Barackerry Obama
He was against it after they said he was for it. Day before yesterday:
“The misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up,” Obama said. “I never called for an invasion of Pakistan.”
He was for it after he was against it. Last night:
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton is deriding Barack Obama as a loose talker who imperils Pakistan’s stability — and its nuclear arsenal — by pledging to invade the country to stop al-Qaida attacks.
Last week, Obama promised that as president he would send troops to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border if President Pervez Musharraf failed to respond to “actionable” intelligence that the group was planning another U.S. attack.
Clinton initially signaled support for his view, but during Tuesday’s debate at Chicago’s Soldier Field in front of 15,000 AFL-CIO union members, she offered an unconditional rebuke.
“I think it is a very big mistake to … destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al-Qaida and the Taliban,” said Clinton, in the forum, which aired on MSNBC. “The last thing we want is to have al-Qaida-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons.”
… Obama brushed off the comments, saying he would invade only as a last resort.
And, of course, prior to being for it and against it, he was for it. Last week:
“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.”
Whether that constitutes an invasion is semantic, and arguably depends on the nature and duration of any action. Could be a raiding force. Could be, as the Bush-Cheney regime already have done, a lobbing of missiles. Invasion may then be in the eye of the beholder. However, invasion per se remains on the table as a “last resort,” terms not defined.
Obama’s called Hillary Bush-Cheney Lite. I’m looking at this and trying to figure out whether Obama’s Bush-Cheney Lightweight, or just Kerry Lite. Also, trying to figure out which is worse.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:14 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2007
4 Responses to “Barackerry Obama”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:04 am
From “The LeftWing Circus Comes to Town”
from the WaPo
“…Then there was Obama’s promise to go after Osama bin Laden, even if he had to violate the sovereignty of a non-belligerent nation–Pakistan–by launching a military strike against it. Clinton again sought to respond with reason, regarding Obama’s promise as dangerous and naïve.
Even more stunning than the hooting from true believers over Clinton’s suggestion that foreign affairs was not all that simple was the analysis Sunday by Doris Kerns Goodwin, the historian, on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” Of Obama’s threats against Pakistan, she said: “Well, I think Mr. Obama understands that his great strength is to project new directions, new ideas, a different way of dealing with domestic and foreign policy we’ve seen , not only in the Bush administration, but perhaps in the Clinton administration.”
Wait. Isn’t that why the Koskooks hate Bush? Didn’t he take the nation into a war against a sovereign nation? Aren’t they on Bush’s back because he did so, supposedly without consultation with (read: approval from) the “world community?” Did no one catch the irony that Obama’s promise of a new direction is almost the same as Bush’s direction? Note that Obama’s statement included the qualification that he would strike where there is “actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets,” which is something Bush claimed he had before attacking Iraq. Are they all so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they can’t think straight?”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/a_gathering_of_clowns.html
So–The Bush Doctrine would be fine if it was called the “Obama Doctrine”.
**Of cource Obama would never pull the trigger and this is all political theater, but they’ve got to get going on that andedote for BDS. This is the twighlight zone.
A “historian” suffering from extreme BDS can’t extract G W Bush from his policies and thinks Obama restating what Bush has already done is a new direction?
I need oxygen.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Obama won’t make it through the first few primaries. Being the feather-weight he is, he’ll just float off on a cushion of the air that blows him in all directions. Sorta like that feather in Forest Gump.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:00 am
I am not a simple raid is all that easy to pull off in terrain like that. In fact I think that is why the operations planned in 2005 were called off.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Obama’s first mistake was running for president before he got a few more years of governing (and politicking) experience under his belt. In a few more years, when he wants to run again, he’s going to have a tough time overcoming this image he’s created for himself of being a lightweight. If he truly is a lightweight, that won’t be a bad thing.