Barack Obama is getting a lot of press for his upcoming overseas travels. He plans to visit Europe and then Afghanistan and Iraq. In a desperate attempt to appear relevant and get some coverage himself, McCain is calling Obama's European visit political, with the implication being, I guess, that that is a bad thing.
I understand John McCain's frustration. Barack Obama is the interesting candidate and many in the media are falling over themselves to cover Obama. Of course, this is a mixed blessing for Obama given the content of some of that coverage (e.g. The New Yorker). But Obama is fresh and different and that is news. McCain has run for president before and there isn't much that is fresh about him (except maybe his newfound conservatism, and that ain't gonna sell magazines, newspapers, and ads).
But back to the sour grapes. McCain visited Colombia and Mexico earlier this month. Did we hear Obama denigrate these visits, call them "political" or try to weasel into them?
Barack Obama has a dignity that John McCain cannot match.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
A great article of how the media is and has been in the tank for Obama. No question on that. Since when does fresh make for a good president? Hollywood, music and the media no doubt fresh may be good but in the case of Obama it just means another politician is on the scene. He wants to portray himself as a new type of candidate but he is the same old DC.
Kool and the Gang once sang that she is Fresh maybe he could use that at the DNC. Maybe fresh fish, he flip-flops just like every other politician. I wait for his stand on drilling to flip.
I find it interesting that you were unable to keep two thoughts in your mind at the same time, mouse.
Fresh is for pussy. The Constitution is for the President to uphold and follow. Until a candidate tells me he/she isn't going to use the document for toilet paper and become the humble administrator the office was supposed to be, then I ain't votin' for him/her.
Then you ain't votin'
I'm still lookin'.
Keep us informed of how that is working out for ya, OK?
You seem very smug about your candidate, csm.
But I have a question for you, and I am not deluded enough to think it will change your mind, but how can any of his followers still have the same confidence after his recent comments while visiting Afghanistan? It sounds to me like he is getting his "Commander-in-Chief" merit badge by rattling some already in use sabers and wants to keep it going for awhile. I guess "Iraq" is a dirty word but "Afghanistan" isn't? I am on record stating we should have gotten out of Afghanistan after Tora Bora. There is NO national interest in our being in Afghanistan and I am very surprised the peacenik Obama thinks we do. I just hope you don't get burned by your candidate, csm.
Oh, I have no doubt that Obama will support things that I do not. I am not deluded enough to think otherwise. That said, given that the next president will either be Obama or McCain, Obama is the better by miles and miles and miles. Therefore, I intend to do as much as possible to see that he gets elected. I think it is idiocy to support any candidate other than these two at this point in history. Perhaps, sometime, we will get a viable third party, or the current system will collapse, or or or... until then, well, I pick the best of what is on tap.
And since when is supporting Obama smug? Should I say you are smug in your support of states' rights?
"Keep us informed of how that is working out for ya, OK?"
That doesn't sound smug to you, it does me. Couple that with calling me an idiot and I am forced to believe nothing else.
Obama's original springboard into this race was his stance on Iraq, peace in other words. Now he sounds like, if elected, he will keep us in Afghanistan for who knows how long and for what reason. And anybody in the know realizes that Afghanistan is more of a quagmire than Iraq ever pretended to be. Because of insurgent tactics the Taliban will never be ousted from all of Afghanistan. The country is a land of clans and warlords and Kabul will never(never has) control the areas outside the capitol.
Since this is one of the major issues Obama has campaigned on, peace, I just find his stance on the fighting in Afghanistan hypocritical. The only other thing which surprises me is that the electors who hold peace as the prime issue haven't squawked yet. Maybe they are looking at Obama's vote on FISA for guidance.
So you looked into your crystal ball, saw that I would make a statement about not voting for one of the two major party candidates as idiocy, extrapolated that to mean that I was calling you specifically an idiot, and put that into your smug calculation before calling me smug? I doubt it, my friend.
No, I am saying you called me an idiot AFTER I called your support for your candidate smug, but that after calling me an idiot, I am even more entrenched in my opinion that your stance has a smug aspect to it.
But this arguement has little merit. I still feel Obama is pulling a little "bait and switch" concerning Iraq and Afghanistan, and that if what he is espousing actually happens, many of his current supporters may have second thoughts about their support. Our service personnel will still be dying with little difference whether that happens on Iraqi soil or Afghani.
can't we all just get along? ;)
on afghanistan, a few points:
~we never actually left the afghan front. we simply got distracted, and let it slip away.
~some would say afghanistan is the only true theater for this "war on terror". (i would add western & northern pakistan to that, but that's just me).
~we might have some responsibility to the afghani's on this one.
~if we actually care about disabling al qaeda and/or bin laden, an afghan/pakistan presence is prolly needed.
~i don't think (imo) obama supporters are quite the anti-war peaceniks you seem to think they are, bawdy. i would guess that many of them would like to see the war against al qaeda won, with both diplomacy in the region AND military offensives specifically targeting the original perpetrators of 9/11.
just a few thoughts.
corey,
This was pointed out to me awhile back and that is:
When the attack on Afghanistan started, the US had very few forces in country. Besides some special-ops forces(Pat Tillman, R.I.P.)and air support, most of our fighting was done by proxies, mainly the Northern Alliance forces. Later came NATO, again, not necessarily American forces.
As far as the rest of the "War on Terror" goes, I personally don't see why it can't be a covert war for the remainder. Al Qaeda has very little operational vialbility left. There are some nodes in Northern Africa, but those governments(Algeria, Morrocco, Libya, etc)are very capable and have much experience in taking their insurgents on. Al Qaeda in Iraq has just about thrown in the towel. The Saudis have a great handle on their jihadists. Pakastan IS a problem, much of it of their own making(their original support for the Taliban, jihadist elements in their intelligence and military sectors for instance). Even this area would be better served with small units of special-ops personnel and unmanned aerial vehicles. I see no reason to have the vast majority of our armed forces to be in the area once a deal with Iran over Iraq is achieved.
In conclusion, I feel Al Qaeda, while not totally eradicated, is operationally inoperable. They are a busted organization. The organization with an excellent group security rationale had that security bottle them up in the borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan to the point where very little was going in or out. It ended up hurting them in the end.
I have also heard arguments that it might be a better outcome if we do NOT get our hands on Osama. If he dies on the withered vine he cannot be martyred and could be held up to ridicule for inactivity if you can get past 9/11. Kinda like "what have you done for me lately".
One question: Is it possible peace ain't the issue it once was(I remember it dominated the political rhetoric)because of the cooling of Iraq?
Post a Comment