Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
You might have missed it, because there has been an astonishing lack of interest in this story in both the mainstream media and (surprisingly) the liberal blogosphere, but America's military involvement in Iraq may soon and irrevocably be drawing to a close. With timetables for withdrawal and everything!
That's right -- the Iraq war may soon be ending.
[I'm not normally this lazy, but today I think I will sit back and let the presumptive Democratic nominee for president speak. Barack Obama was roundly castigated by the media last week for a non-story (because he said he might "refine" his Iraq policy). This seemed to fit into the media narrative of "Barack's a flip-flopper," which they had been pushing hard. But anyone who has listened to what Obama actually has said during the campaign about Iraq was surely scratching their head, since his recent remarks were pretty much what he's been saying all along. Since the media went into overdrive on this non-issue, Barack has been fighting back. And, as I discussed yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has given Obama a huge opening by demanding a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq. Obama has been taking advantage of this opportunity, first by penning an op-ed article in yesterday's New York Times, and today by giving a speech on foreign policy. While this was a wide-ranging speech which addressed more than just Iraq, I think it is worth excerpting Obama's strong commitment to ending the Iraq war, in case anyone's been listening to too much mainstream media in the past week or so. Without further ado, here is Barack Obama on Iraq (if you're interested, you should read the full text of his speech).]
There were two news reports over the weekend about Iraq that George Bush wasn't prepared for, and both the White House and John McCain have been slow to address them. This opens up a window of opportunity for Barack Obama, one that he has already begun to take advantage of. But he needs to do so more succinctly and more forcefully in the next few days, before the Republicans regroup and try to frame it in their own terms.
The first piece of bad news for Bush was that his efforts to tie the hands of his successor on Iraq are apparently toast. Bush tried to foist a "Status Of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) on the Iraqis which would have continued the U.S. military presence there for a long time to come. But the Iraqis balked, and are now demanding that any such agreement include a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. Not exactly what Bush had in mind, to put it mildly.
Welcome back to Friday Talking Points, after a one-week hiatus!
While plenty has happened in the past two weeks which bears close and careful analysis, I'd like to begin by focusing on one event. Barack Obama announced a masterstroke of political tactics last week, and I don't think everyone has appreciated fully what it is going to mean. I say this not as an "Obamamaniac," or as some starry-eyed follower who has been caught up in his "personality cult," but rather as a political observer (with an admitted left-wing bias) applauding a Democratic candidate on a monumentally brilliant decision.
I speak of Obama's acceptance speech. Which will be seen -- live -- by over 80,000 people in the stadium where the Denver Broncos play football.
That is just stunning.
[If you missed it, please see the Program Note for an explanation of the repeat columns this week.]
[These "prediction" articles are always lots of fun to write, but sometimes they're kind of painful to re-read later on. At least for me. To others they may bring amusement.
So, to be fair, I am running a "halfway mark" check on my 2008 predictions. I wrote this column in mid-December last year. My record is not that good, I have to admit. Although the one about Iraq and the elections has so far turned out uncannily accurate, I have to say. But many of these I just got flat-out wrong. I predicted an extended primary campaign... for the wrong party. I predicted all kinds of wild things which just didn't happen. But, for your amusement, I am running the column in full, complete with my own personal self-grading. (You may want to read the column first, and then come back to this list to see how I marked it.)
[If you missed it, please see the Program Note for an explanation of the repeat columns this week.]
[This column is as appropriate today as when I wrote it. The only thing that needs changing is what is considered "astronomical" for a barrel of oil. Analysts are now predicting $200 or $300 a barrel (or even higher) were America or Israel to attack Iran. But I think that all the other points are still as valid now as when I originally wrote this last fall.]
[If you missed it, please see the Program Note for an explanation of the repeat columns this week.]
[Just for fun, right after the Democrats swept the 2006 midterm elections and took both houses of Congress, I thought I would take a crack at making some predictions for 2008. I've never been afraid of jumping in with my analysis long before others get around to it, even if it proves eventually to be laughably wrong.
So here is how the 2008 election looked, to me, a year and a half ago. I concentrated mostly on the Senate, and if I were dividing up the races today, obviously I would switch some of these states from one category to another. But I think my final prediction of 57 Democrats (55 Democrats plus two independents who vote with them) to 43 Republicans is still among the most likely outcomes this year. I could be off by one or two, but I bet not much more than that.
So here are my ridiculously-early 2008 predictions, to provide an interesting look back.]
[If you missed it, please see the Program Note for an explanation of the repeat columns this week.]
[This column was the first one where I got a flood of comments in response. I can't tell for sure, since the original Huffington Post version now appears without the old comments displayed, but I believe it generated over 150 comments.
A little over a week ago, two of the architects of the new American policy on torture appeared before a House committee. Both David Addington and John Yoo were instrumental in providing the legal reasoning for what they termed "interrogation methods."
John Yoo refused to answer such simple questions as: "Could the president order a suspect buried alive?"
Program Note:
I will be taking a semi-vacation this week (I've got to get caught up on some behind-the-scenes stuff here at cw.com), and will be running older columns until Thursday. I will not be posting them to the Huffington Post, so the only place you'll be able to see them is here.
The good news is that live columns will return on Friday, since I couldn't very well skip two straight weeks of the Friday Talking Points. So rest assured, FTP will return this week.
But for the next four days, I've picked columns that I feel are relevant and interesting and worth re-reading (if you've read them before) or reading for the first time (if you haven't seen them before). Two of these will be "prediction" columns, where I previously made crystal-ball predictions, to update how I'm doing at the prognostication business. The other two columns are issues which are as relevant today as when they were posted.
In any case, enjoy the brief trip down memory lane. I apologize for the "summer re-runs," and I hope people aren't too disappointed.
-- Chris Weigant
First off, happy Independence Day!
I'd like to address, in as patriotic spirit as can be mustered, the wearing of United States flag lapel pins, and the inherent silliness this debate represents. Flag lapel pins are all the rage these days, but the battle over wearing the flag is older than you may have thought. Older than the battles in Congress over flag-desecration amendments to the Constitution (which stretch back to the 1980s... and which even Democrats who should know better still occasionally vote for in Congress... ahem).
In 1968, in the fading years of one of the most un-American chapters in our entire history, the "House Un-American Activities Committee" ("HUAAC" or "HUAC") still existed. This committee was set up to root out (as you can tell from the title) "un-American" activities... which started out as "communism" but soon morphed into "anything the right wing didn't approve of." It was in this later incarnation that, in 1968, it was holding hearings on those unruly and upstart youngsters, the hippies.
