Skip to comments.The Washington Post abets an Obama con
Posted on 10/27/2008 10:27:43 PM PDT by ransomnote
The Washington Post abets an Obama con
This report by Robert Kaiser -- "Iraq Aside, Nominees Have Like Views on Use of Force" -- is far from the worst thing we've seen in the Washington Post during this campaign season. However, it may be the most clueless.
Kaiser contends that differences between Barack Obama and John McCain about Iraq "may obscure a consequential similarity between their hawkish views on the use of American force in other places." Kaiser bases his claim that Obama is a "hawk" on various positions Obama has taken during the general election campaign. It doesn't seem to have occurred to Kaiser that Obama may simply be positioning himself along side, and fractionally to the left of, McCain for the purpose of winning the election. But then Kaiser probably believed that Obama would keep his promise to accept public funding of his campaign.
The best evidence of how Obama feels about using U.S. force is, of course, his pre-campaign positions when the use of force has been a live and immediate issue. Prior to the Iraq war, Obama did not favor using force under circumstances in which the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and even John Kerry considered such a course appropriate. More recently, Obama opposed the use of increased force in Iraq (as part of a new strategy) where it held out the promise (now quite possibly realized) of preventing a defeat for the U.S., victory for al Qaeda, and a bloodbath for Iraq.
Kaiser claims that Obama has suggested that he is "prepared to take military action if the Iranians acquired nuclear weapons." He infers this from the candidate's statement that a nuclear armed Iran would not be permitted. But when questioned, Obama is never willing to affirm this inference. Kaiser again ignores the possibility (and I would submit, the probability) that Obama is being cagey.
Near the end of his piece, Kaiser finally acknoweledges that "Obama nearly always mentions the need for allies and international collaboration in any use of force; McCain does not emphasize that point." In fact, as his positions on Iraq have demonstrated, McCain simply does not view international collaboration as necessary. This key difference between the two candidates, by itself, defeats Kaiser's claim that they "have like views on the use of force."
Has Obama really conned Kaiser into believing he's a John McCain style "hawk?" Or is Kaiser just helping Obama con his readers?
Obama supporters, like Clinton supporters in their day, are easy to con because they want to be conned. They admire a subtle con for its subtlety, and an audacious con for its audacity, and a bold-faced con for the very shamelessness of it.
Most people have probably forgotten by now, but on the eve of war in Iraq there was a long line of Democrats, politicians and pundits alike, coming forward demanding that we do something about North Korea, that North Korea was the real threat. As if on cue Kim Jong Il started rattling his sabers, and Democrats started demanding that Bush do something to deal with what they called, in unison, the “real theat”.
Thats when I realized that one of the Dems ploys is to favor wars that we aren’t in while dragging their feet and obstructing the war we are in. It allows them to act butch while doing everything possible to undermine us.
Obama uses the same ploy. This is why he threatens to invade Pakistan while demanding surrender in Iraq. It allows him to act like a little warrior while he pulls the plug on everything we’ve accomplished, everything good men have died to accomplished so far.
No one can explain how giving the enemy a platform with an enormous oil income would improve our strategic security, because it wouldn’t. He’s not serious, but it works because his supporters aren’t serious people. And it works because the press doesn’t question it, they act as his loyal spokesmen, amplifying his remarks, covering his mistakes, attacking anyone who dares to doubt him.
I liked your comment. I had noticed that Libs always say we are fighting in the wrong place but had considered it a desperation tactic. After reading your post, Libs long term strategy of pointing in the opposite direction while rattling swords surfaced immediately - I’ve just been overlooking the obvious. It’s not just a diversionary tactic to criticize whatever Repub they oppose - it’s a longterm strategy of never having to stand for anything while CLAIMING they are ever vigilent in defense of our country. I imagine that if we withdrew tomorrow from Iraq and turned to focus on their latest target they would screech about a series of vaporous targets until “Fight at Home” (poverty, injustice etc.) became the ‘best’ target for them. The war poverty you know - would make THEM medal wearing heroes.
“I had noticed that Libs always say we are fighting in the wrong place...”
YES, they wanted to quit Iraq because it was supposedly in a Civil War (we don’t hear that any more, do we, NBC) but want to get into the Darfur Civil War. Go figure.
Obama would likely commit US troops in support of his Muslim friends!
Sure Obama’s a hawk —
FOR THE OTHER SIDE!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.