PDA

View Full Version : Need to answer why Obama wouldn't end the war.




dirknb@hotmail.com
02-14-2008, 08:38 AM
I've been having an email discussion with a friend of mine who is an Obama supporter. I've been telling him that Obama just sounds like he wants to end the war if he were President, but that in the end some reason would arise that he would use to keep us in it.

Help me out here, I need some ammo.

Lovecraftian4Paul
02-14-2008, 09:00 AM
Personally, I just don't see Obama having the will and experience to simply ORDER troops to come home as Commander-in-Chief. Though I'm sure others can give better, more concrete reasons...

cswake
02-14-2008, 09:00 AM
Which war? If Iraq, he specifically said he would move the troops from Iraq into Pakistan and Afghanistan. Never said he'd remove the bases or the embassy even after we left.

werdd
02-14-2008, 09:01 AM
because he or hillary will not promise any troops out until 2012.

bucfish
02-14-2008, 09:06 AM
Yeah plus his wife works for Chicago Council on Global Affairs which is a branch of the CFR. He is but owned by the same corporate interest that ALL the candidates are owned by except Ron Paul.

gjdavis60
02-14-2008, 09:13 AM
Because he voted to continue funding it.

billjarrett
02-14-2008, 09:16 AM
Does this help? It's an old pro-Richardson video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HvetQyzpQE

chelu
02-14-2008, 09:22 AM
Obama, like Hillary, say they will remove combat troops, although they can't promise by the end of their first term. Both have done some wavering on that lately, towards a quicker timeline. They both will have troops stationed in the 14 permanent bases. Both "of course" will have Marines to guard the massive embassy. This commitment of lives and then the financial commitment to run and maintain all this? Both will redeploy troops to occupying posts throughout the Arab world, and probably surround Iran in preparation for the spread of the war into Persia. When Ron Paul says "bring the troops home" he means U.S. soil, not some military base in a foreign country. Also, if you think the war could have ended when the Dems took full control of Congress, then Ron Paul agrees with you. He said in an interview last year, that the Democrats say they want to end the war, and they could do it by cutting the funding. All that crap about not enough votes was a lie, Ron Paul said everybody knows they could do it, but the Democrats were just "playing games". Even in the debates, former Sen. Mike Gravel basically gave the democratic senators (i.e. Obama/Clinton/Biden/Dodd) a freaking step-by-step tutorial on how to get it done. This is a guy who was able to put an end to the draft, all by himself. And you're telling me that four democratic senators, running for president even, that are calling for an end to the war, that they could not get this done? Not even with all their influence and the lives at stake?

Why wouldn't Obama end the war? Because he would have done so already if he was serious about it.

dirknb@hotmail.com
02-14-2008, 09:32 AM
Cool, thanks y'all.

affa
02-14-2008, 10:09 AM
yea, show him Gravel's debate footage where he calls out Obama and Clinton. There is also good Kucinich footage calling them both out as well.

This is why both were silenced and removed from the debates.

zadrock
02-14-2008, 10:58 AM
Anyone know which debate Gravel did this? I'm watching them now, but haven't found the one with specific points. I emailed this article to friends http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves
and I got responses that were similar to what the OP said (i.e., what could the Dems do?) So I'm just as interested in hearing what the solutions should have been and what steps were not taken.

I suppose this is an indication of why it's so important to get Sabrin into the Senate. We ned to get Dr. No a colleague in the Senate - Professor Filibuster.

Z

raystone
02-14-2008, 11:01 AM
From his website....
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

dirknb@hotmail.com
02-14-2008, 11:03 AM
yea, show him Gravel's debate footage where he calls out Obama and Clinton. There is also good Kucinich footage calling them both out as well.

This is why both were silenced and removed from the debates.

Anyone have a link to this?

billjarrett
02-14-2008, 11:04 AM
From his website....
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Thats alot different than what he's said with the debate. Also doesn't say how he hopes to stabilize the region, or if he does at all. Doesn't say how he will deal with blowback of going in and withdrawing while leaving country in worse shape than it was when we went in. I'm sure theres many more points that need to be addressed also.

I'm not prowar, but I can stand on a soap box and talk about doing things. Having a plan is another story. Ron Paul is the only one I've seen not only stand on the soapbox, but have a plan.

Catatonic
02-14-2008, 11:21 AM
You might want to ask your friend why he trusts a candidate that got on judicial watch's top 10 most corrupt politicians list in one term as senator.

slantedview
02-14-2008, 11:52 AM
show him the video where obama said he'd go into pakistan to hunt terrorists WITHOUT the permission of the pakistani government

also the video from one of the democratic debates where obama (and hillary) wouldn't commit to a timeframe for having troops out of iraq. sure he says he'll start to withdraw them, but i presume he intends to keep some troops there for a long time.

Luft97
02-14-2008, 12:01 PM
On September 24, 2004 Barack Obama--the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, and a shoo-in favorite--suggested “surgical missile strikes” on Iran may become necessary. “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse,” he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”

qh4dotcom
02-14-2008, 12:10 PM
Here's exactly what you want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk

Drknows
02-14-2008, 12:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qy97pFDLig

also read his speech he gave to AIPAC .


Man i wish there was a video of it. He was talking like he was going to be the president of israel and not America.

dirknb@hotmail.com
02-14-2008, 12:18 PM
Here's exactly what you want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulum0o-_LZk

It says that video is not available...

Laja
02-14-2008, 12:42 PM
Of course, he's not going to end the war. He's cousins with Bush & Cheney--no kidding! Check this out: http://www.rense.com/general80/obmw.htm

affa
02-14-2008, 12:42 PM
Here's exactly what you want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulum0o-_LZk

not available?

affa
02-14-2008, 12:45 PM
Anyone have a link to this?

Here is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o

Looking for the others...

Note that in regards to Obama, the votes that he 'abstained' from are very telling. For example, he abstained from voting on this just a few days ago:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32524leg20071102.html
way to protect our freedoms!

qh4dotcom
02-14-2008, 12:54 PM
Here's the correct link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk

affa
02-14-2008, 12:55 PM
Here's another but it's subtle -
notice Obama smooooothly dodges the question and talks about taking care of the troops, and dealing with PTSD... but notice the real message: he wants to INCREASE military troops by 100,000. His reasoning is so that people don't need to do repeated tours of duty... but wouldn't simply ending the war solve this on its own? The reason you would need this many more troops is that you were planning on continuing the War on Terror. Ron Paul would keep our troop levels the same, but would bring everyone home. Period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj9TKqFtkGU

Shink
02-14-2008, 12:55 PM
How about the fact that he's an AIPAC crony? AIPAC wants war with Iran. Good enough reason to say 'FUCK Obama' to me on its own, let alone all his other political stances.

affa
02-14-2008, 12:59 PM
Mike Gravel talking about where Obama's money comes from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSggNsSAyrs

and talks about what that means.
Obama wants more soldiers and about having permanent soldiers in Iraq.

Very telling. Mike Gravel speaks truth to power, as does Kucinich and our man Dr. Ron Paul.

Shink
02-14-2008, 01:00 PM
Of course, he's not going to end the war. He's cousins with Bush & Cheney--no kidding! Check this out: http://www.rense.com/general80/obmw.htm

No surprise: the link they provide in that article to the New York Post? Up at the top
Missing - New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172007/news/regional

affa
02-14-2008, 01:26 PM
Here's another good one (it starts off with the same Gravel clip above, but it gets into some real discussion on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhZzh83C0iM

The guy interviewed here (on Democracy Now) goes into an in depth analysis of Obama's key foreign policy advisers. Be afraid, be very afraid. Democracy Now is not right wing, but left wing so it's not like they are just trashing Obama for no reason.

One of the key names here is Zbigniew Brzezinski.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

He is, among other things, a member of the CFR, Bilderberg Group, and a cofounder of the Trilateral Commission.

Just read that wiki page. His history is frightening, and most definitely shows that Obama is not what he claims to be.

affa
02-14-2008, 01:33 PM
I second qh4dotcom's link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk

For the record, if forced to put myself into a left/right paradigm, I would be considered far left. Obama is not to be trusted. When I first heard him speak he almost had me (I think it was him talking about 'talking with other countries') until I researched him. He is not an anti-war candidate. He is more of the same. And it scares me that so many people are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

qh4dotcom
02-14-2008, 01:45 PM
I second qh4dotcom's link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk

For the record, if forced to put myself into a left/right paradigm, I would be considered far left. Obama is not to be trusted. When I first heard him speak he almost had me (I think it was him talking about 'talking with other countries') until I researched him. He is not an anti-war candidate. He is more of the same. And it scares me that so many people are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

I agree but he is still the lesser of two evils. I prefer to put up with President Obama for the next 4 years than President McCain. Obama wants less wars than McCain.

Too bad Dr. Paul is not running 3rd party. He'd be a great alternative to those two.

Agora
02-14-2008, 01:47 PM
show this http://youtube.com/watch?v=zza5rjai9F0

affa
02-14-2008, 02:35 PM
I agree but he is still the lesser of two evils. I prefer to put up with President Obama for the next 4 years than President McCain. Obama wants less wars than McCain.

Too bad Dr. Paul is not running 3rd party. He'd be a great alternative to those two.

I've never voted for the lesser of two evils and never will.

People doing that are the reason we've destroyed our political system.

I do not vote for 'less wars'. I vote for 'no wars'.

Put it this way: if a government KNOWS that people will vote for less wars over more wars, then they also know they can always just run 2 candidates - one who is a total warmonger, and one who wants the wars the government/bankers/etc want. And guess who wins every time? The bankers and the military industrial complex.

Besides, thinking Obama is 'the lesser of two evils' is an illusion. Yes, McCain is awful, awful, awful. But so is Obama. He's just got shiny BS.

mjp1025
02-14-2008, 03:25 PM
The American people will never learn until they are dragged from their homes in the still of the night!

dirknb@hotmail.com
03-03-2008, 11:23 AM
I just converted this guy with The Creature From Jekyll Island.

hawks4ronpaul
03-03-2008, 11:31 AM
I've been having an email discussion with a friend of mine who is an Obama supporter. I've been telling him that Obama just sounds like he wants to end the war if he were President, but that in the end some reason would arise that he would use to keep us in it.

Help me out here, I need some ammo.

Obama effectively pledged to keep troops in Iraq forever.*

Obama said that he would send troops to Iraq if al Qaeda is in Iraq, and al Qaeda is in Iraq, so there would be little change.

Obama puts al Qaeda in charge of our foreign policy, letting Osama dictate where we put our troops.

Obama like Bush takes his marching orders from al Qaeda: http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/01/interventionists-take-marching-orders.html

*Edit: Obama left himself wiggle room "If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, we'll have to act in a way that secures the American homeland," Obama said.

qh4dotcom
03-03-2008, 12:25 PM
Obama effectively pledged to keep troops in Iraq forever.

Obama said that he would send troops to Iraq if al Qaeda is in Iraq, and al Qaeda is in Iraq, so there would be little change.

Obama puts al Qaeda in charge of our foreign policy, letting Osama dictate where we put our troops.

Obama like Bush takes his marching orders from al Qaeda: http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/01/interventionists-take-marching-orders.html


Obama said he reserved the right to resend the troops to Iraq...that can mean yes but it can also mean no.


I've never voted for the lesser of two evils and never will.

People doing that are the reason we've destroyed our political system.

I do not vote for 'less wars'. I vote for 'no wars'.

Besides, thinking Obama is 'the lesser of two evils' is an illusion. Yes, McCain is awful, awful, awful. But so is Obama. He's just got shiny BS.

You're right and I am writing Ron Paul's name on the ballot. I am not voting for Obama. What I meant to say is that I hope Obama finishes ahead of McCain.

Ideal scenario

Ron Paul or someone Ron Paul endorses wins as 3rd party candidate
Obama finishes in 2nd place
McCain gets last place.

hawks4ronpaul
03-03-2008, 03:53 PM
Obama said he reserved the right to resend the troops to Iraq...that can mean yes but it can also mean no.



You're right and I am writing Ron Paul's name on the ballot. I am not voting for Obama. What I meant to say is that I hope Obama finishes ahead of McCain.

Ideal scenario

Ron Paul or someone Ron Paul endorses wins as 3rd party candidate
Obama finishes in 2nd place
McCain gets last place.

"If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, we'll have to act in a way that secures the American homeland," Obama said.

He did leave wiggle room here.

I do not know if there are other statements that might be less vague.

He tends to say forecefully "we will" or "we'll" but then obfuscates.

jmdrake
03-03-2008, 04:50 PM
I've been having an email discussion with a friend of mine who is an Obama supporter. I've been telling him that Obama just sounds like he wants to end the war if he were President, but that in the end some reason would arise that he would use to keep us in it.

Help me out here, I need some ammo.

http://www.2013istoolate.com/

URL says it all!

Broadlighter
03-03-2008, 04:55 PM
It's not Barack Obama exactly, but it may as well be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl8ajhu_e5Y

Video quality is not great. You could also substitute Obama for any other politician you love to hate.

angelatc
03-03-2008, 05:01 PM
Have I mentioned lately that ya'll need to subscribe to American Conservative?

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_25/images/magcoverlg.jpg

And the article reads:

Make the World Safe for Hope

Can Barack Obama, who campaigns as an icon of peace, actually be more bellicose than Bush? Yes, he can.

by Brendan O’Neill

Obama-mania is getting out of hand. Full-grown and well-educated men—from swooning Andrew Sullivan to the entire staff of GQ magazine—are developing “man crushes” on Barack Obama, going weak in the knees for his immaculately pressed suits, oratorical skills, and shameless hope-mongering.

“I’ve never wanted anyone more than I want you,” warbles Obama Girl in a song called “I Got a Crush on Obama,” which has been viewed over 6 million times on YouTube. Celebs are queuing up to fall at his feet. “My heart belongs to Barack,” says Scarlett Johansson. There’s a palpable whiff of semi-religious hysteria at Obama rallies. As Joel Stein wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Obamaphilia has gotten creepy,” and its “fanatical” adherents are starting to embarrass themselves.

Actually, it’s worse than that: they are deluding themselves. Many Democrats have become so goggle-eyed, so insanely convinced that Obama is the savior of American politics (potentially rescuing both the Democratic Party from political ruin and America herself from the decadence and violence of the Bush era), that they are beginning to suffer political hallucinations. They fantasize that he is pure and righteous, a miracle-worker who, in a pique of rage, will overturn the conventions of neocon-ruled America.

The blind hope in Obama-as-messiah is most clearly expressed in the widespread delusion that he would be a “president of peace,” welcomed by a world eager to bury the warmongering ways of the office’s former occupant and renew its respect for America. Columnist Michael Kinsley praised Obama’s “valuable experience … as what you might call a ‘world man’—Kenyan father, American mother, four formative years living in Indonesia, more years in the ethnic stew of Hawaii, middle name of Hussein, and so on—in an increasingly globalized world.” But from my sedate Obamarama-free home in London, I’m not cheered by the prospect of this “world man” in the White House. Rather, I see him for what he is—or for what he threatens to become. Having never been stirred by the sight of Obama giving an MLK-style speech on the need for change, I can only take the candidates at their words. And Obama’s words are ominous indeed.

President Obama would be a warmonger. He would be a wide-eyed, zealous interventionist who would not think twice about using America’s “military muscle” (his words) to overthrow “rogue states” and to suppress America’s enemies, real and imagined. He would go farther even than President Bush in transforming the globe into America’s backyard and staffing it with spies and soldiers. He would relish the “American mission” to police the world and topple tyrannical regimes.

After eight years of Bush’s military meddling in the Middle East, if you want more war, vote Obama.

Two myths must be exploded: first, that Barack Obama was a principled and passionate opponent of the war in Iraq; second, that if he were installed in the White House he would resist the temptation to launch new wars and would instead usher in an era of peace.

Iraq is the Obamabots’ favorite faultline in the clash of the two Democrat contenders: Clinton supported the invasion and Obama opposed it. An open-and-shut case of one candidate being “for the war” and the other being “against the war,” right? Not quite. Obama’s position over the past five years has been strikingly similar to Clinton’s. And that ought to be an issue of serious concern for Obama’s army of acolytes and the peace protesters who have latched on to his campaign because, as Jeff Taylor pointed out in Counterpunch, “Clinton herself provides no substantive alternative to the neoconservative philosophy of the Bush administration.” Obama is little different from Clinton, and Clinton is little different from Bush.

Obama’s campaign frequently invokes his 2002 “speech against the war,” but very rarely quotes directly from it. Why? Because this mysterious speech—which has become the stuff of legend in Obamaphilic circles, talked about but rarely read—is a pro-war tirade. Yes, Obama described the planned invasion of Iraq as “dumb” and “rash,” but his overriding concern—expressed repetitively throughout the speech—was that the Bush administration was damaging the legitimate case for American-made wars of intervention and potentially making it harder for future administrations (Democratic, for example) to send soldiers around the world to depose unfriendly regimes.

Obama gave the speech at an antiwar rally in Chicago in October 2002. Perhaps nervous about being seen at a gathering of critics of American military intervention, he straight away outlined his pro-war credentials: “Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.” He reiterated his non-opposition to war another four times in the 921-word speech.

Then Obama went to Washington, where he obediently voted to fund the war in Iraq and opposed the withdrawal of American troops. In 2004, he even talked about sending more troops to Iraq to stabilize the country—he had the idea of a surge before the Bushies did. When he and Hillary Clinton had a chance to enact Sen. Russ Feingold’s measure ordering Bush to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, both voted no. Both senators also voted against a June 2006 amendment proposed by John Kerry for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. It wasn’t until May 2007 that Clinton and Obama voted to cut off funds.

It is a myth, pure bunkum, that Obama is a brave anti-warrior. He made a brief speech in 2002—peppered with reminders of his generally pro-war leanings—and then, like Clinton, used his muscle in the Senate to fund the war and extend its bloody duration. It is only during the past year, as he has thrown himself into the presidential race, that Obama has decided to pose as a long-standing, level-headed critic. As Taylor argues, “An adept politician, Obama began emphasizing his ‘anti-war’ stance as the war became increasingly unpopular among Democrats across the country and he began gearing up for the 2008 presidential campaign.”

But there is more going on here than Iraq-related opportunism. If elected president, Obama would make it a priority to smash the argument for non-interventionism and to rehabilitate America’s imperial mission to right the wrongs of the world.

His main beef with the war in Iraq is not that it has failed in its stated objectives, fomented terror, and killed thousands, but rather that it has made the American people skeptical about military intervention. “There is one … place where our mistakes in Iraq have cost us dearly, and that is the loss of our government’s credibility with the American people,” he says. Citing a Pew Survey that found that 42 percent of Americans agree that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,” Obama retorted, “We cannot afford to be a country of isolationists right now. … We need to maintain a strong foreign policy, relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values around the world.”

Those foolishly cheering Obama’s promise to bring the war in Iraq to a “responsible end” should recognize why he is planning this: not to liberate Iraq but rather to liberate the interventionist project from the “Iraqi distraction” and rebuild America’s military sufficiently to send its forces to hotspots around the globe. In a long piece for Foreign Affairs in July/August 2007, he argued, “After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership—military, diplomatic, moral—to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities.” He calls for adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marine Corps and vastly expanding their mission. “[D]eposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box” is not enough: Obama wants $50 billion to promote “sustainable democracy,” a gauzy scheme that aims to “build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.”

Yet for all his focus on the “politics of hope,” when it comes to outlining his program of international interventionism, Obama parrots precisely the Bush regime’s panic-packed arguments about the horrendous threats facing America. Paying tribute to earlier battles against fascism and Soviet communism, Obama said last year, “This century’s threats are at least as dangerous and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy.” Here, Obama the celebrated new Democrat sounds startlingly like the clapped-out dinosaurs of the neocon project. Like them, he compares today’s shoddy and stateless terror networks to the powerful regimes of fascist Germany and Soviet Russia. And like them he suggests that America is threatened by “weapons that can kill on a mass scale”—a dark hint at the much feared “dirty nuke,” the existence of which has never been established, either in al-Qaeda’s caves or in the nuclear facilities of Iran.

Besides plagiarizing the Bush regime’s book of fear-mongering, Obama embraces two other aspects of Bushite foreign policy: unilateralism and pre-emption. He argues, “No president should ever hesitate to use force—unilaterally if necessary—to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened.”

Those expecting the age of Obama to bring a repudiation of the Bush agenda hope in vain. In a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last April he said, “We have heard much over the last six years about how America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom.” The anticipated twist never came. “I agree,” Obama told the crowd. Turns out we haven’t done enough to mold the world in America’s image: “America must lead by reaching out to all those living disconnected lives of despair in the world’s forgotten corners.”

Making Bush’s foreign policy look nearly as “humble” as initially promised, Obama declared that America’s security is “inextricably linked to the security of all people,” opining that flu-stricken Indonesian chickens and Latin American corruption put Americans at risk. No, they don’t. Obama’s stress on how everything is interconnected not only sets up the United States to intervene everywhere, but it makes any coherent strategy impossible. If every problem is an American problem, how would Obama set priorities or address one crisis instead of another? It’s a question he hasn’t begun to answer.

Neoconservatives are only too happy to fill in the blank. In a Washington Post column entitled “Obama the Interventionist,” Robert Kagan celebrated the repudiation of the realist consensus: “Obama’s speech … was pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John Mearsheimer.” In 1996, Kagan co-wrote with Bill Kristol a Foreign Affairs essay entitled “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,” which argued that U.S. foreign policy should seek to preserve “American hegemony” so that we can continue to fulfill our “responsibility to lead the world.” Obama has updated this outlook in PC, Democrat-friendly lingo: “The mission of the U.S. is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.” Little wonder that Kagan sees in Obama a kindred spirit: “Obama believes the world yearns to follow us,” he writes. “Personally, I like it.”

If President Obama pursued a neocon foreign policy, only with a touch more East Coast-style diplomacy than was ever employed by the Stetson-wearing Bush, that would be bad enough. But he might actually be worse than the neocons.

Obama continually criticizes the Bush administration for pursuing its interests on the international stage instead of spreading “values” and “principles.” He says Iraq was a war based “not on principle but on politics.” Yet if there could be anything worse than the Bush foreign policy, it would be Obama’s principled meddling. At least interventions driven by narrow interests and politics have some kind of endpoint: when the interest has been protected or the political goal realized, the intervention might come to an end. Obama, by contrast, inflamed by his self-defined “values” and motivated by a vision of good versus evil in which it is America’s role to lead the world toward its “common humanity,” would be more reckless and unwieldy than Bush ever was. There is nothing quite so dangerous as a well-armed leader convinced that he has an historic moral purpose on the world stage.

Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address wouldn’t require much work: George W. Bush delivered the first draft in 2005.
_________________________________

Brendan O’Neill is editor of Spiked in London. (spiked-online.com)

jkm1864
03-03-2008, 06:08 PM
Hey look around on You tube I have seen footage of him telling young college kids he would pull the troops out of Iraq and I watched another clip where He was telling old people that He was going to chase the terrorist into pakistan .....

Sounds like He is going to be a real peaceful president to me ... He panders like a pig and talks about change but He is gonna do the same thing Bush has done He will just smile about it.

constitutional
03-03-2008, 07:46 PM
From his website....
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

The last line pretty much sums up everything.

hawks4ronpaul
03-03-2008, 07:50 PM
The last line pretty much sums up everything.

Wiggle: "or elsewhere in the region," where "region" could include Chicago when convenient.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

Todd
03-03-2008, 08:07 PM
Have I mentioned lately that ya'll need to subscribe to American Conservative?

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_25/images/magcoverlg.jpg

I just cancelled my subscription to National review after 15 years. I think the American Conservative is more my type. I read the online version mostly.

Obama will not commit to ending the war because he actually has a chance at being President.

Thomas Paine
03-03-2008, 08:17 PM
Obama is a muslim and all muslims delight in war.