Obama’s Ill-Advised Hawkishness
Sen. Obama has a hawkishness deficit because of his anti-war positions. Now he’s trying his best to erase that deficit. Whether he succeeds with that remains to be seen. One thing that I’m fairly certain of is that he won’t appear presidential if he insists on raiding Pakistan:
Obama has been careful to fortify these images with words: On Sunday, the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on “Face The Nation.” He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan’s tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.
The easiest way to give terrorists control of a nuclear nation is to invade Pakistan. That alone will topple the Pakistani government and put it into the hands of people charitably described as sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qa’ida. I don’t doubt that Sen. Obama thinks that this makes him look macho. The reality is that this attack policy is risky, carrying too little reward and too much potential danger.
When I read Obama make this statement the first time, I questioned whether he’d bothered to think through the ramifications of what he’d said. I still don’t think he’s thought this through because he’s still making the same infantile mistakes of a man utterly unprepared for being commander-in-chief.
Obama’s decision to travel to two war zones while highlighting his relatively hawkish rhetoric on Afghanistan and Pakistan reflects an attempt to deal with a problem faced by every Democratic presidential candidate since the Vietnam era: The perception that he is not as strong as his Republican rival when it comes to national security. In last week’s poll, just 24 percent of respondents said it was “very likely” Obama would be an effective commander in chief. Nearly double that percentage, forty-six percent, said the same of his rival, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.
He’s pereceived that way because that’s reality. Sen. Obama has shown time and again that he doesn’t have a grasp of various historical facts about specific countries. This is best exemplified by his insistence on delivering a speech in Germany with Hitler’s Victory Column as his backdrop.
Despite all his posturing, he’s still unqualified as a decisionmaker, much less as the leader of the free world. He’s a testament to the vapidity running wild within today’s Democratic Party.
Technorati Tags: Obama, Pakistan, Terrorists, Nuclear Weapons, Hawkishness, History, Hitler, Victory Column, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
It is inconceivable that you’re suggesting that Obama is unqualified to be President of the United States, for several reasons. First, isn’t it ironic that conservatives are suddenly demanding that a president have military experience? (I guess not, if you include willful avoidance of duty be it even such cushy duty as the criminal Bush was assigned in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.) What we need now is someone with the chops to see the consequences of actions, not the wishful-thinking scenario that McSame continues to push.
Second, it seems that Obama’s Iraq policy positions are being adopted by the criminal Bush and his cabal; certainly, our ally the Iraqi PM endorsed Obama’s position on withdrawal; and today, he solidified his position with our Israeli allies.
Finally, even McSame is heeding Obama’s call for concern about the situation in Afghanistan and the destabilizing of the Pakistani tribal region that our “ally” Musharaff gave control, as well as billions of our taxdollars, to the Taliban. The crinimal Bush said, in an alarming and rare moment of honesty, that if we’re attacked again it will likely be from this region. Intriguing that Bush would say this; at first blush, it is a tacit admission of failure in his ill-fated attempt to put Benizir Bhutto back into Pakistan and the resulting chaos that this incredible lack of judgement (hello, Dr. Rice?) wrought.
And you say that Obama giving a speech in front of a historical marker shows a lack of “a grasp of various historical facts about specific countries”? Have you listened to McSame try to tell Katie Couric that the surge brought about the Anbar awakening? How he then talks about had we not surged, Sheik Abu Risha would have been executed despite the fact that he was, in fact, executed! McSame is so out of touch on the most important issue to his campaign that he can’t even get the basic chronology of the centerpiece of his bid for president correct.
Maybe you need to re-think that opposition to Obama’s hawkishness on Pakistan. Obama has been pretty much right on all of these issues, and the criminal Bush may have left us no other choice!
July 24th, 2008 at 6:24 am
I believe JFK made his famous speech in front of the Victory Column in Berlin as well. I’m sure many speeches, other than Hitler’s, where given there since last century. It’s just a point of historical significance. It doesn’t mean Obama has some how assumed the mantle of Hitler as you are implying by even bringing up both names in the same article. Not to mention that your Technorati tags also include Hitler for easy access. I would almost consider this bordering disingenuous.
You make an assumption based on a non-sequitur, which is, Obama is unfit for the presidency because of the location of his speech where he addresses Germany. This is one of your main points to support your article’s thesis that some how the location of the speech is a huge gaffe/political blunder/example of inept leadership. This is an arguement that makes zero sense. It almost seems as if you were grasping at straws.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Are the German’s voting with us this year?
JFK earned the right to stand at Brandenburg gate and say Ich bin ein Berliner. He fought in the war that brought Hitler down, was already elected President when he went there, and his views of the Soviet Union and its east European Empire were public record.
Likewise Reagan, was already President and had made his position clear months before Telling Gorbachev to tear down this wall.
Obama has every right to visit there and make a speech, use it as a backdrop for his campaign, whatever, but to so and insinuate he’s already one of the big boys with a cocky kind of statement to jerk himself closer to the center? Thats just a tad shakey.