After confirmation of the Democratic nomination the guns train on the opponent - not the rival. John McCain may be a maverick Republican, but he firmly believes in respecting the historical emnity between "The West" and "The Axis of Evil".
GW Bush has been the "big game player" taking the very foolish and risky path into the Iraqi quagmire. If he had doubled his efforts in Afghanistan now, Al Qaeda may no longer be motivating and enabling young criminals to walk bombs into crowds of innocents or plant incendiaries aimed at US military targets in Iraq.
Or has the cancer spread on a train of its own infamy? Such a belief is frankly, madness. When GW Bush started to try and move against "the enemies of freedom" he did so in order to go to war in Iraq as that was his primary intention. Going to war in Afghanistan seems a pretext by Bush to secure involvement of NATO to reduces the military cost to the USA. He hoped for a coalition force in Iraq but few could take that faith electorially. Except Tony Blair.
Now, the USA is sick of being seen as an invalid invader and this is more than likely to be the meme during November more than the colour of either candidates' skin. In the end the logic of solving the problems of extraction is a military one, rather than a political one. And so Mr Obama enters the argument with an agressive and just approach constrasts starkly with McCain - stay there at all costs - logic.
During the presidential debate, I would not be suprised to hear more aggressive tactics in Obama's speaches - the Left will not lose faith as he has already expressly committed to ending the Iraq calamity - and when it comes down to it, even with GW Bush at the helm, the USA has just about survived. There is plenty of reasons that a message of hope is going to work with the democratic voice of Americans - but unless they dispose of the voting machines or audit them - there is no chance that it will be a fair fight.
The new Obama - the gloves can come off for the battle with McCain. Whomever the Democrat candidate is will face an ugly Republican attack. They call it "free speech" and that makes it okay and "constitutional".
Obama expresses a more detailed and diplomatic approach. He sees the value of winning the war in Afghanistan by not fighting one in Iraq but preventing one from brewing in Pakistan.
2 comments:
1. The war in Iraq was and is justified. Sadam was in violation of 14 un resolutions and was a road block to freedom in Iraq.
Any where we can kill terrorists its the right thing to do.
2. Obama is a know nothing, internationalist with no forien policy experiance. He will be exposed as the far leftie that he is. And no one can tell me what to drive or where to set my thermastat! That is the truth not an attack.
3. Real disturbing trends:
Gay Marrage
sex ed for 5th graders to include confusing them with the gay agenda.
Beliving in global warming with no real proof and then implimenting policys that will hurt the econamy.
not providing our own energy from our own resorses while letting forien entitys drill off our continental shelf.
Illegal immigration.
Mr Bill :o
Thank you for your well constructed arguments. Great to see the other point of view. I will disagree with most of your points.
1. The war may have had justifications but it is wrong simply as it was the wrong target, and the wrong solution for Iraq. I do not dispute the intention of the US Government in trying, just the foolhardy rigid approach. The statement about killing terrorists, is totally terrifying. The idea of the USA stamping out people because you think they are terrorists is horrific and disturbing.
2. I doubt you know Obama as well as you say.
3. Gays exist. Terrapins exist. How do you argue with the right of Terrapins to mate?
Global warming is not the point. The science is called physics. Expecting climatic stability is a joke. Some of the left and right wing ideas of what to do about it are even worse. Ecological survival is important to those who have experienced 20 years of drought...etc
Whatever you teach your kids, they are going to surpass you in every dept.
On your last points - yes I agree. Oil drilling need not be our primary source of energy. And eh? The entire New World was settled by immigrants. It's a grand tradition, surely.
Post a Comment