Barak takes a stand, all others take cover.
This past week, Sen Barak Obama stepped out on a limb to note that he would pull troops out of Iraq and commit them to battle in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan. He has been roundly chastised by his fellow Democrats, and most Republicans, (except notably Rudy Giulliani, who hedged on the issue), for his stance vis a' vis our ostensible ally in the war on terror, he has taken a solid stand on an issue, and created what may be the first real measuring point in this election.
On one side of this issue is the notion that we should do nothing to destabilize the current regime in Pakistan, and possibly turn that country against us. On the other side of this issue is the notion that our enemy, al Qaida, and its political front, the Taliban, is using the no mans land in the northwest part of that country as sanctuary.
The issue here seems to be this : Can the war on terror, (spell that term I-S-L-A-M-I-C - E-X-T-R-E-M-I-S-M ) be won without crushing the organization that sponsors and promotes the practice throughout the region and the world?
That is not as simple as it seems, but definately worth talking about, in the open, in plain english, and not just for 20 or 30 seconds in a debate or a commercial.
I remain uncommitted in this race, but I applaud Senator Obama for bringing it up. It may be naive, it may be simplistic, and it may not be practical, but I leave that to Senator's Clinton, McCain and Governor Romney to convince me. Just because a party or candidate attaches an adjective to an idea does not make it good or bad. It needs to be talked about, openly, and a candidate of any stripe who won't defend his or her views, respectfully, is not worth my time or vote.
On one side of this issue is the notion that we should do nothing to destabilize the current regime in Pakistan, and possibly turn that country against us. On the other side of this issue is the notion that our enemy, al Qaida, and its political front, the Taliban, is using the no mans land in the northwest part of that country as sanctuary.
The issue here seems to be this : Can the war on terror, (spell that term I-S-L-A-M-I-C - E-X-T-R-E-M-I-S-M ) be won without crushing the organization that sponsors and promotes the practice throughout the region and the world?
That is not as simple as it seems, but definately worth talking about, in the open, in plain english, and not just for 20 or 30 seconds in a debate or a commercial.
I remain uncommitted in this race, but I applaud Senator Obama for bringing it up. It may be naive, it may be simplistic, and it may not be practical, but I leave that to Senator's Clinton, McCain and Governor Romney to convince me. Just because a party or candidate attaches an adjective to an idea does not make it good or bad. It needs to be talked about, openly, and a candidate of any stripe who won't defend his or her views, respectfully, is not worth my time or vote.
posted by eccentric recluse at 1:30 PM
5 Comments:
Did you hear Hillary Clinton trying to justify her taking donations from lobbyists by saying that the CEO's of corporations represent large numbers of Americans and therefore it's okay?
I did not hear that. the truth is that any candidate will accept any dollar from any source under the rationalization that they can remain independent....
E_R
And leave it to the right wing to misrepresent what Obama said.
JB
Sounds like Obama's trying to appease both the pacifists and the chickenhawks in one move. He might get our people out of Iraq, but he can't just bring them home because some Americans aren't happy unless we're fighting someone, somewhere. It gives them a false sense of power.
I like Obama because he's not Clinton.
Obama sounds like he's cracking under the pressure.
Catch his latest line ?
"We're just bombing villages and killing civilians"
Egad..
Post a Comment
<< Home