LukeinNE

I think that's a fair statement, upon reading your most recent response. Upon re-reading my original characterization of your opinion, I regret inserting the word "mess" into this as it broadened the scope of the conversation beyond what I was intending. What I meant to say was basically that when Obama came into office, Iraq was well on its way to conclusion. The withdrawal agreement was in place, sectarian violence was down, casualties were down, the draw down had begun. To amend your analogy, I wouldn't say it was Bush calling the fire department right before leaving the house, rather the fire department was on scene and had things reasonably under control. I certainly agree that it seems odd to praise Bush for effectively putting out a fire he started, but I try to view these things as discrete events. The success of the "surge" in Iraq doesn't cancel out the disastrous years that preceded it, nor does the fact that the Iraq War was a fiasco cancel out that Bush and co. managed to get the situation under control when everyone thought that was impossible. I don't think there's really any contention here. I was just remarking on the apparent disconnect between Obama ending the Iraq war and Obama ordering US forces to kill people in Iraq this very week. I don't hold what he's doing against him, I think it's the right and moral thing to do, if not necessary. I'd go as far as to speculate that the Afghan surge had little, if anything to do with the killing of OBL. That doesn't mean Obama doesn't get the bulk of the credit for it; he prioritized finding the guy, the CIA found him, and Obama made a fairly risky call in sending in the SEALs rather than leveling the whole block with a drone. I just doubt the surge in Afghanistan had much of anything to do with it. I didn't mention the Afghan drawdown because it's kind of a given, I probably should've acknowledged it though. I pointed out the surge because...well I think it's a pretty important subplot in judging Obama's record in Afghanistan. "If my logic seems inconsistent, I would offer to the messiness of the issue as a partial explanation. I see the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures in rippling shades of gray. The conservative platform (which you do not hold to, I take it) seems fairly black and white on the other hand: bomb them. Whoever they are." Messy and inconsistent is a good way of describing our foreign policy the last 15 years. I will ding you on a terminology thing: Bush/Cheney/McCain are neoconservatives, essentially FDR Democrats that thought the Democrats had gone soft on anti-communism. These are distinct from the classical liberal roots of the GOP, which historically has been the more non-interventionist party. I got this article from my pastor's mailing list a few weeks ago. It's about churches, but I think it speaks to our political culture as well.

1:09 left

In terms of actual job performance, no, I don't think so. In terms of "public leadership" (i.e. making it obvious that you're paying attention and care) it might matter a little. I'm assuming that this post is in reference to Obama's current vacation in the midst of Iraq, Ukraine, and all the rest. If I were his political adviser, I'd probably encourage him to postpone the trip, as it sort of looks bad. As a citizen, I couldn't care less. The president can run the country from just about anywhere, and I think most people understand that.

Aside from the influence of the religious right, the over the top hawkishness of the establishment Republican Party is probably my least favorite thing about the GOP. I'm hardly a dove, but I have a feeling Obama and I would philosophically agree on quite a lot in this area. Hopefully the last decade has taught us a lesson or two about nation-building...or really doing much of anything except preventing genocide in the Middle East.

You are going way, way outside of anything I've said, and worse, you're reverting to the lazy talking point that Bush being bad somehow exempts Obama from critical examination. I've been sharply critical of Bush and the Iraq adventure elsewhere on this board. You claimed Obama deserves credit for ending the Iraq War, I reference you to the US withdrawal agreement signed by Bush, and your response was some muddled mess on how bad Iraq was and.....never addressed that, again, the end of the Iraq War was legally set, in writing, before Obama ever got into office. I'll even give Obama some credit for executing Bush's deal, but its nonsensical to deny Bush all credit in the war's end, though crediting him with doing anything right apparently causes you guys physical pain. Point out where I equivocated Obama's recent actions in Iraq with a full scale invasion. I said we were totally out, and no longer are, on Obama's orders. That is completely, 100% true, and I don't see the point in challenging it. Also, "boots on the ground" referenced the nearly 400 military advisers that Obama has sent to Iraq since the ISIS problem began. Again, I support Obama's decision here. It's not that I'm out to get the guy, but the idea that we're out of Iraq thanks to Obama just isn't true. Actually...yes. Obama's surge in Afghanistan was explicitly modeled after what we did in Iraq. While we're on that, you've clearly said that Afghanistan was an unwinnable situation. So...did Obama with his surge send hundreds of young Americans to their deaths for no purpose? You said the surge was to "complete the war." How did that surge "complete" anything? It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways, and the only consistent logic is Bush = bad, Obama = good. Not really, unless you can provide a substantive link between more combat troops in Afghanistan and more CIA success in Pakistan...which I don't think you can. I sure am glad I didn't say that, then. McCain would've been a disastrous president for the country and the GOP. This does not mean that we can rewrite history or take the Democratic point of view as gospel truth. I have no love for the Graham/McCain wing of the GOP, and neither do many conservatives. Rand Paul has gained popularity within the party pretty much completely because of his more isolationist leanings.

I haven't been one to bash Obama's foreign policy, but this paragraph looks like it was written by the DNC's communications coordinator, and needs some fact-checking. Obama gets the credit for ending the Iraq War Well, he gets the credit, that doesn't mean he should. Bush signed the final status of forces agreement detailing the complete withdrawal of American forces by Dec 2011. Obama was the guy in office when that agreement took effect. Ironically, we were totally out, and now have boots on the ground there again, on exclusively Obama's orders. I think that's the right call on his part, but the idea that Obama was handed some huge mess in Iraq and got us out of it is an oversimplification, to be charitable. Assuming you're talking about Afghanistan, uh, did you forget about this? I don't care to get into a big fight over this. On foreign policy, I think Obama catches a lot more flak from the right than he deserves, but the left's narrative of St. Barack the Peacemaker isn't any more accurate.

*Shrug* I suppose it's possible that some white murder victims have gotten the Trayvon Martin treatment from the national media in the last few years, but if they have, I haven't seen it. The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is that conservatives believe any significant change must come from within the black community itself and liberals seem to think government intervention is the only way to go, with individual responsibility getting cursory lip service, at best. Our safety net has made poverty dramatically more comfortable since the 1960s, but it's been woeful at eliminating poverty. You keep demanding that "we" fix the problem that "we" created. How do you propose "we" fix this problem?

Not really. It's rarely a major story if a non-black person is killed unless they're important. It's never a major story that over 90% of the obscenely large number of black homicide victims comes at the hands of black offenders. It's only a major story when the Al Sharptons of the world can use an incident to paint a broad narrative of whites oppressing blacks. If you're an aging radical who yearns to refight the battles of the 1960s, that approach makes sense. If you actually care about saving the lives of young black men, not so much. And here's the sad part: there's potential for common ground on the concern of an increasingly militarized police. Unfortunately, the progressive left, with thin circumstantial evidence at best, rushed to make this a story about race, about whites oppressing blacks. You yourself absurdly claimed that only black people are subject to unjust killings on the part of the police. The responses are predictable: blacks believe more and more that white America is out to get them, and whites get defensive and, seeing the anger and destruction on tv, decide that suburban living and militarized police are necessary for their safety.

No, he's hitting at an uncomfortable truth: none of this has anything to do with the well-being of the black community. The only time anyone gives a sh#t about a black person being killed is when racial hay can be made out of it.

Just out of curiosity, which part of my position is so noxious to you: not rendering judgment until the facts are in, or unconditionally condemning mass looting and property destruction?

We can't know what impact, if any, the race of the deceased had in this case. We do not know the facts of this case. It could be the officer is a cold blooded killer. It could be a justified shooting. We just don't know. Until we do know, it is the height of irresponsibility to make assumptions. Those exact same assumptions are the cause for the violent reaction in St. Louis, and spreading them for no other reason than it is appealing to a particular ideology is only adding fuel to the fire. PS: Rioting is never the right move. Period. There's no excuse for it in a civilized society, and all it will accomplish is convincing the rest of the country that blacks belong in their isolated ghettos with lots and lots of police in between them and us.

I think part of this is that we just tend to remember the past more fondly than it actually was. Nastiness is always a big part of the deal. That being said.... We've become better at winning elections and worse at governing. Politics has become both a game and a science. Everything, from the color of a necktie to the hairstyle to God, Guns, and Gays is poll-tested and focus grouped to death before anything happens. The result is a deluge of trite talking points that don't even scratch the surface of the issue at hand. Even presidential addresses have been dumbed down. Debates ask candidates to detail Social Security reform in 60 seconds and advertisements are rarely longer than that. We even have an expression for it: in politics, if you're explaining, you're losing. The same science still applies once in office. What polls well? What do my client groups insist on if they're going to support my re-election? The result, all too often, is a series of policies that make little to no sense when taken as a whole.

I don't think there's any question race plays a factor in who gets scrutinized more by police, that was my point about stereotypes.

There are two stories, one from the officer, and one from a friend of the deceased: Witness: Police: This will be investigated, and one or both of these stories are going to come apart.

Sorry, I was referencing your comment about the EU stepping up. Perhaps us taking a step back there would force them to take their military capability more seriously?

So....announce a complete phased military withdrawal from Europe? It'd be rather like that teacher who located me hiding in a corner at a jr. high dance and physically pushed me into something that I feared more than death.

I'm sure they're tilted toward blacks. I feel like it would be progress if both sides agree that on the one hand, blacks are targeted by police due to racial prejudices and stereotypes, but on the other, that those stereotypes do exist for a reason. How would the bold explain the MJ disparity when usage rates are comparable? Black Americans are overrepresented as perpetrators of crime in this country. That's a straightforward fact and it feeds the stereotype of blacks as a criminal race. When it comes to a cop giving extra scrutiny to someone, I don't think it matters which specific crime we're talking about.

I'm sure they're tilted toward blacks. I feel like it would be progress if both sides agree that on the one hand, blacks are targeted by police due to racial prejudices and stereotypes, but on the other, that those stereotypes do exist for a reason.

Yes, unfortunately. I'm sure it's a doomed fight, but I'll feel better about it if they spend more fighting me than they'll get out of the fine in the end. Hate those cameras.

DA is considering charges... Internal investigation and lawsuits under way.... The cop in question has been indicted for the killing. Anyone paying attention to the substance of the case, not the politics, knows the jury came to the correct legal conclusion. Nobody knows what happened at the crucial moments of that incident, and that's reasonable doubt. Ruled a suicide by the medical examiner. The cops did nothing legally wrong, they were just too incompetent to pat him down adequately. "Judge Shira Scheindlin of Federal District Court in New York upheld the bedrock principle of individual liberty on Monday when she ruled that the tactics underlying New York City’s stop-and-frisk program violated the constitutional rights of minority citizens. She found that the city had been “deliberately indifferent” to police officers illegally detaining and frisking minority residents on the streets over many years." Wouldn't the elimination of a prejudicial enforcement tactic be the kind of progress you're claiming to be absent? I'm not claiming there's no cases where blacks have suffered miscarriages of justice because of skin color/socioeconomic status. My point in going through these is that not only is it not a good idea to build a case on anecdotes, a lot of those anecdotes aren't even cases where "the system" protects whites at the expense of blacks. Rather than open the eyes of the rest of America, doing this sort of thing is just reinforcing the idea of victimhood among blacks, which makes everything else worse.

Maybe that everything you just said also applies to Hispanics and other underprivileged minorities and yet they somehow manage to convey their displeasure in nonviolent ways.

You need to quantify said oppression, particularly for modern day black Americans, and give potential remedies. Carte blanche to riot and destroy things until the rest of the country gives them what they think they deserve isn't among them. Who the hell says the guy was innocent? If you're assaulting a cop, you're not innocent. Is that what happened? I have no idea, but unlike you, I'm willing to wait for the police, FBI and DOJ to do their thing.

That's precisely what I am saying. My opening line was implying that there was zero justification for breaking the law in protest of either perceived injustice. I have no problem protesting and being a pain in the ass if you don't think something's right. That's about as American as it gets. Deciding that something happening that you don't like is a hall pass for criminal behavior doesn't qualify.

By all means, explain why it is any less justified than the lawlessness we've been seeing in St. Louis. You all sound like *that* parent who will come up with any reason, no matter how ridiculous to explain their spoiled kids' behavior. The parents are at least partly to blame for how those kids turn out, and their actions bear a striking resemblance to the ridiculous excuse-making in this thread. A kid is dead, and that's a tragedy. Let the FBI do their jobs. If there's strong evidence that the officer did something wrong, he will be arrested and likely imprisoned. In the meantime, this is a nation of laws, and anyone who uses this tragedy to loot and destroy need to be identified and jailed for significant periods of time.

I'm currently fighting a speed camera ticket from Sioux City. That's a system transparently designed to screw people without due process. Does this mean I get to grab a brick and upgrade my entertainment center with 60 sleek inches of Council Bluffs plasma?