Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Back to the business of bash

Today is the first day of the rest of Obama's life and he's using it to the best of his ability. The brilliant speech is history--the problem was successfully shifted to an unsolvable debate where he holds the moral high ground. Mission accomplished! Time to get back to bashing Hillary for her crummy judgment and McCain for wanting to defeat terrorism in any place other than Afghanistan or Pakistan.

He spoke today at Fort Bragg on the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war, suggesting to the crowd that only his superior judgment will end a war Saddam Hussein started years ago and had never stopped waging. Evidently there was no mention of such incidental tidbits like winning or losing, leaving the impression that an Obama presidency might indeed give the Butcher a posthumous win in his "mother of all battles". Someone did bother to question his judgment vis a vis Pakistan, though:
Obama also defended his contention that the United States should act on intelligence about top terrorist targets in Pakistan even if President Pervez Musharraf refuses — a statement last year that drew criticism from Republicans.

"We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually goes," Obama said, referring to McCain's vow to chase down bin Laden.
Zow, boom--a zinger, at least on the surface. But as MacRanger described yesterday, his judgment is a mile wide and an inch deep.

He's basically saying he'll violate sovereignty of any country in the world based on intel reports. Think about that in context to his criticism of Hillary and Bush for going after Saddam--based on intel reports. Sounds like some serious cowboy diplomacy.

Dare we dig deeper without being called racially divisive? For instance, would he unilaterally invade Russia if intel reports suggested bin Laden was spotted crossing the Urals in one of those furry hats? What if intel reports placed him in Mecca? Would Obama willy nilly send in the 3rd ID blasting "onward Christian soldiers" from the tanks? Hey, has anyone asked Tancredo who he's backing?!

Obama apparently cares not whit one about the delicate political issues of a Muslim country possessing nukes as long as intel reports show the bad guys roaming around (even if they attacked America because we deserved it). Yet somehow removing a secular dictator, apparently at odds with the Islamofascists (except when Clinton was king) stirred up an entire international hornet's nest of Islamofascists in rage against America for taking out said leader, a man they never respected and were not associated with in any way. But magically, proposing unilateral goose chases of those same terrorists in other places will somehow endear the entire world to America again.

Perhaps the mainstream media can figure all of this out, that is, if they've recovered from their speech hangover yet.


Anonymous said...

I’m thinking Mr. Obama only made the racial issues worse. I believe he is a typical liberal ideologue who well understands how to pander to voters for sympathy, and whose promise of hope is based entirely on false premises. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how the hope of previous generations, now living in the squalor of government assisted housing in any way gives the new generation of Democrats reason for hope. Isn’t Obama victimizing his “own people,” using them as stepping-stones to power and influence? How does anyone but a complete idiot respect that? Worse, he is sending the absolutely wrong signal to our detractors, and I have to say that if he gets to the White House, 9/11 will be a mere footnote compared to what will happen as Muslim extremists begin to flex their muscles.

I promise that I am not a member of the radical Christian right, but Obama is very worrisome. The more I understand of him, even in spite of his proclamations of adherence to Christianity, the relationship between TUCC and the Nation of Islam remains problematic (to me). I don’t think that makes me a racist – only a thinking American voter.

A.C. McCloud said...

It shouldn't be out of order to question a man's background and intentions when he tells the world our fight in Iraq was a mistake and vows to end it, especially when the enemies there share the same banner and ideology of the group that attacked us on 9/11 (and many times previous without notice). Voters would be remiss for NOT asking and inquiring, and the media should provide the investigations.

But we've seen nothing but sugar coating with this man, mainly because people are afraid they will offend him. This is the presidency we're talking about, not a city council spot. I'd sooner elect Jesse Jackson--he's got more bona fides than Obama. At least Ron Paul made himself clear and unambiguous as to his reasons for leaving. With Obama, we just don't know what he might do, and why.

Anonymous said...

Most analysis of B-O's positions on any issue suffer from reliance on a key fallacy: The analysts think that his public statements have some kind of meaningful content.
They don't. When he talks, he says what he thinks he needs to say to get elected. He doesn't believe Muslim countries should be invaded on the basis of intelligence reports. He believes that people want to hear something that sounds good, and if they want to think he will solve the problem, he'll say what he thinks they want to hear.
When he has to start providing deeds to match the words, he will be shown to be what the Left always claimed (unjustly) about Ronald Reagan. He's an empty suit, and not even a very good one at that.

A.C. McCloud said...

When he has to start providing deeds to match the words, he will be shown to be what the Left always claimed (unjustly) about Ronald Reagan. He's an empty suit, and not even a very good one at that.

Exactly. People want to believe so bad, and he feeds it to 'em like few others.

But there's nothing backing the words. His reality is a 20 year relationship with a racist, which he lied about when pressed. He talks of having republicans in his administration and bridging the gap between red and blue, yet is rated the most liberal Senator.

People are just trying to understand the man. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder. A person promoting racial harmony cannot sit in that church for 15-20 years and then tell America to mind her own business.

Frankly I'm disappointed because I recall first seeing him in 2004 and thinking he was a new breed of Democrat. Now I'm not so sure.