Chickenhawk Obama Serves Up Bush-Cheney Lite
UPDATE … President Obama’s nuke policy: Never ever. At least, not anywhere where there are any civilians. That is, never mind. (Obama’s dictator pals will be happy to hear that.) Quick segue to new Obama campaign policy: The candidate will no longer make things up when the candidate don’t know what he’s talking about.
Earlier: After that suck-up-to-the-murderous-dictators gaffe, Obama’s anxious to prove he’s tough and savvy. So here’s the plan to invade the benign dictator who is actually sometimes useful:
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Not such which meeting he’s refering to. I recall in the not too distant past a mysterious missile attack on a Pak village that missed al-Zawahri by hours. For someone who just used “Bush-Cheney-lite” as an epithet, Obama’s get-tough talk re Musharraf sounds a lot like what Cheney and company have been telling Mush. Prior to the Pak Army resuming operations in Waziristan. I’d be curious to know if anyone actually believes he would initiate any aggressive action. I was also under the impression that people who have not served in the military are not allowed to order or advocate invasions. I believe that called chickenhawkism. So theoretically, we should be applauding this endorsement of (some) Bush-Cheney policies and practices.
But as many schools as he wants to finance, just as America has been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, as many troops as he wants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, if Obama thinks it will serve our interest to walk away from Iraq and leave a failed state in the throes of genocide, then he is, as someone or other said last week, naive. I know he’s got some stiff competition, but he may be the most dangerously idiotic and self-contradictory of the Democratic contenders, and that is no small accomplishment.
Topics: pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:53 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2007
13 Responses to “Chickenhawk Obama Serves Up Bush-Cheney Lite”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 am
When he was talking about restoring trust and ending cynicism, Obama did great.
The last three weeks he has been saying more substantive things and he has proved himself to be a lightweight.
Genocide in Iraq — That’s cool.
Hang with the homeys like Kim and Assad — that’s cool too.
Withdraw troops from Iraq so they can invade an ally that is a nuclear power — Hey, I’m down with that.
Strike three you’re out.
Barack, go grab some pine.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 am
If Obama wasn’t tethered down, he’d float away.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 am
Maybe Obama can run for President of San Francisco….that seems to be his level of competency.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 am
The Senator’s plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.
Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:
Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.
Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:
Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.
Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:
At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration’s handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military’s pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 am
JB, I see one person in that list that can be declared a “foreign policy expert,” and he’s a partisan.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“Bush…sent them into an unnecessary war”
If it wasn’t necesessary then how come Slick Willy was bombing Iraq all those years?
And, why weren’t the Dems ranting and raving against it?
Hypocrites.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
bot # jb1125 thanks for dropping by to set everyone straight.
Lee Hamilton, extra from “Dawn of the Dead” and contributor to the Treaty of Versailles gives toothy Macy’s Day Parade Blimp Barack Obama a vapid letter of recommendation. It’s fitting Lee, “living in the nineteeth century”, Hamilton steps in to vouch for Obama’s foreign policy acumen with his absurd ISG and its proven failed policy recommendations of past administrations.
I’d like the next expert, Major General Scott Gration, to clarify how rapid withdrawal from Iraq and the ensuing genocide show Obama is “taking the fight to the terrorists” and “commited to defeating the terrorists on the battlefield”.
The third “expert” is the capper. Human rights proponents who would like to go back to the “old rule book” and mothball the military take the cake. Let’s talk about our problems. Let’s have a regional dialogue.
It is terribly ironic that Samantha Power is the founding executive director of Havard’s Carr for Human Rights Policy and she wishes to go back to the old way doing things, democratic appeasement or republican cynisysm, thinking that will improve “human rights”. What in evidence suggests either policy worked?
How did Jimmy Carter’s removing support for the Shah over “human rights” concerns work out? Answer: The Ayatollah killed more people insufficiently “revolutionary” during his first year than in all the 30 years the Shah was in control.
How did James Baker’s amoral sellout of Lebanon to Syria workout in favor of “Human Rights”? Or how about all the years we have turned a blind eye to Saudi support for terror and “human rights” abuse it yielded.
The old rule book needed to be shredded and burned.
“Where Bush lumped foes together, Obama would pry them apart.”
Pry them apart with unforeseen nuclear detonations…
Obama would launch a unilateral attack on Pakistan and destablize it enough to have it fall into the hands of extremists, who would launch a nuclear weapon against India over Kashmir and US forces in Afghanistan over Waziristan…
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“I’d be curious to know if anyone actually believes he would initiate any aggressive action.”
I believe there isn’t much he and most other Democrats wouldn’t say or do to get elected, up to and including deliberately sabotaging the war effort and kowtowing to state sponsors of terrorisn (like Iran).
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Just as Bill Clinton was supposedly the first “black” president, Barack Obama would be the “black” Bill Clinton. In some quarters, that’s all the qualification he needs.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
It didn’t occur to me when I first read jb’s post that he might be serious.
I guess it is a bit dry for sarcasm. But do let us know, jb, if we have you all wrong!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I notice that none of the “experts” are used as a foundation for a particular argument, but are offered as a simple appeal to authority.
I’m always fascinated when people use retired upper echelon officers as the be all and end all of authority. As a child of the military, I learned at an early age not to be in awe of brass just because it is brass. The military is a government bureaucracy, and advancement, especially in the upper ranks, and especially in peace time, does not necessarily come as a result of competence in war fighting. If you study military history, you will note that there are a lot of battlefield generals fired at the beginning of a war for this reason. When the boots hit the ground, one needs Grant, not McClellan.
An expert without a reasoned argument is just someone flappin’ their lips.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
SD
Never trust anyone above the rank of Captain, except for tankers.
Cheers
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 pm
JM,
Hey?! Does it help I was once an enlisted infantryman? Heh.