James Joyner has reached the same conclusion that I did a few days ago: that it looks like an Obama win and that McCain would need a miracle to pull it out.
As such he dubs tonight’s debate: “McCain’s Final Stand.”
Indeed.
For the McCain campaign, I suspect that it may be the Alamo (with no Battle of San Jacinto to make up for it, however).
Sphere: Related ContentFiled under: 2008 Campaign, US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I think it’s definitely toast-o-meter time again, Steven.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
It’s not over ’til the fat lady sings. Some huge and dramatic event could take place between now and November; Obama is ahead on the timing of the economic “crisis”. Something like a big terror attack would turn things around for McCain, or anything that made the focus defense and national security, for that matter. It would turn overnight.
Of course, if you’re a terrorist or other enemy of the US, you have to be a complete idiot to make an attack before November, for that reason; you want to see a democrat controlled congress and president, because the last two have given them pretty much anything they wanted, and all but rolled over and played dead for them - so it’s unlikely that such a thing will happen.
Still, it’s a game of chance, and anything can happen.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I’m probably the only person who found this amusing, but at one point McCain slipped and called Obama “Senator Government” instead of “Senator Obama”. It was clearly just a slip of the tongue, but it made me laugh so hard I cried.
From now on I’m calling him Senator Government.
And if he’s elected, I’ll call him President Government.
Thanks, John, for a laugh when I really needed it!
October 15th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Obama McCain Debate: McCain Improves But CBS Poll Finds Uncommitted Voters Declare Obama Big Victor…
For Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain you might say this about the third and final debate he had with Democratic Sen. Barack Obama:
The third time was the charm. For the first half hour at least.
But uncommitted voters by a large margi…
October 15th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
[...] –Political Scientist Dr. Steven Taylor: James Joyner has reached the same conclusion that I did a few days ago: that it looks like an Obama win and that McCain would need a miracle to pull it out. [...]
October 15th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Captain ~ You are aware of course, that the outgoing Clinton administration clearly and concisely warned the incoming Bush administration about al-Quaeda, right?
“Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation’s security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”
http://www.avatara.com/operationignore0.html
In fact, Rice was also briefed by Clinton’s head of antiterrorism, Richard Clarke, who laid out their whole plan re: al Quaeda. She must have impressed, because she kept him on in the position.
Seems to me that they (Clinton’s people) were pretty well aware of the threat.
Probably because of the Hart/Rudman Commision which had been studying the problem since 1998.
http://www.milnet.com/hart-rudman/
Hart and Rudman issued their 3rd and final report on 2/15/01, a month or so after Bush took office.
“The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistance of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homelaned to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likley over the next quarter century.”
- Executive Summary, the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, January 31, 2001
“The Hart-Rudman report warned that “mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern” and said that America was woefully unprepared for a “catastrophic” domestic terrorist attack and urged the creation of a new federal agency: “A National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security” that would include the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and more than a dozen other government departments and agencies.”
http://www.avatara.com/operationignore0.html
July 10, 2001 ~ “Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent a memo to headquarters regarding concerns over some Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school. Al Qaeda operatives, Williams suggested, might be trying to infiltrate the U.S. civil aviation system. He urged FBI Headquarters to contact the other intelligence agencies to see if they had information relevant to his suspicions. Had Williams’s memo been acted upon, perhaps the CIA and FBI would have connected the dots. And had Hart-Rudman been acted upon, perhaps the memo would not have been dismissed.”
“Bush spent 42 percent of his first seven months in office either at Camp David, at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, or at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.”
Sounds like he was really going in with guns blazing, huh?
“August 6,(2001) CIA Director Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. But the President… did nothing to follow up on the memo.”
“On August 16, the INS arrested Zacharias Moussaoui, a flight school student who seemed to have little interest in learning to take off or land a plane. The arresting agent wrote that Moussaoui seemed like “the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center.” Trying to pique the interest of FBI Headquarters in Washington, a Minneapolis FBI agent wrote that a 747 loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon. lf this information had been shared and analyzed, for example by a newly founded Homeland Security Agency, it might have sparked memories of the Clinton-thwarted 1996 al Qaeda plot to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA Headquarters.”
“Thomas J. Pickard… acting FBI director, Pickard had been privy to a top-secret, comprehensive review of counterterrorism programs in the FBI. The assessment called for a dramatic increase in funding. Alarmed by the report and by the mounting terrorist threat, Pickard met with Attorney General John Ashcroft to request $58 million from the Justice Department to hire hundreds of new field agents, translators, and intelligence analysts to improve the Bureau’s capacity to detect foreign terror threats. On September 10, he received… an official letter from Ashcroft turning him down flat.”
Please note the date of that one.
All of the above items happened solely due to Clinton’s dogged determination to root out and crush terrorism.
These are just a small sampling of the realities of the Clinton administration’s strides against terrorism, and the carry-over they offered to Bush. A carry-over that was blatantly ignored (in fact, often downplayed) by the Bush adminstration until September 11, 2001.
So feel as you like about the Democrats, that is your right as an American. But the facts do not back up your claims. As I’ve said before to others who try to vilify Clinton for 9/11 - saying something over and over again doesn’t make it true. And you can’t change history by ignoring it.
A little bit of research actually shows that Democrats have done far more in recent history than Republicans on counterterrorism efforts. Because the best way to fight terrorism is proactive. The Bush strategy has been reactive… acting after the fact.
And worse yet, attacking the wrong target.
Even amidst the overwhelming evidence of where the real target was/is. And now the enemy is gaining strength and numbers due to the focus on Iraq and the ignoring of true al Quaeda strongholds.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Cowboy,
Yes sir, I am aware of what the Clinton administration *said* about terrorists throughout the Clinton administration. I was serving in the military at the time, in the 75th Ranger regiment, so I am also acutely aware of what Mr. Clinton *did* during his administration. He did nothing.
When the US Embassys in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Al Qaida, President Clinton went on TV, wagged his finger, and said “shame on you.” And that’s all he did.
When the WTC was bombed the first time, President Clinton did nothing.
President Clinton did nothing when Saddam Hussein breached the agreement that had ended the first gulf war by shooting at coalition planes patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraqi skies. He also kicked the UN weapons inspectors out (another breach of treaty). Clinton fired a few tomahawk cruise missiles into Iraq, but it was a lame and pointess exercise. He did nothing about Iraq.
He did nothing about Sudan or Afghanistan, which both grew into terror havens during his administrations. He did fire a few tomahawks. Big deal; he blew up a 10 dollar tent with a million dollar missile.
The Clinton adminstration had at least one documented opportunity to kill UBL. Our guys had him positively ID’d. President Clinton did not authorize action to take him out - and this was after the embassy and WTC bombings.
You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that Clinton and Carter were tougher when it came to confronting terrorists and rogue states than Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. Carter sat on his hands for over a year while Americans were held hostage in Iran. Clinton talked about the problem but did nothing about it. We can get into it over whether Reagan and the Bushes Two did it the right way or not, but they did something; they didn’t sit on their hands, and the two most recent democrats did. They ignored the problem and hoped it would go away.
And by the way - they drew our military down by almost 50%. Clinton believed we didn’t need a big military. He drew our military down, and slashed the intelligence budget. If he had been serious about his *warnings* to the Bush administration, if he really felt there was a danger, why did he take the axe to our military and the CIA?
My point is, while democrats have talked about terrorism in recent history, republicans have acted on it. There’s no arguing that. Obama might be a different flavor. That remains to be seen; but if you are a terrorist, you have to think it’s better for you to get a democrat in charge in Washington, because they are less likely from a historical standpoint to respond forcefully, decisively, and militarily than republicans are.
I don’t admire the brazenness and bravado of the Bush administration. It has been over the top. But I’ll take it any day over the policies of Clinton and Carter, who would stand by with their thumbs in their rear ends while Americans are held hostage and terrorist cells are forming on our soil. Their failure to protect the United States and its citizens is a case of such extreme neglect it makes me sick thinking about it.
Challenge me on this if you want to - but I was in the Army’s special forces for both administrations, and I know how many missions were undertaken under each president to hurt Al Qaida. President Clinton knew all about the problem. He never depoloyed us to confront it. Not once.
Tell me now, how does that strike fear into the heart of the terrorist?
October 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Cowboy,
This is a very important point and I hope everyone will read it. I spent a total of 3 years and 7 months in Iraq and Afghanistan as an officer in Army Special Forces, and I know an awful lot about the tactical scenes in both places. I speak Arabic and two dialects of Persian. I know a thing or two about the “real threat”.
I’m assuming you are referring to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border that has been talked up so much by Obama. This is understandable; it is a great talking point. But it is a dangerous thing to link Al Qaida to a geographic region, and doing so shows a fundamental inability to understand the nature of terrorist organizations in general, and Al Qaida in particular.
A common talking point right now is that we should put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Senator Government frequently asserts that “we took our eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. I think he really believes that. But the truth is, if we put more boots in Afghanistan, the badguys that are holed up there will simply go somewhere else. It could be Sudan. It could be the Phillipines. It could be any number of places around the world.
And as far as capturing UBL goes - at this point, it doesn’t matter. If the man is alive - which is a big if - he is not functioning as a leader of his organization. He’s not planning any attacks. He is effectively cut off from doing anything but hiding. It would be fun to get him and put him on trial ala Nuremberg, but it would not alter AQ in any meaningful way. The organization would go on just fine without him. Obama talks about taking him out - we in the counter-terror business know that would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture.
As far as the role Iraq plays in all of this, I can tell you from experience that Iraq has been critical to maintaining our security posture - but I think it happened quite by accident, and not by plan. I think the Bush administration really thought they would re-make Iraq along the lines of West German post WW2, and we’d have a strong, stable ally in the region. I think he thought it would be easier than it turned out to be. There are a lot of reasons for this, most of which are debatable; it was a combination, I think, of poor judgement and poor intelligence. I’m going to leave it at that because why is an entirely different debate, and I think poor judgement and poor intelligence covers it pretty well.
Obviously, we didn’t get West Germany. But what did happen is Al Qaida shifted its operational focus onto Iraq - almost exclusively - after we invaded. When people say Al Qaida wasn’t there until we invaded, they are right, but what they are forgetting to mention is the reason they weren’t there. That reason is that terror cells in other parts of the world were still concentrating on long range targets.
What happened when we invaded Iraq was a lot of those cells shut down, and came to the middle east to set up shop in Iraq and try to force us out. Iraq became a magnet for Al Qaida’s operational arm, and has been just about the only thing the organization has been tied up in ever since.
I can’t even begin to recount how many foreigners I captured or killed in Iraq. AQ agents came from all over the world to fight us there. For some reason, they saw us succeeding in Iraq as even more damaging to their cause than being driven out of Afghanistan.
I think this has a lot to do with Iraq being a much more robust and functional state than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is actually a very diverse place, in terms of religion, ethnicity, and geography. There are a lot of Buddhists and Hindus, and a lot of ethnic minorities, where in Iraq you have a predominantly Muslim population dominated by two major groups, one of which is very strongly affiliated with AQ. Iraq also has a lot more to offer; it’s a more populous state, with better infrastructure and a more robust military capability. Going back in history, you also find differences; Afghanistan, being in central Asia, was a crossroads. Merchants trading in the Indian subcontinent, China, Russia, and the rest of Asia passed through from one direction, while merchants from the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe came from the other. Iraq didn’t benefit from this exchange of cultures, and is far more homogenous in nature.
In any case, what clearly happened after we invaded Iraq is that AQ stopped almost altogether planning attacks overseas and focused on driving us out of Iraq. They saw US success in Iraq as a mortal threat to their cause; the Iraq that we envisioned would be educating Arabic-speaking Muslims according to western progressive thinking. This could not stand with AQ, and so they mounted the stiffest resistance they could.
Ever since then, their active cells have been going after us in Iraq. Instead of reacting when attacks happen here, we are drawing the attackers to our military in Iraq, where we can deal with them militarily.
Now, I don’t think it was planned that way. But it worked out as a very successful diversion; and we have made enormous progress in Iraq. It’s a better place now than it was under Saddam Hussein, and it gets a little better every day.
The issue of dealing with AQ is more complicated than Senator Government is making it sound. He seems to think that if we just take our troops out of Iraq qand put them in Afghanistan, AQ will go away.
Since the Iraqis are getting more proficient at counter-insurgency, what will probably happen if we increase our presence in Afghanistan is AQ will move somewhere else altogether (neither Iraq nor Afghanistan). If I were a betting man, I’d bet they have already started planning for this, and probably have logistical cells operating in a number of other nations, ready to support and shelter insurgents and provide the training and planning resources needed to conduct attacks. The danger in thinking the “ball” is in Afghanistan is that it ignores the fact that AQ has no borders. It will go wherever it can, and there are plenty of weak governments in the world where it can hide.
The best we can do by putting more boots in the ‘Stan is cut the poppy trade, which is a major revenue source for AQ. But I wouldn’t even bet on that. The US doesn’t exactly have a sterling record when it comes to combatting the drug trade.
The issue is really much more complicated than Senator Government is making it sound.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am
One more thing, Cowboy. You condescending tone - you really need to adjust it, kiddo. What exactly are your credentials to talk about terrorism? How DARE you talk down to me!
Here are mine:
Undergraduate degree in History and Political Science (emphasis on Eastern History and Foreign Policy, respectively)
Master of Arts in History, emphasis Muslim Civilization;
Master of Library and Information Science, emphasis special libraries and government archives;
Active military service from 1992-2005, including tours in Africa, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Sinai, South Americca, Afghanistan, and Iraq; and service in the 75th Ranger Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, 3rd Special Forces Group, and Operational Detachment Delta (Delta Force).
My education on the regions includes fluent language training in Arabic and Persian. I also speak a little bit of Spanish, and am conversational in Serbo-Croatian. I can speak some Hindi also.
I’m again baffled by your claim that Clinton was proactive and Bush was reactive to terrorism. I did not make a single deployment to deal with AQ under President Clinton.
Please explain this to me. He was the commander in chief. He could have sent me anywhere at anytime to kill anybody. He sent me lots of places to kill lots of people - but he never deployed me or anyone else to go after AQ.
How, how, HOW do you call that proactive?
October 18th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Captain~ Thankfully, I had the foresight to remember to have Poliblogger notify me of comments on this thread - otherwise I might have forgotten to check back.
At the moment, I don’t have time to respond to your posts - getting ready for a houseguest while half the house is torn apart for a remodel - but I intend to as soon as I can.
I wanted to check-in now re: your last comment. I know that I can turn sarcastic and snarky at times - but I didn’t mean to come off as condescending. If I did, I appologize and will take care to avoid such a tone in the future.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 am
Captain~
Sorry for the delay. I’ve spied a number of other posts by Dr. Taylor that I’m dying to address, but your vehemence and eloquence on this thread demanded that I respond here first.
First of all, at the risk of sounding like I’m glad-handing, let me take a moment to thank you for your service. I recognize that I made a specific choice not to serve, while you did. And I commend and respect you for that decision. Regardless of whatever else we disagree about.
It will be difficult for me to respond to everything you’ve posted since my initial response. Partly due to the volume of your comments, and partly due to time constraints. I will do my best to address the points that stand out to me the most.
Your first response is mostly an indictment of Clinton.
When you repeatedly say that he “did nothing” in response to activities by Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, you’re making an understandable error. He did nothing overt. He did nothing that was broadcast to the world at large, and he didn’t mobilize the military in the way that it appears you would have prefered.
In other words, he didn’t play his hand early.
And your time as an officer in the Special Forces, your education and your experience on the ground - while admirable - don’t offer you any insight into the operations of agencies like the CIA, the NSA or the FBI. All of which were working diligently on terrorism during Clinton’s watch. And all of whom passed on their information to Bush when he took office.
Information he could have put to MUCH better use than he did.
I make no claim that Clinton did everything he could. Only that he did much more than most Bushites give him credit for. And that he offered a lot of actionable intelligence that was totally ignored until it was too late.
I believe you misunderstood my description of Clinton as “proactive” on terrorism. It seems to me that your interpretation of proactive means overt militay action. Which is understandable, considering your personal history.
My definition includes such action, but not at the expense of more prudent courses of action that don’t blatantly expose our intentions out of a misguided sense of bravado.
I’m afraid I must cut this short. The time constraints I mentioned earlier. I know I haven’t sufficiently addressed your responses, but I hope that I have at least shown that I read them and appreciate your opinion.