Man, she knocked it out of the park last night. I was thinking that she wasn't prepared for the big stage, but how wrong was I? The republicans have a very good ticket, and they're prepared to fight for the highest office in the land. Given all of the accomplishments over Gov. Palin's career, and her relative proximity to Russia, I still don't know if I buy into the fact that she would be prepared to lead if necessary. I don't know how long she's had her mind on international affairs, and say what you want about Barack and him running for the presidency so soon after going to the Senate, worldly affairs have been front and center in his message. So, I take nothing away from McCain-Palin. They are both great in their own right.
Onto Barack, and why I'm supporting him. Barack opposed the war, and they called him naive, citing Iraq should not have been our primary concern at that point in time. Many months later, there were no ties to Al Qaeda, and no WMD found.
Barack called, from the very start of his presidential bid, for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. I think it was termed, "cut and run". McCain, and the current administration now also support the withdrawal, but with a difference in the semantics. The republican withdrawal is responsible, and Barack called for one based on him wanting to leave defeated. I know there will be arguments that the only reason we are able to leave now is because of the surge, and the payments to the "Sons of Iraq". However, in my mind, the surge was necessary to get us out of a war that should never have been voted on. So, if the surge worked, and the money flows, if that gets us out of there, so be it.
Barack says he would meet with the with Iranian leaders, without preconditions. The conservative media all but burned his books for saying that, and pointed out how clueless he is on National Security and foreign policy. Bush called him on "appeasing" them. Not wanting to eat so much crow, Bush sends his No. 3 man from the State Dept., in to talk to the Iranians, and without the same preconditions Barack spoke of. That crazy Barack, MIGHT just be onto something here.
Now here we are, going after the leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. I read that this morning, and I thought I had something wrong. Again, Barack was taken to task for saying that he would support going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and there was a whole revolt, by conservatives, about invading our allies.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but what am I missing here? To me, this shows judgment. To me, it appears he was right on issues when they were unpopular, and these things have now come to pass. To a regular guy like me, it shows that he's able to navigate conflict, and know when to observe, and when to talk, and when to attack. Then again, these are only my opinions, and I'm sure everyone has their take.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Eric - Maybe I haven't been hearing the same news that you have been hearing. Let's talk about the attack in Pakistan. First Musharraf(?) was the big Pakistani supporter of the US and he has been impeached. Second, the attack in Pakistan has nearly destroyed any relations that the US has left in that country and could possibly bring about another coupe. The current Pakistani President has been fired upon and may anti-US protests have erupted. Is this the judgment that you speak of?
On talking to the Iranian leader, the US has not started talks with no precondition. The US representative was merely an observer in UN negotiations and had no power to lead or engage in talks.
Let's move on to judgment. Barack has stated that he would talk with Russia on reducing nuclear arms. I am curious if his stance has changed with recent events and is not is this the judgment we need. The President of Russia is trying hard to start a new cold war and has completely ignored the French brokered peace deal with Georgia. He and Putin have taken a "you better not do it or else" stance with admitting Georgia and other former Soviet bloc counties into NATO, saying that it would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Are the the people he has the judgment to negotiate with.
China, Israel and Palestine have all stated that they do not trust Obama. He has straddled the fence on international issues and placed blame on both sides of an issue depending on the crowd he was addressing. In Israel, he was all for a unified Jerusalem, but in Palestine insisted that a shared Jerusalem compromise could work.
These things just show how out of touch he is with international politics.
Further more on the subject of foreign policy, Condi Rice is traveling to Libya to talk with Qadhafi, an event that hasn't happened in more than 50 years. Under Bush, Qadhafi accepted and complied with requests to stop nuclear armament in exchange for lifting of sanctions. He has gone so far as to set funds to pay money to the families of Libyan terrorist attacks such as Pan Am flight 103. Qadhafi has gone from terrorist sponsor to being praised as a model for other leaders to follow. I am wondering if these are the types of negotiations that Barack has been talking about. If so, please keep in mind that none of these talks and agreements would have possible if Reagan hadn't been bold enough to stand up to Qadhafi and start bombing.
Sometimes you just can't reach people with mere words and promises of looking out for their interests more than your own.
Post a Comment