President Bush as Batman
July 25th, 2008 at 06:03pm Mark Noonan
Interesting opinion piece over at Opinion Journal:
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That’s not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a “W.”
There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell…
…Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense — values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right — only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3″ and now “The Dark Knight”?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of “The Dark Knight” itself: Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified…
…When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away — because we have to chase him.”
Being a coward is, pro-tempore, easier than being a hero - being a coward only requires that one do nothing; being a hero requires that one act. Of course, failure to act can land you, eventually, in much worse trouble than the immediate risk of acting, but a coward can always rationalise away future risks if it gets him out of the particular spot he’s in. While those who act are those who make things happen (good or bad, depending on the actor), it is only those who act nobly who are subjected to the calumny of the cowards. To insult the efforts of a wicked man, you see, is to take a brave stance - so much easier to call Marines in Haditha cold-blooded killers than to take on the cold-blooded killers the Marines are fighting.
The dichotomy between President Bush and the man who wants to replace him cannot be more stark - Obama is lauded for doing nothing; Bush is condemned for doing something. What did Obama do to garner support which eventually awarded him the Democratic nomination? He spoke out against liberating Iraq before the liberation was attempted. What did President Bush do to earn the hatred of the left? He ordered the liberation not of Iraq, but of Afghanistan. Oh, I know - we’ve spent so much time on Iraq that it seems that Iraq triggered leftwing hatred of Bush…but if you think back on it, you’ll remember that the first “anti-war” campaign post-9/11 was to keep us out of Afghanistan…because the Taliban hadn’t attacked us, because we shouldn’t get into the middle of a civil war, because it is impossible to defeat a terrorist enemy on his own ground, because it would be a humanitarian catastrophe. It wasn’t Iraq; it was the fact that President Bush proposed to do something - that is the source of the hatred.
Had President Bush made a few heart-rending speeches and merely promised the full weight of American law enforcement, he would still be disliked on the left for various reasons, but the hatred wouldn’t be there because in such a response there is no challenge to the cowardly. The coward, being able to look at a mere indictment of Osama bin Laden, can take all sorts of exception with what President Bush did…heck, the coward could even say that invading would be better…but there is no challenge; no forcing of a choice. No contrast between right and wrong. Obama doesn’t challenge - he tells the cowards that they were right, that we shouldn’t have acted - that being afraid to confront evil is the smart thing to do. He tells the coward that he never has to shoulder a heavy burden - that the UN, EU and everyone else on God’s earth will take care of it, but he’ll never be asked to sacrifice, save perhaps in a higher tax bill.
President Bush looked at the rubble of the Pentagon and WTC and was filled with a terrible resolve - that this shall not stand, and that those who did it will be made incapable of doing it again. For a while there, the overwhelming majority was with him - but as hard decision followed hard decision the siren song of defeatism and cowardice took its toll until, now, President Bush is in many ways the most unpopular man in the United States. All too many just wish he’d go away and stop demanding of us a hard courage to face the difficult tasks. Millions who hate President Bush will want him again, if we’re ever attacked like 9/11 again…but for now, they just want him get out, and allow a coward to stroke the ego of cowards.
And the only thing which may prevent this unhappy outcome? Another man of courage - John McCain. We’ll see in November if there is a majority of Americans still in favor of doing what is right, rather than talking about what is right and acting like talking is doing.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, President Bush, Republicans, War on Terror
65 Comments
1. Stop US Wars » Blog&hellip | July 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
[...] George wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptOh, I know - we’ve spent so much time on Iraq that it seems that Iraq triggered leftwing hatred of Bush…but if you think back on it, you’ll remember that the first “anti-war” campaign post-9/11 was to keep us out of Afghanistan…because … [...]
2. Tractatus | July 25th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
a coward to stroke the ego of cowards.
AKA this blog post
3. 42 | July 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Batman wouldn’t have sat like a coward for 7 minutes on Sept. 11
4. LiberalMind | July 25th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I find it curious, if not amusing, that any successful enterprise, fact or fiction, is somehow attributed to or associated with Mr. Bush. This petty, self-aggrandizing ignorant individual, who by accident became President of the United States and since wrecked this country is nothing but a failure. These futile attempts to attach “W” to successful endeavors only proves this point.
Perhaps you meant that “W” can be likened to “Batman” in that both are fictional “heroes” that dwell in a fictional world wherein they both enjoy successes in a fantasy world setting. Except those that watch “Batman” know this. Apologists for Bush, meanwhile, for the past seven years accepted and excused every unintelligable sentence and every disasterous decision of “the decider” even in the face of obvious evidence. That’s you fantasy. Your delusion.
Maybe you are drawing a meangingful comparison between “W”’s disregard for the rule of law, the use of torture and the callous attitude toward death and destruction. These traits of the “Caped Crusader” have come out from time to time, perhaps to engage the audience in moral dilemmas that we all encounter. Yet Batman is a made-up character, a fiction.
Bush’s reign of terror has been all too real. Bush’s immorality is not confined to a “dark” side or manifest in the darkened alleys of a crime ridden town. No, his unrepentent and malevolent character beams forth from that little smirk of his.
5. Some Assembly Required | July 25th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Why would you even do this to such a great film! It’s F*%#in Batman. Why must you compare it to GWB. I’m sure if you wanted to you could find similarities to Hilter, Stalin or even OBL. But it’s Batman, leave it at that! Are you people really that desperate that you turn to fictional characters for decent portrayal of your messiah (Bush, as in formerly known as ‘Blogs for Bush’)? SHEESH.
I can’t wait for the film ‘W’ to come out and for you to claim some liberal Hollywood biased. I was thinking about bookmarking this thread but that would require to much effort to prove the likes of yourself a hypocrite to the highest degree. I find comfort in knowing anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence sees through you just like organized religion. I think a friend said it best this afternoon when asked about what church (organized religion) he followed. He said, church, I follow non. Neither does any educated individual.
Note, he did not say RELIGION. He said CHURCH.
6. Casper | July 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Thanks a lot for ruining the movie for me. I haven’t had a chance to see it yet, but if Batman is like Bush, that means he lets the Joker go and attacks someone who had nothing to do with the Joker’s crimes.
7. Casper | July 25th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
BTW Mark, the problem that most people have with Bush is not that he acted, everyone I know has praised him for the actions he took in Afghanistan (if there were protests, there were very few) it’s how he acted after that. His problem was and is Iraq.
8. William Teach | July 25th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Whew! Look at the liberal dementia fly!
Oh, BTW, 42, your candidate stood frozen in terror for 45 minutes, while W was giving orders, keeping the kids in the school calm, wisely and adultly getting the necessary information.
Oh, and double BTW, libs, Barry wants to attack the Taliban. To use your own talking points, the Taliban did not attack us. Al Qaeda did.
9. Casper | July 25th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
William Teach,
Are you saying Bush was wrong to attack the Taliban?
Unlike Iraq, the Taliban sheltered Al Queda.
10. Kahn | July 25th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
ah 42. You are an ass, you know that?
11. Kahn | July 25th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Casper, I believe that William was applying liberal logic. Similar to Bistromathics. (42, do you get the reference?)
12. Casper | July 25th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Liberal logic. I would have thought that you would consider that an oxymoron.
13. js | July 25th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
ok mark, the trap worked
they are all here….
14. Herman | July 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“Obama doesn’t challenge - he tells the cowards that they were right, that we shouldn’t have acted” — Marc Noonan
This is the whole trouble with conservative thinking, it’s so damn simplistic! Mr. Noonan would have us believe that the choice is to act or not to act. Actually, the choice is to act, or (if possible) do something better instead. For there is always at least one cost associated with any action: the opportunity cost — the foregone opportunity to have done something differently with the time and with the resources.
We must include these opportunity costs in any cost-benefit analysis of Bush’s war. The benefit of Bush’s war is immediately apparent: Iraq (and the world) freed of Saddam Hussein. This is indeed notable. The costs include:
*60,000 to what a million dead Iraqis (depending on whose analysis), more than 4,000 dead coalition soldiers (easily exceeding the number killed by Osama)
*2 million to maybe 4 million Iraqi refugees
* The undermining of international law that happens when you launch a pre-emptive war that turns out to be not pre-emptive after all
*Billions upon billions upon billions of dollars spent, Nobel Economics Laureate Joseph Stiglitz indicating that Bush’s Iraq war will ultimately wind up costing something like (if I recall correctly) three TRILLION dollars, some of this on long-term care for crippled veterans
Much of those billions of dollars could have been spent on third world economic development, family planning, and the fight against malaria, AIDS, schistomeisis (spelling?), etc. Additional sums could have been spent on improving the environment, developing alternative energy sources. Instead of spending time on killing, members of the U.S. military could have spent their time learning or (if the’re in the marines) building bike lanes.
In short, the conservatives have essentially favored spending thousands of lives and billions upon billions for nation -building in Iraq. You get far more bang for your buck with regards to nation-building if you focus on developing countries that are largely peaceful to begin with, where unrecoverable costs (such as deaths) much less likely to occur.
15. js | July 25th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I think the other choice was really obvious. I mean, instead of invading Iraq, we really could have done just what billy bob clinton did for 8 years…pretend…
16. js | July 25th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
just like Saddam…billy thought he was such a nice fellow…whe could pretend he didnt kill over 2 million folks…even though half of them were our enemies i iran…and the other half were his citizens….ya…we could have done that…and we also could have capitulated to the communists….
17. Kahn | July 25th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
George Bush isn’t on the ballot.
A man who opposes drilling and nuclear power while at the same time proposing massive tax increases during an economic slowdown IS.
HIS name is Barry Obama. And he speaks well without saying much.
18. js | July 25th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
you dont think that the USA is responsible for most of the dead civilians in iraq, do you? do you actually want to stand there and tell us that our sons and daughters went over to iraq to win the hearts and minds of a nation by killing them while they shop for food…do you?….you really want to tell us thats what you think?
how pathetic….
19. js | July 25th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
really…obama is nothing more than a hollow shirt full of lies…..that spent 20 years in a black supremacist church that taught that whitey is an evil thing…but its ok…because obama said he wasnt paying attention….for 20 years….you can believe what ever you want…but go back out to the play ground….let the grown-ups make the important decisions…please….
20. Tractatus | July 25th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Are you gonna stop repeating the lie that Obama says no to nuclear power, Kahn, or are you going to be a typical wingnut and just keep on lying because it makes you feel good?
I hope it’s the former, but the smart money’s on the latter.
21. js | July 25th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
lie? really…obama…lie????
how cheap…like everyone didnt notice?
22. js | July 25th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
why does Obama lie and say he is a strong opponent of Nuclear Energy?
why did Obama lie to an audience in Idaho and say he passed Nuclear Release Notice Act when in fact he did not? not only did he not pass it, he rewrote it and watered it down to the point of including the Nuclear Energy industry’s own language in the bill… it is still sitting in the Senate
why is Exelon one of Obama’s biggest campaign financers???
read: NY Times Feb 3 article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html
23. blue eyes | July 25th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Actually I think the meme Blogs for Bus….er Victory should be using is “Bush as Moses”.
You know, he leads his people into the desert, (iraq) and wanders for 40 years.
Yes, in a few years the former Preznit may have a beard, a white one at that, and look like a grizzled Carleton Heston.
That’s the ticket! Bush as Moses.
24. What? | July 26th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Again, I love Batman.
I am happy to see this film is getting the attention it is. It deserves every bit of it.
I am disappointed that many people are trying to claim Batman and his accompanying universe reflect their politcal ideology.
The film and its source material is so much more complex than Bush = Batman = Good guy.
25. Darva Conger | July 26th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Bush as Batman?
:)
26. Mark Noonan | July 26th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Casper,
The protests might have been small…but the very same arguments made against liberating Afghanistan were marshalled against liberating Iraq…and you on your side eventually bought it, because, sorry to say, the challenge of Iraq proved too great for your mettle. It became easier to condemn Bush than to think in terms of what hard task we must do to win…
27. Mark Noonan | July 26th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Herman,
That you suggest the Marines build bike paths indicates the immaturity of your views.
28. Mark Noonan | July 26th, 2008 at 1:59 am
js,
Like fish in a barrel - though I’m disappointed that we so far haven’t even got one thoughtful lefty response. This is a theme I’m going to expand on and I’d appreciate some rational critique.
29. William Teach | July 26th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Bistromatics. Awesome reference, Kahn.
Casper, I was applying liberal logic. We weren’t attacking the Taliban, but the nation state of Afghanistan, home to Al Qaeda, and the Taliban was in the way. It was the correct thing to do.
And I do think attacking Iraq was the correct thing, as well, for lots and lots of reasons, one of them being that we turned it into the central front. Rather then fighting in the inhospitable mountains of Afghanistan, with long supply chains requiring overflight of Pakistan, we dragged the little jihadis into Iraq, a better place to fight, and are killing them in droves. (short answer)
30. Stretchrun | July 26th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Americans losing their homes, deciding between food and gas, worried about rising inflation and can’t afford health care. But to the repugs all problems are solved with labels and marketing.
If we go with this Rupert Murdoch talking point; Bush Jr. may be batty but never Batman.
31. Leo Pusateri | July 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I haven’t seen one post here that substantively detracts from any of Mark’s points.
Game, set and match = Mark Noonan.
Good post.
32. Kahn | July 26th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Stretchrun, so how will no new refineries, no oil, no coal, Kennedy restrictions on wind, no new hydro, no nuclear, and second thoughts about solar help? Because I see Democrats standing in the way of EVERY energy alternative.
And how will raising income taxes on the rich, AND raising the social security tax, AND raising capital gains (better check on what the profits on a house sale are called) taxes help?
And how will arbitrarily pulling out of the mid-east without finding a solution to Iran help?
And is Obama still planning on attacking nuclear armed Pakistan?
33. the_lefty_fool RETURNS | July 26th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Deleted - obscenity.
34. Democratic Citizen | July 26th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Once again republitards have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy. First they mistook fux’s 24 for reality and now they think BATMAN is the pattern for terrorist control - and these moron’s think the Democrats are the party of the Hollywood Fantasy Values! LMFAO! buy a clue already.
35. JimBob | July 26th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Bush & Company are super villains, not super heroes.
I have not seen the movie, but I am pretty sure that as dark as Batman is, he does not torture people or use depleted uranium and white phosphorous in Gothem City. I am pretty sure Batman is not the kind of man to kidnap people and hold them for years in the batcave even after he discovers they are innocent.
If anything, Bush & Company is more like SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion).
36. William Teach | July 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Libs still haven’t refuted. They are quite amusing in their moonbattery, though!
37. cam | July 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Mark,
What do you have against building bike lanes? While it may be a stretch to compare the Marines’ service to building bike paths I would be happy to exchange the 0.5 trillion spent on this war for an equivalent number of new bridges and roads. If the same fervor was focused on rebuilding our infrastructure here in the US as was expended on the war in Iraq I think we would have gained much more. And instead of being the drag on the economy that the war has become an investment in American infrastructure including that which would improve national security would serve instead as a way to bolster our economy.
Anyway the arguments that Herman makes are pretty substantial and irrefutable. So you go to the one comment for which you can find fault and dismiss the rest of the argument as immature.
What is immature is a president who does not have the patience to use other means to contain a castrated dictator and turns to a unjust war as a knee jerk reaction. What is immature is a president who needs instant gratification. While dropping bombs and blowing things up in a orgy of violence does have a certain grandeur and stirs a temporary patriotism in the provocateur, once sane people realize that 10’s of thousands of innocents will be killed or forever maimed, all at an extremely high cost, sane people will ask that we think twice before we undertake another war.
38. 42 | July 26th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“BTW, 42, your candidate stood frozen in terror for 45 minutes”
-Bob Barr did what??? You saw him on Sept 11?? You know who my candidate is??
billy teach, you’re an idiot
“W was giving orders, keeping the kids in the school calm, wisely and adultly getting the necessary information.”
-Sorry, see I was talking about George W Bush…not sure who you’re talking about, since George W Bush was NOT keeping anyone calm or doing anything ‘wisely and adultly’….as Batman would have done
Billy Teach, you’re and idiot
Batman wouldn’t have sat like a coward for 7 minutes on Sept. 11
10. Kahn | July 25th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Nice double standard Noonan
39. 42 | July 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“I haven’t seen one post here that substantively detracts from any of Mark’s points”
probably, cowardly leo, because you have a double digit IQ
40. 42 | July 26th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
#10. Kahn | July 25th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
ah 42. You are an ass, you know that?
Great retort Kahn…you’re doing a heck of a job dispelling the myth that cons are uneducated idiots with no thought process…keep up the good work big guy!
41. Tractatus | July 26th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I wondered if Kahn would give up the lie that Obama says no to nuclear power. Later, Kahn says:
no nuclear
Like I said, smart money’s on Kahn refusing to give up the lie.
I haven’t seen one post here that substantively detracts from any of Mark’s points
That’s because he’s not making a cogent one. Why bother to refute something that is self-refuting? If Noonan wants “rational critique,” perhaps he should make a rational point instead of mouthing the same lazy, cowardly talking points over and over again.
But if you guys want to continue making huge stretches such as these (and we all know that you do), go right ahead.
42. Ricorun | July 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I haven’t seen one post here that substantively detracts from any of Mark’s points
Interestingly, Fareed Zakaria recently
ran a piece in Newsweek in which he argued that this time around it’s the Dem candidate who is the realist on foreign policy while the Rep is the idealist.
Mark’s piece appears to bear out Zakaria’s point. It drips with idealism and hero worship. And yet in other pieces he and others portray Obama as the messiah and criticizes lefties for what they perceive as his supporters’ own idealism and hero worship. I guess it’s no surprise that the label “messiah” shows up almost exclusively in conservative descriptions.
Many people have described the Batman movie as “dark”. Yet it appears no one has yet asked themselves why. I think the answer is there in Klavan’s piece: “Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand.” In other words, it’s okay if the good guy behaves as psychotically as the bad guy as long as the ends justify the means. The trouble is, Batman is a movie, a cartoon, a piece of fiction. Real life is real.
43. Mark Noonan | July 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Ricorun,
I’ve seen you on the left reference that Zakaria piece - as if the opinion of one man is enough to cover all of Obama’s foreign and military inexperience. You’ll have to do better than that.
I cannot see that the substantive point I’ve made - that Obama is advocating what amounts to cowardice, and is telling a willing audience that cowardice is smarter than courage…that cowardice is bravery, for a nice Orwellian twist - has been refuted or, indeed, questioned by any of the critics here. This is either because my basic argument is unanswerable, or all of you critics are failing to understand it.
I don’t hero-worship either President Bush or Senator McCain…unless you want to assert that I hero-worship Winston Churchill and Douglas MacArthur. I admire these men for their courage and their willingness to act even at extraordinary personal risk. If you want do have done, you must do.
Now, this doesn’t argue in favor of a perish-the-hindmost, action-for-the-sake-of-action mindset - there is the need for preparation and deliberation prior to making a decision and carrying it through. MacArthur took painstaking preparations before undertaking any action - a more strong example of high courage coupled with caution is, of course, Field Marshal Montgomery; much criticised for his rather slow procedures, it is yet undisputable that he was a man of great courage and who never lost a battle because he was entirely prepared before starting one.
So, caution and preparation is good - but what Obama is advocating isn’t caution and preparation before acting, but a failure to act. And the worst part it is that he’s selling you the notion that this is the brave, smart thing to do. He didn’t want us to liberate Iraq because it was a hard thing to do - fraught with risks and difficult to carry through to victory. He wanted us to pull out of Iraq in 2007 because it was hard and the road to victory was difficult. To Obama and his supporters, flunking the test of courage is a resume’ enhancer.
44. js | July 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
sometimes doing the right thing is not so easy…take batman as an example….he gave us half his life to an ideology that good will overcome evil…its an ancient concept for sure…because there have always been bad men in the world from the beginning of time who would assume that executing any and all who get in thier way is the rule of law…well…we dont live in jungles anymore…you cant just take what you want because you can….saddam did just that…whoever got in his way usually died…and so did thier family…and saddam taught his moral code to his son’s….who didnt have any problems kidnapping young girls for sex toys whenever they wanted them…immune to any law that upheld human rights and moral behavior….
so effectivly…bush as batman theme is for sure…when everyone else would not stand up and say…thats enough…bush did…while everyone else was taking payoffs to remove the sting of the UN sanctions….bush drew the line in the sand….real life is real…but unless you at least try to soar with the eagles…you will be stuck scavaging with the vultures….
45. Dennis | July 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Post 43: “If you want do have done, you must do. Now, this doesn’t argue in favor of a perish-the-hindmost, action-for-the-sake-of-action mindset - there is the need for preparation and deliberation prior to making a decision and carrying it through…”
In the end, the fact that the Iraq war was not a war of last resort (i.e. a just war), and the irresponsible manner in which the security of the population was disregarded (inadequate troop numbers, leaving munitions unguarded, not securing hospitals, etc) makes those who started it morally culpable for large-scale loss of human life.
You can pretend all you want that we only kill bad guys, ergo we are good guys. Once you begin making such disctinctions you already have fallen under the spell of moral relativism.
Fiction and fantasy have always featured heroic characters who spurned moral codes for immediate gratification and revenge, and one problem with Bush is that he saw himself in a fantasy role as a heroic character. He never referenced biblical morality, least of all New Testament Christian morality, in any of his policies.
Bush’s defenders for a while tried to use legalistic, Old Testament models to justify his policies but after Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition and the torture memos the public began to see through even that. So now all you’ve got left is Batman. I’m sorry for you.
46. Ricorun | July 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Mark, you can’t seem to help but to keep proving my point, which is to say that you appear unable to see the world in anything but a good/bad, black/white, heroism/cowardice framework with nothing in between. THAT is idealism. You have yours, some Obama supporters have theirs. The details of each are certainly different. But at the same time they are, as you like to say, of a piece. What I’m criticizing is mindlessness in all its forms, which is to say the tendency to cartoonize reality.
Moreover, you failed to address my question — which is really the essential question… why is the Batman movie dark? IMO, the biggest criticism I have of the GOP, Bush, and you and others here is your/their willingness to jettison concern for the means in pursuit of their ends. The examples are myriad. But perhaps the one that bears most directly upon the Batman analogy is our definition of, and our treatment of, “combatants”.
My mentioning the Zakaria piece was intended as an example, an attempt to get people to think in a different way — specifically, to appreciate the difference between realism and idealism in foreign policy. I don’t mean it as an endorsement of Obama, but I happen to think he’s right — Obama’s worldview is more realistic than idealistic, and McCain’s is the opposite. Now, if you really want to know what Obama thinks about foreign policy, I suggest you listen to Zakaria’s interview with him. I hope McCain sits down with him as well. If nothing else, I hope McCain eventually comes up with an inclusive plan for foreign policy. As yet, his web site mentions nothing coherent.
47. Jeremiah | July 26th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Ricorun,
How is it possible to “hunt down” and “find” Al Qaeda (Terrorists) wherever they may be found when you remove all soldiers on active duty in Iraq?
To believe Obama when he says he will “hunt down” the terrorists, and anything he says is simply preposterous.
For goodness sake, he didn’t even have the decency enough to stop and thank our troops for their hard-work in securing his and ours freedom!!!!!!!
I personally think that Obama takes his freedom for grantit, so much so that he thinks he’s higher than everybody else and he will take that for-grantit attitude a step further, to dangerous levels, if he is elected to the POTUS.
This sort of goes along with the thread Mark had a couple of weeks ago on Obama’s pride….Does Obama have too much pride to make an effective President? Well, all one needs to do is look at his actions….his pride is in his Black Liberation Theologies and the Communits parties tied in with it, like the Black Panther party and so on.
He won’t wear a flag pin, put his hand over his heart….nothing……Obama makes no allegiance to America whatsoever, except to Obama and nobody but Obama. It’s just too bad that there are nutcases out there that will believe every word coming off his deceitful tongue.
He’s the grand deceiver of all time.
He’s dangerous!
I just hope, I just HOPE America will see through that mask he puts on.
48. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Rico,
Obama: “I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus.”
Naivety. You don’t end a war by pulling out of it and habeuas corpus has never been lost for Americans, having never been intended for POW’s.
Obama: “I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda”
Since it’s they’re almost finished anyway, this means nothing.
The rest of his positions are part and parcel to Jimmah Carter and I think we all remember what a success he was.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#diplomacy
49. Casper | July 26th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
neocon,
“Naivety. You don’t end a war by pulling out of it”
“Barack Obama praised comments by his rival, John McCain, suggesting the Republican might support a 16-month timeline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.”
Looks like both McCain and Obama both agree we need to leave.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/26/obama-praises-mccains-comments-on-iraq/
Obama: “I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda”
Since it’s they’re almost finished anyway, this means nothing.”
Really, you have some facts to back that up? I’ve read several reports suggesting that they are as strong as the were before 9/11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801845_pf.html
50. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Casper,
“McCain and Obama agree” is a dishonest attempt of qualifying what amounts to just one of Obama’s many positions. Considering he initially opposed the war, then the surge, then tried to undermine the surge, then finally acknowledged the success, and again suggests a withdrawal I don’t think McCain and Obama agree at all on anything.
McCain now supports redeployment for entirely different reasons.
Having been defeated in Iraq and now relegated to the northern mountainous
quadrants of Pakistan and Afghanistan and soon to face a surge of American forces, and having lost the support of their Sunni brethren in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, etc, I’d say their time is limited.
51. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
And your link to the WaPo was from a year ago. Things have changed dramatically in a year, because of the surge, WHICH OBAMA OPPOSED, AND TRIED TO UNDERMINE!!!!
52. Ricorun | July 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
neocon, first of all, McCain also wants to end the war in Iraq and close Guantanamo. In fact, now he thinks 16 months is a pretty good timeline.
That leaves habeas corpus, which I would argue has nothing to do with naivete. It has to do with principles. However, this comment of yours about the fight against al Qaeda does illustrate a certain naivete: “Since it’s they’re almost finished anyway, this means nothing.” Perhaps you misspoke yourself?
But that’s beside the point. The interesting thing about your comment (and most central to mine) is that you mentioned Carter. He also had a foreign policy based on idealism. And I think we all remember what a success he was.
53. Casper | July 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
neocon,
“McCain and Obama agree” is a dishonest attempt of qualifying what amounts to just one of Obama’s many positions.”
Actually, he has only had the one position. That is that we pull our troops our over a 16 month time frame give or take a couple of months. I’m just glad that McCain is finally coming around to Obama’s position for whatever reason.
As for Al Qaeda, it didn’t exist in Iraq before we invaded. The fact that we have defeated them in Iraq is great news. It will be even better news when we defeat them world wide.
“Having been defeated in Iraq and now relegated to the northern mountainous
quadrants of Pakistan and Afghanistan and soon to face a surge of American forces, and having lost the support of their Sunni brethren in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, etc, I’d say their time is limited.”
I’m glad to see that both you and McCain are supporting Obama’s call for more troops in Afghanistan. Perhaps we can finally finish the job we started after 9/11.
54. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Yes Rico,
And if you read Obama’s foreign policy bullet statements in that link, you’d be reminded of the Peanut man. That was my point.
Your opinion of the current administrations idealistic policies pales in comparison when you see Carterisms all over Obama’s written statements.
Secondly, treating POW’s like POW’s, albeit more humane than any other country, will do nothing to sacrifice our principles, so enough with the sensationalism.
And McCain does think it is now a good timeline because his plan worked to make that possible. What was Obama’s plan again.
Sheesh!
55. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
“Actually, he has only had the one position.” - Casper
If you honestly think that than I have lost all respect for your mental capacity.
“Al Qaeda not in Iraq, and Obamas plan to go into Afghanistan….”
Casper, no longer do I consider you to be an intelligent person. The above assertions simply take dishonesty and delusion to a new level and it’s does not merit a response.
Please go over to the pitchfork, you might wow them over there.
have a hellac day
neocon
56. Casper | July 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
neocon,
Please direct me to an Obama quote, where he has stated he does not support a phased withdraw over 14 to 16 months and I will be more than happy to change my tune. While you are at it, please direct me towards a credible source showing that the Al Qaeda that we are fighting in Iraq existed there before 9/11.
As for going to the pitchfork, I’ve checked it out and frankly my sixth and seventh grades could put together a better web site. Besides, the posters .here are generally able to express their opinions without the use of profanity.
57. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
In fact, Obama’s “current” Iraq plan is similar to:
a box boy taking credit for the managers plan of increasing sales because the owner of the store agreed with the box boy that it was a good idea to order more bags.
good job everyone, really.
neocon
58. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Forst of all, he was dead wrong about the surge:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” - Obama 2007
“Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008″
Secondly, moving a timeline of withdrawal irrespective of victory, defeat, or possible atrocities doesn’t take any courage at all, and is dishonest to finally say one day that he has been right all along.
Obama is currently an inexperienced candidate that is being marketed and packaged by the money machine of the DNC. Nothing more, nothing less.
That being said, I think in time, he will be a force, he is a sharp guy. Just too liberal and too inexperienced and those qualities have never fared well.
59. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
And another thing, have you thought about this.
Had Obama made the choice, we would have not done the surge and begin a 16 month, two brigades per month withdrawal. AQ and the insurgency would have strengthened. The Sunni tribes would have no choice but to join them. How do you think life would be like for the brigades that were one of the last few to be evacuated? Do you suppose they might not even make it? And a 16 month orderly plan, turns into a 8 month race followed by chaos and genocide.
Tell me your thoughts on that?
60. Ricorun | July 26th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
neocon: And if you read Obama’s foreign policy bullet statements in that link, you’d be reminded of the Peanut man.
I did… and it doesn’t. But perhaps I’m reading it differently than you. At any rate, it is not my intention to advocate for Obama. Rather, it is my intention to advocate for more realism and less idealism in foreign policy. That’s what I look for when I read Obama’s and McCain’s policy statements. And I have to say, it would be very nice if McCain would get around to putting up a foreign policy section on his web site.
61. js | July 26th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
silly excuses…thats what little girls give…so why is it all we hear from liberals….dont they know that one day the truth will be required of them…eventually all knees bow to the truth….and you can not change that
62. Casper | July 26th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“Forst of all, he was dead wrong about the surge:”
Since you brought up the surge, let’s talk about it. The Surge along with the Sunni Awakening and other factors has helped reduce the violence in Iraq. It hasn’t ended it. However, if the result is our bringing our troops home, then yea for us. As for Obama being wrong about it, I would agree up to a certain point, but I should also point out that both Bush and McCain have also been wrong about the war on numerous occasions (I can provide the quotes if you want, but we are probably both sick of seeing them).
As to your second post (59), You might be right about the insurgency (then again you might be wrong). However, IMO, I don’t think there was ever a real chance that AQ was going to take over Iraq. Think about it. There were never that many of them and they never really had that much support from the Iraqis themselves. could they cause a lot of destruction? Of course, but that’s not the same as taking control of the country.
As for deadlines, I guess I believe in them. I’m not so sure that part of the reason things are progressing as well as they are in Iraq right now, is because they know that if Obama becomes president they only have a certain amount of time to get their act together. Better to set their own deadlines now than wait for them to be set for them.
63. Kahn | July 27th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Tractatus,
Well yah, Obnama SAYS he’s for nuclear power. But he hasn’t actually done anything positive about it has he?
He voted against Yucca Mountain - the place we were planning on storing all the nuclear waste - without really identifying where we should put the stuff instead. As far as I can tell - thats the only actual thing he’s done.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
64. cam | July 27th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Kahn,
Obama wasn’t the only one to vote against Yucca Mountain. John Ensign, Republican Senator from Nevada voted against it. NIMBY.
Nuclear power should be persued but with caution. Read about Rocky Flats in “The Ambushed Grand Jury” and see why nuclear power without good guidance will lead to disaster.
65. Laurel Anne Hill | July 27th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
“Holy W, Batman! You’re like Bush?”
I read the Wall Street Journal’s piece comparing the trials and tribulations of Batman to those of President Bush. Wow! Was that a bat signal in the sky, or the letter “W?” I found the comparison interesting but have my own opinions about heroes and battles against evil.
On the rope of life, heroes climb above their weakest point, putting themselves at risk for the benefit of others. Love, compassion, duty and honor call them forth and they respond. Still, even heroes on a worthwhile quest against evil must search their own hearts for smoldering embers of hate or vengeance that could influence their actions and bring dishonor and disaster. We are only human. Heroes or not, we often fight our deadliest battles against ourselves and the best way to tame our dark, snarling inner desires is to flood those beasts with light.
We live in the real world, one with presidents and CEO’s but no superheroes of fantasy fame. Public awareness and debate about all sides of political and social issues must comprise the beams of light in our darkened skies. And we should all vote according to the signals in which we believe. That “W” stands for “We, the people,” if we let it.
Laurel Anne Hill
Author of “Heroes Arise,” a parable about the necessity and complexity of breaking the cycle of vengeance. (KOMENAR Publishing, October 2007)