One of Murphy’s laws goes, “When a politician gets an idea, he/she usually gets it wrong.” That would certainly seem to be the case in Barack Obama's new found support for military invasions of soveriegn nations.
A scant two days after being called naïve over his stating that he’d be willing to unilaterally “sit down and talk” with rogue leaders, by Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama abandoned his anti-war position and stated he’d consider invading an allied nation, Pakistan.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," said Obama in a speech billed as a major security-issues address.
"They are plotting to strike us again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Nice sentiments, albeit, Senator Obama is coming over to the “war-mongering side” a little late. Worse still, is the fact that there really isn’t a “war-mongering side” in America, merely those who understand the need for a military war on terror and those who do not.
Until now, the only Democrat who seemed to support our military war on terrorism was Hillary Clinton.
She officially has company!
In truth, NONE of the Democrats have any intention of doing anything other than woo the naïve anti-war folks. They KNOW that (1) this naïve group is and always has been more anti-Republican than anti-war (they had no problem with the Balkans) and (2) they’re naïve enough to be counted on to accept the old “New information has come to light,” or “The situation has changed,” once they get into office.
In short, they have as low a regard for the die-hard anti-war folks – the Kos Kids, the MoveOn morons and the HuffPoos as most Americans do.
Do I think Obama’s idea of invading Pakistan is a good one?
No, not at all. They’ve been an ally, an imperfect one, to be sure, but an ally, none-the-less and there’s a better than even money chance that such an invasion would indeed trigger an overthrow of the Musharef government, with a radical Islamic one likely to replace it...and we could NOT allow a radical Islamic state to have nuclear weapons. THAT would indeed be a direct pathway to perhaps a Third World War.
So I don’t agree with, nor like Senator Obama’s idea very much, BUT I do like his abandoning the peaceniks.
All you passionate anti-war folks out there, YOUR own candidates are calling you stupid!
Posted by JMK:
ReplyDeleteAll you passionate anti-war folks out there, YOUR own candidates are calling you stupid!
Uh, ONE candidate says one stupid thing and that constitutes a broad rebuke by ALL the candidates?
Not a chance, JMK.
Perhaps you are unaware that the same candidates will be prostrating themselves in front of Moulitsas (Kos) this weekend and have chosen to ignore a DLC conference which is also running this weekend.
Wait until you read the posturing, bowing and scraping from the former before passing judgment, my friend.
But Mal, Obama's not the only one who's nixed "peace at any cost"....Hillary has only peripherally criticized Bush's handling of the war, NOT the invasion itself and hasn't ruled out even more military action IF she gets in.
ReplyDeleteOnly Edwards (with nothing to lose) has done that...and anyone who thinks he's above flip-flopping on that issue is, I believe, misjudging him.
And yes, you're right, it's very sad that most of the Democratic candidates are preferring the Moulitsas led Kos Convention over the Harold Ford led DLC, the equivalent of many Republicans having to dutifully kiss the rings of the leaders of the Religious Right each election cycle.
Those are two groups each Party fears, more than respects.
Kos got its teeth pulled whn Lieberman beat their annointed candidate Ned Lamont last year.
I think the Dems still fear the scorched eath policy that the netroots smear machine regularly engages in, but they don't much fear them at the ballot box....or at least, they shouldn't.
The vulnerability of the Dems position(s) on the war has been laid bare by recent events in Congress: their inability to pull off the de-funding and now, their capitulation on the FISA issue.
ReplyDeleteThey know how dangerous this enemy is. Their dilemma is in judging just how far out on this anti-war limb they can go before it breaks. Meanwhile, General Petraeus is heading their way with a chainsaw.
Obama, like a man sent to the front lines without any training, has just shot himself in the foot.
That's the sad thing in all this Mick.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats, by embracing the anti-war Left have put themselves in the unenviable position of having to appear to root for an American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As 2008 looms large, they desperately don't want to appear to be weak on terrorism, so they've, as you say, capitualted on the NSA wiretaps...a decision a recent Supreme Court ruling should've made easier, but for all but 41 Dems, it didn't!
You and Mal have a unique perspective as former Liberals, though Ronald Reagan was also a "former Liberal," - a "JFK Liberal," a completely different animal than today's so=called "progressives."