Comments on: Courting Disaster

By: bb

bb — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:01:13 +0000

“national security credentials” that is!

By: bb

bb — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:59:18 +0000

Fair enough. But I think you are overstating what I said – which was “it is the one issue capable of denying O a second term.” btw I was not saying that the principle behind the issue was the political problem but the circus of the drama that will accompany the show trial.

In saying “one issue” I was assuming that the economy will have improved by 2012.

On the upside, if the Bush/Obama surge and Nato put the Taleban to rout which seems to be increasingly on the cards, and if the Iranian regime falls to the green movement which is not out of the question then O’s national credentials will be considerably enhanced and consequently Americans may feel more sanguine about the trial.

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:08:38 +0000

OK, but still, that assumes that Dems in Congress are correct in interpreting public attitudes, and the importance of certain issues to their constituents. It also ignores the fact that if the decision is even slightly more unpopular than popular, with no long term political upside, Dems would move to scuttle it. Because even a slight advantage is an advantage if there is no cost.

However, I don’t think that “proves” that this decision was of the epic proportions you claimed, or that it threatens to take down a Presidency.

By: bb

bb — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:59:07 +0000

Thanks for the Wapo link, but if you go into the polling data PDF you will see that the specific issue of the KSM trial in the US was not asked at all.

The “proof of the Congress pudding” was not in reference to how many seats, if any, the Dems might lose in the election, but whether the Dems in Congress will allow the trials to take place in the US at all – long before the election!

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:05:49 +0000

Here’s some polling data and analysis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/01/22/ST2010012203176.html

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:58:38 +0000

It was an issue, was it not?

One of thousands, literally.

Wasn’t there polling done?

Why yes, there was. And that issue did not appear anywhere near the top in terms of importance placed by voters.

Whatever, the proof will be in the Congress pudding.

Really? If the Dems lose seats, that will prove that it was because of the decision to try KSM in a civilian court?

Are you familiar with logical fallacies?

By: bb

bb — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:45:00 +0000

It was an issue, was it not? Wasn’t there polling done?
Wasn’t it independents who tipped to Brown? Isn’t it the indies who are giving Obama his present bad polling?

Whatever, the proof will be in the Congress pudding.

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:59:06 +0000

Like in MA?

Um, huh? You’re not actually suggesting that Brown was elected because of this, are you?

By: bb

bb — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:26:49 +0000

Like in MA?

Oh well, Obama will always be able to use it as a teaching moment.

We will see if the Dems up for election this year agree with you.

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:12:36 +0000

bb: national security issues merely being in the news do not redound to the benefit of the GOP. Not anymore. Not after Iraq and Afghanistan mismanagement.

FREX: The GOP tried to hammer Obama on the Undie Bomber issue, relentlessly attacking him for weeks. Guess what? His national security approval ratings went up.

Again, I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

By: bb

bb — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:13:16 +0000

No, my point is that the show trial for KSM et al will be accompanied by so many security threats and drama that it is the one issue capable of denying Obama a second term.

The politics 101 of this is that (a) the show trial and drama will cause Americans on a daily basis, for weeks, to relive 9/11, thus elevating domestical national security to the top of their minds and that (b)this will result in a dedicated Republican turnout in 2012 PLUS a substantial switch in the independent vote from Obama.

However it can be expected that the Dems facing re-election at the end of this year and those in 2012 do understand the politics of this, especially following Mass, even if the president doesn’t, and that is likely to result in congress taking the matter out of his hands.

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:25:12 +0000

So, wait, because Obama originally slated lower Manhattan, and now may switch the site for the trial, this is going to tank his presidency?

Because Bloomberg, very respectfully and with much praise, suggested moving it – after Bloomberg originally agreed it was the right thing to do?

Riiight. You’re making far too much of it. Seriously. This is a minor story.

By: bb

bb — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:08:59 +0000

Not impactful? It already has impacted – Mayor Bloomberg and the security costs? Admin already looking for other sites?

Wherever it goes in the States, except maybe some remote military base, its going to be the full-on MJ/OJ circus with the addition of endless bomb threats from your nutters.

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:51:26 +0000

Why? I don’t see it as so impactful.

By: bb

bb — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:10:32 +0000

Whatever the merits of conviction rates in civilian v military courts Obama’s decision to have a MJ/OJ style show trial in the US for KSM, his cohorts and his AlQ sponsors has to go down the most stupid political decision in memory: it being the one circus capable of costing Obama his second term.

The man is a novice.