but… - you get my point… - what is it? - how much do we spend everyday in iraq?
and don’t get me wrong… - i don’t support obama’s plan either… - i’m not into taking the fight into afghanistan after all of this time and just switching the war into a different country or intensifying a war that already exists in afghanistan… - especially because of the cost… - it just seems so fruitless… - so… - pointless… - in fact… - i’d take a mushroom cloud any day of the week compared to years and years of this bullshit…
IF we did not go to Iraq, Wall Street would still be in the mess it is now so they are not connected. The fact we spent 80 bill to help AIG (had to be done) tells me that even with the money spent in Iraq we are not handcuffed when it comes to domestic affairs.
see… - i still think that iraq has something to do with it… - because… - maybe… - just maybe… - there are investors that see iraq as a stable income for them if they invest in boeing or halliburton or whatever other company that helps the military out whether it be weapons or feeding the troops or shipping companies that have a contract with the government… - whatever… - maybe that has something to do with the amount of investors that stray from other sects of the economy because they don’t see the same amount of money in it as they do in other companies that are involved in the war… - you know what i mean? - like the housing market… - who wants to give the housing market any money if noone can afford a house? - but with the government footing the bill on war contracts… - well… - that’s something that can put money in your pockets…
The government has footed the housing market. The market is a mess because banks gave loans to people who never should have got loans. They then packaged those loans and sold them on the market. Some companies got greedy and bought up all these loans thinking that housing values would keep on climbing. When the values of houses dropped and these adjustable rate mortgages went up 2 or 3 points and people (some who really should not have been in these houses anyway) people started defaulting. This does not even include the “flippers” who really drove the adjustable rate market. The problem was that there were too many people trying to profit from the housing boom.(this is the short version is slightly a tad more complicated then this)
Anyway if your point is correct then that investors put their money in Halliburton/GE or whatever actually did better then the investors that put money into the housing market. So in a backwards way the war would have helped keep some investors away from the housing/loan market.
do you think that the “crisis” on wall street has a little more to do than just the housing market and the bank loans? - it’s a combination of different things and the war is tucked in there somewhere… - it’s not just the housing market and banks that are taking a hit… - just look around at all the different companies… - mad companies are losing money… - whether it be attributed to the war or with the oil prices and the prices of everything going up while wages virtually stay the same… - there are more problems going on in the market than just housing and loans…
and if we didn’t frivolously waste money on an endless war that’s brought us nowhere… - we would have the money to fix the problems on wall street or bail out whoever needed to be bailed out with money to spare… - but… - this war won’t allow the government to fully focus on other problems… - like… - the economy… - or a zillion other things… - and that is how this war is directly related to the “crisis”…
and i’m not saying that the government should have control over everything… - or… - be able to fix everything… - but… - when you’re trying to balance a couple of wars on your shoulders… - you’re going to be disabled when it comes to other issues…
The govenment has bailed out just about everybody. Freddy mac, fannie mae, AIG,
And yes this whole mess is all the aftermath of the housing bubble bursting. It has zero to do with the wars, not even a little.
o.k. - whatever… - you’re not understanding what i’m saying… - i’m saying that you can’t juggle a war and an economy at the same time and expect that everything is going to turn out victoriously… - i understand that the housing bubble is bursting and leaving a bunch of people up a dirty brown creek… - and… - i understand that the government steps in every now and again to bail out a bunch of companies… - but… - you can’t tell me that the government can conduct a couple of epically expensive wars or give most of our tax money to the pentagon and then turn around and blame the housing bubble when the market crashes or not even know what to do about the market crashing when the bubble does burst…
whatever the cause is… - the government can’t do shit about it when most of the money and attention is being funneled into iraq…
and i’m sure this administration had nothing to do with this housing “crisis” either… - there isn’t any accountability for anything else they do… - why should they be held accountable for this? - it’s the bank… - it’s the loans… - it’s the housing… - it’s the president’s bright ideas on the economy… - he only patted himself on the back when people were making loads of money… - now that they’re not… - it’s excuses this and excuses that… - more excuses…
poppycock…
I understand what you are saying, the wars put a strain on the economy. That is a perfectly acceptable thing to say. I have no problem with that. And I agree with it to a point.
But wall street’s problems have nothing to do with the War, nothing would have changed if the war was not happening and the government did step in and save pretty much the world economy.
This administration also has little to do with it just like the tech bubble under Clinton.
That’s what Obama was saying in his speech. He wasn’t saying the economic crisis had to do with the war. He was saying our ability to handle the economic crisis is hamstrung by the war (again, $341.4 million per day…for Iraq only).
We’re not only in debt, but we’re operating on a deficit budget. The money we’re sending to Iraq and using to build the levees on Wall Street…it’s China’s.
Better start reading your Little Red Books.
Huh? How are we hamstrung? The government bailed out 3 companies for a gigantic sum of money? Is he saying that the government should have done more? Bail out more people who probably did not deserve to get bailed out?
It is just political talk. Putting the cost of the war next to the wall street mess makes some people believe they are connected. Same as Saddam/al Qaeda with Bush. Again or GDP/Debt ratio is in the middle of the pack, unemployment is relatively low, and we will see going forward how the economy responds to a new president.
Not sure I understand the China reference?
If the fed creates what they are talking about creating it would be a very interesting time on Wall Street. Banking stocks are at a huge low right now and if you wanted to gamble away some money you could pick a couple and go heavy on them. Be living on easy street. Talk about crazy State street opened the day at like 60 bucks a share 3 hours later it was at close to 30 and then ended the day over 50.