San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Thank you, Joe Goebbels.

Keep shouting the big lie long enough, and some are sure to think it true.

The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of "conservatives" as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what "conservative" Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

"Liberal" Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don't want to write a book here.

labels

While labeling Obama policies as conservative or liberal helps simplify certain issues for most people, I usually find it inadequate and actually problematic because it reduces analysis to very simplistic thinking.

You may characterize Obama's policies as "conservative" or "realistic" but that does not mean that it is correct. He was wrong on the surge. He said it wouldn't work. He was extremely wrong. He even changed his website to remove his criticism of the surge.

He has also stated that he believes terrorism (and Islamic terrorism specifically) is the result of poverty. Another wrong assumption. There are studies that prove him wrong as well as any reasoned analysis of the islamic threat.

His knowledge and understanding of history is also severely lacking. He recently commented about the "bomb that hit Pearl Harbor". It wasn't just one bomb, there were several bombs launched by the Japanese against Pearl Harbor. It's interesting to note that not only does he have a good understanding and knowledge of history of his own country, he also has the same lack of depth when it comes to the state he lived in and spent most of his childhood in.

I also see an appalling pattern within Obama that many times, facts, history, and logic are inconviences to his world views. Unfortunately, this pattern is also common to his rabid supporters.

So everyone can label his views as "conservative" or "liberal" and choose which side is appropriate. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are serious deficiencies in his qualifications and analytical thinking when it comes to foreign policy.

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their "Contract with America" Clinton just went along for the ride.

gandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.

Picking up on surveyor's mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a "pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian". Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France's handling of Germany following WWI. I'm not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to "turn" certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama's worldview with those people and periods where "American Realism" (whatever the hell that is) worked.

Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama's "vision" as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda's core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari'a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn't and isn't.

I don't think either candidate is really conservative or liberal under any definition. They are tweaking their positions to win. Look at McCain's position on immigration (for amnesty, before against amnesty, before for amnesty), economy (against taxcuts, before for taxcuts, before against taxcuts) etc., Both would do Kerry "I voted for it, before I voted against it" proud.

casca, that's dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what 'conservative' means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don't know about the "bomb that hit Pearl Harbor". I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn't know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

As for the 'surge', it hasn't worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn't happened. We did our part, they didn't do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn't feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus' command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as "The Surge" misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.

al-Qaeda's core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari'a (Islamic law)

That is a bit of exaggeration. Their main issue is with US support of Israel, somewhat unconditional mostly. They have lot less interest in Allan from Fallbrook following Sharia. They use this sales pitch for recruitment as it sounds loftier than just saying "let us kill the Americans".

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda's core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari'a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

I would help if the US did not sponsor it.

http://www.www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...

July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan
President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR (PARIS), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [COOLEY, 2002, PP. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

The Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia.[64] According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives.[65]

The United Kingdom politician Robin Cook, who served as the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons described Al-Qaeda as meaning "the database" and a product of western miscalculation. Cook wrote:
Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[30]

Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBMv-GfFwAE

Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria's labels as well.

I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama's positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he's closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.

And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.

My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?

Consider Obama's background:

Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament

Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review

Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago

Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence

The whole notion that he's dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don't buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??

facts

Gandalf, I apologize in advance if the facts are inconvenient to your dogma.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...

Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

(emphasis by me)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

And here's a surprise:

While the surge is not the end all be all of the foreign policy objectives, I do agree that the war on terrorism is currently being short-sighted. The war actually goes beyond the Taliban, Bin Laden, Zarqawi (you do know he's dead, right?), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa. The core of the war should concentrate on the ideology of islamofacism and attack based on those principles. Unfortunately neither candidate, McCain or Obama, has an inkling that this should be the preferred approach. Obama is just more obvious in his cluelessness.

reading comprehension and history

gandalf: The whole notion that he's dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don't buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??

I think I've been able to document pretty well exactly how lacking his knowledge when it comes to history and foreign policy analysis. Do I have to be a Harvard educated lawyer to know that? I don't think so.

Besides, gandalf, there was no such deference to education when you were making derogatory statements towards George W. Bush and his Yale education.

And your kind of thinking is supported by Obama as well. His whole campaign is exemplified by the Mad magazine cover that says "Trust me." They have difficulties answering the hard questions because it all comes down to "Hey, Obama has SUPERIOR judgement. He KNOWS better." I mean, really, I can't question Obama because he has a better degree than me? Come on! You are a piggington and a piggington ideal is to question the analyses of experts who have better degrees than us.

Sorry to say it, but the emperor has no clothes.

Obama is running on a platform of "unity" so why does it surprise anyone that he has positions on both sides of the aisle? Isn't that the point?

It's time to retire all of these overused Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative, Red/Blue, Left/Right boxes that people try to shove complex issues into. The world is not in black and white, and it doesn't fit nicely into your little box.

OMFG! Great video jfiq. I understand this completely.

Question: Do you think it's possible he's reading a speech or talking points that were written by somebody else? A campaign aide, for example? That is how things work in the real world. Did you notice how he ... paused ... as he read the part about 'the bomb'?

He knew damn well it wasn't accurate. He's also standing up there in front of a crowd of people and in front of television cameras trying to carry a speech. Which I'm sure you do ALL THE TIME, so you know how difficult it is, and how people never make mistakes.

The larger arc of his experience, his education, the time spent living in Hawaii, it suggests that your overall assertion: that he doesn't know what happened at Pearl Harbor -- you're FULL OF SHIT. Partisan crap-mongers.

And I completely understand how fringe-lunatics seize on stuff like this as 'evidence' that Obama is somehow ignorant about American History because he was edumacated in a madrassa and is a secret muslim.

For the rest of us: 'Zbig' was a prof at Columbia when I was there. I had several friends who took his class and would come back to the dorm and talk politics for hours. 'Z' might have been there when Obama was getting his BA. Wonder if he took classes with Zbigniew...

surveyor, quite right! Zarqawi is dead and gone.

I meant Zawahiri. The 'Dick Cheney' of Bin Laden's world. He's still at large.

Gandalf, you are just an intellectual snob who doesn't understand that character, judgement, integrity is not something you "learn" in today's dumbed down educational system.

BTW, Obama refuses to release his thesis. I would guess that it would be just as unorganized, and inconsistent as Obama is as a person.

The Unibomber, Kaczynski, attended Harvard and University of Michgan and obtained a PHD in Math. He also taugh at Berkeley at the tender age of 25.

So much for credentials with Kaczynski.

My guess is Obama is more of an affirmation action case then anything. He certainly didn't have enough sense to stop going to his racist church and he certainly isn't bright enough to have consistent views or maybe he just isn't bright enough to remember what he has said in the past.

As far as teaching constitutioanl law goes look how poorly he fields questions on the secound amendment. This is an area he should be an expert in but is inconsistent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFSWG2ut0...

John

surveyor, please check the YouTube link posted by jfiq...

It's really remarkable how he stumbles over "the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor" part. It could even have been something as small as a typo on the speech, leaving off the 's' on bomb(s). He's speaking in front of a large group of people and in front of cameras.

You agree?

Or do you think he's dumb?

BTW, I don't think Bush43 is dumb at all. He's been incredibly shrewd and has won every 'political' battle he's been in. I think his flaws are flaws of character and comprehension. And I also think he's a chicken-shit and flinched after 9/11. Played right into AQ's trap. Big-time.

Gandalf,
With the exception of the Senator label, I think you would be surprised who has what credentials on this board. Partypup comes to mind as someone who has outstanding credentials. Allan certainly has military experience and a wide range of historical perspective. There are probably many brilliant lurkers who do not post on the board, too. I am glad your candidate thrills you, but you still have to look at critical input when it comes to Obama, rather than your blind allegiance to him. Your devotion is just the flip side of the neocons you criticize. I personally am not thrilled with McCain either, so I am watching from the sidelines until I know more about both candidates and how much damage they will do to my family. One of the most important issues for me is who will be on the Supreme Court.

That's another good link, jfiq.

I don't see the huge 'flip-flop' here. The Supreme Court's decision was quite a bit more nuanced than the MSM reported. Obama's position on gun control is basically the same: the individual has a right to own handguns but the government has the right to impose common sense regulations on the purchase and ownership. If his position changed, it went from 45% to 55%.

Besides, I really couldn't give a rat's ass about gun control. That wasn't the topic. This discussion is about foreign policy.

attention to detail

gandalf: I can understand if you look at the "bomb at Pearl Harbor" statement in isolation and think it's just a simple misstatement. If that was the only blunder he did, I wouldn't mention it and I would not think it important. Unfortunately, it has been a pattern with him from the beginning.

And I can at least judge what he said, as opposed to putting words into his mouth (like where you suggest that "he knew damn well it wasn't accurate", where is the evidence for that?).

Here's another item as well: the speech may have been written by someone else, but the fact that he doesn't proofread the speech or at least take a look at the speech for inaccuracies before he does that speech? That implies a lack of attention to detail.

And so again, when faced with something derogatory about Obama, you have again resorted to name-calling.

In any case, the evidence is there. The lack of attention to detail, the lack of knowledge in history, the lack of analytical thinking, all combined with the least qualified resume with no significant list of accomplishments of note. While this list is certainly not enough to convince you, gandalf, of his inadequacy, it is enough for me.

And honestly, if you are willing to entrust Obama to make major decisions for you based just because he has a better college degree and says he knows better than you but doesn't give you the "hard data", then I suggest you look at the bottom of this website, look at that phrase, and turn in your piggington card.

edit: For the record, I've never said he was dumb. Naive, lack of knowledge in history, yes. Dumb, no.

Aecetia, point well-taken. No disrespect intended.

Also, if I could clarify: I think the last several posts are more a response to the partisan hacks who post here, smacking down the jackasses.

Oh shit. I don't want to become one of them! It's like Star Wars, isn't it? Tempted by the dark side, drawn into conflict. Oh man, I've got to rethink things here... <g>

Anyhow, devotion to a political candidate, not so much. But I do prefer Obama as a candidate at this point. A bit like Eisenhower, centrist and realist. I used to think favorably of McCain but he seems to do an awful lot of kissing up to the Bush43 neocon/evangelist establishment these days.

The larger point I'm interested in seeing discussed is that the LABELS are bogus. An analysis of BO's foreign policy positions reveals him to be more of a realist and conservative than the idealogical and interventionist republican platform.

And that's interesting, since all we hear these days is liberal-this, liberal-that. Hmmm...

Naw, surveyor. That's a typo/error in the speech. Busy men, they have no time to prepare and proof everything. That's not how it works. Obama, any VIP for that matter, is more properly understood as an 'organization' of people. In comparison to Hillary or McCain, the Obama organization has been reasonably well-run up to this point.

I'll share a truly valid concern of mine, assuming Obama becomes the next president...

It's ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that he surround himself with competent and talented people. I expect but do not know if he will reach across the aisle for this. He should. Particularly on matters of foreign policy. Politics stops at the water's edge.

The verdict is still out on this one. At this point, it's probable Obama will be elected. Let's hope for the best, that he fills his administration with men and women of character, talent and vision.

Bush's main strength his is character and devotion to his ideals. Its called leadership. Leadership is what we ask for in a president.

Can you name a president with more guts and determination then Bush?

John

Gandalf,

None taken and I really think you have toned down a lot from some of your previous posts, but you have competition from both sides of the political spectrum. Lately, you have sounded very reasonable to me. I am a Reagan conservative when it comes to government control and I cannot help but think he would be appalled by the growth in government under "W". I know, he grew it too, but not the same way. As I said before RR was an Emersonian and that describes many of my political views. I am not overboard green, but I do not want to breathe smog, hunt grey wolves or run out of salmon under the profligate banner of 100% unfettered free market capitalism. Frankly, I liked Romney because for me and most of my associates: "It's the economy, stupid" all over again.

My core issue is I don't believe a word he says. I believe everything he says is carefully crafted to garner votes and doesn't reflect anything he may actually do. Hence I don't know what he'll do, then I look at his record before he started pandering and it's clear.

McCain is pandering just as badly.

A constitutional law professor should be comfortable with nuanced decisions.

You don't care about gun control, neither to I, but I do take notice when a constitutional law professor handles questioning on an amendment to the constitution in such an amateurish fashion.

McCain held out for 3 years longer then neccessary as a pow due to his principles.

If McCain was panderer don't you think he would have taken his early release???

How long would Obama stayed in that cell pass the time he could have gotten out??

John

Aecetia, what's your take on reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Is it achievable? Combination of conservation, domestic drilling, clean coal and development of renewables such as wind, solar, biofuels, micro-generation, etc.? The electrical grid underpinning it all? Ten years out? 20 years out?

Where does the money come from? Given the state of things?

Do you view this energy issue as connected to foreign policy? Does it give us a better strategic position vis-a-vis the middle east (and others)?

Join 2008.