Comments on: Failing The Test http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/01/failing-the-test/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=failing-the-test n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: kitstolz http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/01/failing-the-test/comment-page-1/#comment-11957 kitstolz Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:10:10 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/01/failing-the-test/#comment-11957 It's interesting to see Obama criticized as being not anti-war enough from some quarters on the right. Part of me hopes that he will continue to get this kind of criticism, to keep him honest on his promises to get the U.S. out of Iraq. And part of me can only marvel at a self-declared conservative who criticizes a Democrat for not being anti-imperialist enough, but takes for granted that the Republican candidate will be pro-war, pro-empire, pro-domestic surveillance, and pro-debt. Isn't this absence of criticism a way of saying that the Republican candidate -- and perhaps the GOP too -- is beyond redemption? Fairness seems to require that to be said as well. Bacevich led the way, but it's remarkable how few conservatives have followed. It’s interesting to see Obama criticized as being not anti-war enough from some quarters on the right.

Part of me hopes that he will continue to get this kind of criticism, to keep him honest on his promises to get the U.S. out of Iraq. And part of me can only marvel at a self-declared conservative who criticizes a Democrat for not being anti-imperialist enough, but takes for granted that the Republican candidate will be pro-war, pro-empire, pro-domestic surveillance, and pro-debt.

Isn’t this absence of criticism a way of saying that the Republican candidate — and perhaps the GOP too — is beyond redemption? Fairness seems to require that to be said as well. Bacevich led the way, but it’s remarkable how few conservatives have followed.

]]> By: Daniel Larison http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/01/failing-the-test/comment-page-1/#comment-11951 Daniel Larison Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:58:04 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/01/failing-the-test/#comment-11951 Well, it was only a speech, and one that he has consistently failed to back up with action that distinguishes himself from the positions that have since been taken by the very national Democrats who went along with the war. Running in a Democratic primary in a Midwestern state, Obama would have been taking a political risk to *not* run as an antiwar Dem. In a crowded field, he also needed to distinguish himself and energise progressives, who then saw him as their representative, which speaking out against the war accomplished. What has he done since then? He has not been much of an antiwar leader in the Senate, and as Adam notes in comments on another post he has hedged and qualified his withdrawal commitment that it is a pale shadow of its former self. On the PATRIOT Act and FISA, he essentially went with the establishment and Democrats such as Feingold were opposed. On the war, he has consistently sided with the leadership's half-measures rather than with Feingold et al. This is pretty weak tea for the great antiwar champion. Everything we are seeing now suggests that he will dilute his antiwar views even more if he is elected. Well, it was only a speech, and one that he has consistently failed to back up with action that distinguishes himself from the positions that have since been taken by the very national Democrats who went along with the war. Running in a Democratic primary in a Midwestern state, Obama would have been taking a political risk to *not* run as an antiwar Dem. In a crowded field, he also needed to distinguish himself and energise progressives, who then saw him as their representative, which speaking out against the war accomplished. What has he done since then? He has not been much of an antiwar leader in the Senate, and as Adam notes in comments on another post he has hedged and qualified his withdrawal commitment that it is a pale shadow of its former self.

On the PATRIOT Act and FISA, he essentially went with the establishment and Democrats such as Feingold were opposed. On the war, he has consistently sided with the leadership’s half-measures rather than with Feingold et al. This is pretty weak tea for the great antiwar champion. Everything we are seeing now suggests that he will dilute his antiwar views even more if he is elected.

]]> By: kitstolz http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/01/failing-the-test/comment-page-1/#comment-11938 kitstolz Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:47:18 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/01/failing-the-test/#comment-11938 In 2002, when Obama spoke out forcefully against "dumb wars" such as the war in Iraq, the Washington establishment -- including liberal Democrats such as Hillary, Joe Biden, and John Edwards -- fully supported the "force" resolution that became the war. Contrary to the host's statement, Obama put himself in conflict with powerful interests in his party on a matter of foreign policy and national security. Perhaps Larison will say that was only a speech -- only words -- but obviously, the nation disagrees. In 2002, when Obama spoke out forcefully against “dumb wars” such as the war in Iraq, the Washington establishment — including liberal Democrats such as Hillary, Joe Biden, and John Edwards — fully supported the “force” resolution that became the war. Contrary to the host’s statement, Obama put himself in conflict with powerful interests in his party on a matter of foreign policy and national security.

Perhaps Larison will say that was only a speech — only words — but obviously, the nation disagrees.

]]>