Justin was baffled by something I said earlier, so I’ll try to explain what I meant.  Richard is right that my concern is to emphasize the degree to which Obama and his camp endorse establishment views of almost every other foreign policy question.  I floated the idea that a “case can be made that a successful extrication from Iraq by Obama will open the floodgates for many more interventions, and costly ones at that,” because I think the case could be made, though I have not gone so far as to make it at any length.  Barring some massive expansion of the military (which Obama has proposed) or the return of conscription, resources for additional campaigns will be extremely limited unless Obama succeeds in getting us out of Iraq, but withdrawal will free the interventionists’ hands to meddle in many other countries and Obama has stated his willingness to do just this.  Obama’s position on Iraq is not the reason to fear his election—it is what he would do with our military and the executive power entrusted to him once that was accomplished.  That is what I was suggesting when I warned of “many more interventions.”  None of these alone may be more costly than Iraq, but that will not make any of them cheap or worthwhile.  Remember, this is the man who wrote (or had written in his name):

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission.

The rejection of bullying is welcome, but what is this but an ostensibly “kinder, gentler” hegemony, one perhaps more acceptable to international institutions and more amenable to foreign governments but fundamentally just as antithetical to the American interest and republican government?  Under the circumstances, I can understand why some on the right will prefer Obama to McCain, whose madness and recklessness I don’t doubt for a moment, but I want to make clear to everyone the risks and dangers that an Obama presidency would represent.  If my objections are just self-defeating purism, I expect that I will persuade few.  If, however, Obama is as dangerous as his assumptions about America’s role in the world suggest, caution will have been warranted.

You really have to hand it to Hillary: is she really offering the Democratic frontrunner the vice-presidency? This goes way beyond mere arrogance: she really believes in the dynastic principle animating her campaign. Her sense of royal entitlement enables her to utter such absurdities with a straight face.

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is asking why does Eliot Spitzer have to resign because he was caught patronizing a prostitute—does anyone really care? Yet Greenwals confesses that he has no personal sympathy for the guy, considering Spitzer’s zealous high-profile prosecution, while attorney general, of at least two major girls-for-hire operations.

I’m listening to Tucker Carlson assert his libertarianism—“Tucker,” says Chris Matthew, “I know you’re a libertarian, although there are always exceptions in particular questions”—as he asks: where’s the crime?

Yet, as Greenwald admits, Spitzer has been a high-profile prosecutor of “immorality” from the get-go: and that’s why he ought to be prosecuted, on libertarian grounds. The rule should be that only politicians who pose as guardians of “public morality” be brought up on charges—of coercive hypocrisy. Ordinary johns should be let go.

I’m rather intrigued by Spitzer’s use of the pseudonym “George Fox” when he would take part in his expensive assignation down as the Renaissance Mayflower. The Times reports that “Client #9” actually has a “friend and donor” who goes by this name. One wonders whether Spitzer ever had an escape plan in which if the feds started closing in, he might let old George take the rap. I wouldn’t put this past him, but it seems unlikely.

I think instead that the choice of names was a bit of irony on Spitzer’s part: the phony public crusader probably often chuckled to himself while visiting a prostitute using the name of the pious 17th-century dissenter who founded Quakerism.

This wouldn’t be the first time the “steamroller” mixed self-righteousness with sleaze and topped off it with grand hypocrisy. According to the Times:

“[I]n 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island. ‘This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. “It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.’”

The NY Times headline says it all about the NY governor who’s trying to ram abortion into religious hospitals and abortion referrals into religious schools:
Spitzer is Linked to Prostitution Ring

I take no glee in his sin, but in its very timely (Providential?) exposure. Somewhere, some little old Bronx Irish lady’s rosaries have paid off. I’d like to suggest to reporters the same question I once posed for President Clinton, another pro-choice philanderer:

Governor, for how many abortions have you been personally responsible?

As an update to Taki’s valid character assessment of Gov. Spitzer—he won’t resign. He certainly wouldn’t want this “personal matter” to get in the way of his using the state to force doctors to offer abortions, all part of his “vision of progressive politics,” of course.   

Delightful to hear William Kristol try to telegraph instructions to John McCain, since his suggestions are so revealing. Kristol proposes two running-mates for John McCain ideally chosen to cripple the pro-life cause. Let’s look at each idea:

Plan A: Get Clarence Thomas to resign from the Supreme Court to run for Vice-President. This will lure away from an Obama or Clinton (or Clinton/Obama) ticket exactly as many black voters as one saw this year at CPAC.  Brilliant! It will also take away one solid pro-life vote from the Court, in return for which we’ll get… a McCain (or Clinton/Obama) player to be named later. This furthers the Republican elite’s strategy of keeping pro-lifers’ goal of overturning Roe v. Wade safely out of reach. A carrot that will keep us jackasses pulling the cart for Halliburton.

Plan B: Add to the ticket a liberal interventionist who supports partial-birth abortion and gay marriage. This will clearly signal the party’s priorities: Just war, just because. (Why ask why? Just DO IT.)

I actually hope that Plan B comes to fruition. It might, just might, help social conservatives get the idea that it’s time to flee the plantation.

Richard, I don’t think Power speaks for anyone but herself: and, after all, she’s been fired, purged, let go. She’s history. And I don’t think that if, say, John McCain said he’s going to bomb bomb bomb Iran, and one of his “advisors”—an unpaid one at that—said, “Well, no, he can’t do that,” we’d take the advisor all that seriously.

There are plenty of other grounds on which to go after Obama—although why anybody would want to do this, given the horrific threat represented by Mad John McCain, I’ll never understand—but his stance on Iraq isn’t one of them.

Regarding Justin’s last post, since Daniel and I are both arguing pretty much the same thing, I’ll respond.

My point in highlighting the interventionist tendencies of Samantha Power, Obama, et al. is to bring to the fore the fact that no current Democrat represents any real opposition to the Bushian-McCainian war party. Sure, stationing “peace keepers” in Darfur might be less expensive than an attempted transformation of the Middle East, but even if Obama (or Clinton) begins to slowly pull the troops out of Iraq, there’s absolutely nothing to lead us to believe that 4 or 8 years later our military commitments abroad, or the gargantuan military budget that has little to do with national defense, would be any smaller. Nor would American foreign policy loose its “democratization” thrust. Thus what are we really hoping to gain by supporting Obama? 

Besides, expectations that Obama will pull out of Iraq any time soon should most definitely be curbed after Power’s recent “best case scenario” comments. 

Justin Logan, one of the Cato Institute’s more principled libertarian analysts, just about sums up the presidential race:

“As terrifying as each of the presidential candidates is in various ways, it’s going to be a relief when this long national nightmare is over. We deserve, at the very least, a new nightmare.”