Secretary Clinton said that Iraq is taking care of it's own security and that President Obama is following a withdrawal timetable that was set by the Bush administration. That timetable for withdrawal concludes at the end of this year. She also said that President Obama has passed the '3 am phone call test' with flying colors, but Republicans are not convinced and have criticized the administration saying that security in country and Iranian influence still pose a great threat.
The reality is that there is still the prospect of sectarian violence in Iraq and as any laymen knows, Iran's influence in Iraq is real in history, the present, and will be in the future. Neighboring countries have relationships and it will always be that way, whether the United States government approves of those relationships or not. It's denying a reality that will be present whether the United States military is in country for the next two months or the next two decades. It's also silly to think that the United States will ultimately determine the relationship between the different sects inside Iraq or the relationship between the Shia of Iraq and their religious brethren in Iran.
The Republican candidates throughout the debates and their respective campaign stops have advocated that government should get out of the way in people's lives - let people help themselves and to determine their own success. Why shouldn't that apply to the rest of the world? There's a large amount of naivete in that question, and you could dismiss it because there remains the grave threat to the security of the United States. However, as Secretary Clinton pointed out, the United States still maintains a significant presence in the region, and at some point we must the United States must move beyond Iraq and perpetual war.
Cynically, our military industrial complex will remain in tact as we are training and supporting the Iraqi military as they are buying our military equipment. Our role as the biggest arms dealer in the world remains in tact as we pull troops out of country. On the other hand, as the Madam Secretary pointed out, we've paid too high a price to not let Iraq go forward with democracy - their own democracy. And that price - 823 billion dollars and 4,500 American lives lost, over 35,000 injured.
You just can't have it both ways. Democracy on our terms isn't democracy and as Iraq decides its own fate, we have live with the consequences of our actions and their decisions. It's time to get out. Actually, the time to get out has passed as we should have been out sooner.
Mrs. Clinton said that she is out of politics, is not talking about it and doesn't want to look back. All of this was in response to Mr. Gregory's question as to whether or not she regretted her vote on the Iraq war. What is always painfully obvious, and this time was no exception, was that by avoiding the question, the answer was obviously yes. She does regret her vote and she can not admit that, which in essence makes it a political answer.
Mr. Gregory's more important question was if the Iraq war was worth it? Secretary Clinton stated that we'll have to wait a long time to find out. As nebulous as this answer is, it's correct, but the time that we have to wait can only begin when we leave the country.
Now according to Presidential candidate Ron Paul, who appeared on the program today, 15,000 troops at the U.S. embassy in Iraq, the largest embassy we've ever built, is not an exit, and he would be right. These days, unfortunately, leaving 15,000 troops in country constitutes a withdrawal. Dr. Paul's ideal of the role of the U.S. military is where most Americans would like to see the United States, not bogged down in perpetual troop presence in every corner of the world serving as the world's policeman.
However, where most would agree with Dr. Paul's assessment of government withdrawal from people's lives abroad, his views on the student loans, Fannie and Freddie, the Fed, and entitlement programs simply isn't realistic. The draconian cuts that got us out of the great depression that he mentioned is an inaccurate statement. The cuts that Republicans made after Roosevelt instituted the New Deal set the country back on a course of recession, not prosperity. He failed to mention the role of WWII that ultimately forced the United States government to employ the country which in turn lifted the country out of the depression. He went on to explain that taxation is immoral and that tax policy was amended in 1913 because the Founding Fathers didn't like taxation.
With this last statement, can you not see how problematic it is? First, the Founding Fathers did not dislike taxation, more accurately taxation without representation. The Founding Fathers understood that taxes were necessary. More over, we amended the law in 1913 because the Founding Fathers didn't like it? That's about 130 years after the fact. He statement absolutely made no sense. Dr. Paul said there aren't any real differences between the Republican candidates and President Obama when it comes to major policy issues, social issues yes, but not the things that would change the trajectory of the country. This may be true but Ron Paul refuses to recognize that his libertarian ideal would not only leave millions out in the cold, disenfranchised, but also without the means to help themselves.
In his assessments, he separates himself from the other Republican candidates, but as far as providing solutions for all of American, he's just one in the same.
Round Table
NYT’s David Brooks; former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.; former Chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch; and Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent for NBC News, Andrea Mitchell.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
10.16.11: The Herman Cain Interview
The message is well constructed and it's simple, and the messenger stays on point with it, and that goes a long way. That's why Herman Cain is at the top of the polls for the Republican nomination for President. Many people are taking the line that at least Mr. Cain has a plan, more than can be said for Rick Perry, the governor of Texas.
In today's interview, Mr. Cain's simplistic '9-9-9' tax plan was front and center, and the news is that he admitted that in fact some people would pay more in taxes, while acknowledging that some would certainly pay less. This does go against the grain of what is now standard Republican doctrine in that it raises taxes on people. Grover Norquist is not an advocate for the plan, not because the raised taxes will be on the poor, but because the sales taxes on goods that are not taxed now would be raised.
The inequity of the 9-9-9 plan is easily evident. There are a few echoing complaints about how there are so many people do not pay federal taxes. These complaints remain echoes due to the reason, which is that many people do not make enough money to pay - the working poor. It's precisely this group of the electorate that is hit the hardest by Mr. Cain's plan while the wealthiest Americans will see another overall tax reduction. When the candidates speak of 'broadening the base' in terms of taxes, this is one of those approaches. Broadening the base means having the poorest Americans pay more in taxes.
Speaker John Boehner, quoted by Mr. Gregory, said that tax reform in this political climate would be difficult. To which, Mr. Cain countered that public support and simplicity would cut through the difficulties and his plan will go through. The unfortunate reality for Mr. Cain is that he will need powerful advocates within the beltway to champion his plan. Whether we like it or not, that's how our system works now, and there is just not that support. The Wall Street journal points out that the 9 percent federal sales tax combined with a state sales tax will in effect put a 17% levy on consumption. That number, no matter how you try to wring it out through explanation, becomes a simplistic 'no' in the minds of voters.
Finally, Mr. Cain's tax plan takes so much revenue out of the federal government, that it is a mathematical reality that cuts will have to be made in government programs. Mr. Cain has not outlined those cuts, which will not be in defense as Mr. Cain stated.
He stood by his statement that liberals in the United States have the objective of destroying this nation. It's a notion that he believes, which is certainly not a way to lead, automatically alienating a large part of the electorate. He explained that because of liberal economic policy, we need to cut defense, which is something he will not do as President.
When speaking about foreign policy, Mr. Cain invoked Ronald Reagan in as much as to achieve peace, we must do it through strength and clarity, strength through a robust military and clarity by clearly outlining who our friends and enemies are respectively. He went on to say that many positive things have come out of our war in Iraq and he would not reduce troops. However, that is as far as that answer went. Mr. Cain said that he would listen to the generals on the ground as to the best way to proceed in regard to military matters. This is distinct substance that Mr. Cain lacks in his approach to foreign policy. We are left to glean how he would act by the sources he looks to for his foreign policy philosophy, which include John Bolton and Henry Kissinger. Given these two references, we would have to conclude that Mr. Cain, as President, would be inclined to take preemptive military action. The type of action that Mr. Bolton advocated in Iraq and the kind that Mr. Kissinger proposed in Cambodia.
With regard to Afghanistan, Mr. Cain outlined victory as when the Afghan people can defend themselves. To extrapolate this out, we presume he means that the central government of Afghanistan under President Karzai has a military large enough to keep the peace in country with the ability to quash any resistance from the Taliban, for example. This definition is the conventional thinking, but if there is one aspect in which we need a difficult line of thought it is with regard to Afghanistan. Within that different line of thinking should be a way to get U.S. troops out of country as quickly as possible.
This column just finds it generally troublesome that prospective leaders in this country automatically defer to the 'generals on the ground' for their military advice. This notion assumes that we consistently have generals on the ground, which is an unsustainable approach to foreign policy, both in man power and money. When the generals aren't on the ground, what would you do as President?
Mr. Cain said he's a 'Main Street' executive as opposed to Mr. Romney being a 'Wall Street' executive, implying that he's more in tune with the American populace as a whole. He stated the President Obama is outside the mainstream in an experiential sense [read: no business experience]. Keeping these two views in mind, Mr. Cain will first have to explain what programs he is going to cut that will directly effect the middle class. And why would we ever want to discount state experience and the knowledge of foreign policy as Mr. Cain does? The market is so volatile right now because of what is happening in Europe and their euro debt crisis. It's the curiosity to understand something like this and make decisions accordingly that vets the best Presidential candidate.
Herman Cain is not that candidate.
Quick Note: The back third of the program featured Governor Bobby Jindal and former Governor and Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlenty advocating for their prospective nominees; Mr. Jindal for Rick Perry and Mr. Pawlenty for Mitt Romney.
Tim Pawlenty, when played the MTP clip of himself from July in which he said the Mr. Romney couldn't be the nominee because of the Massachusetts health care law, said that he believes Mr. Romney when he said that he would repeal 'Obamacare.' Mr. Pawlenty said he looked into Mr. Romney's eyes. Yeah, just like George Bush looked into Mr. Putin's soul and knew what kind of man he was. Mr. Pawlenty said, in reference to Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, that there should be no religious litmus test, it's prohibited by the constitution. This is a statement of expediency as religious attacks from the right have bombarded President Obama throughout his entire term in office. No a very good surrogate for Mr. Romney.
And as for Mr. Perry, he'll certainly need a more convincing advocate than Bobby Jindal. Hard stop.
In today's interview, Mr. Cain's simplistic '9-9-9' tax plan was front and center, and the news is that he admitted that in fact some people would pay more in taxes, while acknowledging that some would certainly pay less. This does go against the grain of what is now standard Republican doctrine in that it raises taxes on people. Grover Norquist is not an advocate for the plan, not because the raised taxes will be on the poor, but because the sales taxes on goods that are not taxed now would be raised.
The inequity of the 9-9-9 plan is easily evident. There are a few echoing complaints about how there are so many people do not pay federal taxes. These complaints remain echoes due to the reason, which is that many people do not make enough money to pay - the working poor. It's precisely this group of the electorate that is hit the hardest by Mr. Cain's plan while the wealthiest Americans will see another overall tax reduction. When the candidates speak of 'broadening the base' in terms of taxes, this is one of those approaches. Broadening the base means having the poorest Americans pay more in taxes.
Speaker John Boehner, quoted by Mr. Gregory, said that tax reform in this political climate would be difficult. To which, Mr. Cain countered that public support and simplicity would cut through the difficulties and his plan will go through. The unfortunate reality for Mr. Cain is that he will need powerful advocates within the beltway to champion his plan. Whether we like it or not, that's how our system works now, and there is just not that support. The Wall Street journal points out that the 9 percent federal sales tax combined with a state sales tax will in effect put a 17% levy on consumption. That number, no matter how you try to wring it out through explanation, becomes a simplistic 'no' in the minds of voters.
Finally, Mr. Cain's tax plan takes so much revenue out of the federal government, that it is a mathematical reality that cuts will have to be made in government programs. Mr. Cain has not outlined those cuts, which will not be in defense as Mr. Cain stated.
He stood by his statement that liberals in the United States have the objective of destroying this nation. It's a notion that he believes, which is certainly not a way to lead, automatically alienating a large part of the electorate. He explained that because of liberal economic policy, we need to cut defense, which is something he will not do as President.
When speaking about foreign policy, Mr. Cain invoked Ronald Reagan in as much as to achieve peace, we must do it through strength and clarity, strength through a robust military and clarity by clearly outlining who our friends and enemies are respectively. He went on to say that many positive things have come out of our war in Iraq and he would not reduce troops. However, that is as far as that answer went. Mr. Cain said that he would listen to the generals on the ground as to the best way to proceed in regard to military matters. This is distinct substance that Mr. Cain lacks in his approach to foreign policy. We are left to glean how he would act by the sources he looks to for his foreign policy philosophy, which include John Bolton and Henry Kissinger. Given these two references, we would have to conclude that Mr. Cain, as President, would be inclined to take preemptive military action. The type of action that Mr. Bolton advocated in Iraq and the kind that Mr. Kissinger proposed in Cambodia.
With regard to Afghanistan, Mr. Cain outlined victory as when the Afghan people can defend themselves. To extrapolate this out, we presume he means that the central government of Afghanistan under President Karzai has a military large enough to keep the peace in country with the ability to quash any resistance from the Taliban, for example. This definition is the conventional thinking, but if there is one aspect in which we need a difficult line of thought it is with regard to Afghanistan. Within that different line of thinking should be a way to get U.S. troops out of country as quickly as possible.
This column just finds it generally troublesome that prospective leaders in this country automatically defer to the 'generals on the ground' for their military advice. This notion assumes that we consistently have generals on the ground, which is an unsustainable approach to foreign policy, both in man power and money. When the generals aren't on the ground, what would you do as President?
Mr. Cain said he's a 'Main Street' executive as opposed to Mr. Romney being a 'Wall Street' executive, implying that he's more in tune with the American populace as a whole. He stated the President Obama is outside the mainstream in an experiential sense [read: no business experience]. Keeping these two views in mind, Mr. Cain will first have to explain what programs he is going to cut that will directly effect the middle class. And why would we ever want to discount state experience and the knowledge of foreign policy as Mr. Cain does? The market is so volatile right now because of what is happening in Europe and their euro debt crisis. It's the curiosity to understand something like this and make decisions accordingly that vets the best Presidential candidate.
Herman Cain is not that candidate.
Quick Note: The back third of the program featured Governor Bobby Jindal and former Governor and Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlenty advocating for their prospective nominees; Mr. Jindal for Rick Perry and Mr. Pawlenty for Mitt Romney.
Tim Pawlenty, when played the MTP clip of himself from July in which he said the Mr. Romney couldn't be the nominee because of the Massachusetts health care law, said that he believes Mr. Romney when he said that he would repeal 'Obamacare.' Mr. Pawlenty said he looked into Mr. Romney's eyes. Yeah, just like George Bush looked into Mr. Putin's soul and knew what kind of man he was. Mr. Pawlenty said, in reference to Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, that there should be no religious litmus test, it's prohibited by the constitution. This is a statement of expediency as religious attacks from the right have bombarded President Obama throughout his entire term in office. No a very good surrogate for Mr. Romney.
And as for Mr. Perry, he'll certainly need a more convincing advocate than Bobby Jindal. Hard stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)