Is it just me or does it appear that Obama is spending more time “clarifying” his comments rather than making them? Is Iran a threat or not a threat and will you talk with the President of Iran or not? Would you meet with Hugo Chavez or not meet with any country that supports the FARC? Did your Uncle liberate Auschwitz? Then he must have been a commie because they are the ones who did.
I agree that some gaffes such as saying “the President of Canada” when they do not have one can be attributed to long campaign days, but flip-flopping and just getting history of your own family wrong have nothing to do with long days.
And on a completely side note, does it worry anyone that Obama is getting the support of Fidel Castro or Hamas? Sure he cannot stop them from supporting him or voicing their support, but at the same time doesn’t it speak volumes that our enemies would vote for Obama? I state this because back in 2004 when I casted my vote for President Bush I thought to myself if I were UBL who would I vote for, after figuring that out, I voted for the other guy.
Filed under: Current Events, Politics
Well first, you should stop oversimplifying every issue into a one line sound bite to which you can then assign a good or bad value. I know you can think more than that. Most of these issues are complex and nuanced and require more than a simple yes or no answer. Again, I know that you know that so you should stop with the political “Hey, look over there” games. In the same way that it annoys you when people suggest “McCain wants to continue the war for 100 years,” you should not distract yourself with points for which you can think of probable and rational explanations. That said, let me see if I can address the points you make.
1. Is Iran a threat? Reading the quote from the site you suggested the point he was making seems fairly apparent: Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela do not pose an immediate threat to us in the same way that the Russians did, or were perceived to have during the height of the Cold War. Any intelligent political thinker acknowledges the threat of Iran, both immediately through covert actions in Iraq and elsewhere as well as long term through the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons and increased mid-east influence. However, this is not the same as a giant superpower say, pointing a couple of missiles at the U.S mainland from about 90 miles offshore. Acknowledging the difference is not the same as suggesting the Iran is in no way a threat.
2. Meeting with those big bad leaders of evil countries. Again, I think that you are thinking less critically than I know you are capable of. The original question your article refers to is when Obama was asked if he would be “willing to meet with….” All that his affirmative response says to me is that this is an option he is willing to consider. As he as stated time and time again, his approach to foreign policy is one that involves looking at all the options available and weighing them. Personally, I think that is better than the way your boys in the White House do it now; decide what you want to do, tell everyone that anyone who even considers a different option is in league with the terrorists, then present any evidence that is pro your view point while disregarding and discrediting anything that might be to the contrary.
3. FARC. This goes back to the point of not making everything black and white. What the man actually said was “This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and — if need be — strong sanctions. It must not stand.” I don’t know that a President Obama should necessarily go meet with Chavez, but it is possible to for the international community to simultaneously impose sanctions while trying to pursue diplomatic resolutions to conflict. I believe that was the original idea in Iraq.
4. Auschwitz. Stop this, please! The man said Auschwitz when he meant to say Buchenwald. This is hardly a sniper-fire-in-Bosnia scenario. Given the tendency of the man you voted for to misspeak and sound like an idiot, I can’t believe you are actually trying to make that an issue. Furthermore, senile grandpa McCain seems to be establishing his own track record of accidentally misspeaking. Remember a couple months ago when he visited Iraq and seemingly could not figure out the difference between Iraq and Iran or Sunni and Shia. I have confidence that he actually knows the differences and just misspoke, just as I have confidence that Obama knows the difference between Auschwitz and Buchenwald or Americans and Russians. So let’s leave that there and not make an issue out of a something trivial.
5. Unsolicited support. I think we should be less concerned about the unsolicited endorsements of foreigners that will in no way dictate domestic or foreign policy, than say the heavily solicited endorsement of crazy people who argue that Hitler was sent by God to help accomplish certain divine objectives. It seems to me that those are the endorsements and associations for which there is expected to be compensation was an individual is elected.
6. Bin Laden’s vote. If Bin Laden was really voting he probably would have written in his own name. I would bother to further attack your logic on that matter, but any rational that lead you to vote Bush is its own best criticism.
All I am saying is to get a fair shake in the media, where Obama is already being crowned…
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26630
Point #1: I cannot take seriously any article that starts with the phrase “All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life.”… in fact, I’m still laughing… we do all still remember who the current president of the US is, right?
Point #2: Since when is what Hamas or Castro say credible? Please don’t give such people more weight than they deserve, they’re obviously trying to sound interesting and draw attention to themselves.
But, if you do wish to give them such overbloated attention, then you might consider the fact that if I am against the US and the US hates my guts, then I would voice my “support” for the candidate I like *least*. That way, the naive people in the US, who actually listen to me, would vote for the other guy “to be safe”… It’s not really complicated, I’m sure Castro could easily figure out this little piece of reverse psychology…
If I was UBL, I would definitely have voted for Bush. Bush is probably one of the most hated men in all of the Arab world, except perhaps in Saudi Arabia, and he has been a great recruiting tool for Al-queda.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121210923476431299.html
Holy crap is he going to nuke iran now? I thought it wasn’t a threat?!?!?!?!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080604151531.0n3pr1ur&show_article=1