I'd grown used to waiting for John Kerry to reveal what he would do in Iraq. Though I'd voted for Al Gore and Bill Clinton, respectively, in the last two presidential elections, I needed to hear Mr. Kerry commit to success in the war. On April 14, at an event at the City College of New York, a man challenged Mr. Kerry to explain how his plan for Iraq differed from President Bush's. Mr. Kerry responded testily, "You're not listening."(For more on how Kerry lost me, see my post "How Kerry lost me.")
I wrote on my blog at the time, "If you still don't know what he would do differently from Bush, do you deserve to be snapped at for 'not listening'?" After that, as I heard Mr. Kerry wriggle his way around the Iraq question one way and then another, I never forgot his willingness to blame the listener for not already seeing his answer, and my mistrust of John Kerry hardened into support for George Bush.
Imagine my dismay today when I saw the headline "Obama Says His Critics Haven’t Been Listening":
Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday forcefully addressed concerns that he had moved too quickly to the political center, acknowledging complaints from “my friends on the left” about his statements on Iraq, his approaches to evangelicals and his remarks on other issues that have alarmed some of his supporters.Ugh. I've been cheered by Obama's move to the center. I like Obama and I want to like Obama. (Note: I'm not against McCain. I've taken a vow of cruel neutrality.) But I hated to see him use this Kerry-esque locution. Unlike Kerry, Obama has taken some clear positions on Iraq. But he's been moving and he's denying it and blaming us as bad listeners. How irksome!
“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he told a crowd gathered at a town hall-style meeting in this Atlanta suburb. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”
Posts
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208IM MOVIN TO CENTR
DISSIN UR SMARTZ
Awesome. Best comment of the day. Thanks Bissage.
I agree with Ann, it doesn't bother me that you're moving to the center. But to tell me that a) you're not moving to the center, b) you're stupid for thinking that, and c) Ignore that man behind the curtain. That IS irksome.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the sanctions "were working", i.e. that Hussein wasn't making any further progress towards making a bomb. That's still only part of the picture.
So the alternative plan was, apparently:
(1): To keep those sanctions going forever, century after century, until Iraq miraculously transmogrified into a peaceful and friendly nation (hint: this has never worked)...
(2): ... in the face of almost unanimous international opposition and ever-increasing domestic opposition from the Left...
(3): ... while hoping that the Iraqi regime never manages to beat the sanctions and get its hands on enough nuclear material to build a bomb, something it only has to do once...
(4): ... while leaving the Iraqi people at the mercy of the regime, plus of course at the mercy of the sanctions...
(5): ... while giving every Muslim nutjob in the world a prime recruitment tool ("infidels in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia! Muslims under siege!"), as bin Laden did for the 9/11 attacks.
This is the proposed alternative plan to a one-time war, followed by a decade or so of nation building.
I'm sorry, but even if the sanctions "worked", relying on them as a long-term strategy was still idiotic. As expensive as the building of a democratic Iraq has been, it is still better than the only available alternative. The fighting won't last forever; contrary to the beliefs of most of the Left, neither Muslims nor Arabs are incapable of living peacefully in a civilized society.
Agreed. Michael McNeil's posts are on target. Does anyone expect the Moonbats to respond to him with something other than ad hom?
"It's not inconsistent at all. You're not thinking dark enough."
Is everything about race with you people? Jeezus K. Reist.
Bush McCain foreign policy certainly has its flaws, like everything does, although I'd be loath to say that failure to protect the homeland is one of them, based on the last 8 years' record.
By contrast, the Obama-Albright/Democrat foreign policy was also given 8 years to run, and after a lot of comparatively smaller injuries to US interests around the world the final result of that approach was tallied on September 11, 2001. "Found wanting", indeed.
"It would be reasonable to notice that the sanctions and restrictions worked better than expected against Saddam."
I wouldn't be so confident, given you're subject to the same spin merchants that the rest of us non-looped-in proles are. For an interesting comparison, consider how the Int'l Red Cross behaved in connection with Theresienstadt. If you're unfamiliar, allow me to recommend the DVD "Holocaust: Theresienstadt", which is available at places like Fry's for about $5.00. You may learn something of value.
You might at least accord the opposing viewpoint to yours some respect, given there is a basis for skepticism of the "inspection regime" and all the other NGO refereeing that passes itself off as impartiality. The IRC was either scared of, or bought and paid for by, the Naws in WW2. One single visit to the potemkin Jewish Ghetto the Naws created at Theresienstadt, and then only to the portions of the camp that the Germans wanted them to see, was all it took for Nazi Germany to get the blessing of the IRC that Germany was treating the displaced Jews just fine, thanks. Follow-ups? Visits to other camps - even where plenty of rumor, innuendo and reason existed to do so? Nope. Knowing that, whenever I'd see and hear a scrotally-challenged guy like Hans Blix, I and those of us who've seen this before in history were understandably rather reluctant to buy in.
REv,
"We have a permanent troop presence in many of the world's democracies."
Good point. Everyone (yours truly included) is always talking about us still having troops in Germany and Korea. But we also have AF bases in England that have seen major activity during GW1, Kosovo, and GW2.
I find it fascinating that certain people on the left can call National Review and The Weekly Standard "wing nuts" with a straight face. The idea that you believe that any publication to the right of The New Republic is "wing nuts" says far more about your childish world view than you probably realize.
Does anyone really doubt that you will turn against Obama and that you will make a big deal out of it when you do? You don't even seem to realize how predictable you are.
Montaigne: you, like Senator Obama, do not understand the import of treaties or SOFA (status of forces agreements) to maintain US troops in a foreign country. At the point the Iraqi government has not asked us to leave; the UN mandate expires at the end of the year; You may regard our presence there as Imperial; but that just speaks to your overwhelming ignorance of the facts.
Post a Comment